as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Constitution, as follows:

J. C. HEUNIS,
Chairman

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

11 June 1982.

Report and proceedings to be printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) Mr. Speaker may accelerate or postpone the date for the resumption of business;
2. (2) Select Committees may sit without the unanimous concurrence of all their members;
3. (3) Mr. Speaker may appoint and discharge members of Select Committees;
4. (4) Mr. Speaker may refer papers to Select Committees; and
5. (5) Mr. Speaker may on the recommendation of Ministers and with the concurrence of the Leaders of the Opposition parties refer matters to Select Committees for enquiry and report, the Committees to have powers as determined by Mr. Speaker.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As is customary, this Bill deals with miscellaneous matters pertaining to the State Revenue Fund and the Railway and Harbour Fund. Because the separate clauses are explained in the explanatory memorandum hon. members already have in front of them, I do not think it is necessary to explain all the clauses in detail now. If hon. members want more detailed information on any of the clauses, the relevant hon. Minister or I shall gladly furnish further particulars during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, the Finance Bill every year tends to be much like the curate’s eggs—good in parts and bad in parts. This year I believe the good parts are probably more than the bad parts.

There are some aspects with which we will have to deal and on which we should comment. The first aspect is the unauthorized expenditure which is sought to be ratified. I do not believe we will have an opportunity this year of debating the Select Committee report. If we do it will only be in the early hours of tomorrow morning, although I believe it is highly unlikely that such an opportunity will be given. In regard to this particular unauthorized expenditure, I want to point out that it relates to the Department of Prisons. It arose in rather strange circumstances in that it really represents an amount which was an outstanding commitment of a previous financial year. That is how it turned into an unauthorized expenditure item. What has really happened here is that the Department of Prisons, with a new system of budgeting and also with a new concept of computerization, found itself in a position with which it could really not cope. The department was not able to cope because it did not have the manpower, especially the skilled manpower. One has of course a high degree of sympathy with the Department of Prisons when that department becomes involved in unauthorized expenditure, a situation as a result of which this unauthorized expenditure now has to be ratified.

There are, however, other matters arising from it which, I believe, we should deal with. In the first instance the hon. the Minister should tell us whether the new budgeting procedures are now working to a more effective extent, not only in this particular department but in the other departments too. Secondly, the hon. the Minister should tell us whether the concept of computerization, without sufficiently skilled people to handle the situation, should be allowed to continue. Basically, good business practice requires the running of concurrent systems until such time as a computerized system works. In other words, things run parallel on the ordinary manual system until one’s computerized systems work. Here, in fact, this has not been the case and therefore a problem has arisen which I think should be dealt with.

The last aspect of this item that I want to deal with is that a situation has now become apparent in terms of which people are actually able to evade the limitation of budgeting by means of using suspense accounts. When one finds that one has actually exceeded one’s budget, one puts the amount in the suspense account. Then one does not show it as an excess of expenditure for the year, and all one then has to do is to bring it into account for the following year. In our view that certainly seems to be an abuse of a suspense account, something that is highly undesirable in the circumstances. In fact, when we asked questions about this in the Select Committee on Public Accounts, it turned out that there were two different accounts, one called the “afkeurrekening” and the other a suspense account in the true sense of the word, and is called an “afwagtingsreke-ning”. When we asked whether it made any difference whether one put an amount in the one or the other account the only answer was: “Well, that is a very good question”. In reality both are just ordinary suspense accounts. If departments can, through the use of expense accounts, avoid the restrictions in respect of expenditure that the hon. the Minister is imposing upon them by the budget, then financial control is not being exercised in the way in which I believe the hon. the Minister wants to have it exercised. We have therefore asked that there should be some inquiry in this regard, and also for some further reports in future in regard to suspense accounts. However, I believe that the hon. the Minister, in order to implement his own financial policy, should not allow suspense accounts to be used in that form.

I then come to clause 2, this deals with a somewhat unusual situation. The inquiries that we have made, together with the explanation in the explanatory memorandum, tend to indicate to us that the reason for this guarantee is largely because of certain social requirements in regard to employment in that particular area. One of my colleagues will later deal with that in some detail. However, the reality is that the precedent that is being created here is one that we find disturbing. We find it disturbing because, firstly, this is a private enterprise concern. It is not a struggling company in the true sense of the word because its shareholders are two of the biggest corporations that exist in the world. They are two foreign corporations and are among the biggest and wealthiest in the world, and they certainly do not need financial assistance from us. These corporations also have drawn vast amounts of money by way of dividends from South Africa. In the normal case we would say that this is not a provision that we can support, but we will hold back our judgment on this clause until such time as the explanations have been given to us, as it is clear that the ordinary guarantee provisions could have been used here. However, they were not used and, quite obviously, they were not used because there are people in the Government itself who are disturbed about the precedent that is being created as a result of this guarantee in respect of the O’okiep Copper Company.

We have no problem in regard to clause 3, and we have in fact referred to clause 4 during the discussion of the supplementary estimates. We suggested it, asked for it and approved of it, and therefore there is no need to debate clauses 3, 4 and 5. In so far as clause 6 is concerned, we were consulted by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information in relation to this, and we gave our approval. We have no objection to it because we think it is necessary in the circumstances. Indeed, we welcome it and support it.

The last clause is, I think, almost a standard one, and I do not believe I have to pass any comment on that.

So we shall vote for the Second Reading, but we certainly require explanations on clauses 1 and 2 from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us is primarily a Bill which gives effect to recommendations of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. We were unanimous on these recommendations in the committee, so I do not think it is necessary to waste the time of this House with further explanations. There was concern among committee members about one matter which the hon. member for Yeoville raised, namely the use of suspense accounts. The committee views the use of suspense accounts in a serious light and we also indicated this in our report. This is clear from the evidence tabled.

The amount for the defraying of unauthorized expenditure of Vote 24—”Prisons”—arose from the budget being exceeded as a result of price and tariff increases and outstanding obligations from the previous financial year. This is correct. This department has a unique problem with its estimates of expenditure, in the sense that there are expenses in connection with the housing of prisoners, and it is very difficult to predict what the costs involved will be. As I have already mentioned, the committee went into this matter very thoroughly. The accounting officer offered explanations that were satisfactory to the committee—the explanations were comprehensive—and there was a unanimous recommendation.

This brings me to clause 2, to which the hon. member for Yeoville objected. This authorization affects not only the company concerned, but also the entire region and the employment opportunities of a whole lot of people. The hon. member for Namakwaland, in whose constituency this company operates, will discuss this matter in greater detail.

The other clauses are all consequential clauses arising out of the recommendations of the Select Committee, and we on this side would like to support them.

Mr. Speaker, we have no problems with clause 1. However, we just want to issue a warning that when appropriations are exceeded in this way, this could cause problems, but there are the necessary opportunities to ensure that the expenditure is in fact justified.

However, we are not at all satisfied with clause 2. We cannot accept the principle of guaranteeing a bank’s debts. The hon. member for Yeoville told us what profits these companies have made over the years, and they are foreign companies into the bargain! All this money has been taken out of the country. However, the Government is now being asked to stand surety for the possible bad debt of a mine, and the bank concerned is demanding security for the entire period of five years. Involuntarily a question arises in my mind in connection with this loan of R40 million which can, in fact, be paid back in full if one of the payers does not discharge his obligations. Does this loan include interest, and is it compound interest? Sometimes we in this House have to vote on matters we are not sure of. The contract is not in front of us. The contract was not open to inspection. In terms of the provisions of this Bill the bank may, however, say that there was an infringement or a non-fulfilment of the contract. That is why I consider the situation to be problematic.

I do not want to suggest that a company will do this, but the possibility exists. We do not know whether the copper mine or its management abroad is amalgamated with another company. They could, for example, refuse to pay and say that they are pleading non-payment, and then the State must stand surety for R40 million. We are doing the wrong thing. Something I objected to previously but which I could not say anything about, was the R1,4 million the Government guaranteed Glen Anil, which was an exceptional situation. This did not put anything right. All that happened was that when that report was tabled, banks registered bonds in towns throughout the country. Hon. members can take a look at those registrations. Many of those registrations of bonds were granted on the basis that it was “a bond of no value”. What did that lead to? It led to thousands of buyers not being able to get back money they had already paid in because preferential bonds had been registered in those towns.

The position we are placing ourselves in, in terms of the provisions of this Bill, is incorrect in principle. I do not want to discuss Namaqualand. I do not want to suggest those people must not be given a period in which to work there. There are workers in that region who may possibly be helped. I have no objection to that. However, the situation is as follows. According to the mine, its lifespan is 10 years. What about the development which took place some time ago? What about the R41 million which Barclay’s National Bank Limited has already pumped into the mine? They maintain that there will be work for 10 years. They also say that the bank is only lending the money for five years, but that in the case of non-fulfilment the money has to be repaid immediately. I feel that if the mine is justified in continuing its operations and if this is being done for the sake of the area and for the sake of the people in that area, that is all very well. Then the State can support that copper mine to the extent to which mines on the Reef producing low grade gold-bearing ore receive assistance. Let us adhere to that principle. However, the Government must not stand surety for banks. The Government is going to stand surety for a bank for bad debts which may be incurred by a company.

Our problem is that it is not easy to vote against a financial measure involving the country’s workers. One does not want to do so. However, these clauses do not contain sufficient information for us to be able to vote in favour of them with a clear conscience. We are asking that serious attention be given to this matter. The Government must not be placed in such a position. Clause 2 of the explanatory memorandum reads, inter alia, as follows—

One also finds in the Bill that the Government must pay on non-fulfilment and on demand. This principle is incorrect. The moment one resorts to incorrect principles, there are problems for the State. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether similar cases have arisen since this Government came into power—cases in which the Government has stood surety for a bank in a similar way. What is the meaning of this security and why is it being done in this way?

If it is true that the loan is for five years and the Government has to stand surety, why is the Government not guaranteeing the loan for the end of the relevant period of five years? Why is there this constant cover and why does it cover non-fulfilment of any of the company’s monetary obligations or any non-fulfilment of the contract? As I read the clause, that R40 million may be demanded under these circumstances. I must honestly say that we object to this clause.

We have no objection to the next clause. As far as clause 6 and the State Trust Board is concerned, I feel one must ensure that the State gets its money. One cannot have any objection to the postponement for a further year. We should like these matters to be dealt with as quickly as possible so that people guilty of any offence can be brought to justice and legal action can be taken against them.

I want to repeat that if mines are to be subsidized, this should be done in a certain way. This does not only apply to copper mines but to other mines as well. At Koffiefontein the diamond mines are closing down today. Mines in places like Jagersfontein will probably not continue to operate much longer. Then those people will be in the same situation in which the mines at O’okiep now are. Are we on principle also going to finance the bankers involved in those cases? Is the Government adopting the standpoint that those people must be financed? Is the Government going to support any banker who advances money for the further development of the mines if he makes a similar request to the Government? Can he on the basis of this clause, assume that it is a principle of the Government to stand surety on this basis for bad debts of banks when they finance development?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Langlaagte said he did not have sufficient information to be able to debate this matter properly. However, then he expressed a total lack of feeling with regard to people who are really in trouble. I am glad he is showing his true colours. After all, what we are dealing with here is not a private company.

Of course!

We are dealing with people here.

We are dealing with a bank.

I shall prove this to the hon. member in a moment.

The hon. member stated that the Government was standing surety for a company’s bad debt. Surely that is utter nonsense. The Government would never do that. After all, the entire situation has been thoroughly investigated. The Government in fact wants the mine to remain in operation. Why would the Government stand surety for a mine with a lot of bad debts? The Government in fact wants to keep the mine going for the sake of the employment it offers the people living in the region.

Why is Barclays Bank not financing it if there are no bad debts?

As usual, the hon. member has the wrong end of the stick. That is why he is confusing a loan with a guarantee. On the one hand he is arguing as if the Government is granting a loan; on the other, though, he is talking about a guarantee. In actual fact the Government is not spending a cent. It is a loan by Barclays Bank. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville also said that this is one of the strongest companies in the world and asked why they could not put up the money themselves. That is what I understood the hon. member to say.

I said the shareholders in O’okiep Copper Company are two of the largest companies in the world.

Very well. The hon. member is therefore saying that it is a strong company and that it could put up the money itself.

I am referring to the shareholders.

I am referring to Newmont which holds 57% of the shares.

They are Newmont and Amex.

Let me tell hon. members what the dividend history of O’okiep Copper Company has been during the past seven years. In that period O’okiep Copper Company had an average dividend of 0,7% per annum. The company has also already informed shareholders that they should not expect to be paid a dividend for the next five years. The parent companies are American companies and they are having to contend with a serious recession. Surely the hon. member for Yeoville is acquainted with the position of the world metal market today. From the point of view of the parent companies there is only one thing to do, considering the present price of copper and the expectation that shareholders will not receive any dividends during the next five years, and that is to close down the mines and to reopen them again when metal prices improve. If this were to happen we would be saddled with a serious problem in that region, as I shall indicate in a moment.

Unfortunately foreign companies in particular only invest in this country because it is economically advantageous for them to do so—and for no other reason. If the foreign companies consider the economy, they should simply close down that mine until matters improve.

There are exceptional reasons for the issuing of a State guarantee in aid of O’okiep Copper Company. Those reasons are not directly linked to the financial interests of the companies themselves. What we are concerned with is the general interest of the region and the people living there, as far as employment, stability, strategic importance—the area borders on South West Africa—and socio-economic interests of the area in general are concerned. The copper industry is without a doubt a key industry in the northern part of Namaqualand. The mine we are now discussing employs 3 083 people—564 Whites, 1 879 Coloureds and 640 Blacks—whose earnings total R19 million per annum. This brings approximately R22 million into direct circulation in that region. That mine has an electricity and water account of R6½ million per annum. It made Escom power and Orange River water a practical reality in that region.

The closing of the mines would directly affect the lives of 13 000 people living in the mining towns. In addition it is obvious that virtually all businesses, light industries, education, health and other services would be directly or indirectly affected by such a step, whether financially or otherwise. In addition those mines also offer employment to many young farmers who, as a result of the drought, have had to leave their farms and seek temporary employment elsewhere. From this hon. members will deduce that it would be a disaster for the community if those mines closed down, because there is no other work available in that area. It must of necessity follow that that very sparsely populated area will become even more sparsely populated if those people are forced to leave the area.

The closing down of the copper mines became a possibility approximately a year ago. The reason for this was the unrealistically low world price of copper which at present, calculated in real terms, is the lowest in 25 years. In order to ensure continued production, the company decided a few years ago to develop a deeply-situated ore body at Carolusberg at a cost of R80 million for the entire project. More than R40 million of that R80 million has already been spent. Fifty per cent of this amount was contributed by the company itself and the other 50% is loan capital. However, the mine’s credit facilities have now been depleted and cannot be augmented because the metal prices are too low. Barclays Bank is prepared, if the State will guarantee payment of the loan, to provide the required R40 million to be able to develop that deeply-situated ore body by June 1983. That is approximately a year from now.

Now the question arises—and I admit that it is an important question: How risky is the action of the Government and what are the chances that taxpayers’ money is going to be involved in this? This company has both the ability and the expertise to mine copper and has been doing so successfully for over 40 years. This statement is proved by the fact that the O’okiep Copper Company is at present mining ore with a copper content of only 1,4% from an underground mine. In spite of this the company is competing successfully on the world market with other mines mining ore with a copper content of between 4% and 5% in open-cast mines. In spite of the low copper prices the O’okiep Copper Company is succeeding in defraying its operating costs from its income from the sale of copper. The funds are only needed for the capital works of this underground mine.

There is no doubt that the viability of the ore body, which is to be developed by means of these finances, has been proved. The company will be in a better position after its development, because the ore which will then be mined will have a copper content of almost 2% instead of 1,4%. That is a 42% improvement.

A very important aspect is contained in the Bill itself. This is namely the fact that, if the Government is called upon to pay, claims of Barclays Bank will be transferred to the Government. I can just tell hon. members that the O’okiep Copper Company’s assets total approximately R300 million. It is also a condition that not a single dividend will be paid out as long as the State has any interest in that guarantee. I do not doubt for a single moment that the risk of the State losing anything in this case is virtually nil. The financial risk can in any case not be weighed up against the benefits to that region, the people who live there and the thousands of irreplaceable jobs in that region. I cannot therefore do otherwise but express my sincerest thanks to the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs for their insight, and the assistance which they have offered in this connection on behalf of the Government. I particularly want to thank the Government and these hon. Ministers on behalf of the thousands of people whose jobs and whose food and shelter have been assured by this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches also have a certain degree of reservation about clause 2 although we will be supporting this Bill at Second Reading. We would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply to some of the questions already put to him in due course.

Our main concern, as already expressed by other hon. members, is over the guarantee which the State is giving—as the hon. member for Yeoville said—to two of the largest public companies in the world. I would like to say to the hon. member for Namaqualand that we in these benches are also very concerned with people and their livelihoods. We appreciate the figures which he has given to us about the number of people involved at this mine and the amounts of money that are earned by these people and that are being spent on power and water. It is quite clear from what he said that it would be a major disaster for the area should this mine have to close. However, having said that, I believe we are dealing with a very important principle here. It is a principle which has been dealt with at length by both the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Langlaagte and I do not intend to repeat what they have said. I do, however, believe that they have raised some very important points concerning the fact that the Government is going to guarantee the debts of major international companies, and we wonder whether this is desirable and whether or not the Government is setting a precedent which could be used on some future day to guarantee some other enterprise. One thinks, for the moment, of other industrial pursuits in that particular area of the Cape and on the West coast. Here one thinks in particular of the fishing industry and the various fish processing factories and one wonders whether, having set this precedent, some members will not come back at a later date and say that the Government should guarantee loans to other forms of industries. We therefore have our reservations about this.

What is important—and the hon. the Minister must reassure us here—is whether or not this project is basically economically viable. I would like to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say in that regard. If this is a case—as has been said—of granting bridging finance over a difficult period so that the mine can get its operations into a high-yielding ore body so that they can make the whole operation more economically viable, then there is some merit in this. One must, however, ask the question that if the project is economically viable in the long term, why it is necessary for the State to back the loan which has been given by Barclays Bank to the O’okiep Copper Company. It raises the doubts, in my mind, that Barclays Bank themselves are not too sure about the economic viability of this mine and this is why they are asking the State to support this venture. May I also ask the hon. the Minister, in conclusion, what claims Barclays Bank has on this company. According to this clause these claims will be ceded to the State and the State will take them over, should Barclays call upon the State to pay the money. May I ask another question? I should like to know for how long this guarantee will be valid. What will happen in two or three years’ time when the international copper price improves and the company is once again making a good profit?

With those few comments, as I say, we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill although we have certain reservations in regard to clause 2.

Mr. Speaker, clause 2 of this Bill baldly asks this House to give the hon. the Minister authority to enter into an agreement with the O’okiep Copper Company and Barclays Bank whereby the Government will underwrite a loan of some R40 million from Barclays Bank to the O’okiep Copper Company. The explanatory memorandum states that the O’okiep Copper Company found it necessary to develop the high grade ore deposits at Carolusberg because its own ore deposits at O’okiep were becoming depleted and were also of low grade. It goes on to say that at Carolusberg they have already spent R41 million since 1970 and that Carolusberg will at least give an additional 10 years of life to the O’okiep Copper Company. Barclays Bank have indicated that they will advance this loan provided the Government will underwrite it. The motivation for giving this guarantee is contained in just one and a half lines in the fourth paragraph of the explanatory memorandum where it states that this is being done in view of the importance of the coppermining industry for the economic and social stability of Namaqualand. I deny that anybody in this House can vote intelligently on clause 2 of this Bill before us. [Interjections.] I cannot imagine a more slovenly argument in support of a request to this House to take an unusual step in which an important principle is involved. The Government may be in possession of information that warrants it but we have not heard it.

What is the principle involved? We are asking the taxpayer to underwrite a major loan by a private enterprise company to develop a rich ore deposit for the benefit of its own overseas shareholders. This provision is not being made as a matter of policy to an enterprise which falls into a certain category and which is available to all the people in that category, but on an ad hoc basis. Under the country’s economic development programme certain benefits are given to companies subject to certain criteria and everybody knows if they meet those criteria those benefits will be available. Therefore, justice is seen to be done. This case before us may be justifiable but it certainly has not been justified. If this provision goes through in its present form it will leave countless businesses saying: If this sort of benefit is available, what about us? If this sort of benefit is going to be available, Sir, people must understand the conditions on which these benefits are available so that they can see whether they want to apply for them or not.

I assume that the hon. the Minister has had this matter properly investigated and researched. I have attempted to make certain inquiries in the short time available to me but I have not been able to obtain all the information I require. The answers I have received are not complete and they do not completely satisfy me. However, I still submit them to the House because I believe this will highlight our reason for concern in respect of this action.

The O’okiep Copper Company is completely or largely foreign owned and is quoted on the New York Stock Exchange. The Newmont Mining Company has a 57,5% interest and Amex 17,5% of the 1 021 000 issued shares. The original purchase price of the company, the old Cape Copper Company, paid by the present shareholders in approximately 1938, was, I think, approximately, R1,1 million. The divided policy was probably one of 85% to 90%—I am not sure—of the after-tax profits per year. I was not able to find out whether any further capital had been sent out to South Africa for investment in the company by way of equity since the company was bought in 1938, but I do not believe that it happened. It will be most interesting to know to what degree the company’s capital has been financed from local and to what degree from foreign sources since it was taken over.

The total dividends paid since 1968 amount to R48 million. I have not been able to find out what dividends were paid in the previous 30 years.

I want to make it clear that I put these figures forward as reasons for caution. They are submitted as justification for the request that this case be properly motivated. I have not had time to verify them, nor do I believe it is my obligation to verify them. I believe it is the hon. the Minister’s obligation properly to motivate this case.

The hon. the Minister should at least give this House the answers to the following questions before the House decides on whether to agree to clause 2 of this Bill. Firstly, what is the total number of foreign-owned shares in the company, and the total number of South African-owned shares in the company? Secondly, is the company a subsidiary of a foreign house and if so, which one? Thirdly, how much was paid for the shares in Cape Copper Company which, I believe, was the name of the company which was originally acquired and which originally owned the O’okiep copper mine? Fourthly, when was the purchase made? In the fifth instance, how much new capital has been sent from foreign sources for investment in the form of equity in the O’okiep Copper Company since it made the acquisition in 1938? In the sixth instance, how much loan capital has been sent from foreign sources for investment in the form of loan capital in the O’okiep Copper Company since that same date? In the seventh instance, if any such loan capital has been sent to South Africa, what amount has not been repaid? In the eighth instance, what has been the total net profit made by the O’okiep Copper Company since the acquisition was made in 1938? In the ninth instance, what has been the total dividend by the company since 1938? In the tenth instance, what has been the total amount of management and technical fees paid to the holding company since that date? In the eleventh instance, what is the present debt/equity ratio of the company? In the twelfth instance, what is the amount of present borrowings and what proportion of these has been borrowed other than in South Africa? My thirteenth question to the hon. the Minister is: How does this relate to the limitations placed on local borrowings by foreign firms? Finally—I do not think this is really important—in the explanatory memorandum it is mentioned that Barclays Bank already has a substantial interest in the company. It would be interesting to know the nature of that substantial interest.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that if the figures that I have given are reasonably correct we are dealing with a company that has done very satisfactorily out of its investments in South Africa. It exploits a wasting asset, repatriates almost its total annual profit, with the exception of the last three years when, I believe, it has not paid any dividend, and brings to this country no particular mining or refining skills which we do not in fact already possess. We must bear in mind that this company is operating a South African mineral reserve, and it cannot be left entirely to the discretion of overseas’ shareholders when such deposits are exploited. This country has its own development requirements and its own priorities. To be specific, Sir, the development of a deposit like Carolusberg cannot be made dependent on a South African Government guarantee for a R40 million loan. This is surely the responsibility of the major shareholders, in the case Amex and Newmont Mining, two of the largest companies in the world and known world-wide as mining houses that are giants in the industry. It would seem to be that the R40 million loan should be an off-shore loan and, at the very least, if it is a domestic loan such loan should not be guaranteed by the Government but by the parent companies.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members for indicating their support of this Bill. I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that there is far more good in this Bill than bad. However, reservations have been expressed about clause 1. That matter was also before the Select Committee on Public Accounts. There are also reservations in regard to clause 2.

As far as clause 1 is concerned, I was asked by the hon. member for Yeoville whether the new budgeting procedures are working. The answer is very definitely yes, they are working. There is no doubt about that. As far as this particular case is concerned, the hon. member asked whether, if one computerized, one should not have the old and new systems working side by side for a while. The problem is of course that, as the hon. member knows, we have a very considerable shortage of skilled manpower at our disposal, and that is most evident in particularly this sort of sophisticated field. These departments are, however, making superhuman efforts to handle that situation.

The hon. member expressed reservations about placing an amount like this or something similar in a suspense account, and indicated that this might be a way of trying to evade showing additional expenditure. I can assure the hon. member that that is the very last thing we had in mind; it certainly is the very last thing that I would be agreeable to. This is a specific case, and there are problems involved in this new proceeding by a department that has great difficulty in handling it in the early part of the transition.

There are other departments …

Yes, there are other departments with the same problem, but I can assure the hon. member that that is the very last thing we intend doing. Considerable time is being given to this problem, not only in the department concerned, but in one or two other departments as well. I want to give the absolute assurance that we will not try to use that technique to achieve the kind of result he suggested, something which it will not be possible to justify.

*There was an interesting debate about the question on the O’okiep Copper Company, and I believe that this is indeed a very important matter. I want to thank the hon. member for Malmesbury for his contribution, and as far as this matter is concerned, I want to thank the hon. member for Namaqualand in particular, because he put his case brilliantly. It is very clear that he has made a very thorough study of this matter. He is the representative of Namaqualand in this House, and this matter is, has been and will remain a very serious matter in his constituency. I want to thank him very sincerely for his contribution. I think his contribution helped us in a very positive way to see this matter in the right perspective. It is not a purely financial matter, although the financial aspect is also very important, as he himself said. It is in fact a wider socio-economic matter of the utmost importance, and the future of thousands of people is at stake. There is no doubt about that. No Government can ignore representations of that nature. They must be very thoroughly investigated, and that is what this Government did.

I can assure the hon. House that apart from the Treasury, which devoted many hours to this matter, the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs also gave special attention to it, as the hon. member for Namaqualand said. Very comprehensive talks were also held. I want to thank the hon. member for the very kind words he addressed to those two departments.

†This is not a guarantee in the normal sense of the word. If we were simply going to give a normal, straight guarantee, we could have used the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act, which grants us full authority to do so. We felt, however, that there were certain clear reasons why it would be better to do it in the manner we are proposing to this House today.

Before I actually come to that side of it—one might call it the technique of the method we have used—I think I must comment a little further on certain points that have been raised in the general discussion. I want to stress what the hon. member for Namaqualand has told us about this not simply being a matter of R40 million or R41 million, but actually a matter of R80 million. The shareholders—particularly the one very important shareholder named—have already contributed R40 million. What is more, this company from abroad—its name has been mentioned—is in fact, under certain conditions, prepared to put in another R15 million. That is a very considerable share altogether. It is all very well to talk about the dividends that might have been earned in the past. What we have to look at, however, is the recent dividend history and what the dividends are at present. We all know that the world’s economy is in what I think is correctly called a state of depression today. It is a very serious matter. As my hon. friend said, metal prices, amongst others, have slumped. Copper is also a very important factor in this. I would imagine that in the immediate future the dividend performance is obviously going to be extremely moderate. In that sense there is therefore obviously a financial risk. We have to bear this in mind. What my hon. friend said is correct. Here we have a very large international corporation with large-scale interests in many parts of the world. If this is the sort of prospect that immediately confronts it, it could very easily happen that a corporation in such a situation would say that it would rather concentrate on some of its other very important interests and let this one go. What is to stop it doing that? I say that that would be a calamity.

*This was also the submission of the hon. member for Namaqualand. He pointed out that this would have disastrous consequences—not only for O’okiep, but for the entire region. Generally speaking, it would be disastrous for the Republic if such a decision were taken. I ask again: what should be the standpoint of a responsible Government under those circumstances? Surely it would investigate the matter very thoroughly and circumspectly. This we have already done.

†I therefore want to give the hon. member for Walmer the assurance right away that this matter has received very, very thorough attention and it has been very thoroughly investigated. Let there be no doubt about that.

I also want to point out to the hon. member for Langlaagte that this is a very exceptional case. The Government record in this respect will prove this straight away.

*The hon. member for Langlaagte asked why the debt of a commercial bank should be guaranteed. This is not a correct description of this transaction, and I shall try to explain it. It is not a question of guaranteeing the debt of a commercial bank. Much more is at stake. The hon. member for Langlaagte also referred to Glen Anil. Glen Anil has no bearing on this matter, but I do want to refer to it briefly. On that occasion a group of important banks approached me and asked the Government to make R104 million available to them to cover their losses and potential losses. I refused. This is the situation. The Government said that this was an absolutely impossible request, and I think that was correct.

The hon. member for Langlaagte also asked whether there had ever been a transaction like this one before. There have been cases in the past where the Government has given direct assistance to banks. When a bank or a large business enterprise goes under, it is a very serious matter for the country. The technical description of such a matter is “a lifeboat operation” and it is done throughout the world. We have also done it in the past. However, that was direct assistance. In this case, however, there is no direct assistance. Important safeguards for the Government have been built into the transaction. I maintain that the bank involved is doing something here which in my opinion constitutes a great service to the country, and not only to the O’okiep Copper Company. This is not the normal kind of transaction which a bank enters into. In this case, however, Barclays National Bank was prepared to render this assistance under difficult circumstances. The financial situation is tight, and in spite of that, the bank was prepared to do this. As far as I am concerned, this redounds to the credit of the bank.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti asked me whether the project was viable. If there is one organization which checks particularly carefully on the prospects of any investment it makes, it is a bank. Banks have their own particular procedures, and I have had some experience of this because when I have to raise important transactions, particularly overseas, the hon. member will be interested to know how thoroughly those banks investigate not only the case in point but also the position of the country concerned as well. I think that in itself goes a long way in answering the hon. member. Our own inquiries also lead us to that conclusion. However, in a case like this one cannot possible get away from all risks. It is impossible, especially while the world-wide metal markets are in the depressed conditions in which they are at present. So obviously some risk must be taken. That is undoubtedly the position here.

The hon. member for Walmer raised some interesting points, but he said a strange thing, viz. that he did not see how the House could support a measure such as this on the grounds of the slovenly way—I think those were his words—in which it had been put before the House. I must admit that I simply cannot understand how he could have said that.

We have not had any other motivation at all. The best motivation so far has been what the hon. the Minister has said now.

That is so, but in a matter like this it is very difficult to set out for the House the complete details on all the points concerned. The hon. member raised about a dozen questions. If the hon. member looks at the latest annual report of, and the latest financial statements put out by this company, and he goes back a little bit, he will find there answers to very nearly all his questions. I think it is asking a great deal of me today to answer all those questions, some of which deal with matters which go back years and years. What is relevant is the situation now and as it is expected to be in the foreseeable future.

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

No, the hon. member must just give me an opportunity. I listened very carefully to him and I want to try to assist. He has raised some interesting aspects of the company’s much earlier financial history. I say again that that is interesting but it is hardly relevant to the problem before us at present. To my mind the hon. member clearly did not lend sufficient weight to the speech of the hon. member for Namaqualand.

However it may be, let me now try to explain the nature of the transaction. In the first place I would say that in essence the backing provided for in this clause amounts to the possibility of the Government stepping into the breach, one might say, by becoming a lender of last resort. Normally one says that a central bank is a lender of last resort. I think that this describes the position quite well. The Government becomes a lender of last resort in lieu of the bank should O’okiep Copper no longer be able to meet its loan commitments, its financing requirements then be placed beyond the scope of normal commercial bank risks and the bank thus be forced to withdraw its facilities. This refers to Barclays Bank. The State will then be liable for this eventuality up to and including 31 March 1987. I think that answers the member for Amanzimtoti on the terms.

While it is naturally hoped that the ultimate course of events will not show such a trend—and there are grounds at this moment for thinking that they will not show such a trend—the Government will as a matter of course obviously closely watch the company’s mining activities while the Government remains contingently liable. The agreement being entered into with the mine and the bank will contain certain provisions to ensure that the company can proceed with its normal business in order to remain a viable undertaking.

*I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, but I think it is necessary to say something more about this. I want to reassure the House as far as possible concerning the nature of this transaction. Firstly there are the underlying principles involved in the issuing of a Government guarantee. I just want to explain these. During the Second Reading debate on the authority involved on 24 March 1980, the then Deputy Minister of Finance said the following, among other things, about this subject (Hansard, 24 March 1980, col. 3327)—

I am speaking now of a guarantee in general. I shall come back to this—

I quote further—

This, then, is the general situation.

Because of the unpredictability of copper prices, there is a speculative or risk element involved in the future financial state of the O’okiep Copper Company. I say this is a possibility. In my opinion, it would be inadvisable to expose the Government’s guarantee to similar speculation.

Secondly, we are concerned here not only with circumstances over which the guarantor would have no control, but also with an organization, a company controlled from abroad, which acts independently.

Thirdly, it must be borne in mind that Government guarantees in respect of foreign obligations contain two standard clauses. I do not want to become very technical, but the two clauses are the so-called cross default clause and the so-called negative pledge clause, which is also very important. As far as the second clause is concerned, the negative pledge clause, the Government pledges in its Government guarantees and loan agreements not to acknowledge a privileged creditor in case of default. When we borrow money abroad, for example, we do not use gold as security with regard to one bank and not with regard to another, for then we would not be observing this provision. This is only one example.

If O’okiep Copper could not produce the desired results and the Government were consequently asked by the bank involved to meet its obligations in terms of the Government guarantee, this could lead to an inquiry by foreign banks into the circumstances involved, precisely because we do business with foreign banks. Irrespective of the conclusions of these banks, such investigations in themselves would cause bad publicity for the Government. The possibility of such a state of affairs must be avoided at all costs.

The solution in the O’okiep Copper case lies in the Government ranging itself on the side of the bank, as a creditor, therefore, and not placing itself in the position of co-principal debtor in respect of an organization and circumstances over which there is not complete control and where there is even room for speculation. This procedure gives effect to the principle that where the Government should have control over obligations, the Government commits itself as co-principal debtor. In those cases where the Government is acting as a guarantor precisely because the outcome of the matter is in doubt, the Government commits itself as joint creditor. Section 35 of the Exchequer and Audit Act provides for the first type of case, which we are not using here. In my opinion, however, it does not cover the latter case. New legislation is required in the latter case, where the Government commits itself as joint creditor. I want to add that the proposed legislation does not necessarily have to refer to the specific cases.

However, there are two other points which I should like to emphasize here. It has also been pointed out that this approach has been followed by the Treasury as well as the State Attorney in the past and that in the unlikely event of the company being forced to close down eventually, the State will in any event have a claim against the assets of the company if the company has an obligation towards the State. The hon. member for Namaqualand made this very clear. Secondly, with these premises in mind, the department made sure that O’okiep Copper gave the following undertakings in the agreement with the State, and this is important: (a) That it will not replace, alienate or encumber its assets, including its mining rights; (b) that it will furnish the State with a full inventory of its assets with asset values; (c) that it will properly maintain its assets; (d) that it will not curtail or suspend its mining operations without the written permission of the Government—it is very important that it will not suspend those operations without the written permission of the Government; and (e) that it will accept the supervision of its activities by Government mining engineers, over and above the normal inspections, for the duration of the agreement, so as to ensure that Government interests are protected.

I really want to say that I think that when all these circumstances are taken into consideration, this is a matter which the State is handling correctly. We cannot afford the collapse of this very large business enterprise. Sir, allow me to say to the House that there have been cases in various parts of the world lately where this has in fact happened. It has also happened in the case of certain copper mining concerns. For the reason advanced by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Namaqualand, who is, after all, fully acquainted with the position in that part of the country, we cannot afford this in the case of O’okiep Copper. It is much more important to the people in that whole region, even more important than to the company. If that company were to go under, they would also be plunged into misery. I think that under those circumstances, where a bank is prepared to go beyond its normal sphere to make funds available on this large scale for what we all know to be a very reasonable and I think a promising expansion, the Government must also contribute something in this way, not in the form of a direct guarantee, but in the way I have tried to formulate here.

†I just want to say to the hon. member for Walmer that I do not have the detailed answers to all his questions. I am quite prepared to make every effort to obtain the information and to let him have it. There is no question of us not wishing to give him all the information that we can. However, I would say with respect that the relevant issues, the matters most relevant, have been put before the House. We believe that they are so convincing that this is something which the Government is prepared to undertake. We certainly do not undertake it without considerable confidence.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to start off by saying to the hon. member for Namaqualand that I actually appreciate his defence of the people who live in his constituency. I think he defended them well. He tried to look after their interests. I have no quarrel whatsoever with his endeavour to do that. All I want to say is that when there are problems in my constituency and I put them as well as the hon. member did a little earlier, I think I would be doing my job. I should like to approach it in that way because I think he did absolutely the right thing for the people who are in his area and whose jobs are being jeopardized. I think that is the job of an MP and I commend him for it.

The problem that we have lies in trying to weigh the difference between the social implications on the one hand and the financial implications on the other hand. I listened carefully to the hon. member for Namakwaland and one of the things which has arisen and which worries me, has led me to think that the area actually needs a little longer term planning, because as I understand it both from him and from the hon. the Minister the life of the mine will even on this basis only be extended by ten years. We have to plan with the view to what is going to happen to those people thereafter. I think that long term planning in respect of these jobs is something to which we should pay attention.

There is a second point at issue. If we were to assume hypothetically that the amount of money involved were to be lost—and I hope it will not be lost—it would actually mean that we would be spending about R12 000 per job, not to create it, but to actually continue it for a period of ten years. That again is a worrying feature and whereas I respect the optimism of the hon. member for Namaqualand in regard to the viability of the new copper reef, where according to so many stories, there is ore in payable quantities, I want to say that he nor the hon. the Minister is going to guarantee it. I think the hon. the Minister, in dealing with it, quite correctly pointed out that his advice was—and obviously he cannot have an opinion—that there was a degree of speculative element in it. Obviously it would be wrong to pretend that there is not. We hope that the copper is there in viable quantities and that the price will go up, but these hopes spring eternal in the breast of every person who is connected with mining. This is part of the dilemma we have. If Barclays Bank thought that there was no risk involved it would quite obviously be prepared to make the advance without the guarantee from the Government. This is really the whole issue.

I would imagine that most bankers in South Africa would tell one that once they get a guarantee from the Government the question of viability becomes secondary, because they have their guarantee and they know they will get their money.

However, the issue is how much more money Barclays Bank has involved in it and how much money the two mining companies, Newmont and Amex, are putting into it to make sure that they really have enough of a stake to ensure that they make this a viable proposition.

How many banks would do this?

Has the hon. the Minister asked how many banks will lend money on a Government guarantee?

I am referring to this transaction.

It depends on how much of its money Barclays Bank has in it which is unguaranteed. I would imagine that virtually every bank in the country would lend money if it was just on a Government guarantee and that was the only amount they had involved in it. I think it then just depends on the rate and the period to become an attractive business proposition, because when backed by a Government guarantee it is presumably the most secure loan in the country. I mean they cannot get better than that.

Even this Government?

No, it is not this Government that is guaranteeing it; it is you and me who are guaranteeing it. It is we, the South Africans, who are guaranteeing it. The hon. the Minister is just signing for all of us, because if he cannot do it, he is going to make us pay the taxes. Let us therefore not pretend that it is the Government that is guaranteeing it. It is South Africa that is guaranteeing it.

There is another matter which I think is quite important. I do not throw away the social implications referred to by the hon. member for Namqualand. However, I am sure the hon. the Minister is aware that one of the biggest copper mines in South Africa has given notice that it intends closing within a few years if the copper price does not improve during that period. That also has certain implications. Are we now going to come to the rescue of that mine as well?

There is another matter which I think is socially important. Let us take the case of the diamond industry. I am not concerned for the moment—this point was referred to another hon. member—about the issue of keeping open some of the mines that De Beers closed. However, do hon. members know what is happening to the diamond industry in South Africa? This is an industry that has been carefully nurtured and has been given certain preferences. We have gone out of our way to train South Africans to cut diamonds. Recently, we started training Coloured people for the first time to do this work. However, owing to the collapse of a section of the diamond market for reasons we need not discuss now, all of that employment is in jeopardy. One need only speak to the Master Diamond Cutters’ Association and the Diamond Employees Association to _know to what extent that industry is in jeopardy.

In this particular case, I think that the social reasons are the ones that are going to persuade us not to vote against this clause. We feel that where there are major social reasons for this sort of step and the Government underwrites it, then we have to follow a principle and that is that we are going to try to keep the jobs going provided that it is economically viable in the long term to do so and provided also that we have all the safeguards to ensure that the Government’s money is secure in the first instance. After that other people can make a profit.

I understood from the hon. the Minister—he can correct me if I am wrong—that the agreement that will be concluded will be of such a nature as to ensure, whether directly or indirectly in regard to any particular scheme or anything else, that there will be no money leaving the company until all the debts have been paid and the Government’s position is secure. If that is done, bearing in mind the social implications of the matter and having weighed the financial issues against the social issues, while we do not agree with the financial principle involved, which we have made abundantly clear, we will support the clause. Actually I am sure the hon. the Minister does not agree with the financial principle involved and I am sure that many of his advisers do not agree with it either. However, whereas they may not agree with it in the present case, because of the social implications I think one can be persuaded to support it. However, as I say, the assurances in this regard have to be very clear so that there can be no misunderstanding in this regard and so that the Government’s money, the taxpayer’s money, which is what we are seeking to protect, will be so protected to the absolute maximum.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister asked: What bank would lend money for such a project? Is this not a sound project? Is it not a project which is going to pay?

Surely I said it was very promising.

The hon. the Minister asked: Who would lend money for such a project? Any banker who has a guarantee as strong as the guarantee of the Government of South Africa would lend money for any purpose as long as that guarantee stood. It is worth R20 million in any country to act as a banker for Newmont. That is before you have even written out a cheque.

As far as the points raised by the hon. member for Namakwaland are concerned, I just want to say that I have no objection to work being provided for people. However, I think the hon. member is being shortsighted. He wants to ensure that his people have work for only five years. I can understand that it is of importance to him that they should have work for another five years. [Interjections.] This Government has a formula according to which assistance is given to low-grade gold-mines. Why is that formula not being used, for then these people and the other copper-mines in the country would have a future? That is what I am asking for. I am not asking that they be given work for five years; What I am asking is that there should be a future for them. What I am asking is that there should be a future for 13 000 people in this country. There should also be a future for the copper industry in this country. The copper industry must continue to exist, because it is of national importance.

Let us consider the argument of the hon. member for Namakwaland. I agree that it is right for him to make an appeal on behalf of his voters. Is it therefore wrong for me to make an appeal on behalf of the diamond cutters? There are not only 12 000 or 13 000 but many thousands of them in this country. As the hon. member for Yeoville said, there is also a link with overseas countries. We know that tremendous problems are being experienced in the diamond-cutting industry. My question is now whether the hon. the Minister is going to give the same support to these people and their bankers. Here we have a principle, and today we must decide whether we approve of this principle.

I see the hon. member for Smithfield is gesticulating with his hands. Well, he does not care about the people of Jagersfontein and Koffiefontein who may also lose their work.

Order! The hon. member must discuss the clause.

I am now discussing the principle of the clause.

Order! The hon. member should have discussed the principle during the Second Reading debate. In the Committee Stage the hon. member may only discuss clause 2.

I am asking that we reconsider exactly what the clause provides and what the explanatory memorandum tells us. Clause 2(2) provides—

This is a similar provision to that in connection with defence expenditure and this is an aspect of the clause which struck me. I want to advocate to the hon. the Minister that an investigation be undertaken into mines that expoit low-grade copper ore so that a formula can be determined for the country. This is what we must give attention to. We must also consider the mining industry as a whole. We must not, as it is now the case, merely adopt a temporary measure which is not of lasting importance to those people. I am asking that we extend the scope of the measure so that the formula applicable to certain gold mines could also apply to copper mines. There must also be an in-depth investigation into what is at present happening on the diamond mines.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Langlaagte is of course completely confused, because he referred to the diamond-cutters. The diamond-cutters are people who work in the vicinty of Johannesburg where there is alternative work available for them. In the case we are discussing there is no alternative work available.

Are you supporting my request?

The hon. member alleged that it would be shortsighted to provide our people with work for only five years. What is the position in actual fact? After all, we have reports available which indicate that the copper reserves at O’okiep are such that those mines will remain in operation for at least the next 12 years—i.e. until 1994. How did the hon. member arrive at the period of five years?

But the clause refers to five years.

It will take five years to repay the loan. It seems to me the hon. member cannot read. [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to know if the hon. member can tell us whether the opinion he expressed is his own personal opinion or that of his party.

Of course it is my party’s opinion. You ought to know that.

I shall make sure that that party’s opinion regarding the mineworkers is conveyed to them.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for such a detailed explanation of the terms of the proposed agreement. We shall be supporting this clause. Like the hon. member for Yeoville, we feel that the social concern which we have for the people of Namaqualand is such that this measure must be supported. In so doing, one should ask oneself what would happen should this mine be forced to close and the State should find itself having the deal with the resultant social problem. One might find in such an event, that the cost to the State would be far in excess of the amount which is under discussion at the present time. I do believe, nevertheless, that the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Langlaagte have raised certain important matters such as the need for long-term planning for that area, and also concerning subsidies for the mining of low-grade copper. I believed, the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs should really take heed of those thoughts and I sincerely hope they will give them their due consideration.

Mr. Chairman, people seem to be very concerned about security. Honestly, the security which the Government will have for the underwriting of this loan is very important. That is, however, not the first question. The first question, I believe, which should be considered is the principle of whether such a loan should be made to a private organization.

Order! The principle of the Bill has been approved at Second Reading. The hon. member should limit himself now to the particulars of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, what concerns us then is the financing in terms of this clause by way of locally raised finance in lieu of finance that is to come substantially from outside. I believe that is the whole basis of this thing. How are we actually financing it? We are financing it by way of a guarantee. I think it should actually be financed differently, that people who invest in this country—unless they are going to be involved in some sort of economic imperialism—actually have to make a contribution as well. Is that contribution being made here? I ask this question of the hon. the Minister and I shall be very interested to know to what degree this company is financing itself from its own resources, and to what degree from local resources, because there are principles specially laid down by the Reserve Bank, which establish to what degree a foreign-owned company is allowed to finance itself from local resources.

It will make our decision much easier if the hon. the Minister could give us the background of this company’s borrowings.

Mr. Chairman, I really think the hon. member for Langlaagte is conjuring up spectres now. I have explained this matter as well as I possibly could. I said that it was a very exceptional case, and therefore it will serve no purpose for us to quote hypothetical examples in order to speculate about what could possibly happen to certain enterprises and why it could happen, and what the Government would do then. That is not how the Government goes about matters. We are dealing here with a specific matter which is before us. We believe that this matter has special merit. We are doing it in this way, and not—I repeat—in the form of a direct guarantee. We are specifically doing it in a way in which I believe the interests of the State, and therefore of the tax-payers as well, are fully protected.

†I mentioned the built-in safeguards, and read out the main ones. I do not see how we can go further than that. This is something that has been very carefully thought out.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the speculative element, but in my mind the speculative element relates not so much to the availability of ore and so on—all those things have been very carefully assessed by experts—the question really is the future price; that is the main issue at stake.

The hon. member also referred to the possibility of another copper mine perhaps having to close down say within a few years and asked, what our attitude would be in that regard. The hon. member will, however, appreciate that I cannot possibly give an answer on that. That is a hypothetical case, however important it may become

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister not consider giving these mines the same assistance as is given to low-grade gold mines?

The reply is that a specific kind of scheme has been worked out with regard to gold-mines, to assist certain marginal mines by means of a subsidy. In our opinion, this is a completely different case, and from the point of view of the State this is, I believe, a more satisfactory transaction than the other scheme, in terms of which direct subsidies are given. Unless something exceptional happens here, the State will not have to pay any money at all. If we have to do it in the way in which marginal mines are subsidized, we shall have to pay the subsidy in cash. We actually hope and expect that in this case, the State will not have to pay anything at all.

†The last point I should like to make is that there is of course a component of built in safeguards in the agreement. This organization has substantial assets, and where we are the creditor of last resort, we would be able also to have the benefit of those assets if the worst came to the worst.

I thank hon. members for their participation, and I thank them also for being prepared to support this Bill despite any reservations they may have. In all the circumstances of the case—and we have worked on this for a considerable time—I believe that this is a very sound transaction.

Mr. Chairman, in the light of the hon. the Minister’s explanation we shall support this clause.

I thank you.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, according to the Hansard report of the debate of 7 June during the Committee Stage of the Defence Amendment Bill, the hon. member for Yeoville asked the Chairman whether an hon. member was allowed to say that another hon. member was hypocritical. The hon. member for Kroonstad, who was speaking at that time, declared that he had not used the word. Thereupon the hon. member for Yeoville said that it had been the hon. member for Simon’s Town, which I immediately denied. The hon. member for Yeoville then said: “Of course you said it.” Mr. Speaker, I now want to deny categorically that I used that word.

†Having made this statement, let me say that if the hon. member for Yeoville can exhibit parliamentary good manners, he will withdraw his statement and apologize.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is an hon. member permitted to make an observation of that kind whilst giving a personal explanation?

Mr. Speaker, not because of the gratuitous insult of the hon. member for Simon’s Town which he sought to add, but in terms of the rules of proceedings, I accept the word of the hon. member for Simon’s Town.

Mr. Speaker, would you please give me a ruling on my point of order?

Order! That was part of the hon. member’s statement.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask, with great respect, whether the hon. member for Simon’s Town showed you his statement before he made it?

Yes, he did.

And you approved that last comment?

Order! I only saw part of the statement.

So he added that part?

Order! I shall consider the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

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

1. (1) the failure of the Committee to request the Minister of Health and Welfare to give evidence and the failure of the said Minister to request to give evidence;
2. (2) the approach of the Committee as to the onus of proof;
3. (3) the Committee’s attitude in ignoring the fact that the Minister of Health and Welfare had himself in the House contradicted his earlier statement;
4. (4) the ignoring by the Committee of its real mandate, which involved a decision as to whether the said Minister’s statement had been true or not;
5. (5) the Committee’s attitude in holding that a member who contended that another member had, to his knowledge, told an untruth and who refused to withdraw such allegation and was prepared to accept the sanction of the Speaker was not acting in accordance with accepted precedent;
6. (6) the Committee’s failure to interpret correctly the evidence of Prof. N’. J. J. Olivier and the members for Berea and Bryanston; and
7. (7) the Committee’s findings, which are contrary to the evidence before it,

This Select Committee came into being as a result of a speech by the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare in this House on 20 April of this year. In that speech he once more departed from the merits of the argument and argued ad hominem, in the sense that he launched into a personal attack on the hon. member for Berea. He said that he wanted to repeat that the PFP did not speak for the Government of KwaZulu. He repeated his customary, persistent, personal and nauseating attacks, going back to the Nursing Amendment Bill of 1981, when he said that the hon. member for Berea was “a second-rate intermediary for Chief Buthelezi and Dr. Madide and was not needed as such.” On 20 April, however, he went considerably further than that and, on his own volition, brought in a new accusation. On 20 April he said that another person, Dr. Madide, had also made a similar accusation. Let me quote this passage—

The hon. member for Berea was named by the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare. His new version was therefore, in effect, that Dr. Madide, the Minister of Health for KwaZulu, who had asked the hon. member for Berea to assist him in the matter of the Nursing Amendment Bill, was the very person now saying that the hon. member for Berea was saying that he represented the people of KwaZulu. It is not necessary to point out that the hon. member for Berea was shocked. The next day, however, there was a Press statement from Dr. Madide in which he categorically denied that he had made such a statement to the hon. the Minister or to anyone else. That statement was put before the Select Committee. The hon. member for Berea gave evidence and told the Select Committee how he had also discussed the matter with the hon. the Minister on the telephone and that there were Press statements. He said that in those circumstances it was inconceivable that the hon. Minister’s account of that meeting could be correct and that he could not allow a statement like that, on a fundamental issue, to go unchallenged. On 6 May he accordingly made a speech in the House in which he accused the hon. the Minister of deliberately misleading the House and lying to the House. Thereafter the hon. member for Bryanston and the hon. member Prof. Olivier made similar accusations. On 6 May the hon. the Minister said the following—

The “this” to which he referred, was the fact that he had been lying. Thereafter the hon. the Minister asked for a Select Committee. He did not ask for a kangaroo court. He asked for a Select Committee with a mandate to inquire and report on allegations that he had misled, lied and told the House untruths. That is what had to be inquired into, i.e. the truth or untruth of allegations to that effect by those hon. members.

There are two previous precedents of this in this House. The first was in 1972 when Mr. Wiley, the hon. member for Simons-town, said that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance had deliberately given erroneous figures in this House and, secondly, he insinuated that the then Deputy Minister, Mr. A. H. du Plessis, had cooked the figures. A Select Committee was then appointed with exactly the same terms of reference, namely—

The “allegations” are then set out.

I never said that.

I am quoting from the terms of reference. Then followed accusations that an hon. Deputy Minister had been dishonest. That Select Committee investigated the truth of those allegations in accordance with its mandate. The Select Committee found that the averments of that hon. member were unparliamentary because Mr. Speaker made him withdraw them.

In 1977 a similar situation arose in the Worrall Select Committee where it was said, in paragraph 9.13 of the Select Committee report, that the hon. the Minister of Finance had grossly misled the public, including the House of Assembly. Those Select Committees interpreted their mandates as being whether the accusations were true or not. However, the Select Committee under discussion refused to do so. The hon. the Minister failed to give evidence. He failed to ask permission to give evidence. Despite the fact that the Committee requested him to be available to give evidence and despite the fact that the Committee informed him that he was entitled to be present at the proceedings of the Committee, the Committee by a majority vote ruled that no evidence was permissible to show whether the hon. the Minister was lying or not. I am bound to say, however, that only the NP members voted that way in that Committee. I am also bound to say that neither the NRP, nor the PFP, not even the CP, were prepared to vote for that. Only the NP voted for that. So the Select Committee refused to follow the previous precedents, which were identical in principle. I do not know why. Did they not want to hear the truth? So it was ruled by the Select Committee, by a majority decision, that the persons who made the allegation had an onus upon them to discharge. It was ruled that they had to show that the hon. the Minister was untruthful and that they did not produce such facts. However, the Select Committee would not allow them to produce the evidence. It would not allow evidence to support those facts. It would not allow them the opportunity to discharge the onus upon them. The Select Committee, having refused to hear further evidence, held that those persons failed to discharge the onus. As a newspaper editorial in Natal said a couple of days ago, it is beyond understanding.

This kind of procedure brings the system of Select Committees into disrepute. This kind of procedure will cause this party in these benches to consider in the future whether it will submit itself to this kind of committee.

What did the Select Committee do? It merely elicited the fact that this House already knew about. It did not supply this House with any further information. In fact, in 1924 it was ruled in this House—

But what did the Select Committee do here?

It tried to cover up.

What it ought to have done in terms of his mandate was to elicit information and to investigate the truth of the hon. the Minister’s statement. In fact, the three hon. members who gave evidence were corroborated by their Hansard speeches that were laid on the table. These went uncontradicted. They set out their reasons for believing that the hon. the Minister had been untruthful. It is not correct to say, as the Select Committee report says in paragraph 7, that the facts given by the members were substantially the same as those they gave in the House. In the Select Committee there was detailed evidence from the hon. member for Berea and from the hon. member Prof. Olivier showing that, apart from the Press statement of Dr. Madide, there was a long history of personal contact and consultation on this matter between Dr. Madide and them. In those circumstances they said that the Minister’s statement was particularly obviously not true …

The Minister should resign.

… and that is was clearly sufficient to justify their making the allegations they did.

However, quite apart from all that, quite apart from the fact that they were justified in making those allegations, there were before the Select Committee two speeches by the hon. the Minister, viz. a speech made on 20 April and a speech made on 6 May. As I said earlier, this whole matter arose out of his speech on 20 April. In his second speech on 6 May he returned to the same subject he had raised in his speech of 20 April. On 6 May he said he wanted to give the House the very words Dr. Madide had used. Those were his words. He said he wanted to tell the House exactly what happened. He said further that he had given a precise version—“presiese weergawe” were his words—of the incident. His new version revealed that his version on 20 April was untrue. His own version revealed that the earlier version was untrue. In this new version he said it was he himself and not Dr. Madide who had said that Mr. Swart was not the spokesman for KwaZulu. That whole complaint about Mr. Swart, the hon. member for Berea, and PFP politicians saying that they represented KwaZulu came not from Dr. Madide but from the Minister himself. It was his own accusation and not the accusation he levelled on 20 April. Nowhere in his version of 6 May, which he says is the precise version, is it said that a third party, namely Dr. Madide, had now corroborated the Minister in his accusations against the hon. member for Berea. The whole first version of the hon. the Minister is false on the strength of his second version and his own words.

Why did he not come and give evidence?

In fact, the accusations came from the hon. the Minister himself.

Further, Dr. Madide never said that he was getting tired of the PFP politicians. I say that on the strength of the hon. the Minister’s second version. In fact, the whole version of the hon. the Minister on 20 April is false if one accepts his version of 6 May. On his own version the Minister misled, and was untruthful in, the House. At the very least, to be extraordinarily charitable, he displayed a grossly reckless disregard for the truth on 20 April, for which he ought to be severely censured by the House.

Mr. Speaker …

It is too late now. You should have given evidence under oath.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend taking part in this debate. I simply wished to listen to the hon. member who has just spoken. I understand that it is an old tradition that someone who is being discussed in a debate such as this, does not attend the proceedings. Accordingly I shall withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of this debate.

Go to Onverwacht! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinetown has tried to lay certain detailed allegations before this House, and I do not intend replying to them in full, since the hon. member for Namaqualand, the chairman of the Select Committee, will reply to them in detail. However, there is one matter in particular that I wish to discuss with the hon. member for Pinetown. To begin with, I wish to say that it is, in fact, true that the terms of reference of different committees may differ. The terms of reference as such may also correspond. Furthermore, I wish to assert that in respect of the activities of each separate Select Committee, there are particular circumstances which are characteristic of that particular investigation and which necessarily differ from those of others. I am simply making that statement. It will be elaborated upon.

The hon. member for Pinetown tried cumbersomely to indicate in his speech, as well as in his draft report—I refer to paragraphs 13 to 18—that the hon. the Minister’s statement of 20 April 1982 and his statement of 6 May 1982 contain alleged contradictions. I maintain that this is not true. What is the essence of the statement of 20 April? The essence is that the PFP newspapers and politicians are continually making trouble. This is basically the essence of that statement, and the hon. member for Pinetown conceded that. In fact, he has also said so in his minority report. Let me quote to hon. members from paragraph 18 of the hon. member’s report, part of what the Minister is alleged to have said in his statement on 6 May 1982—

In other words, the basic essence of the statements of 20 April and 6 May correspond absolutely with each other.

Look at the words.

I have looked at the words. In any case, the hon. member does not know what is going on here. If the hon. member for Pinetown does not wish to accept my interpretation, I wish to point out to him that his colleague, the hon. member Prof. Olivier, does not agree with him. In this regard, I wish to refer to paragraph 180 of the report where the chairman puts the question to Prof. Olivier: “Was dit voor of na dr. Munnik se toespraak in die Raad?” What does one find in Prof. Olivier’s reply? Referring to the hon. the Minister he said—

If Afrikaans and words have any meaning, the hon. member Prof. Olivier does not agree with the hon. member for Pinetown. [Interjections.] The hon. member Prof. Olivier indicated in his evidence that basically this is precisely what the hon. the Minister said.

On these grounds I shall merely say that this allegation and judgment by the hon. member for Pinetown in his minority report are unfounded and carry no weight whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I do not remember when last anything has caused me as many unhappy hours as this inquiry. [Interjections.] I cannot remember when last anything has made me quite as unhappy as this Select Committee. The hours that we sat were certainly not hours that I will remember with any degree of affection in the years that lie ahead. All the preparation in the world for a speech cannot ever describe the emotions that I now have and that I felt during that Select Committee. There we were, a body of men, charged to do a particular job of work. As I saw it, my duty was clear: I had to go and listen to evidence. I had to make up my mind whether or not an hon. Minister of this House, a Minister of State, had in fact misled the House. I had to make up my mind whether a certain hon. gentleman—shall I say on this side of the House—was in fact accurate in statements that he had made. I found that I was frustrated by the fact that I was not allowed to listen to the evidence which I felt was so necessary. I am no legal man, and I have no pretention to being one. I am just an ordinary businessman in this place. I found that audi alteram partem did not apply. I was not privileged to hear the other side. I thought when I went to that Select Committee that it would be obvious that I would hear evidence from the hon. the Minister, that I would hear evidence from those whom the hon. the Minister had seen fit to name as being people who were present when certain statements were made by a Minister of a self-governing State. There was, in fact, another Minister involved. I thought we would have that evidence before us, because what could these three gentlemen tell us? I do not believe the onus was on them to prove the veracity or otherwise of the statement of the hon. the Minister. No, surely to heaven we were entitled to hear substantiating evidence from the hon. the Minister, evidence that would prove beyond all shadow of doubt in our minds that what the hon. the Minister had said was in fact correct and what these gentlemen had said was in fact out of order in respect of what he had claimed had been said by a certain Dr. Madide. With the limited facts at our disposal, because the hon. member for Pinetown moved that we hear additional evidence and this was defeated, I am sad to say, purely on a party basis, what conclusion can one come to. It is all here. We have sworn evidence by three gentlemen, namely a Mr. Swart, a Prof. Olivier and a Mr. Van Rensburg. We have Hansard records of two speeches by the hon. the Minister of Health. I say not to myself and not to the legal brains, but to the citizens of South Africa, to the ordinary people of out there: Take this record, it is yours, and study it and see what you think, see what you say, see what conclusion you come to when you see that an hon. Minister, a Minister of State of this country, tells two different stories. It is contained in this document. See what you feel, see if you can feel the frustration that I am speaking of. See if you can understand it. See if you think that the right thing was done. I know that the citizens, the people out there, will agree with what I feel here today. I say I feel sad, I really do. I cannot honestly say to this House that I have done my duty. I do not believe I have. I have not done my duty not because I have not wanted to do so, but because I have not been allowed to do my duty. However, I can say that I can tomorrow morning face an accuser that I face every day. That is my own face in the mirror when I come to shave. I can look at that face in the mirror and I can say to it: Well, at least, old man, you can still look at yourself, because my conscience does not trouble me, because I have associated myself with what I believe is right in this issue.

I believe the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Pinetown here today is the only honourable course for all men in this House to take and I support his amendment to the full.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the committee which investigated these allegations, was faced with a few dilemmas.

The first dilemma the committee was faced with, was the interpretation of its terms of reference.

The hon. members of the governing party who served on the Select Committee, had to formulate their interpretation of the committee’s terms of reference in such a way that they could evade an important reality or truth, viz. that if there had to be a finding on the allegation that the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare had deliberately misled this House, they would have had to agree that the committee hear further evidence. To overcome this dilemma, they came up with the idea that there was sufficient relevant evidence before the committee which would enable it to complete its investigation and that an investigation into the truth or otherwise of the hon. the Minister’s statement was therefore not necessary. In this way the hon. members of the governing party who served on that committee tried to escape their dilemma.

The second dilemma facing the committee—and I think this was the real reason why there was a majority vote concerning the interpretation of our terms of reference that further evidence did not have to be heard—was that the entire hearing would then become an embarrassment to both the Republic of South Africa and the national State KwaZulu. The committee would then have had to decide which one of the two hon. Ministers was telling the truth and which not. It was and is not really in the interests of sound relations between the two States that the matter should have been taken further. If this were to have happened, there would necessarily have had to be a loser, and this would have had less favourable results for the future of sound relations.

I have a measure of understanding of the position in which the PFPs representative found himself in that committee, since the credibility of hon. members of his party who gave evidence there and spoke in this House, was at issue. However, one gained the impression, particularly after reading the statement of the hon. member for Pinetown with regard to the alleged contradictions of the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare, that it was not so much a matter of the restoration of the credibility of Dr. Madide as one of the credibility of the PFP with the Zulu nation.

Having said all this, I still feel that the procedure followed by the committee was not acceptable to my party, since we did not get to the crux of the matter. However, we feel that the matter should not be taken any further since, in the interests of sound relations, it is not desirable that there should be any further investigation. Because we felt that the procedure adopted was not correct, the CP will not be taking part in the voting.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of listening to the speeches of hon. members with regard to this investigation. Firstly, I wish to refer to the hon. member Mr. Theunissen who said that he thought that it was as well, for the sake of sound relations, not to take the investigation any further. This is not at all what the committee had in mind. I shall most definitely be dealing with those points in the course of my speech.

What I want us fully to understand at the very outset is that this was an investigation. It was not an accusation. The hon. member for Umhlanga tried to create drama instead of arguing about the facts. The hon. member said that there was an onus on the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare. The hon. member is wrong. It was not allegations by the hon. the Minister that were investigated, but the allegations of the three hon. members of the PFP.

There was an onus on the Select Committee to go into it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinetown moved an amendment and I shall deal with it in the course of my argument. He also referred to certain previous cases and to the case of the witness, Waddell, in particular. I maintain that the facts and circumstances differ widely as far as these two matters are concerned. In the case of Waddell there are certain similarities too. Firstly, the witness, Waddell, gave evidence alone. Secondly, the hon. the Minister of Finance, who was involved in the case, was also not called as a witness, notwithstanding the fact that certain members of the committee insisted on it. Thirdly, there was also a minority report in that case which, just like this one, was extremely condemnatory. I maintain that circumstances are important and in this case, there was also specific circumstances involved in the case, viz. the unparliamentary behaviour of those hon. members whose allegations were investigated. I maintain that this is important, since it displays an attitude, and that attitude is always important in assessing someone’s behaviour. Terms of reference can never be the same, since a Select Committee interprets its own terms of reference.

I listened very attentively to the first two hon. members, the hon. member for Pinetown and the hon. member for Umhlanga, and while listening to them, I was reminded of the words of Langenhoven. Langenhoven said: “Jy moet pasop vir die advies van ‘n man wat so seker is hy is reg want dit bewys net een ding en dit is dat hy die ander kant van die saak glad nie oorweeg het nie.”

That is what you did not do.

This matter definitely has another side, and I am not going to put that side to hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, one asks oneself: Why is this matter the subject of an investigation by a Select Committee and of a debate in this House today? The reply is: Definitely not the fact that two contrasting accounts of a conversation between the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare and Dr. Madide of KwaZulu were put forward in this House, since it often happens that people clash with one another in this House on matters concerning content. The real reason is that certain unparliamentary allegations were made in connection with this, which were to the detriment of the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare. [Interjections.]

The following question must be answered. Why did hon. members make the allegation in this negative and unparliamentary manner? The reason is crystal clear from the evidence, viz. to gain advantages in relations and to promote the image of the PFP among the people of KwaZulu.

Is the allegation justified, yes or no?

I shall deal with that.

The images of both the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member Prof. Olivier in particular, both members of a liaison committee of the PFP with the organization Inkatha, had to be promoted. The hon. member for Berea said that he made the allegation in objection to the hon. the Minister’s attitude of trying to make the people of KwaZulu suspicious of his party. Furthermore, he said that he was very angry when he made that allegation. The hon. member’s embitteredness is best proved by the fact that throughout his evidence, he denied that he acted in an unparliamentary way, notwithstanding the fact that the Chairman sent the hon. member from the Chamber. He has therefore continually disputed the ruling of the Chairman, thereby casting a reflection on the Chair.

He is undermining the authority of Parliament.

Sir, do you think that someone with such an attitude, in such an emotional state, and who has such political prejudices, is able to judge what the truth is?

Listen to who is talking! Just listen!

That little lawn-squatter must keep quiet.

I am of the opinion that no reasonable person could draw such an inference, nor did the Select Committee draw such an inference.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier was even more outspoken in his partiality in order to score political points. The hon. member said that he had made the allegation—listen carefully to this—as a form of protest, because his relations with the people of KwaZulu were being affected.

Correct.

What he went on to say is extremely significant. He said that if he had known that the hon. the Minister would request a Select Committee, he would probably never have said what he did. In this regard one can read question 223.

Is that not reasonable?

The hon. member Prof. Olivier went on to say, in reply to question 225—

[Interjections.] Do you see, Sir? There is no objectivity whatsoever. The issue is not whether one of these statements is correct; for the purposes of political relations, Dr. Madide’s statement has to be accepted.

The hon. member for Bryanston was not involved in the matter to such an extent. He mainly had a supporting role, and in the process, he fired a few stray shots.

The Select Committee was of the opinion that there was a definite onus on the hon. members who had made the allegations to present facts, not necessarily to prove the allegations, but at least to justify them. The facts amount basically to two contradictory statements by the hon. the Minister and Dr. Madide concerning a conversation which took place between them. The hon. members concerned preferred to infer from this that the hon. the Minister had misled and/or lied to this House.

You are also making an inference.

Inferences based on political prejudice, political expediency without objectivity, and which had nothing to do with credibility, were made.

Consequently the Select Committee found that such an inference, as contained in the allegations, was not justified on the facts, and once the committee had found this, it had to decide for itself whether its task was to seek evidence to justify or prove those allegations. If the Select Committee were to have interpreted its terms of reference in the latter way, it was of the opinion that this could have led to serious abuses of parliamentary processes, and that Select Committees could be made the instruments through which the integrity of hon. members could be questioned unfairly.

You therefore no longer care in the slightest if someone lies in this House!

All an hon. member would therefore need to impugn another hon. member, would be a contradictory statement by someone outside this House. Then he could send a Select Committee on a fishing expedition, as it were, in respect of the integrity of other hon. members. [Interjections.] I believe that if this were to be permitted—and I say this with great emphasis—it would be a classic example of a case of a highly esteemed institution such as this Parliament in fact allowing itself to be consumed by its own processes. [Interjections.]

Although the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member Prof. Olivier tried to evade this in their evidence, it is clear that all three of the hon. members made the allegations in question with premeditation. All three are senior hon. members of this House, who were therefore aware of what the consequences of their allegations would be, and who were also aware of what the consequences would be if they refused to withdraw them after the Chairman had ordered them to do so. Therefore we have here three senior hon. members who are prepared to challenge the decisions of the Chairman, and who do so as a form of protest, while having a proper remedy at their disposal, viz. the moving of a substantive motion in this House if they did not wish to accept the word of another hon. member. If senior hon. members of this House do this, and if other hon. members were to follow their example, I ask what is to remain of the order and discipline and the dignity of this hon. House. [Interjections.]

In conclusion, I should just like to refer to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinetown. I refer to paragraph (1) of his motion in which reference is made to paragraph 5 of the minority report. I want hon. members to read it. They would do well to read the fifth paragraph of the minority report of the hon. member for Pinetown. In it the impression was created—as, in fact, the hon. member tried to create in his argument in this House—that the hon. the Minister was afforded the opportunity of giving evidence. Secondly, the impression was created that the hon. the Minister avoided giving evidence or being present. [Interjections.] Surely this is not true. Hon. members can go and read the Minutes of this House. The relevant part of the resolution of 18 May 1982 reads as follows—

Now I wish to know from the hon. member for Pinetown why he omitted that last part.

However, let us now consider the second impression the hon. member for Pinetown is trying to create here. This is viz. that the hon. the Minister tried to avoid giving evidence and being present in the Select Committee. In fact, the hon. the Minister was indeed present on 24 May 1982 while we were hearing evidence.

Did he give evidence? Why did he not give evidence?

I personally told the hon. the Minister that it was not necessary for him to be present, that we would summon him if we wanted to let him give evidence. This is precisely what we did with the other witnesses as well. We asked them, too, to be available in their offices until we needed them. After all, the hon. member for Pinetown is aware that the chairman decided at the outset of that meeting that only the commissioners, secretaries, and the member giving evidence may be present. Why does he find it so odd now that the hon. the Minister was not present? [Interjections.] Why does the hon. member for Pinetown wish to cast a dishonourable and suspicious light on the hon. the Minister? Firstly, why does he use a selective quotation, and secondly, why does he suggest a complete untruth? I believe the hon. member owes this House an explanation, and if he does not provide one, his credibility is at stake. The same applies to the hon. member for Umhlanga, since he supported that minority report.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we shall be supporting the Bill in this Third Reading stage as we did during the Second Reading, but we wish to react briefly to the hon. the Minister’s attitude to the notice of instruction we moved before the Committee Stage yesterday. I want to say at once that I find the hon. the Minister’s reaction to that motion of ours remarkable. He elaborated at length on ideological differences between the NP and hon. members on this side of the House, and intimated that we were trying to introduce something through the back door because we could not otherwise convince the Government of the merits of our case. However, the fact is that in my motivation of this instruction I did not touch on any ideological matters which amounted to a difference between us on this side of the House and hon. members on that side of the House. That is why we supported this Bill in the Second Reading stage. The hon. the Minister knows that if there had been any fundamental ideological differences at issue, we should not have adopted that standpoint. Our argument was that Blacks may indeed be consulted if at all practicable, a point that was conceded by the hon. the Minister, and we felt that it was preferable to make provision now, in this Bill, for such a possibility and for such a referendum to be held. Allow me, then, just to quote what the hon. the Minister said, since reference has already been made to this, although in somewhat different terms. He said (Hansard, 27 May 1982, col. 7901)—

No reference is made here to Black peoples. I do not wish to make out that there is any other implication. I am merely referring to it—

That is what the hon. the Minister said. Accordingly I really gained the impression—and I say this in all sincerity—that the hon. the Minister had no objection to such a referendum being held on occasion. Later on, the hon. the Minister made the point that in terms of the wording of this Bill there was no indication that referendums would necessarily be confined to matters of a constitutional nature, and that it was quite possible that there could be other matters about which the Government could hold a referendum. The hon. the Minister may tell us that that was not the intention, and if he says that then probably one must accept it. However, I say that on the basis of the wording, there is indeed the possibility that other matters could also be the subject of a referendum.

Then, in reaction to the hon. member for Constantia, the hon. the Minister also said that a referendum meant that one consulted the people. However, nowhere in the Bill is it said that the people, or a certain group of people of the Republic of South Africa, or of a specific region of the Republic of South Africa, may be consulted in such a referendum. It is specifically with a view to that that we felt it necessary that due provision be made in this Bill for that, because if we want to consult Blacks in a specific region we may quite possibly, and very probably, be dealing with Blacks who do not necessarily enjoy citizenship of the same national State. Then we shall have a situation in which we are dealing with the various election proclamations of the various national States. In practical circumstances this would not give rise to a healthy situation. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister did not react to any of these specific arguments. He said by way of interjection that the election proclamations could be amended to make provision for that, but if one can amend a proclamation, one can surely amend the legislation as well. Therefore I really do not know why the hon. the Minister was so sensitive about this matter that he was unable to make provision for it in this legislation. If the hon. the Minister had adopted his standpoint on the basis of the ideological difference, then I refer him once again to the legislation on the Order Paper, the legislation dealing with the system of local authority for Blacks. The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that Blacks who will have links with various national States will be represented on those local authorities. Therefore in terms of the Government’s own thinking we must make provision for a situation, for a political representative who has to do with people who do not have connections with the same national State.

Therefore we cannot understand why the Government has opposed this standpoint, and I am sorry that their reaction was what it was. I therefore foresee that from a practical point of view, if it were to be necessary to hold a referendum among Blacks, these problems would indeed manifest themselves.

There is only one other aspect concerning which I wish to express my regret that it is still in this Bill, and that is the highly artificial form of protection afforded members of the House of Assembly, provincial councils and the President’s Council. Once again this is not something that will easily be sold to the electorate. People do not like our claiming a special form of protection because we occupy this privileged position. This measure, as part of the Elections Amendment Bill, is at present before a Select Committee. The hon. the Minister pointed out that in the event of a referendum one had a different situation to that in a normal election. He implied that in the case of a referendum it was more necessary to incorporate this protection in the enabling legislation. My feeling is that the opposite may be true. We have stated very clearly that this is in no way acceptable to us. If one is to adopt a relative standpoint in this regard, it would be more justified to have full protection for personalities when they are very prominent than when personalities are less relevant in a political power struggle, whether in an election or a referendum. It is a great pity that we were unable to induce the Government to see this matter in a different light. We do not believe that there is any reason why they could not have conceded this point. We did not ask them to do anything that would necessarily involve making any ideological concesions. Nevertheless they dug in their heels and granted none of the concessions for which we asked. Despite that we feel that the Referendums Bill does create possibilities for the consulting of groups in South Africa and the population of South Africa on a wider basis than before, and accordingly we shall support the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, apart from a specific argument which the hon. member for Green Point had with the hon. the Minister concerning procedure, basically he touched on two points, viz. the so-called ideological difference with regard to the reason why Black people are not included in this legislation, and also the protection of representatives, viz. members of the House of Assembly, the provincial councils and the President’s Council. I should like to differ with him on both these points.

As regards the omission of Blacks from this legislation, it is very clear that the constitutional position of the Black people is totally different to that of the Coloureds and the Asians. Therefore, even if it were necessary to create a special instrument wherewith to consult the Black people, it would still be illogical to do so by way of this specific legislation. Because the circumstances are totally different one would have to have a different approach to the arrangement of such a referendum. I do not think that the hon. the Minister was negative about the principle of consulting Black people or groups of Black people from time to time. However, if one wanted to achieve that aim, one would not in any event try to do so by way of this piece of legislation.

As far as the second point is concerned, here too I wish to differ radically from the hon. member for Green Point. It relates to the protection of representatives. It is true, as he argued, that from the point of view of the person concerned, protection would be more convenient during an election than in a referendum because in an election the temptation for one’s opponent to attack one personally would be so much greater. However, in an election the person of the representative is very relevant to his election or otherwise. Accordingly one could argue that in the event of an election he should not enjoy that immunity, but in the case of a referendum, the representative acts as a champion of a specific standpoint. Then it would be a matter of the standpoint and not the man. Therefore, if anyone were to drag a personal argument into the debate that would be an undesirable procedure. It would be undesirable if he were to drag the person of someone who advocated a specific standpoint, into the issue about which a referendum was being held. That would be irregular. Although I am prepared to discuss the issue of whether it should appear in the Electoral Act or not, I am convinced that it is indeed logical, in the legislation at present before this House, to prevent personal matters being dragged in when persons are not at issue.

To move to more general matters, for the sake of interest I wish to point out that the Afrikaans text of this legislation refers to “volkstemmings” and the English text to “referendums”. In constitutional law and the political sciences a fine distinction is drawn between plebiscites (“volkstemmings”) and referendums. A plebiscite is usually a consultation of the people on a specific principle, on a broad guideline. In contrast, a referendum usually takes place when a very specific matter is referred to the people for a decision. At one stage I considered broaching these points during the Second Reading or Committee Stage, but in fact this legislation creates the machinery for either a plebiscite or a referendum in the sense that I have just indicated. Accordingly I deemed it unnecessary to do so, but I mention it to this House for interest’s sake.

I want to come back briefly to the standpoint advanced here by the CP. It was one of their strongest standpoints in the Second Reading, and also in the Committee Stage, that what we are in fact dealing with here is decision-making. It was their standpoint that a referendum was an integral part of decision-making and that it accordingly had specific consequences, for example, the fact that persons of colour could also be consulted. I wish to stress that although 1 do not flinch from joint decision-making, I do want to make the point once again that in the case of a referendum or a plebiscite, it would not necessarily mean that that consultation would form part of the decision-making process. That would depend on the nature of the matter submitted to the people and the way in which it was submitted to the people.

It may be—as the hon. member for Waterkloof argued—that due to the way in which the question is asked and the nature of the matter at issue, a Government could place himself in the position that it had no alternative but to give effect to the outcome of the referendum. That could happen. However, the point I am making is that that depends on the specific way in which the question is asked.

In the Second Reading the hon. member for Waterkloof adopted a fairly dangerous standpoint when he alleged that in the ‘fifties, the National Government passed very far-reaching legislation without proof that it had a majority of voters. He argued that the referendums would prevent this kind of thing in the future, that one could not act in this way in the future if one made use of referendums, and that one would then have to make very sure that one had the majority of people on one’s side before one did anything. This is a dangerous standpoint to adopt. On the one hand it is basically an undemocratic standpoint. I concede to the hon. member for Waterkloof that according to the rules of Parliament it was a possibility at that stage. That is, if we accept that his construction of the position is correct. However, if he champions the standpoint that he is now adopting, he must bear that in mind in the future, and not come and accuse the NP of introducing some measure in Parliament for which there is no broad support in the population. He will have to bear that standpoint in mind under these circumstances.

In addition, in conjunction with what has been said, I just wish to point out that in times like these, when change is taking place and uncertainty may prevail among people, a referendum is a very strong instrument with which to legitimize specific measures, and by so doing increase their acceptability. When we look at the 1960 referendum, we see that if the NP had relied solely on its Parliamentary majority at that stage to announce a Republic, we should have had far more conflict about that decision than was the case when the Government could clearly demonstrate that there was majority support for this matter. We are still reaping the benefits of that today, in the sense that after the referendum there was very little opposition to the idea of the Republic. In the time that lies ahead, whenever it may once again be necessary to take far-reaching steps, we shall be able to make very good use of that legitimization effect and demonstration of support. Accordingly I think that in the South African circumstances of today this is an essential instrument that we ought to have at our disposal. Accordingly I support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with I should just like to refer to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Helderkruin in connection with what I said in my speech during the Second Reading on this Bill. In the first place, according to him I allegedly adopted a dangerous standpoint in regard to the laws passed by Dr. Malan’s Government in the years after 1948, by saying that those laws had been placed on the Statute Book with a parliamentary majority, but not necessarily with a majority of voters. I think that it was generally recognized at the time that in 1948 the NP came to power with a parliamentary majority and that at the time there was a very strong argument that it did not have a majority of voters. However, I was arguing on the basis of the system in South Africa. I argued that the system in South Africa was a mandate system which was obtained by way of an election, and that referendums were alien to the South African system. That was what I said, and I stand by it. They are alien to this system.

I was not arguing on the basis of the present situation. I referred to it, and I accused the Government of seeking to introduce referendums into the legislative process in spite of the fact that it is not a part of the South African system. I repeat that by way of this Bill, when it is enacted, the Government will for the first time in the history of South Africa be making statutory provision for “one man, one vote” for the entire population of South Africa, excluding Blacks.

What is wrong with that?

As far as this party is concerned, we are opposed to it. Philosophically we were opposed to it when we were in the NP, and while the NP stood by its original standpoint. We considered it, and that is that.

*That is power-sharing among the Coloureds, Indians and Chinese on an absolutely equal basis. That is true, and one cannot get away from it. In this regard I must compliment the National Party, since they are being consistent in this regard. They accepted power-sharing in the political system of South Africa, and they did not let the grass grow under their feet in making it part of a consultative or process-creating instrument. In this regard I am using words which the hon. Minister used in his Second Reading speech. The National Party is now in a position to say to the outside world: “Look, here we have it: An Act of Parliament that makes a one man, one vote referendum possible.” They can go and say that.

They must not be ashamed to say it.

At this stage the Black people are still excluded, but the hon. the Minister has left the door wide open. I found it interesting to listen to what the hon. member for Green Point had to say, because as I understand the hon. the Minister, it is his standpoint that the Black people can be introduced without further legislation. Am I correct to interpret what he said in that way? That is as I read his Second Reading speech, and I should very much like to know from the hon. the Minister whether I am right, because he said (Hansard, 27 May 1982, col. 7901)—

I do not know whether those are the ipsissima verba of his Second Reading speech, but I am now making use of his prepared speech.

Their proposals are secret nowadays.

The hon. the Minister is silent; he does not want to tell me. I assume, and I shall also argue in public, that the hon. the Minister says that it is indeed possible to include Black people in a process of consultation without further legislation.

I now wish to turn to the PFP. I am sorry that their benches are so empty at the moment, because they voted for the Bill as printed.

We asked for Blacks too.

They gave their unqualified support to this Bill without provision being made for Black people at their level.

As an afterthought they brought in their instruction and their amendments.

We said so in the Second Reading, from the first instance.

Yes, but as far as I am concerned they were still untrue to their policy in that they voted for the Bill as it stood.

They were untrue to their principle that the Black people should be included in any consultative process when they voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, but I shall leave it at that.

I stand by my statement in the Second Reading speech that the referendum is now becoming part of the legislative process in South Africa. The hon. the Minister accused me—I think it was unpleasant of him to do so—of being guilty of a misrepresentation by making that statement, but it is not a misrepresentation. A process does not begin with the notice given of the introduction of a Bill in Parliament. A legislative process begins somewhere as an idea in someone’s head. It may begin as a motion at a congress and sometimes it ends with legislation in this House. Therefore it is a process. The fact that this Bill only makes provision for consultation does not exclude a referendum as part of the legislative process. It becomes part of the legislative process. I reject the accusation that it was a misrepresentation on my part to say that, and I want to repeat that it becomes part of the legislative process. If the question is referred to the voters, and the majority of the voters reply to that question in the affirmative, and legislation is necessary to give effect to it, then I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not do it. If he is not going to give effect to such a question answered in the affirmative by the voters, then surely he is bluffing. A Government would then be wasting the time and money of the people and the State, and for what purpose? The fact of the matter is that it may reasonably be expected that if a question is referred to the voters of a country and they reply in the affirmative, that question will be given effect to in legislation. If that does not happen, the question is referred to the voters to which the majority have replied in the affirmative, and subsequently the Government adopts the standpoint that it is its prerogative to deal with it further and give it statutory effect or not, then I believe that the Government will be introducing into this country á factor giving rise to tension the consequences of which are too dreadful to contemplate.

This legislation is very widely framed. It is so widely framed that the Government can refer any question to the voters of South Africa for affirmation or rejection. I agree with the hon. the Minister. In his reply to the Second Reading debate he told us that it would only concern constitutional issues. Nowhere in the wording of this Bill, however, does this appear to be the case. On the contrary, the opposite appears to be the possibility in the sense that any question could be referred to the voters. A question as to whether the Mixed Marriages Act, for example, should be retained, could be referred to them and, for example, certain provisions of the Immorality Act. The question as to whether a specific part of the population of Southern Africa should be included in a specific part of the electorate that already exists, could also be referred to them. There is also the question of whether the Electoral Act should be changed and whether the Group Areas Act should be changed. In terms of this Bill any imaginable question could be referred to the voters. We have learnt the lesson of the past in that as far as certain legislation is concerned, the assurance as given by one specific Minister that it will only be implemented in a specific way, even though the provisions are more widely framed. That Minister disappeared from the scene and one of his successors applied the legislation in a different way, but still in terms of the provisions of that specific legislation.

I want to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister which I should like him to answer. In the first instance, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister what question or questions he envisages referring to the voters of South Africa in the immediate future. Does he have questions in mind that he wants to refer to the voters of South Africa—a question or questions in the immediate future? One must anticipate that there are questions which will be referred, otherwise this Bill would not be piloted through Parliament at this late stage.

Nor has the hon. the Minister referred to the questions I have put to him repeatedly. I repeat the most important of those questions. If the majority of Whites were to furnish a negative reply to a question while the minority of Whites and the people of colour were jointly, as a majority, to answer in the affirmative—the majority of the power-sharing electorate would therefore have voted in the affirmative—what would the Government do then? The hon. the Minister told me that this was a quibble. I really must point out to the hon. the Minister that that half of his Second Reading speech could have been left out without detracting from its content. What he said in reply to my question was very interesting, and I must point out to him that he said that the essence of the matter was—

Nor constitutional?

Yes, nor constitutional.

But Chris did not say that.

Well, it is stated here; that is as it is quoted here. If I am reading correctly this reply which the hon. the Minister gave me on that specific question, then I read it as follows: If in a referendum they are going to hold—after all, the hon. the Minister said that this would only be used in respect of constitutional matters—and as provided in clause 7(l)(a), a question relating to constitutional change is referred to the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Chinese—the majority of them—are in favuor, but the White majority is against it, then surely that question that has been referred cannot be put into effect. Surely that is gross dishonesty in regard to the other section of that power-sharing electorate. It is frustrating. Moreover, it would have a destabilizing effect on the entire community in South Africa. It would generate tension among peoples or population groups in this country as nothing on earth has generated tension in this country up to now. We must beware of the machine that we are creating here and its potential to cause to happen in this country exactly what we wish to prevent. A point on which my party stands as strongly as any other party is the relaxation rather than the generation of tension, but we must take care that this machine is not used for the generation of tension.

I want to conclude by saying one more thing to the hon. the Minister; one meets the voters. Apparently the hon. members on that side of the House are meeting the voters just as actively as are we in these benches, but they are not reproached by Ministers for doing so, as we are reproached. At the moment there is a question that is causing concern among the public. It is whether the Government will continue with these reforms it has in mind without again consulting the nation about them. I make mention of this, because the hon. the Minister may be of help to us in this regard. It could make an important contribution towards setting people’s minds at rest if the hon. the Minister were to give us an indication of whether he is going to consult the Whites, too, with regard to lawful changes, whether by way of a referendum or by way of an election.

Rather an election!

Yes. [Interjections.] Of course, the words of General Smuts are frequently quoted by hon. members on the Government side nowadays; approvingly and with agreement. [Interjections.]

Who on this side quoted him? You are talking in your sleep again!

In 1947 General Smuts finalized the Act relating to the Indian franchise in this House.

At that time I was not even voting yet.

No, the hon. the Minister was not. He was not voting in those days. However, the hon. the Minister is not the only speaker on the Government side. He must please bear that in mind. He is not yet the only speaker on the Government side. [Interjections.]. In 1947 General Smuts saw to the acceptance of the Indian franchise Act. However, there was tremendous resistance to it. Then, in 1948, General Smuts let it be known that he would not place that Act in the Statute Book until after the 1948 election. That was a very honest action on his part, because he deemed it in the public interest that the voters should first be consulted about the matter. I therefore earnestly urge the hon. members on the Government side to bear this one particular example of General Smuts in mind before effecting constitutional changes for which they do not have a mandate from the voters.

In conclusion, I just wish to point out that if the Government were to continue with specific constitutional changes, the guidelines for which they are still keeping secret at this stage—thus far nobody knows what the Government has in mind, but they have settled it with one another in the inner chamber of their caucus—I call upon them to bear one thing in mind. The Republic of South Africa is comprised of four provinces, which were initially four British colonies. However, at one stage two of those colonies were independent Republics. After a National Convention those Republics and colonies entered a specific dispensation. In that dispensation there were certain provisions relating to the franchise. Later, changes were made to those provisions relating to the franchise. Before the Government takes the Republic of South Africa into a specific system, as far as the franchise is concerned—before, for example, they divide Transvaal into three regions—after all, it will be easier once they have divided the Transvaal up; then it would be easier for them to govern, too—I wish to invite the Government—actually, I want to challenge the Government—first to test opinion in the Transvaal and the Free State in terms of clause 7 of this legislation, in terms of which they can assess the feelings of a section of the population in a specific region—to determine whether the people there want to enter this new system. If they do not wish to do so, they should at least have the chance of reverting to the status quo ante 1910.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Waterkloof, because I have a sincere desire to understand why the hon. members of the CP broke away from the path of the NP and struck out in their own direction. There are certain inconsistencies that I do not quite understand. Perhaps it is because I am not an advocate, but that still does not change the fact that their conduct confuses me. The hon. member for Waterkloof states that there is a question that is causing the people concern. He expressed his concern about the matter and I accept his bonafides. He states that the people are concerned about whether the Government will continue with this constitutional development without consulting the people about it. On the other hand, however, he objects violently to the legislation which provides for referendums because he says that to him it means the initiation of “one man, one vote” as the system of government and legislative procedure of the country. He says it is power-sharing. I infer from what the hon. member said that one cannot obtain the views of a people without implementing power-sharing, and that only Whites may be approached in referendums. I should like to hear from the hon. member whether, if one may approach Whites in a referendum, that would not form part of the process of legislation in South Africa.

Do you agree with that?

I am asking you; I do not agree with it. I am really trying to understand what the hon. member is trying to say to us and to the public at large, because I am honestly unable to understand it. [Interjections.] On the one hand we have to test the will of the people because there is a question which is causing the people concern, and on the other, we may not hold referendums because then we should be implementing a principle. According to the hon. member for Waterkloof, we are applying the principle of one man, one vote, because all three populations groups are consulted in such a referendum. Therefore I am right to infer that only the White population should be involved. [Interjections.] I believe that we should in fact seek for the confusion in the ranks of the CP on the basis of the feeling by which they are guided, as against the feelings which guide the NP in the political arena of South Africa. Are we right to say that as far as the CP is concerned, the issue is one of White “baasskap”? [Interjections.] Is the issue, as far as they are concerned, one of White selfishness, White fears? [Interjections.] Are we right in saying that there is a psychosis of fear in the CP, the fear that they may lose White rights in this country? What else drives them to thoughts of White “baasskap”? [Interjections.] In contrast, there is self-determination—not “baasskap”—which does give one the right to look after one’s own affairs. It does not mean selfishness, but rather openhandedness. The rights one claims for onself, one also grants to other population groups. This does not mean a spirit of timidity, but rather one of faith and affection.

Has Jan Grobler given you permission to say that?

It does not mean chaos, but rather the preservation of civilized standards of living. [Interjections.] Are these two conflicting feelings in the process of development in this country—particularly the process of political development—not the only reason why the CP broke away from the NP? [Interjections.] It must be something of this nature … [Interjections.] … because I read in Beeld of 9 March 1981 that their leader, who was then still a member of the National Government, said the following at a youth rally at Hartbeespoort Dam—

[Interjections.] He went on—

I take it that that includes the Coloureds. He goes on to say—

Hear, hear! That is what we stand for!

If ever a “hear, hear!” was appropriate, it was appropriate now. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Waterberg said that when he was a member of the National Party and still in the Cabinet.

Or course, yes!

More than a year ago, however, he was in the same Cabinet when the hon. the Prime Minister said that he would go to the nation by way of referendums, if necessary, in the process of political development in South Africa. More than a year ago he was sitting in the Cabinet, but there was no objection whatsoever. [Interjections.] When was it, then, when he was all of a sudden overtaken by this feeling of being threatened? Often it is best not to shout “Hear, hear!” before one quite knows what one is shouting about, because by shouting “Hear, hear!” that hon. member confirmed that all of us, together with his leader and the NP, confirmed that we did not want to allow the rights of White people to slip out of our hands.

But you have changed.

No, nothing has changed. [Interjections.] Everything is just as it was. [Interjections.]

I believe that the result of this legislation will be that an opportunity will be created to consult all the population groups of South Africa, and one only consults those who are affected and therefore have the right to be consulted. Therefore I believe that this is good legislation, that it is necessary legislation, and I wholeheartedly support it.

Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a good illustration in this House of confusion as to what the NP at present accepts as policy, we saw it here this afternoon. The hon. member for Helderkruin states that this is not power-sharing. Consultation, he says, is surely only consultation; it is not power-sharing. When we obtain the views of the people, they give a decision and the Government accepts that decision—what else is it? However, the point I want to make is that the hon. member for Helderkruin is running away from the concept of power-sharing. However, the hon. member for Swellendam says that he finds this a confusing situation. He cannot grasp it, and I can understand that. He asks: How then, is one to obtain the opinions of the people without accepting power-sharing?

That was my question to you.

To which people is the hon. member referring?

According to you, a referendum is power-sharing; not according to us.

Is the hon. member referring to the relatively unified people comprising various peoples, or is he referring to our people? There is absolute confusion on that side of the House as to the concept of power-sharing. If representatives in this House are confused about it, they should go back to their constituencies and find out whether their voters are confused about it, too. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Jeppe entitled to refer to another hon. member as the “aap van Alberton” (“ape of Alberton”)?

Order! Did the hon. member for Jeppe say that?

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir, but …

The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally. Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order, the hon. member for Alberton and the hon. Whip on the other side called me an ape, too.

But you are one.

Order! Did the hon. member for Alberton say that?

Yes, Sir, and I withdraw it.

And the hon. member for Verwoerdburg?

I did not say that, Mr. Speaker.

You did.

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe must accept the word of the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. The hon. member for Pietersburg may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parys also said that.

Did the hon. member for Parys say that?

Mr. Speaker, I did not do so directly, but only confirmed that he was indeed an ape.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kimberley South said it, too.

Did the hon. member say it?

Mr. Speaker, I was busy here and I was not following the discussion that is taking place. What am I being accused of?

Did the hon. member say that the hon. member for Jeppe was an ape?

He probably is. [Interjections.] I withdraw that, Sir.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, half of those hon. members are apes.

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe must apologize to the Chair and withdraw the word “apes”.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Chair and withdraw that word.

Since the principle of this Bill has already been accepted, I just wish to point out that a principle has now been adopted by the NP which is totally alien to the basic points of departure that, over the years, always applied in that party. In passing, I just wish to point out to the hon. the Minister that in his reply to the Second Reading debate he repeatedly mentioned that I was the chief spokesman on this subject on this side. I was only the first speaker on this side, but I am not the chief spokesman for my party on the subject.

Then the hon. the Minister said in his speech: “I want to ask the hon. member when his leader dissociated himself from the concept of the acceptance of power-sharing.”

[Inaudible.]

Order!

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that my leader has never accepted power-sharing as a policy. [Interjections.] My leader has problems with the NP …

Order! If the hon. member for Jeppe makes one more interjection during this debate I shall be obliged to take disciplinary steps against him.

Mr. Speaker, then you must ask the hon. member for Alberton to keep his mouth shut, too.

Order! I give my ruling as I see fit. The hon. member for Pietersburg may proceed.

I say that my leader had difficulties with the NP from the moment the NP accepted power-sharing as one of their principles.

In his speech the hon. the Minister also repeatedly accused me of equating co-responsibility with power-sharing and joint decision-making. He can go and look in his speech: I was quoting the hon. member for Benoni. It was there that the word “co-responsibility” occurred. Nowhere did I use “co-responsibility” in my own words. The standpoint of this side of the House is surely very clear; we accept that there has to be co responsibility among various peoples in South Africa with regard to health matters and agricultural affairs, but that is poles apart from a situation of power-sharing or joint decision-making. It is like two farmers living alongside one another who accept co responsibility in regard to a common boundary fence. [Interjections.] That is co-responsibility, but the other farmer acquires as little co-responsibility on my farm as I will be acquiring a joint say or power of joint decision-making on his farm. That is the difference.

I have before me an unrevised copy of the Hansard of the hon. the Minister—and I wish to confirm what the hon. member for Waterkloof said on that occasion—and in it this paragraph appears. In the words of the hon. the Minister himself—

Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the voters of this House will be given the opportunity to express an opinion on constitutional changes. There are people outside—and here I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Waterkloof—who have misgivings about this because it is now being said that the principles that the Government is going to accept will be so close to the 1977 constitutional plan that it will not be regarded as necessary to hold a referendum about it. We saw it illustrated in this House this afternoon that there is such confusion about the interpretation of what appears in the 1977 plan that it would not be morally correct to go to the voters with the plan and say that that plan is so close to the 1977 legislation that it is unnecessary to hold a referendum.

The question is whether there is going to be a vote in future for a Parliament about whose composition there was no doubt whatsoever in last year’s election. We went from platform to platform saying that the 1977 plan was still the plan and that that plan contained no element of power-sharing whatsoever. Therefore it remains the standpoint of the NP that this legislation contains the principle of power-sharing and that it therefore endangers the right to self-determination of the voters of members of this House. That is true. It cannot be interpreted in any other way. Due to this legislation a question is now being put to all three population groups simultaneously relating to the constitutional future of South Africa. It therefore goes without saying that the various political parties, the various political parties of the various population groups, will have to adopt a standpoint one way or another. Now the question is: How is the principle of the legislation that one population group may not interfere in the political affairs of another group, to be maintained? That is impossible, and it will not be possible to uphold it. It cannot be done.

I think the hon. the Minister will agree with the hon. member for Randburg that in such a case, consideration will have to be given to clause 2 of the Bill, because there will be political interference if this legislation is implemented and referendums are held.

The hon. members on the other side of the House—many of them have now apparently fled from the House—will have to go back to the voters of South Africa from here and tell them that the principle of joint decision-making has been accepted with regard to the acceptance of the new constitution of South Africa. Hon. members opposite will have to go back to the voters and say that they accept the principle of joint decision-making in regard to the composition of the Parliament of South Africa.

Albert says that that is as it should be.

The hon. member for Innesdal says that that is correct; he will go and announce it. The CP challenges those hon. members to state this standpoint on political platforms. They must go and tell the voters that they have accepted the principle of joint decision-making with regard to their own local authorities. I want to tell them: Do that on the platforms of South Africa and then come back to this House and tell us whether the majority of White voters in this country are still with you.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to react at once to the remark of the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member is aware that it is the standpoint of this Government that Black peoples have to be accommodated within the constitutional system in a different way to Whites, Coloureds and Asians.

But you closed the door.

I am talking to the hon. member for Green Point now; not that hon. member.

May the others leave, then? [Interjections.]

I am merely displaying courtesy towards an hon. member who put questions to me. If the hon. member for Greytown is unable to understand that, he may be excused.

What I said in this regard still applies. In my Second Reading speech I said that if there were a need for the other peoples to be consulted, it could be done by way of proclamation by their legislative assemblies, which are established on an ethnic basis. [Interjections.]

Order!

I still stand by that, and I repeat it for the edification of the hon. member. In his Second Reading speech the hon. member had no objection to that approach. If, then, his instruction had no ideological motivation, why did he not adopt a standpoint during the Second Reading debate? Perhaps the hon. member should tell us from whom he received the order to raise the matter. It is very clear from his standpoint that the hon. member for Green Point wants the symbolism of accommodation within the same legislation. That is why I did not accept it. Secondly, there is no restriction as to the questions that may be asked. The hon. member knows that. Equally, there is no limit to questions that can be put in terms of proclamations of legislative assemblies. Thirdly, the hon. member argued about the provision relating to the protection of members of the House of Assembly, members of the President’s Council and members of the provincial councils. I should like to argue that in the holding of referendums, where the question is the cardinal issue to be voted on, it is in my opinion better and desirable that the person should not be brought into the issue. I stand by that standpoint.

I thank the hon. member for Helderkruin for his contribution. He answered some of the questions of the hon. member for Waterkloof. I thank the hon. member for Swellendam as well.

However, I now wish to deal with the hon. members for Waterkloof and Pietersburg. I apologize to the hon. member for Pietersburg for thinking that he was the chief spokesman on this specific legislation. Apparently the order on that side is being overturned. Therefore he will understand that I made a natural mistake when I paid him that compliment. I withdraw the compliment. I want to begin with the hon. member for Waterkloof and ask him, in all earnest, whether when he quotes people it is difficult for him to quote them correctly. I challenge the hon. member to state where in my reply to the Second Reading debate I ever said that the question could only be a constitutional one. Where did I give such an undertaking? I just want to tell him that that is untrue.

What?

The hon. member says that I said in my reply to the Second Reading debate that the questions about which referendums would be held would only concern constitutional affairs. I challenge him, because that is untrue. This reckless way of dealing with the facts has been a consistent theme in the speeches of both the hon. member for Waterkloof and the hon. member for Pietersburg in this debate. Both hon. members argued on the following basis today and during the Second Reading debate. In the first place, that this legislation makes provision for a process which is becoming part of the legislative process. Both hon. members argued that this was power-sharing. I do not intend debating the merits or otherwise of power-sharing with hon. members at this stage, but I do intend debating certain statements made by hon. members which they based on their own assumptions, because the aim of the arguments is to imply that their party adopts different standpoints to ours. The hon. member for Pietersburg said that his leader had never accepted power-sharing—and I take it that his leader is the hon. member for Waterberg. I am therefore arguing on the basis of the assumption that the leader of the hon. members for Pietersburg and Waterkloof is the hon. member for Waterberg.

Indisputably.

The answer to that is “yes”. For the purposes of my argument I also argue on the basis that this proposed legislation implies power-sharing.

I now wish to come to the hon. member for Pietersburg, because he, and not I, advanced that argument. On 20 October 1981 the Cabinet Committee for Internal Affairs took a unanimous decision on the subject. The hon. member for Waterberg was a member of the Committee. He was not only a member, he was also present. The hon. member for Waterberg accepted the principles that would be embodied in the legislation if the Cabinet were to approve it. The first principle to which I wish to refer is that the State President may at any time order a referendum on any question he formulates by proclamation. This is stated in the Bill we are now considering, is it not? The hon. member for Pietersburg nods affirmatively. Secondly, Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Chinese may participate in referendums. That appears in clause 7 of this Bill. The State President may provide that only one or more of the population groups, or even specific voters of specific regions, may take part in specific referendums. That is stated in this Bill. Thirdly, the voters’ lists drawn up in terms of the existing electoral acts for the various population groups will be used in the referendum. That is stated in this Bill. There is no electoral act for the Chinese and accordingly provision will have to be made for the registration of Chinese. That is stated in this Bill. My problem is this: Either the legislation is not power-sharing, in which case the hon. member for Waterberg did not vote for power-sharing in this regard, or it is indeed power-sharing, in which case the hon. the leader of the CP did vote for it. He must make the choice. The hon. member must make the choice himself. I do not wish to make it for him.

When did I vote for that? [Interjections.]

This is very interesting. The hon. member for Waterberg is again using words to conceal his thoughts. I am replying to a debate in which the hon. member for Waterberg has not taken part.

But his party has.

Yes, I am at present engaged in replying to the speakers. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pietersburg needs to have a discussion with his leader because it is clear that his leader omitted to inform him that he had in fact given his approval to legislation which implies power-sharing. [Interjections.] What is more, the Cabinet, in terms of the normal procedure with regard to decisions, considered the proposals of the Cabinet Committee. At that Cabinet meeting not only the hon. member for Waterberg, but also the hon. member for Lichtenburg were present. Then, too, he gave his approval to these principles. At that stage, therefore, those senior members of the party gave their approval to power-sharing. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Waterberg made a mistake on 20 October and repeated that mistake on 27 October, why does he not stand up and tell us? No one would reproach him for doing so. However, what does he do? He remains silent. Not only does he remain silent: he allows his colleagues behind him, the members of his party, to argue on the basis that he has not yet accepted power-sharing. I regret that we have to argue in this way.

The hon. member for Waterkloof said that this formed part of the legislative process. He said that legislation was in fact only an idea which arose in someone’s mind or at a congress.

Are congresses not part of the legislative process? [Interjections.]

Let us take the hon. member up on his argument. I do not know why he is being so sensitive now. I am merely replying to his own argument. He said that the legislative process originated with ideas that could arise in the mind of the individual or at congresses. I am replying to his own argument. He says that because the result of this mechanism could lead to legislation, it formed part of the legislative process itself. What conclusion does he draw? Surely he will have to concede that such an idea could also arise in the President’s Council. He will have to concede that such an idea, born in the President’s Council, could eventually be put into effect here. This means that the President’s Council also forms part of the legislative process.

You want to make it so.

Nor, the hon. member must not try and get out of it that way.

The hon. member is therefore saying that the President’s Council is part of the legislative process. Let us consider the President’s Council. If I remember correctly, the President’s Council consists of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Chinese …

There is a CP member too.

Yes, there is a CP member too. This is part of the legislative authority, according to the hon. member. Surely, then, the hon. member voted for an integrated legislative authority. Surely that is an inevitable conclusion.

You are convincing no one.

The hon. member cannot escape the consequences of his argument. While this legislation makes provision for referendums on separate voters’ lists where one or more population groups may be consulted, the hon. member for Waterberg voted for an integrated legislative authority, according to his argument. That is the quality of the arguments we have to listen to.

The hon. member continues. He states that the exclusion of the Black people from the provisions of the Bill is only temporary. Referring to what I said, he says outside this House that Black people are also going to be consulted about our constitutional position. Once again I shall simply retrace the steps ofthe hon. member’s colleagues in his party. What are they? According to the hon. member for Waterkloof, the hon. members did not only vote for an integrated legislative body—here I refer of course to the President’s Council—but also voted for a Black council. Under the signature of the hon. member for Rissik they voted for a Black council. What did they say? They said that the committees of the President’s Council that they advocated could hold discussions with committees of the Black council.

Whose proposal was that in the Select Committee?

I ask the hon. member for Waterkloof, if he is now saying outside this House that the Government wants to consult Black people, not to forget to add that he has a document on which the signatures of both the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Brakpan appear in which they accept the principle of consultation with Black people. If he does not do so …

Is that joint decision-making?

I am still coming to that. It is interesting. That is a very interesting question put by the hon. member for Brakpan. [Interjections.] I shall reply to that. When the hon. member for Waterkloof addresses his meetings, both closed and public, he must not forget to tell the whole truth. However, what does the hon. member for Waterkloof do? He refers to the legislation of 1947. Surely, however, the hon. member was himself a member of this House of Assembly when the Act relating to Indian elections was passed.

[Inaudible.]

Surely the hon. member for Waterkloof was a member of this House when the Electoral Act for Indians was passed.

[Inaudible.]

No, wait, just give me a chance. The hon. member for Waterkloof can comment later. However, the statement I want to make is that at one stage the hon. member for Waterkloof voted in favour of legislation providing that non-citizens could vote. That is the only statement I want to make. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Waterkloof went on to allege that I had said that if the constitutional process in this country was to be evolutionary, the voters who appoint the council would have to be persuaded to accept it.

No, that is not true.

Of course it is true.

That is not really so.

Is the hon. member then suggesting that this should not happen? However, I also said—and this the hon. member, omits to say, of course—that if the constitutional changes are to take place, the House of Assembly, Parliament, as now constituted, will have to agree to them. Now, the hon. member for Waterkloof is also aware that the party to which I belong follows certain procedures. The hon. member was himself a party to them at one stage. This party also follows a process of consultation. Surely the hon. member knows that, too. However, what I find remarkable, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. members of the CP find it amazing that our discussions in our caucuses are confidential. From that one can draw a very interesting conclusion, of course. It is that those hon. members never regarded them as such.

Oh shame!

Of course those hon. members never regarded them as confidential. [Interjections.] That is an interesting inference, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps that also explains certain other things that happened when the hon. member for Waterkloof was still a member of our caucus.

Is the book by Ries and Dommisse the truth? [Interjections.]

Oh, be quiet! The hon. member went on to contend that we could ask any questions in a referendum. I agree with that. I said that. However, look at what the hon. member is doing now. He is stirring up emotions. He says that such a question could, for example, relate to whether the Immorality Act should be repealed. Another such question, according to the hon. member for Waterkloof, could be as to whether the Mixed Marriages Act should be repealed. I infer from that that the hon. member for Waterkloof strongly condemns immorality of the nature provided by the Act. I take it that that is so. However, then the hon. member should go and commune with himself, and ask himself whether he, too, has not made representations in connection with people who have been found guilty due to immorality. However, I shall leave it at that.

What are you insinuating now? [Interjections.]

Exactly what I am saying: The hon. member must ask himself whether he …

I have done it in my professional capacity just as you have done it in your professional capacity …

He is now arguing like a “skelm” (sly) attorney.

Order! What did the hon. member for Barberton mean?

Mr. Speaker, I said that the hon. the Minister was arguing like a “skelm” attorney. I withdraw it.

Sir, I can understand the inference drawn by the hon. member for Barberton because he has experience of that.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. the Minister say that he can understand the hon. member’s argument because he has experience of it? My submission is that the hon. the Minister is insinuating that the hon. member for Barberton has acted like a “skelm” attorney on occasion.

Order! What did the hon. the Minister mean by that?

Exactly what I said, Sir. The hon. member has experience of “skelm” attorneys. I made no innuendo whatsoever.

Did the hon. the Minister insinuate that the hon. member was a “skelm” attorney?

No, Mr. Speaker. I said that the hon. member for Barberton ought to know about it, because he has experience of “skelm” attorneys. [Interjections.]

Must I infer that the hon. the Minister is insinuating that the hon. member for Barberton is therefore a “skelm” attorney?

No, Mr. Speaker, and I said that I did not mean it in that way. I said that the hon. member for Barberton apparently had experience of “skelm” attorneys.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The final point to which I want to reply is the statement made by the hon. member for Pietersburg that the CP never accepted joint decision-making. If that is the case, they were disloyal to the former leader of the NP.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, every speaker who has spoken during the course of this debate so far has stated that he is in favour of Press freedom and of the right of people to know what is going on in this country. I said that I believed that it was an essential aspect of any democracy. Given that background, I should like to pose the question: Why should there be a necessity for this Bill, which clearly provides for a further erosion of Press freedom in this country? I should like to suggest some of the reasons why we have this Bill before us now.

First of all, it is because I do not believe that the Government has any respect for democracy. If one looks back over the years that they have been in power, this has been clearly shown over a period of 34 years, and I should like to quote some examples. First of all, there have been assaults on the constitution. We know what happened in the 1950s and what has happened from time to time since. There have been assaults on the courts by reducing the freedom of discretion of the courts and the power of the courts. There have been assaults on the freedom of expression and on the freedom of association. Then there has been the banning of people and assaults on the right to privacy, civil rights, the rule of law and, of course, Press freedom itself. As one goes through any normal bill of rights in the constitutions of many countries, and for example, the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights and others, most of which have many features in common, it is indeed distressing to find that two out of three or more have in fact been violated in this country of ours. The appetite of authoritarian Governments for limiting freedoms is insatiable. This Government has trampled on human rights and stifled dissent for three decades. Yet now it pleads for support against an alleged total onslaught which, to the extent that it exists, is primarily of its own making.

The second reason for the introduction of this Bill is because the apartheid policies of the Government have failed. They have failed in the workplace and we now have more integrated workplaces than we ever had in 1948. The apartheid policies have also failed in sport and in terms of urban migration. It has now been accepted that it has not only failed quantitatively, but also qualitatively. The concept of it being able to work and ensure progress in this country has been accepted as a failure. I need quote no one other than the hon. the Prime Minister himself when, some three years ago, he said that apartheid was a recipe for permanent conflict. I do not think that there can be a greater indictment …

Who said that?

You yourself, Sir, in Upington, I believe, according to a report.

Where do you get your information?

I got it from an article in a Press report of your speech.

You cannot quote me as using those words.

Is it not correct?

No.

Then I withdraw it. I certainly have no intention of putting words into anybody’s mouth. If the hon. the Prime Minister says that he did not use those words, the argument against this Bill is still sufficiently strong without anybody, including myself, having to put words in other people’s mouths. Certainly, it is true that apartheid is a recipe for permanent conflict in this country. The Government, having recognized the failure of its policy, lacked the political courage to spell out the inevitable alternatives.

The third reason for this Bill I should like to highlight is the Government’s need to hide the facts. Over the years the Government has done its best to keep unpleasant truths hidden whenever it could, whether they related to failed policies, Government mismanagement or alleged corruption. The Information Scandal is of course the classic example, but there are also many other examples.

There have been numerous Bills this session restricting the right of newspapers to report on matters. We have restrictions on what can be reported in relation to police, prisons, inquests and many other things. In respect of defence there are widespread restrictions. I do not think that many thinking South Africans will forget what went on some six years ago in Angola and the way our Press reported those incidents. More recently we have had the question of the oil tanker the Salem and that whole incident. The whole world knew what was going on in that connection except ourselves because of Government control. Even now things like departmental shortages in some Government departments are considered as matters that must not be reported on. We have had the banning of the newspaper World, the biggest newspaper amongst Black people in this country and, of course, the banning of numerous other publications, including documents produced on incidents in Cape Town townships during the riots in 1976, documents concerning the treatment of detainees and many other matters.

What is the result of all this? One result is that the Government has no credibility. People just do not believe what they are told any longer. We have heard, in respect of a previous Bill, complaints to the effect that the Government is having difficulty motivating people in relation to what it sees as the defence needs of this country. I believe that part of the difficulty in getting that motivation is that people do not believe what the Government tells them. They have become cynical. Government propaganda through the SABC and elsewhere has an impact, but people remain deeply suspicious of what is actually going on in a number of fields.

More dangerous than this, however, is that when the free flow of information is restricted, societies can lose their capacity to change peacefully. I believe that that is a very real danger we face now. For decades the Government has preached “Swart gevaar”, particularly at election times when it tells people: “Beware of the Blacks; beware of people of colour; do not let them in the work-place; do not let them into the schools; do not let them into your residential areas”. We have had that year after year. For many years apartheid was presented as a success story until it got to the stage where it was impossible to sell it on that basis because it was contrary to the facts. However, indoctrination of supporters is difficult to reverse. This Government is not unique in that respect. If one casts one’s mind back some 15 years to the time when Mr. Ian Smith was having talks with the British Prime Minister of the time on the ships Tiger and Fearless in the Mediterranean, I believe that at that time he made a certain amount of progress towards an accommodation. The problem was, however, that his Government with its propaganda had presented the British Government, the people with whom he was having to deal, as such ogres that when he got back to his own country it was impossible for him, even if he had wanted to—I suspect he may have wanted to, although obviously no one can be sure—to sell an agreement with the British Government to his own people because he had painted himself into a corner through his own propaganda. This, I believe, is happening in South Africa today. Governments and leaders can very easily become the captives of their own progaganda. With the growth of the HNP and, more recently, the CP, I think that hon. members on that side of the House are learning something, something we have known for many years. That is that it is far easier to spread fear and hatred than it is to build mutual trust and goodwill. It is very easy for people to go around and project sectional interests and get support on that basis. However, when one actually has to try to move forward on the basis of mutual trust and good will, that is far more difficult. I think that is the result of propaganda over the years. With increased Press censorship, and people having fewer facts and opinions available, this is a greater danger in the years ahead.

One need only think of the lot of the hon. the Prime Minister in this country. He has played a role as a member of his party—initially as a member of Parliament, subsequently as Minister and eventually as Prime Minister—in the removing of the Coloureds from the common voters’ role, of supporting the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, section 16 of the Immoraility Act, the Group Areas Act and the Separate Amenities Act. He also played a major role as a Minister in the flattening of District 6. Now, after all that, he has to try to educate supporters or potential supporters of his and tell them things such as that Coloureds are not lepers and that people should not worry if schoolchildren have to play sport with them occasionally. He made a dramatic appeal a few weeks ago for people to put themselves in the position of a Coloured man and see things from his point of view. Those are commendable sentiments, but would he be in that position if his party, and he personally, had not over decades supported these various measures which brought about mistrust and hatred between the different races? Without a free Press, more and more facts are suppressed and society becomes increasingly removed from reality. Hard decisions are avoided or delayed, and the people, even intelligent people, have no facts upon which to base their decisions. Ignorance breeds complacency, and that is a recipe for disaster in a society such as ours.

I would like hon. members to compare Argentina and Britain in the current situation. I am not referring to the merits of who is right or who is wrong, but about news information and news statements from these two countries, whom do most people in the world believe? Do they believe what the British authorities say, or what the Argentinian authorities say? I have no doubt in my mind that the vast majority, even many of the allies of the Argentinians, would believe what the British are saying rather than what the Argentinians are saying. Why is that so? It is because the one has a free Press, one that is unfettered and can report on a widespread scale, while the other country is run by an authoritarian system. I think we need to ask ourselves whether we want South Africa to be like Britain or like Argentina when it comes to this matter, and what our realistic expectation is of how people would view what we have to say. In other words, what reliability would they attach to it?

This Bill provides that all newspapers will have to register with a body recognized by regulation by the Minister. This, by definition, means that he has to approve of that body. There is nothing in the Bill that tell us what that body is going to be, other than a “motherhood” clause. The Government is asking for a blank check to control the Press, and if they are asking for a blank check it is only reasonable that we look at what their attitude has been over the years.

Clearly the Government is hostile to the Press. The English and Afrikaans Press, in eluding the Government-supporting Press, do not want this legislation. What is the Government’s record in relation to the free flow of information? I want to quote just two examples. The first example falls under the Publications Act, but it will give hon. members an idea of the attitude of the Government. This was an occasion on which a Publications Advisory Committee gave the reasons for their decision to ban the edition of 5.A. Outlook of November 1977. The committee gave a few reasons and inter alia said that material in that publication which contained speeches which were undesirable included the following: The first I should like to mention is that a certain person—I will not mention the name—”was known as a left-wing activist during his years in South Africa”. It is said that “he left the Republic in 1963 and is at present associated with an Australian university”. This person, in fact, was in Australia for two years and returned to South Africa in 1971, where he has been working and living ever since. The second point they mention as a reason for banning was that “while the photographs of the detainees Dr. Motlana and Mr. Qoboza may not be illegal under the relevant statutes, favourable publicity for them could be calculated to harm the peace and good order, particularly in the case of the editor of a prohibited publication. At the time the photographs were published Mr. Qoboza and Dr. Motlana were still being detained”. Those are the sort of reasons given.

Last night I was interested to hear the hon. member for Bloemfontein North saying, and I quote from his unedited Hansard—

I should like to contrast that with a statement by the hon. member for clip River which was reported. He, apparently, in 1970 said—

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member said he quoted me, but that was not part of my speech yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I did not say the hon. member made a speech here. I said he was quoted as having said that in 1970. I was not referring to his speech last night. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, since this Bill was first discussed here yesterday, a great deal has happened which has a bearing on the Bill. However, we have not yet heard anything from the hon. the Minister, who is usually very talkative, so we take it that what was said at Second Reading still applies and that it has not been possible to reach any agreement.

I am a person who listens very attentively in this House. I even listen to hon. members such as the hon. members for clip River, Benoni and Umfolozi. Sometimes I even sacrifice my tea-break to come and listen to what hon. members of the NRP have to say. Hon.members must forgive me if I listen a little noisily at times, but this is usually a way of indicating my surprise at the logic which is employed here.

This session, I would say, has been very strongly characterized by the kind of twisted logic used by the other side of the House in an attempt to justify a whole series of control measures. This legislation is only the cherry on that cake of control. We have become accustomed to the twisted logic, verbal contortions and contradictory phrases. For example, when we were discussing the Commission for Co-operation and Development, we heard from the hon. member for clip River that an open discussion could be better conducted in secret. We heard that the scientific method of inquiry should not be submitted to one’s collaborators for their inspection. These are all contradictions in terms. The hon. the Minister himself is an expert at entangling himself in his own logic. As soon as he discovers the truth or logic and it begins to hurt him, he begins to qualify it or to add riders. I have drawn his attention to the way in which he usually qualifies logic or the truth. Now we have this piece of legislation, which is essentially a contradiction in terms. Surely it is a contradiction in terms to speak of “compulsory self-discipline”. Self-discipline in a free society is that kind of responsibility which goes with positive freedom. It means that in a free society one is free to do certain things. One cannot legislate for that. It is true that one can lay down negative freedoms in legislation, such as freedom from prosecution or from being arrested without the necessary reasons. Freedom is not divisible either. One is either free or under constraint, with the result that self-discipline which is voluntarily exercised cannot be viewed as constraint. It is only responsibility. Therefore it must be voluntary. When self-discipline is enforced from outside, it is no longer self-discipline. Then we can no longer speak of freedom; then one speaks of constraint. It is impossible to speak of “compulsory freedom”.

The hon. the Minister says that the object of the legislation is to help the NPU to exercise “self-discipline and self-organization from within its own ranks”. Once again, this is flawed logic and a way of playing with words, because compulsory registration is not support. Compulsory registration makes a mockery of the concept of “from within their own ranks”. Surely “their own ranks” means that members from a voluntary association of those who feel drawn to one another and who are able to accept others as members. The Minister goes on to allege that he wants to help them to help themselves. He wants to augment their ranks through compulsion. When help is declined, it is no longer help. If one goes ahead when one’s help has been declined, it is at the very least interference, if it is still tolerated. If those who are being “helped” have to shout, grumble, complain, agitate and beg to be left alone, then it is no longer interference only, but plain tyranny. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has read his newspaper this morning. The hon. the Minister is so omniscient, and on top of that he is so fond of hitting the headlines that one wonders whether he ever reads them. So I shall tell the hon. the Minister what has happened since he made his Second Reading speech here yesterday. Last night the entreaties went on and this morning Die Burger reports: “Verteenwoordigers van die Persunie en die Konferensie van Redakteurs het gis-teraand ter elfder ure probeer om die perswetgewing van die Regering gewysig te kry voordat dit deur die Parlement aanvaar word.” Adv. De Villiers, the managing director of Nasionale Pers, said: “Die Persunie het steeds beginselbesware teen die wetsontwerp en hy voel die Regering het hiermee ‘n beginsellyn oorgesteek wat nie vir die Persunie aanvaarbaar is nie.” Naturally, the Press is not opposed to self-discipline. But they would like to exercise it from their own ranks. They want to proceed with the proposed media council which they wanted to establish from their own ranks, but membership of that council had to be voluntary. They clearly tell the Minister: “We do not want such a function in respect of others to be forced upon us directly or indirectly by means of legislation.” They conclude by saying: “We make urgent representations to the Minister.” Is the hon. the Minister going to accede to those urgent representations, or is he going ahead with his medicine which Grandpa Steyn prescribed for naughty children: One must help the child so that he can help himself or one must discipline the child so that he can discipline himself. The NPU is a responsible and adult organ which needs neither the hon. the Minister’s discipline nor his help. I think they can look after their own affairs.

Looking at the legislation, one wonders what the hon. the Minister actually wants to achieve. What does he want to bring under control that has not already been brought under control? In South Africa today, the Press is as free as any person is to walk through a minefield or as free as a bird whose wings have been clipped. It is true that the Press has been exempted from the provisions of the Publications Act, but there is a multiplicity of other statutes and laws that are applicable to the Press. There are too many of these to mention them all, but there are restrictions all the way from the front page to the sports pages. Yes, even the back pages of Rapport and the Sunday Times are subject to legislation. Apart from ordinary common law, there are also the Commissions Act, the Prisons Act, the Defence Act, the Official Secrets Act, etc., etc. Therefore the hon. the Minister has a lot of sticks for naughty children if he wants to reprimand them. But what does he want to do now? He wants to force these naughty children upon an honourable family, which is not at all inclined to adopt those naughty children, so that they can supposedly exercise “self-discipline”. For whom is this discipline meant? In the proposed section 47(l)(a)(i) of the Publications Act, reference is made to “persons disseminating news”. This definition of a journalist or of the Press itself indicates the total misconception which that Government has of what the Press actually is.

News is only the factual reporting of events. Even in this case, there are absolutely no criteria for ascertaining what is a factual account. For example, I read a report in Rapport on Sunday, which appeared under the heading—

Hon. members who were present here, however, know that the only blood which flowed that day flowed from certain people’s backs! [Interjections.]

Apart from the object of providing information, what else do we have? The Press has to comment on the news, and in addition to that, it tries to convince people of matters of principle which really have nothing to do with a specific news item.

Then there is also the question of investigative journalism, which simply aggravates the problem with regard to the laying down of norms. We know about the whining of the Government when the Information scandal had just begun. Two charges were laid from the Office of the Prime Minister. The cases were heard by the Press Council and rulings were given. However, the charges were subsequently proved to have been unfounded when the true facts emerged.

The Press also has an educational task, and then the matter becomes completely subjective. What criteria can be used, other than those endorsed by a group itself? After all, education is that which is not controversial. Astronomy, for example, is regarded as education by left-wing and right-wing groups, but as soon as the element of contentiousness is added, one can no longer speak of a purely educational task. Then it actually becomes a propaganda task. Singing the praises of free enterprise is education in America, for example, but propaganda in Russia. In the same way, communism is education to a Soviet baby, but here it is propaganda. Therefore it is very difficult to lay down any norms at this stage in the history of our country. The Black period or the lessons from Africa may point to two different solutions. The one says: Share power, come along, or chaos will ensue. The other one says: Divide power, segregate, or chaos will ensue. Therefore propaganda is an essential part of Press activities. It is persuading people to accept a standpoint. The method one uses is to exploit or utilize the existing attitudes of people which will further one’s own cause. In this way, for example, if one takes one’s stand on accepted religious Western norms, one once again arrives at the answer: Come with me, let us share power. When one appeals to people’s fears, one can say: Let us divide power.

If the one group believes, then, that the other one is playing dirty politics, it would be extremely foolish to force such groups into the same organization by means of legislation. It is the same as saying that night-soil removers should be subjected to the professional code of engineers, because both groups are concerned with sanitary services! [Interjections.] The Press simply cannot be compared with other professions.

We saw earlier this year what had happened even in the health services of the country, and this is after all a sphere in which the standards are considerably more objective. We saw that the medical practitioners were not quite satisfied with the service which was being rendered by the chiropractors, for example. In the same way, those people were not prepared to subject themselves voluntarily to the Medical Council, and therefore we now have two councils. For once, therefore, one can take a page from the book of the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare.

If someone does not want to subject himself to control voluntarily, there are other means that can be used to keep him in check. Not the least of the other methods is to use the reading public, those people who buy the newspaper. For example, I shall never pay 40 cents for a copy of Die Patriot, because it does not contain a crossword puzzle. On the other hand, I love to buy Rapport—it is a puzzle from beginning to end! The puzzle of trying to find out what Wimpie De Klerk is actually trying to say has been occupying me for years.

I ask the hon. the Minister, at this eleventh hour, to show his willingness and to keep negotiating. Let us not add this Bill to that long list of blunders with regard to Japanese jockeys and so on which has damaged or reputation in the Free World, especially now that we need our friends. If the Bill is placed on the Statute Book in its present form, the Government’s contribution to the onslaught on South Africa will be total.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Greytown I am also inclined to pay careful attention to what is said in the House. In particular, I have listened attentively to speeches by the hon. members of the official Opposition in this debate. I shall come back to this presently.

At the outset I want to say that I have a high opinion of the South African media in general. If this had not been so I would not have devoted more than half my life so far to the media and I would not have been a part of them. I also think that generally speaking, the media are fairly responsible, but that is not to say that they are not also the victims from time to time of incidents of irresponsibility and of offences against individuals and society. In such cases it is only right that such people should also be entitled to exoneration and correction.

† As I have said, I have listened with great interest during this debate to the speeches by the hon. members of the great PFP. The more I have listened to those great politicians and great propagandists the more I became convinced that I was absolutely right in comparing their behaviour with that of the late Dr. Joseph Goebbels, as I did during the discussion of the Foreign Affairs vote last year. What Dr. Goebbels believed was that if one repeated an untruth often enough it ultimately became a truth, and if one listened carefully to the speeches by hon. members of the PFP in this debate one cannot come to any conclusion other than that they believe the same.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Benoni said that Dr. Goebbels, who was the Nazi Minister of Propaganda in Hitler’s Third Reich, believed if an untruth was repeated often enough—for untruth read “lie”—it ultimately became a truth. The hon. member for Benoni says it is obvious from what we have said in this debate that that is what we in the PFP believe. What he is in effect saying, is that the PFP is trying to repeat an untruth sufficiently often in order to make it acceptable as a truth. [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon. member for Benoni mean by that comparison? Did he mean it as a reflection on hon. members of the PFP?

No, Mr. Speaker. I was only pointing out that this was what Dr. Goebbels believed.

†When one listens to the terminological inexactitudes of that party, which we have heard at great length now, it is clear that they believe that if one repeats untruths often enough people will accept it as the truth.

Did the hon. member for Benoni mean that statement as a reflection on hon. members of the PFP?

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not mean it as a reflection on the PFP. I mean it as symptomatic of their conduct. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Benoni may proceed.

I shall say modus operandi instead, and in order to save time, I have no objection to withdrawing the implication they read into it. However, I do not read it into my statement.

†I am nonetheless grateful to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens for reminding me of that incident last night, because I believe it is particularly appropriate to the issue which we are discussing in this debate. I shall like to point out to that hon. member that I was in very good company when I referred to Hitler’s Propaganda Minister in the way in which I did during the discussion of the Foreign Affairs Vote last year. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens knows, or ought to know, that during the Second World War it was common practice amongst the enemies of the Third Reich to refer sarcastically to Dr. Goebbels in this way. Among the people who did so was none other than Sir Winston Churchill. They did so because Dr. Goebbels was a bigoted, shrivelled little man with a club foot, who would have been funny if what he was doing had not been so immensely tragic.

I wonder therefore whether the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens would have the temerity now to try to create the impression that Sir Winston Churchill was an admirer of the great Dr. Joseph Goebbels, as the hon. member tried to do last night about me. That is why I asked the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens if he was aware that when I made that reference I was equating the behaviour of the PFP with that of Dr. Goebbels. I am grateful for his admission that he was aware of it, and I am also grateful for his statement last night that he was also aware that I had a low opinion of his party. That is precisely the point. I have exactly the same low opinion of the great PFP that I have of the great Dr. Goebbels, and for precisely the same reasons, of course. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens saw fit to repeat this untruth about me again last night. There are responsible journalists among the Opposition media too. When this incident occurred in the discussion on the Foreign Affairs Vote last year, the political correspondent of The Sunday Tribune, which is not a newspaper which normally supports the Government, had the good grace to telephone me and to ask me whether I was in fact an admirer of Dr. Goebbels. I must say that he had a commendable incredulity in his voice when he asked me that question. I told him not to be silly, and to read my Hansard. He left it at that, but not The Cape Times and The Sunday Times. Both of these newspapers selectively quoted from my Hansard. They deliberately left out all my references to the PFP, and printed a report to create the impression that I was, in fact, an admirer of Dr. Josef Goebbels. If that is not exactly the kind of method that was used by Dr. Goebbels in the Third Reich, then what is? I think that The Sunday Tribune acted decently and responsibly, although it is an opposition newspaper, and that The Sunday Times and The Cape Times did not. I think also that that was a case where I would have had reason to complain to the Press Council, but it is a futile exercise. Last night the hon. member for Simonstown pointed out that we on this side of the House have difficulty in gaining access to the Press Council, whereupon the hon. member for Sandton said: “No that is not the problem. You can get access, but you will not get them to find in your favour.”

I never said that!

Sir, I have the hon. member’s Hansard here.

Read it!

You are twisting my words.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Sandton allowed to say that the hon. member for Benoni is twisting his words? [Interjections.]

That is not the intention I tried to convey last night.

The hon. member may proceed.

However, the point is that one does not, in fact, have reasonable access to the Press Council if one does not agree with the viewpoints of Opposition newspapers, and I want to cite a case in point. Immediately before the general election in April 1981 the NP of the Cape placed an advertisement in The Cape Times, and before that advertisement was published, that newspaper divulged its contents to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition so that he could simultaneously comment on it and nullify its effects free of charge. Thereupon the hon. member for Maitland, in his capacity as information officer of the NP of the Cape, made a statement complaining about this unacceptable behaviour. The editor of The Cape Times replied, and said that this “accorded with the long-held traditions of fairness at The Cape Times, and with the spirit of the Press code of conduct”, and he added that he “would welcome the matter being placed before the Press Council.” Well, the NP took up the invitation. It was placed before the Press Council, and what happened? On 8 August, when the hearing was about to take place, the chairman of the Press Council issued the following statement—

The Cape Times—

If one is therefore a medium supporting the Opposition and somebody with a different point of view seeks redress of a wrong, and one simply does not want to take part in the voluntary discipline, then one does not. Then that is the end of that, because the wronged public simply has no right to redress. We on this side of the House are all in favour of voluntary discipline.

Voluntary?

Voluntary discipline, yes!

Then why do you support this Bill?

The media can lay down their own norms and standards. It makes a mockery of any form of discipline, however, if the people to be disciplined can themselves choose whether they should be disciplined or not, and that is why we also feel that that kind of voluntary discipline is no discipline at all. It makes a mockery of the whole situation unless such measures are given teeth. We hold the view that if the NPU is unable or unwilling to give teeth to its own creation, it must be assisted to do so.

It must be forced, you mean.

Otherwise its own creators make a mockery of it, to the detriment of the free society in which we live and to the detriment of the freedom of the Press, because the public—as the hon. member for Sandton quite rightly says—is entitled to all the facts, not only some of the facts, and if all the facts are not published, there must be a right to redress, and that right to redress must have teeth. I think that I have adequately illustrated that under the present dispensation …

Kangaroo court.

… the public was not accorded that right.

I just want to say in passing that I am in wholehearted agreement with the hon. member for Durban Point on this issue, as I am in agreement with him about his comments on the official Opposition, because Dr. Goebbels had several characteristics, amongst which one could mention his inaccuracy with facts and his inclination to insult people, to hurl invective against people who disagreed with him. That is, of course, what those hon. members did last night. The hon. member for Sandton hurled insults at the hon. the Minister, saying that he had not spoken a single sincere word in the whole of his speech. He also hurled insults at the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance. The hon. member for Pinelands also hurled insults at the hon. member for Durban Point and, in doing so—a characteristic he shares with Goebbels—misquoted the hon. the Prime Minister in order to make his point. The hon. the Prime Minister never said that the hon. member for Durban Point was an anachronism. He said that the political party was an anachronism, but he did not say that the hon. member for Durban Point was an anachronism. The hon. member for Pinelands said that the hon. member for Durban Point even looks like an anachronism. Well, I do not know what an anachronism looks like, but I do know what Dr. Goebbels looked like. I have seen film-clips of him and I have also seen various pictures of him.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has not only emerged as the Goebbels of the PFP, but he actually looks like him too.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Since that hon. member said previously that Dr. Goebbels was a shrunken, misshapen little creature, is he permitted to say that an hon. member for this House looks like him? Surely it is unparliamentary to refer to the physical appearance of an hon. member.

Order! What did the hon. member for Benoni mean by his reference?

Mr. Speaker, I am not responsible for the fact that he looks like Dr. Goebbels. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Pinelands can say that the hon. member for Durban Point looks like an anachronism, surely I am entitled to say that somebody looks like somebody he does indeed look like. [Interjections.]

Order! The House has been told that Dr. Goebbels was not a person with a good appearance. Is the hon. member for Benoni suggesting, therefore, that an hon. member of the Opposition may be compared with Dr. Goebbels?

I said Dr. Goebbels was a bigoted, small little man with a club foot.

*I concede that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens does not have that disability, but I want to point out that big people are often called “Tiny”. Because Dr. Goebbels was short in stature, and bigoted as well, there was a tendency to refer to him sarcastically as the “great” Dr. Goebbels.

Mr. Speaker, it is curious that legislation of this nature should have been submitted to us at this stage, just before the recess. We cannot help asking why this legislation should have been introduced at this particular time. I think it is the first time in the history of this country that the Opposition Press, and the Press in general, has given its support to the Government as it is doing today. However, I think the Press will learn to its cost, just as we in these benches have learnt, that is more dangerous to support the Government than to oppose it. It is more dangerous, because it places one within striking distance, within reach of its blows. I think the hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. member for Lichtenburg have certainly experienced that, as have all of us on this side of the House. I do not believe that we have a hostile Press in the sense that all should be labelled with the same tag. That is not true. When a person like Advocate De Villiers expresses concern about the way in which the representatives of the NPU have been dealt with and about this legislation, one has to ask oneself: Why is this legislation being introduced and why is it being done in such haste? We know that there has been a battle between the free Press and the Government over the years. Frequently it was not the Government that was at fault. Often there were occasions when the Government was entitled to withdraw certain rights of newspapers. People have written doctoral theses about the battle between the Press and the Government. One thinks, for example, of a book called the Press as Opposition, written in England by a very decent young lady, Elaine Potter. She has her doctorate today because she made a thorough study of the Press in South Africa. In this book one reads some things which really give one food for thought. In the early sixties, there was an attack on Dr. Verwoerd when he was being undermined by the leftists. The hon. the Minister laughs, but I shall show him in a minute. Hon. members must listen carefully. It is good reading. Under the heading ‘ Die Burger against Verwoerd, the Colour question” we read the following—

Attempts were being made at the time to undermine the authority of Dr. Verwoerd, but he was a very strong man. Verwoerd won that battle.

“Dr.” Verwoerd.

Yes, thank you very much. Dr. Verwoerd. It goes on to say in this book—

† This is exactly what is happening today in politics. This is what Dr. Jan Grobler said. He said we have to get the Coloureds and the Indians to form a bulwark against the Blacks. This is not consociation. What is it in fact? It is confrontation, if one considers it in that light.

*Now we come to the Press. The Press will be caught napping if they do not use every legitimate means at their disposal to oppose this legislation. Of course, the Minister will say that I do not know the legislation. Every time one advances an argument, he says one does not know the legislation and one is misinterpreting it. I want to say that if one change is made in a combination of three or four laws on the Statute Book, there will be no freedom of the Press in South Africa.

The hon. member for Rissik said that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. I agree with that wholeheartedly. Because there is so little time, and because there are times when one has to believe the Government and when one has to assume that there are perhaps other threats, we are unwilling, as a matter of principle, to take the chance of disregarding the point which the Government may have. We cannot do that if the possibility exists that we may be in danger in South Africa. However, we have serious misgivings about the method which is being used and the way in which people are being forced in terms of legislation to do certain things.

There is something else I should like to read—

†That refers to Dr. Verwoerd. Now we come to another question. We turn to a man called Mr. Gandar.

Are you going to read the whole book?

It will be educational for you, my friend. I quote—

I think we have to realize that some people can be a nuisance to a country and sometimes present a problem. What is said, however? The approach is “adapt or perish”. That was said in 1960. Now the hon. the Prime Minister says “adapt or die”. With this legislation the NP is at this moment trying to drive a friendly Press right into a corner and is at the same time trying to keep away from the people the news that the NP has become a liberal intergrationist party.

You are lying!

The NP does not want the Press to spread that story.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries allowed to say that the hon. member is lying?

I suppose the hon. the Minister knows what he is talking about.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member for Langlaagte may proceed.

I think it is an evil day when this legislation, which we wanted to be referred to a Select Committee, is simply being put before the House at this stage of the session. When a party has a majority in this House, it is probably entitled to do so and, in the process, to disregard the rights of the minority. Is the Government justified—we understand that to a large extent, no agreement was reached with the NPU—in pushing through this legislation in the way it is doing? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, before I address you on the Bill I want to react to what the hon. member for Benoni had to say a short while ago. I am sorry that he is not in the House at the moment, because I want to tell him that he is as objectionable in this House as he was on television.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “objectionable”.

I withdraw it. Mr. speaker, the hon. member is as distasteful in the House …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “distasteful”.

I withdraw the word “distasteful”. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is as distasteful … at least unacceptable …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “distasteful”.

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.] The hon. member leaves as bad a taste in the mouth in this House …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words unconditionally.

Which words must I withdraw, Mr. Speaker?

The hon. member must withdraw the words he has just used.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I submit that the hon. member for Constantia is deliberately challenging the authority of the Chair. [Interjections.] Furthermore, I submit that provision is made in the standing orders for the way in which you should deal with the hon. member. I am of the opinion that the conduct of the hon. member warrants the strongest possible censure. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Constantia may proceed.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Benoni makes the same impression on me as a member of this House as he made on me when he appeared on television. The hon. member distanced himself from what he referred to as the “great” Dr. Joseph Goebbels on 18 September last year, and it is good that he did so. However, nothing will change the public’s view, or my judgment of the hon. member, that when he was on television he projected as a propagandist, as a sour-tongue propagandist. That hon. member, in the Hansard of 18 September, also admitted in this House that he was a member of the NP when he went to work for the SABC. Sir, that showed on his television programmes.

Everybody belongs to some party or another.

Yes, but you showed it.

You showed a bias.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with what the hon. member for Durban Point had to say in this debate yesterday, as well as with some other points. I have the hon. member for Durban Point’s Hansard and I want to take issue with him on two important matters. Before I do so, I would just like to make some comments on the position of the NRP. I think that when the definitive history of this second part of the century is written, that party and its predecessor are going to be judged very harshly. That party has been found wanting when it come to matters of freedom. Today we are opening the door to Government control of the Press in a significant way. We are being asked to accept a Bill which is going to be a license for the Government to kill a newspaper. The members of the NRP, instead of being what they normally are, which is simply wishy-washy, have gone one step further in this debate and have actually accepted and supported that principle, the principle that grants the Government a license to kill a newspaper. My opinion of the NRP has always been fairly low. [Interjections.] It has reached a new low point in this debate. I suppose that one cannot expect too much from a party which is a rump of a rump of a rump, and the ultimate rump is the hon. member for Durban Point. When you have finished carving up a whale on a whaling ship there are a few lumps of blubber left around on the deck. That is the way in which I see the NRP. It seems that the only member with a bit of backbone is the hon. member for King William’s Town. I wonder what he says about his party’s stand on this Bill.

Let us have a look at what the hon. member for Durban Point said. He said that the essence of his approach to the Steyn Commission was that he would support a body controlled by the media themselves. He went on to say that he opposed a body that might have been dominated by the Government. So far, so good. That is fair enough. Then he went on to say—

That is what the hon. member for Durban Point said. He went on to say that this gives the media a blank check to set up their own council.

The hon. member for Durban Point should read the Bill. The Bill makes it absolutely clear what is being proposed. What is being proposed in clause 3, is that unless a newspaper subscribes itself to a body which is “recognized by regulation”, it will be liable to have its registration withdrawn. Those are the keywords of the whole Bill: “… a body … which is recognized by regulation;”. Every hon. member in this House understands what that means. It means that the hon. the Minister, the Government, must accept that body. They have to accept that body before it can be recognized by regulation. That is a tremendous power that is being given to the Government in this matter. It is a tremendous power. It means that the Government must first be satisfied with that body. It must be satisfied with its membership, regulations, scope and penalties. In fact, it must be satisfied with the whole body. What we are doing now, is that we are giving this Government an absolute sword of Damocles to say to the Press: “You set up a council that we are happy with. You set up a council comprised as we wish to see it comprised, then we will recognize it.”

Then it can operate, but until it is recognized by regulation, that hon. Minister has tremendous bargaining power and that is why he is sitting there so smugly.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he belongs to a political party which is registered and recognized by the Government?

Yes, but it cannot be deregistered. You know that perfectly well.

If that is the stand of the hon. member for Durban Point it is mind-bogglingly stupid. He knows that the terms of the Act which governs political parties is well defined, very well defined down to the last detail, but in this Bill we are being asked to give a blank cheque to the hon. the Minister to accept by regulation a body which is left entirely undefined. If the hon. members of the NRP cannot see the extent of that blank cheque, then honestly …

He defined it very well last night.

He cannot deregister a political party, but here the hon. the Minister has the right to simply “kill off’ a newspaper completely.

He has done it already.

There is a world of difference.

There is an absolute world of difference. The Government will be able to instruct any newspaper to toe the line or get “killed off’. It is obviously a formula for a cat’s-paw by the Government over the Press.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he had negotiations with the members of the NPU or any representatives of the Press in respect of the composition of such a body? Would the hon. the Minister wish to nominate any of the members of such a body and have there been discussions regarding that matter? The hon. the Minister is silent and I believe we are entitled to read into that silence what we wish to read into it.

That makes us more frightened than ever.

The hon. members of the NRP blandly say that this gives the media a blank cheque to set up their own council and that this is a totally innocuous Bill. What does the NPU say? They say—and I quote from a statement—

By themselves.

Order! The hon. member may not quote from a newspaper.

I am quoting from a statement by the NPU. I would like to ask the hon. member for Durban Point if he would accept a situation in which politicians were to be made subject to a body which was licensed by the Government? Would he accept that. Of course he would not! Any hon. member of this House is subordinate to the discipline of this House while he sits here and we are subordinate to the discipline of our party caucuses because we choose to belong to them. Would we, however, make ourselves, our utterances, our performances and our commentaries in public subject to a body to be licensed by the Government? It is an absolute mockery.

The other thing I wish to take issue on with the NRP is the comment of the hon. member for Durban Point when he said the following—

The hon. member for Durban Point reveals the most abysmal understanding of the Press and Press freedom when he makes that statement. What about the readers and the circulation which is the lifeblood of a newspaper? If a newspaper cannot attract readers, it cannot develop circulation and it cannot command advertising rates and advertisers. What about the libel laws? The point has been made that they are responsible under the libel laws. What about the whole network of laws that circumscribe the Press? The point about this whole debate and Press freedom is that the newspapers do not want special privileges. They are not asking for any right that an individual does not demand or that an individual is not granted under law. The only right they ask, subject to all the laws of the land, is to publish the truth as they see it.

The ones they like to publish.

The truth as they see it, just like that hon. member, as a politician, publishes the truth as he sees it and the truth as he likes to see it moreover.

I do not have the say of the media.

Well, that is your problem. The concept of Press freedom is, in other words, not a demand for license to operate beyond the law. It is simply a demand to be equal before the law with every other citizen. It is not a demand to operate without self-discipline either. Any newspaper worth its salt exercises self-discipline as part of its existence. There are, of course, as in any situation, a few exceptions which one could mention. There are also exceptions in regard to particular public figures and the public knows how to deal with them. When a Eugene Terre ‘blanche gets up and makes mad statements, the public recognizes the irresponsibility of such a person and at the same time they recognize the responsibility of a person such as Dr. Slabbert. The Government is showing an appalling lack of confidence in public discretion when it suggests that all newspapers have to be lumped together because of the sins of commission of a few. The public is able to exercise a great deal of discretion in these matters. The trouble with Press freedom is that it is not something that can simply be handed down from generation to generation. It has to be fought for and vigilance has to be exercised all the time. I say to the NRP that they have failed South Africa in this debate.

We are not concerned about your opinion.

The Government has failed South Africa for a generation in respect of this matter. There has always been somebody from the Government lurking in the long grass ready to pounce on the Press, and this is just the latest example of a long history. The NP’s idea of Press freedom seems to be the freedom to publish things which fall into the framework and the pattern of Government policy and the Government’s way of thinking. Its approach also seems to be to suppress anything which it regards as hurtful or embarrassing to itself. The Government is seeking a docile, controlled and subservient Press and it has made this fact clear over the years. If nothing else were to apply in judging this Bill, the one thing that should apply is the principle that a pear tree does not yield a plum.

This Government has introduced this Bill against the background of its total performance in respect of Press freedom over the years. It has always avoided the direct, crude assault because that is a little too close to the actions of a Goebbels and the Nazis of this world. It has always avoided the direct and brutal approach but the continued strategy on the part of the Government over the years has been to close in upon the Press indirectly as far as it possibly can; to tighten the noose with a web of laws that restrict the Press and now, finally, to try to bully and bludgeon the Press itself into some form of body which will dominate it. This Bill will give the Government the right to do that—to bludgeon the Press into appointing a body to exercise discipline but also the right to negotiate the composition of that body and the nature of that body. That is something that we will fight all along the line in this House in respect of this Bill. The difference between a totalitarian system and a democratic system is that under a democracy it is recognized that more than one view has its place. It is in this context that we find the spirit of Voltaire who said—

That is the sort of spirit that should operate in a democracy and that is the sort of spirit that is under assault by this Government.

Mr. Speaker, I find it most interesting that the Government has withdrawn its speakers from this debate. [Interjections.] Is it perhaps because they find it very difficult to support this piece of legislation or is it perhaps because of the underhanded and sneaky way in which they seek to put it through? I have never known any piece of legislation to go through this House in this way before. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member has just said that this Bill is being put through this House in an underhanded and sneaky way. I object to that remark, Sir and I say that it is un parliamentary language.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “underhand and sneaky”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them and I shall say that it is an unorthodox way to put legislation through.

Before I proceed with what I wanted to say, I should like to address myself to the hon. member for Benoni. With great restraint I shall not comment upon him personally, but I should like to comment on one idea he tried to put across in this House. He said that if a lie was told often enough, people would start to believe it.

I did not say that.

No, that is what you said.

That is what Goebbels said, and the hon. member for Benoni obviously agrees with that. [Interjections.] I should like to remind the hon. member of something else. In order to tell lies and carry on telling lies, one needs to have control of the media. [Interjections.] One will never, never be able to get away with that where there is a free Press, because a free Press will expose the lies. Obviously that is something completely beyond the understanding of that hon. member.

He also referred to a case in The Cape Times during the election. I do not want to comment on the merits or demerits of that particular case, but I should like to mention one other thing to the hon. member for his consideration. That is that newspapers which support his party would not even accept an advertisement of our party. [Interjections.]

That shows one how free they are. [Interjections.]

I now come to the few remarks made by the hon. member for Langlaagte. It is most interesting to find that the CP is now opposing this Bill. I wonder what those hon. members would have been doing had they still been sitting on the other side of the House. I am sure they would have been supporting the Bill. It is very interesting and a lesson for all of us, I think, to see that things look slightly different when one gets to this side of the House.

Except for the NRP, though.

They are trying to get on the other side. [Interjections.]

I am sure that there are many hon. members on that side of the House who are not entirely happy with the Bill. I am sure that there are hon. members on that side of the House who do not support the Bill and who are not very happy in going along with it. The problem with the hon. members on that side of the House is that they do not think for themselves; they have to be programmed first and we have seen this time again in this House.

I now come to the media. The media are the public’s main source and often the public’s only source of information. The freedom to publish information or ideas is essential to a democratic government in this country. Traditionally the main threat to any democratic form of government has been the people themselves who wield the power. Threats come from a number of sources. I shall accept that they come from subversive organizations and so on, but one of the main threats to freedom and democracy has come from those who are in power and who want to entrench themselves in power. This is why in the past in their wisdom our legislations separated the executive from the legislature, and this prevented abuse of power. They separated the judiciary, and this also prevented abuse of power.

In this whole structure it is the Press who is the watchdogs. It is the Press that keeps the public informed. It is the Press that keeps the politicians on their toes and makes sure that there are no abuses in the system.

Here I want to respond to something which the hon. member for Bloemfontein North said yesterday. He insinuated that our party was trying to curry favour with the Press by opposing the Bill. I have never in my life heard such a lot of nonsense. We are opposing the Bill because we fear for our society without a free Press. Look at societies round the world and look at those who do not have a free Press—we do not want that. We fear for the retention of our democratic principles. People must be able to stand up and say what they like, to whom they like and when they like as mentioned by the hon. member for Constantia. Without a free Press everything that takes place in this House will be absolutely pointless. We might then as well pack up our bags and go home. That Press gallery up there is the place from where we learn what happens outside of this House, what people think outside of this House. It is also from that very Press gallery that the public outside is being informed about what takes place inside this House and what is being done by the representatives of the electorate in this House.

Mike, do you really believe that?

Well, I am referring to things said in this House which are of relevance. We should not forget that the Press is also very discerning. [Interjections.] Without a free Press the whole existence of this House will become pointless. We may then as well pack up and go home.

In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister made one remark which I believe is absolutely true. It is a remark with which I really agree. He said—

That is absolutely true. One can go throughout the world, to countries behind the Iron Curtain, look at their newspapers and tell what their governments will be like. We can look at the newspapers of countries to the north of us and likewise tell what their governments will be like. Our friends in the world, the countries with which we Eke to associate ourselves, are all countries of the Western block. They are all countries where legislation such as this will not be found.

This piece of legislation flows from the report of the Steyn Commission and I believe this is a Commission which has by now been thoroughly discredited. [Interjections.] The Commission’s treatment of the evidence contained in its report is completely biased. Evidence which is not in accordance with the ideas of the members of the Steyn Commission is either overlooked or rejected. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to a little booklet which appeared the day before yesterday. The title of this little booklet is “Distrust in Democracy—A Lawyers’ for Human Rights commentary on the Report of the Steyn Commission into the mass media.” In this little booklet the authors have had the opportunity of going in depth into the Steyn Commission, of looking at the Commission’s treatment of evidence, and it is quite horrifying to note that we find ourselves in a situation now in which we have legislation which is based on the recommendations contained in the Steyn Commission report. Any legislation based on that report can in fact only be of a highly dubious nature. We are now in a situation in South Africa in which, I believe, the Government is becoming more and more authoritarian. This has also been illustrated by other speakers on this side of the House. What are the characteristics of the Government which prove that it is indeed becoming more and more authoritarian? Firstly, they are unwilling to make changes. They place more emphasis on maintaining the structure of their own hierarchy than on anything else. Secondly, they are unwilling to adapt to changing times, and they do not take note of public dissatisfaction with the Government. So, what do they do? They begin to apply oppressive legislation. We have had many examples of that during this session. As just one example I can refer to the Internal Security Bill. If that is not oppressive legislation, I do not know what is. Now we have this Bill before us today, a Bill which will in fact enable the hon. the Minister, should he deem it fit, to silence the Press and stop them from saying things he does not like being said. [Interjections.] The Government is clearly operating here on the principle of killing the messenger if you do not like the message. [Interjections.]

That is patently untrue!

Chris, you are going to stop Die Afrikaner and Die Patriot, and you know that! [Interjections.]

Another point which is not being taken into consideration is the effect that this Bill is going to have on our friends in the West. I think many of us realize the extent to which they lean over backwards to accommodate us and what they really do for us. [Interjections.] One of the reasons why we can call these countries in the West our friends, is because we still retain some credibility, because we at least have a free Press in this country. Once we start tampering with that, our credibility with our friends in the West is going to decline. Once again I come to the question why this legislation should be before us today. We have a host of laws, and I do not want to enumerate them as other speakers have quoted these laws that, in fact, restrict the activities of the Press and determine what they may report and what they may not report. What is wrong with the Press at the present moment? Hon. members on the other side repeatedly say that the Press must put their house in order, but what are they doing that is wrong? Not one hon. member on that side has, in fact, told us why the Press must put their house in order.

I have told you why.

Not one speaker on the Government side has given us specific examples.

I cited an example.

One does not destroy a whole system that has been working well since the beginning of Union because of one example. I would welcome some examples from the hon. the Minister of what is wrong, and what the Press need to do to put their house in order.

I should like to quote from the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech where he says the following, because this is highly significant (Hansard, 10 June 1982)—

I should also like, in the context of that statement, to quote very briefly from the statement issued by the NPU. Although this has been quoted before, I make no apology for quoting it again. Perhaps a bit of repetition will make it clear to hon. members on the other side. The NPU issued the following statement—

What is the hon. the Minister going to do if the NPU, or the media council set up under the NPU, refuse to do his job for him? What is he going to do then? I will tell the House exactly what the hon. the Minister is going to do. He is going to set up his own council, as recommended in the Steyn Commission’s report, and then he will get this council to do his work for him. Afterwards he will say: “Well, I gave the media council a chance to do their job, but they refused to do it and very reluctantly I was then forced to do the job myself’. [Interjections.]

That is the whole point. That is the crux.

We will then have exactly what the Steyn Commission recommended, and the hon. the Minister will have achieved it in a very clever way. Instead of registering journalists he will now be registering the newspapers, but, in fact, he would have achieved the same objective and his control will be just as effective. This is where the serious confrontation aspect arises. What is he going to do? Yesterday the NPU at their conference of editors said that they were going to set up this media council. If by law the hon. the Minister requires this media council to do their job, what is the hon. the Minister going to do in that situation?

I do not believe that the assurances given by the hon. the Minister in regard to this Bill are sufficient. He is going to say that we are getting excited, that it does not affect the Press as it is. He will also say that it might affect a few right-wing publications that support the party on my physical left, the CP, but the hon. the Minister has not answered a number of questions, and I think everybody in South Africa wants to know the answer to these questions. The hon. the Minister must therefore answer them for us. For example, why would he not see a delegation from the NPU? Is it because he is now so determined to force this Bill through that he is not going to listen to anybody else? All sectors of the Press are against this Bill, not only that sector of the Press that supports us. The sector of the Press that supports that hon. Minister is also against the Bill. Is that not important, either? The editorial in Die Burger yesterday came out very strongly against this piece of legislation, but quite obviously that does not mean anything to the hon. the Minister. Why has he produced this legislation so suddenly? Why has he produced it right now, at the end of the session, and pushed it through in this fashion? Not one of those questions has been answered, but I hope that by the end of this debate we shall have had some answers to those questions.

I believe that we should get our priorities right in this country. A free Press is a mirror of society. It is in a free Press that society can look at itself and see what it really looks like. Harsh words are often necessary in a free Press, because it is by harsh words that one can often jolt unthinking people out of their complacency. A free Press is essential to good government. One cannot have good government without a free Press. A sure sign of a Government deteriorating into totalitarianism is when such a Government starts putting curbs on the Press. That is why we must fight this Bill. The hon. the Minister might say that it is making only minor changes, but anything that can, in any way, be construed, now or in the future, as impinging upon the freedom of the Press, must be opposed as vigorously as possible. In terms of this Bill it would, for example be possible for the hon. the Minister to introduce further curbs. I am not saying that he has right now, but I am saying that the provisions are there. He can do so in terms of this Bill right now, and that is why we must oppose it.

In conclusion I should like to give just one small quotation from Richard Cobden on the Crimean War—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South repeatedly made contradictory statements. I do not know whether they know what they really want to say about this legislation. They stated, inter alia, that the Government refused to adjust and that oppressive measures were being adopted as a result. That was the accusation the hon. member made. However, the hon. members of the CP accused the Government of doing exactly the opposite. One eventually does not know what to make of the entire matter. [Interjections.] However, one thing is very clear. As far as the principles of this legislation are concerned, the CP and the PFP have undoubtedly found each other. This is one aspect which is very clear. However, there is also another aspect which is very clear. In spite of the hon. member’s allegation that the Government wanted to entrench itself by means of this oppressive legislation, he nevertheless mentioned the free Press. He said that the Press was still free. He conceded this. Of course, this is the basic criterion. We are dealing with a problem here. I do not think we need argue about this.

That is why I think we should examine a few basic principles. We should also try to bring a little calm into this discussion before we tackle each other again.

Let us consider this matter of Press freedom. I think the Press is just as important to this side of the House as it is to that side.

Why are you not defending it then?

However, the Press must be responsible and disciplined. There is no doubt about that either. [Interjections.] I should like to refer to the book Persreg by Strauss, Strijdom and Van der Walt, in which basic guidelines are set down. It is stated that a free, responsible Press is one of the greatest assets of any community, but the concept of Press freedom is also a relative concept. Just as is the case with civil freedom, Press freedom does not mean a total lack of restraint. Press freedom is only one of the interests in a community. There are other interests as well, and those interests have to be weighed up against one another.

The absolute minimum requirement for Press freedom, according to this writer, is that in principle the Press should be free to publish without receiving prior authorization. There is no doubt about this. This is in fact the case, namely to lay down the minimum requirements. We carry on from there. We can argue about the various views of the degree of Press freedom. If one reads the articles which have appeared in the Press during the past few days, one sees that the intensity and the way in which they view this legislation very clearly differs. It varies from 100% rejection in certain quarters to moderation in others. As far as I am concerned, a reasonably balanced view is that of Die Burger. In its leading article yesterday, under the headline “Die Hoeksteen van die samewerking”, it said that the newspapers should co-operate voluntarily. For the sake of the preservation of Press freedom there should be no legal compulsion or interference by the authorities. A tremendous problem that has been experienced in the past and which remains unsolved is that, in addition to the newspapers that co-operate voluntarily,there is always a group of which some behave in an extremely irresponsible way and who do not want to subject themselves voluntarily to discipline from the profession itself. This is very clearly the case. The crux of this entire criterion which may be applied is the question of voluntary subjection to discipline.

Certain hon. members in this house have the knack of provoking a reaction, not only from the official Opposition but also from the other hon. members. In this way the hon. member for Benoni is and was able to elicit an immediate reaction from those hon. members. However, he touched on the essence of the entire matter with the specific examples he mentioned of The Cape Times which, the moment the matter was before the media council and they saw the way things were going, stated that they were no longer going to go along with it. The element of voluntary action was immediately lost. That question of voluntary subjection is perhaps what presents one with problems.

Why did you not consult the media?

I think that hon. member is almost as bad as the hon. member for Constantia. Since the hon. member for Green Point is nagging at me like this, I want to put it to him that the hon. member for Constantia is a member who has no respect or feeling for the customs of this House, or for the voting public. His voters will prove this at the next election. I have no doubt about that. With all due respect, I want to suggest that his leader made a tremendous mistake politically in not expelling that hon. member from his caucus when it was necessary.

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall. One thing which is quite obvious is that we must realize that the Government did not take these steps which are now being taken lightly. However, this legislation and these steps have been pending for a very long time, at least since the early ‘sixties. Time and again attempts were made to find a suitable recipe and to obtain proper co-operation from the responsible media in the country, as well as from the other aspects within the media industry. We and specifically the hon. the Minister were able to obtain that co-operation to a great extent. However, as the editor of Die Burger indicated, one can only take those people to a certain point. If they do not want to subject themselves voluntarily, one has a problem and one will simply have to use a degree of compulsion in a friendly manner. So it would seem to me. However, I want to suggest that these steps must be taken with very great circumspection.

One of the hon. members opposite—I think it was the hon. member for Constantia once again—said that no content had been given to the form of the council; it is stated that it will be promulgated by regulation and nothing further is said in this connection. Did that hon. member not have the basic respect to take cognizance of the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister? In that speech the hon. the Minister spelt out in detail the content and the points which have already been agreed on with the media and the NPU. He added that there was only one point on which no agreement had been reached, namely that participation in the scheme and subjection to the council’s discipline and authority should be voluntary. That was the only aspect. [Interjections.]

That is the whole point!

I think the sense of humour of those hon. members is not always appropriate. I want to repeat that this Bill is not a Bill which a government easily introduces. It is a Bill we are really treating with great circumspection. We also hope it will not be necessary for the Government to apply this legislation in future, but that the members of the media will in a responsible way persuade their colleagues who have less respect for what is necessary to join the council which is to be established.

I have no difficulty in supporting this Bill. I believe it is necessary. I do not think it will do any good to make accusations against each other with regard to credibility and everything this involves. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, who is not present at the moment, said that the Government had no credibility. With all due respect, I want to say that in spite of the Information affair the Government’s credibility is still so high that we were again returned to power in 1981, whereas the official Opposition returned to this House with far less credibility. I therefore do not know what they actually have to boast about.

As far as credibility is concerned, I think that the media would be the first to admit that they also have problems with credibility at times. Recent surveys undertaken in America and in the Netherlands in connection with the credibility of the Press service indicated that even the Press has problems in this connection. We do not want to suggest that the Government has no problems, but in any case we have far fewer problems than the hon. members of the official Opposition.

I think we can leave this matter in the hands of the hon. the Minister with a clear conscience and that he will act in a responsible way. The Bill makes it quite clear that the Minister must be satisfied that the publisher registered in terms of clause I does not want to subject himself to the disciplinary steps of the council. Consequently there are various safety valves built into the Bill. In the first place, there is the council which has the opportunity to apply discipline. However, if the council cannot maintain such discipline …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs is reading a newspaper. Is that permissible?

Order! The Bill at present before this House deals with newspapers. The hon. member may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member did not make a fool of himself; he is one. [Interjections.] I want to repeat that there are various safety valves built into the Bill. Only in the case where the media are not able to work with their own people and where the entire matter of professional control is a farce will the Minister intervene. With all due respect, I want to say that he shall do so with great responsibility and circumspection. I should like to support the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I will refer to the hon. member who has just sat down in the course of my speech. When a newspaper is established, it is already subject to four separate statutes. Its fife is dependent upon four separate statutes the moment it is born. It is subject to the Newspaper Registration Act, the Internal Security Act, the Copyright Act and the Post Office Act. Now, in terms of this Bill, its existence is to become dependent upon a fifth and new principle. The new principle is one that depends upon the Minister. The, new principle of an undefined, unknown body, the Minister can put an end to its life.

Mr. Speaker, why must a person making a written statement—as opposed to an oral statement—which is after all what happens at newspapers be compelled to subject himself voluntarily to the discipline of another? What is coerced self-discipline? It is a contradition in terms. As has been pointed out in this debate, politicians, before they make speeches, do not have to submit themselves to other people. Freedom of the Press is simply freedom of speech. Of course, freedom of speech must be bound by law. But why must a newspaper be compelled to be controlled by another body? Is the law not good enough? I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Is the law not good enough? Is the Government not satisfied with the law? If so, which law is it not satisfied with? Can the hon. the Minister give us an example? Ought the law to be changed? If so, in what way? What discipline is so badly needed in the Press? What control by another body is so urgently needed? People have pleaded in this debate with the hon. the Minister and with hon. members on the other side of the House to give us a few examples. I have listened to the hon. the Minister’s speech—I have a copy of it with me which I have read afterwards—and to other speeches from that side of the House and I have not heard one example, except the one about The Cape Times, and that is such a feeble example that it hardly needs to be referred to. There is no breach of law there as far as I can make out. There is no suggestion of any breach of law. If there were, no doubt they would have gone to court on that. There has been no example from anybody on that side of the House, either from the distant past or the recent past. There has been no example that the Press Council has not been able to deal with anything properly. There has been no example of any substance anywhere in South Africa’s experience.

When there are no examples from the hon. the Minister, when there are no examples of any substance from that side of the House, and when they cannot give us any cogent examples, then we have no alternative but to say to ourselves that this is a sinister Bill. It is a devious measure. It is a dangerous Bill. It has an undisclosed motive and I predict here today that it is to protect hon. members on the opposite side of the House the NP in the near future against the CP, and in the long term against others. I have always been fascinated by this Nationalist Government’s continuous stream of vituperation against the English Press in particular, and by its continuous stream of criticism of the Press in general. I have always been fascinated, because when it comes to examples or when it comes to charges before the Press Council or the courts, this Government suddenly becomes hopelessly inarticulate. Its charges suddenly become pathetically devoid of substance. Suddenly there are no charges of any substance. The Nationalist Party becomes tongue-tied, shifting anxiously from one leg to the other.

I have heard some hopeless arguments in favor of Bills from that side of the House, but I have been utterly fascinated by this one. I have never seen such a performance in my life. I have not heard one reason. I have also noticed that the Government does not care what is being said. The hon. the Minister sits there most of the time, grinning like a Cheshire cat and shifting his head from side to side. The Government in fact sits there with what I discern to be gross arrogance, not responding …

Why do you not hold your own speech? Why do you fob it off on someone else?

Now he is responding! [Interjections.] No doubt they are not even listening. They are just sitting on their majority in this House—not even a majority of voters in this country—and rolling roughshod over all others. Not only is there no reason given, but the hon. the Minister referred in his speech to things like “die skadepotensiaal van die media en die instrument is eerstens gerig op die individu wie se goeie naam onherstelbaar beklad kan word deur ‘n berig wat nie eers in regsterme lasterlik hoef te wees nie …” etc. He also referred to “skadepotensiaal” and went on to say: “Nalatige of roekelose ingesteldheid by die bedryf van ‘n koerant of ‘n groep koerante of ander media, kan die goeie orde en goeie sedes ontwrig”. Those kind of generalizations are referred to as examples, but are no reason at all.

Not only is there no reason given by the Government for this Bill of any substance at all, but there is no support for it in South Africa, except from the NRP and they of course do not really represent anybody. [Interjections.] There is no support for this Bill. I want to point out that the whole newspaper industry in South Africa is against this Bill. The English Press, the Afrikaans Press and the other languages’ Press are against this Bill. Why then is the hon. the Minister doing it? Has he no regard, even for the Afrikaans Press, for Advocate D. P. de Villiers? It is just like other examples during this session where, for example, the whole of the legal profession in South Africa was against the codifying of the security laws, where the whole medical profession in South Africa was against the medical legislation—the one dealing with chiropractitioners and others. It is very interesting that in the past those very same Bills, just like the Press Control Bill, which was withdrawn in 1979, were withdrawn. The medical legislation that went through this session was withdrawn in the past and delayed. The Police Amendment Bill that was withdrawn in the past has now been put through as the Internal Security Bill.

The point I want to make is that this year this Government does not care anymore. This year the Government does not take any notice of what the newspaper industry thinks or of what the legal profession or the medical profession thinks. It does not care. It just pushes them through. It is of interests, also, that the hon. the Prime Minister has sat in throughout most of the discussions on this Bill. In 1979, I have no doubt, he was responsible for the withdrawal of the Press legislation. This time, however, he has sat right through.

There is just one other point that I may make. I notice that the hon. member for Simonstown has not spoken on this Bill. I must say that I find that very strange indeed. He is the arch enemy of the Press in South Africa, but he has not been loquacious during the discussion of this Bill. [Interjections.] The Government, with this Bill, demonstrates again, as it has repeatedly demonstrated during this session, that it has aggressively abandoned government by consent. It has aggressively embraced government by dissent. It is embracing alienation in South Africa. It in fact is playing confrontation politics. This Government is embarking more and more firmly on a course of confrontation politics in South Africa. It is seeking confrontation in South Africa. This Government, with dwindling numbers and dwindling supporters, is seeking confrontation and alienation in every sphere and it is going to find it. This Government will regret it and South Africa as a whole will regret it.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend entering this debate but I understand that a few expressions of opinion need to be made until the hon. the Minister resumes his seat. I have given the Whips on the other side of the House an opportunity to rectify the matter.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a long debate on the subject, far be it for me to attempt to sum up, but I do think it needs to be repeated that the official Opposition feel extremely strongly about the principle of a free Press. I think that can be repeated. It must be accepted that we are not playing politics as we are in fact extremely concerned about the freedom of the Press in South Africa.

That was the only point I wanted to make. [Interjections.] That is likely to be the first and last speech I make this session.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Groote Schuur for the intelligent contribution he has made to this debate. It is the most intelligent contribution that has come from the side of the official Opposition. In fact, I think it is the most intelligent contribution the hon. member has made during his parliamentary career. I sincerely thank him for it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to request your forbearance in the rest of the debate. I should like to begin with a few general remarks. The first one I want to make is that I have listened with great attention to all the hon. members who have participated in this debate.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Sandton and to say that there are occasions in this House when the rules of the House do not allow hon. members accurately to describe the conduct of other hon. members. As far as I am concerned, today is such an occasion. Mr. Speaker, if I told the truth about the conduct of the hon. member for Sandton, you would have to discipline me. Subject to this restriction on me I should like to take the matter further.

I would have great sympathy with the media in this country if the hon. member for Sandton had to be an apologist or a spokesman for them. I hope the media of this country will never be contaminated by the attitude which the hon. member for Sandton displays towards this country and its interests. I want to tell the hon. member that the truth of a particular standpoint is never appreciated because it has been formulated in a crude, insulting and vitriolic way. If there is anyone in this House who has done the House a disservice during this debate this debate with regard to the standards which I believe should be maintained here, it is the hon. member for Sandton. If there is an hon. member in this House who has done’ more than any other hon. member to harm the media, it is the hon. member for Sandton, and I want to draw his attention to this. Apart from his venom and his abuse, his speech was the greatest humiliation anyone could have inflicted upon the Press companies and the NPU in this country. In the second place, his speech was the greatest insult which could have been inflicted upon members of the Conference of Editors. What did the hon. member say? In what humiliating terms did he describe the members of the NPU and the members of the Conference of Editors? He said that they had, as it were, slunk into my office, the curtains of which were drawn, and that afterwards they had slunk out again. I want to say that I regard the members of the NPU as honorable people. I regard the members of the Conference of Editors as honourable people. I do not deal with dis-honourable people.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: There is a clear insinuation in what the hon. the Minister has just said in saying that he does not deal with dis-honourable people. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister was simply stating a fact. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The hon. member for Sandton wants to pose as the champion of the media and he wants to pose as the champion of the freedom of the media, and to refer to the people within those media in these humiliating terms is to descend to the lowest level of debate. Secondly, to imply that the powerful media institutions in the country would slink into offices and allow themselves to be bullied there is the second insult which the hon. member is inflicting upon these members.

Stop looking at the gallery. Just talk to the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not realize that I am simply trying to avoid his face.

You do not like honest faces.

To think …

Order! The remark made by the hon. member for Green Point is a reflection on the honesty of the hon. the Minister, and consequently he must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not mean it that way, but if that is the way it is interpreted, I withdraw it.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I also say that the conduct of the hon. member for Sandton was an insult to the media and to the people serving the media. If I am correct, one has to look for an explanation for such conduct, and then I say that the explanation is obvious. The explanation lies in the fact that the hon. member thinks that by behaving in this way, he can bring about a confrontation between the Government and the media.

You did it yourself.

I am going to tackle the hon. member. In fact, he is the only hon. member on that side whose speech I am going to discuss.

The hon. member’s speech was riddled with untruths, direct and indirect. The hon. member opposed the Bill at First Reading. He had every right to do so. He said that he did not have any knowledge of the negotiations which had been conducted with the media, but in spite of that, he was acquainted with the contents of the proposed legislation. Perhaps the hon. member will tell us later who gave him the information.

I never said that.

Perhaps he will do so now, because the hon. member wrote me a letter that day which reached me after the First Reading had been disposed of.

That is your department’s fault.

I am not apportioning any blame. The letter was delivered to me that afternoon.

It was delivered by 10h00.

That is not correct, but let that be. The point is that the hon. member was not informed of the contents of the legislation. I conducted an interview that day which I regarded as confidential. The hon. member must consider his position in this particular connection. I shall come back to this later.

In one breath, the hon. member said—in this he was supported by other hon. members, including the hon. member for Pinelands, to whom I shall come later, but first I want to get the facts straight—that this was the thin end of the wedge, but in the next breath he said it was a giant stride in inroads on the freedom of the Press. Let us consider the facts, the provisions of the 1974 Act, the Publications Act. The Publications Act is substantively applicable to newspapers. If any inroads have been made—I am not conceding that they have; I am saying this for the sake of argument—they have not been made by this legislation, therefore.

But they are exempted from section 74.

The hon. member is wrong, as usual.

I mean section 47.

The hon. member must keep quiet now, as I did when he was speaking.

The substantive provision of that Act is that it is applicable to newspapers, with exceptions, the exceptions being the newspapers that are members of the NPU. But then the substantive provision of control over newspapers in terms of the Act does exist, and then the inroads that have been made, according to the hon. member, were made in 1974. This is very interesting. The 1974 legislation was the result of the deliberations of a Select Committee, and it is quite interesting to note who was the chairman of that Select Committee. It was none other than Mr. Jimmy Kruger. The hon. member for Kuruman was also a member of that Select Committee, and so, I believe, was the hon. member for Rissik.

No, I was not.

The hon. member says he was not a member of that Select Committee.

I cannot remember very well, but I do not think so.

I think the hon. member was a member of that Committee. How ever, we can ascertain that later. Of course, I do not want to ascribe anything to the hon. member which is unfair towards him.

I think it was Andries.

I beg your pardon! I apologize to the hon. member for Rissik. It was in fact the hon. member for Waterberg. [Interjections.] Mr. René de Villiers represented the PFP on that Select Committee. Some very interesting things resulted from the proceedings of that Select Committee. Hon. members have probably noticed that the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Groote Schuur alleged by way of interjection that this legislation was actually intended to curb our CP Opposition.

Yes, so I have heard.

The hon. member for Rissik says that is what he has heard. Those publications are Die Patriot and Die Afrikaner, of course.

And the Citizen.

No, I am first referring to your newspapers.

Is the Citizen your newspaper now, too?

So I am told. [Interjections.]

The intention is obviously to persuade hon. members of the CP to oppose this legislation. What are the facts, however. Surely the legislation is applicable to the Citizen, to Die Patriot and to Die Afrikaner. The legislation is applicable to these newspapers because of the fact…

You cannot deregister them!

Oh, please!

You cannot deregister them! Are you going to prosecute them?

If only that hon. member would keep quiet for a minute! We are debating the principle …

No!

Oh, the hon. judge should rather go and meditate about Goebbels. He seems to have a great knowledge of that man than any other member.

Oh really, this is his last night! [Interjections.]

You are a shameless scoundrel! [Interjections.] You are a born mischief-maker! [Interjections.]

Since this is the last night of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, I want to suggest that he should display the wisdom he should have acquired by this stage. [Interjections.]

The fact is that the 1974 Act …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for …

The hon. sheriff.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North said the hon. the Minister was a scoundrel. Is he allowed to use such a word?

Which hon. member are you referring to?

He is referring to the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, it seems to be in order when the members of the party of the hon. member for Groote Schuur refer disparagingly to the hon. member for Benoni. So insults are in order when they are aimed at other people.

What did we say?

Oh, the hon. member for Groote Schuur was not here when it was said. He was not here when the hon. member for Benoni was speaking.

They probably said he looked like Dr. Goebbels! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, about one thing there must please be no misunderstanding. The people who brought up the name of Dr. Goebbels in this House were hon. members of the official Opposition. [Interjections.] But of course! [Interjections.] Of course, this proves once again their total arrogance and …

We talked about the great Dr. Goebbels! [Interjections.]

Let us take it further, however. The report of the Select Committee also contained a minority report. Among those who prepared that minority report were representatives of the official Opposition. I shall quote only one paragraph from that minority report, a report which is of the utmost importance for the purposes of this debate—

This is not the standpoint of the NP; it is the standpoint of the PFP. The report goes on to say—

This is the ambiguity of standpoint with which we are confronted in this House and outside. Then we are addressed in pontifical terms regarding our standpoints. The fact is that the Government and the media have felt and still feel the need for discipline. The fact is, too, that the Government, the media and the owners of the media have accepted that the existing mechanism is not effective enough.

They are terrified of the Steyn Commission.

I am glad the hon. member for Pinelands made that remark, for as in many of his sermons, he has got hold of half a truth again. What are the facts? The NPU and the Conference of Editors began negotiating of their own volition long before the report of the Steyn Commission appeared.

Why?

I come once again to the next half-truth told by the hon. member. The Steyn Commission received its terms of reference in 1980, and if I remember correctly, the report of the commission was published at the beginning of this year. In spite of that, without the Government having requested it or having intimidated the media—because it is yet another insult to the media to suggest that they allow themselves to be intimidated—the media voluntarily set up negotiations between the owners and the editors of the media. On the basis of that, the hon. member for Sandton and the hon. member for Pinelands, with his superior airs, accuse us of having intimidated the media. [Interjections.]

Give us the information, then.

I shall give the hon. member the information. The media voluntarily tried to see whether they could make their own mechanism more effective. Therefore I object to the accusations that have been made against the media.

As far as I know, this was the first opportunity which the Conference of Editors and the owners, as they were organized in the NPU, had of meeting and seeing whether they could make a concerted attempt to create a more effective instrument than the existing one. What is the implication of this? The implication is, firstly, that the media recognized the need for discipline and, secondly, that they themselves recognized that the existing structure was not effective enough. Why, then, are the media being humiliated, why are we being accused of having forced the media to do this, in dark rooms, with drawn curtains.

I said that you had your lights on.

Well, you had better switch on yours for a change, so that you can see something. If the NPU and the Conference of Editors were to request me to release the minutes of the talks, I should gladly do so.

Whose minutes are they? Are they your minutes?

I am prepared to do that. However, I believed that Government negotiated on a confidential basis, but when accusations are being made against one of the parties—as are being made by those hon. members—people must come out into the open. I want to emphasize that. However, I shall leave the matter at that.

†It is alleged that with this legislation we have crossed the Rubicon as far as Press control is concerned. I submit that any intelligent reader or observer would know that if there were any question of crossing Rubicons, those Rubicons have been crossed before now, and in saying this I do not concede the point.

*What are the facts, however? Hon. members argue that it is a relatively small percentage of publications that are not members of the NPU. There was a time when the NPU refused to admit district newspapers as members. Strange how things turn out! However, I just want to point out that the NPU does not consist of the editorial staff of newspapers, but of the owners of those newspapers.

The media have agreed that in the times in which we live, there is an escalating threat to this country. This was not only said by the Steyn Commission, or by the Government, but by the media as well, and in their negotiations they proceeded from that standpoint. The only people who do not recognize this are the members of the official Opposition. Because that is their attitude, they cannot substantiate their statement that they serve South African interests.

What does the hon. member for Constantia say? The hon. member had the audacity to say that this Bill implied that the Press had been bludgeoned and bullied into some sort of Press body that would dominate it. That is an untruth, because the fact is that the Government did not establish the NPU. The Government did not establish the Media Council or the Press Council. The Government did not lay down its code. Those hon. members also allege that we want to subject the NPU to certificates by way of legislation. The words used were: “We do not want to register the journalists, so now we are going to register the journals.” What nonsense! All publications are registered in any case. The fact is that the exemption of the NPU and the exemption of its members is in accordance with the provisions of the Publications Act. In other words, their members would not have been exempt if it had not been for a statutory provision. How does this differ from enabling this particular body in terms of legislation to discipline its members? So I ask, in all fairness: On what grounds is the Government being accused of wanting to control the Press? I challenge any hon. member to prove to me on the basis of this legislation that the Government wants to take steps to control the Press.

You have the power to make regulations, have you not?

The only regulation I can make is the one in terms of which I recognize the body.

Yes, that is right. That is all you need.

That is an enormous power.

The hon. members must stop being so noisy. The fact is that pro visions exist in terms of which publications are controlled. They exist at the moment.

I now want to deal with the remarks made by the hon. member for Sandton and those made by the hon. member for Pinelands together. In the first place, I want to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Sandton about The Post and the Citizen.

What about The World?

I talk about matters I have knowledge of, unlike the hon. member, who talks about things he knows nothing about. The hon. member uses the Citizen as an example of a publication which was taken over by the Government and The Post as an example of one which was closed down by the Government. Let us now examine the truth. Sir, the hon. member knows that what he said was not true. The hon. member also alleged that as far as The Post was concerned, no-one had any opportunity to make representations to the Minister. That was the fifth untrue statement made by the hon. member. What are the facts? After the Information debacle, the Government did its best to find out what the facts were. The facts were that the Citizen had been begun with Government money, and the Government had then dissociated itself from that action.

As far as The Post is concerned, the hon. member made another untrue statement. He is so reckless in telling these untruths that it is often possible to conclude that he is doing so deliberately. The owners of The Post made representations to me and my department with regard to the registration of The Post. Once again I am prepared to honor the confidentiality of negotiations with people. However, I want to say that I am prepared, with the consent of the other parties, to disclose what the representations of The Post were and what the standpoints were of those who made the representations, and also what my standpoint and that of my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Justice, was. I am prepared to do that. I ask again: Is there no-one who is prepared to stand up for the truth? Once again we are not dealing here with an editor or a reporter. I want to say that basic honesty and basic decency require that when one party to discussions is unjustly attacked, the other party should release him from secrecy so that he can tell th truth. That would have interesting consquences. Then we might discover the facts as to why The Post was no longer appearing.

I have no objection to that at all.

Well, that hon. member must plead for it next time. Unfortunately he is not the person who can give that permission.

You should not have the power to ban a newspaper anyway.

The Post was not banned.

Now I come to the hon. member for Pinelands. He says that a Government that can ban a newspaper and a person cannot be trusted.

Just quote me correctly.

Well, correct me if I am wrong.

I said a Government that bans people and newspapers cannot be trusted with the freedom of the Press. That is what I said and I stand by it.

Then the hon. member must just tell me what the banning of a person has to do with the freedom of the Press.

Freedom of speech, that is what it means. A man who is banned cannot be quoted.

I am coming to that. I want to tell him—and he, more than anyone else, ought to know this …

Yes, you have seen to that.

… that if it had not been for the Government, that hon. member would not have had the freedom to behave as he is behaving.

Explain that to me.

Yes, I shall. I am coming to that. I want to ask him a question. He advocates an open society and he wants a political dispensation in this country which does not accommodate ethnic differences in the constitutional dispensation.

That is not right.

That is another untruth.

I want to ask him who was the first victim in Zimbabwe after the take-over there.

The Press.

Yes, the Press, and freedom of speech.

And who made a statement against that and was quoted on their radio? I! [Interjections.]

And what did it Ian Smith do?

Those hon. members reap the benefits of the security which this Government ensures for them as well.

The next remark I want to make—I do so in all seriousness—is that it is time the hon. members opposite understood that the freedom which the Press enjoys is due to the political and constitutional dispensation in this country. It is time we said these things to one another. [Interjections.] I have given hon. members opposite an opportunity to speak and I expect the same from them. The fact is that hon. members opposite quote those who have objected to the report of the Steyn Commission. The hon. member referred, inter alia, to the Association of Law Societies and to universities. He quoted a long list. Do hon. members know what the facts are? Those objections were never submitted to those who have to take decisions in the light of then. The people who took a stand against us with regard to the report and who had talks with us were the NPU and the Society of Journalists. [Interjections.] If hon. members do not want replies to the questions, they must tell me so.

On 8 March and 26 May 1982, I had talks with the NPU of South Africa and with the Conference of Editors. On 7 June I deliberated with local editors, representing the Conference of Editors. In terms of our understanding, the NPU as well as the Conference of Editors will in their turn consult with the following organizations: The Society of Journalists, the SABC, the Media Writers’ Association of South Africa and the South African journalists who do not belong to the society.

The hon. member is also telling an untruth when he alleges that the NPU was not informed of the fact that legislation was going to be introduced.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member referred to the contents of the legislation. The fact is that I have repeatedly discussed with the NPU the question of how their rulings can be made binding upon their members. This I have been doing since the very first day. At the last interview I had with the NPU—in this connection I want to refer the hon. member to an article in today’s Beeld, in which the progress of these negotiations is described, as well as the spirit in which they took place. That spirit is not reflected in the conduct of the hon. members opposite. That spirit is not accentuated by the conduct of the hon. members of the official Opposition. Those talks were characterized by an endeavor to deal with a common problem. They were characterized by the attempt which was made to achieve the respective objectives which the media and the Government have to achieve. At the first meeting, the NPU informed me that they and the Conference of Editors had decided three months before the publication of the Steyn Report to establish a proposed media council. I have said that the only representations we received as a result of the Steyn Report came from the NPU itself, from the Afrikaans Press and from the Specialist Press Union. I now want to ask those hon. members why the other people who take such an interest in the matter did not put their standpoint to us. Why did they not put their standpoint to those bodies that are responsible for the decision making, or are we to take cognizance of it?

†The hon. member said the Minister has without agreement by the NPU and without consultation with the NPU introduced this Bill. This is patently untrue. The hon. member has no grounds whatsoever for making this irresponsible statement. Reference to any of the members of the union will confirm my version of what happened. Why does the hon. member come to this House and base his arguments on untruths?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how he squares that statement with the published statement of the NPU who state that they had no knowledge of this Bill? Now, does the hon. the Minister blame us for making that kind of statement?

I have not read that statement to which the hon. member refers. What I am referring to is …

That is what it says.

Does the hon. member not want a reply?

What I said is that the statement of the hon. member for Sandton is untrue and the part that is untrue is that I introduced this legislation without consultation with the NPU whilst I had informed the NPU that if I had to accept their proposals for the media and if they were to discipline the media I would have to take legislative steps to ensure that their judgments shall also be applicable to the non-members of the union. I am not arguing with the statement of the media, I am arguing with the hon. member for Sandton who based his arguments in this House on incorrect and untrue statements.

*The standpoint of the NPU and of the conference was that they did not want legislation. However, they conceded that without legislation it would not be possible for them to make their rulings binding upon nonmembers of the NPU. The implication of that would be that the norms would have to be applied by two bodies: The one would have to apply the norms contained in the code and the other would have to apply the requirements contained in the Act. The hon. member for Pinelands should know that these are not exact norms and that they cannot be measured by exact criteria. That is what happened, but to say what the hon. member for Sandton says is not true.

†The next question the hon. member asked me was (Hansard, 10 June 1982)

The answer to that is that I do not arrange the work of this House, but the Union knew that I had to introduce legislation in some form. By saying this I do not suggest that I had the proof of it.

They did not know the actual contents of the Bill.

They did not know the wording of the Bill but they knew what I had to do to make it enforceable. I have conceded that point already. However, the hon. member went further and stated (Hansard, 10 June 1982),—

This is untrue. Not a single member of that delegation would confirm this.

What is untrue?

The statement that you have made. Everything is untrue in this …

What about the chandefier?

That hon. member is being stupid.

What is untrue?

It is untrue that I threatened the Union at the conference that I would go back to the Steyn Commission unless they accept this. It is untrue. What I do not understand is what gives that hon. member the right to come to this House and to base his arguments on untruths.

8 000 voters from Sandton gave me the right to come to this House.

I am sure that 8 000 voters in Sandton now know the caliber of the man which represents them in this House.

The hon. member also stated that this measure is a giant step in the direction of Government control over the dissemination of political news and views. However, there is not a single basis for this statement and the hon. member has not submitted any substantial evidence whatsoever to substantiate this remark. This is the type of thing that we have to deal with in this House. He stated further that it was an attempt to tame those media that are critical of the Government; that it is an undignified move to tighten the reins of power in regard to what the public may or may not be told. I have already argued that the Press Union have themselves not only accepted the necessity of discipline but have, in fact, created a body, ineffective as it was, to attain that end.

How can you say that? How can you say that it was ineffective when the Government was not even prepared to use it?

The Press Union themselves started to restructure the Media Council and they created the Conference of Editors in March 1981. On what basis can the hon. member for Sandton argue that this all eventuated because of conferences and discussions I had with the Union?

*I want to say, Sir, that that hon. member is reckless about the truth. [Interjections.] Of course I can say that.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister entitled to say that the hon. member for Sandton was reckless about the truth? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw those words.

I withdraw the words, Sir, and I want to say that the hon. member finds it difficult to deal with the truth. [Interjections.]

Order! It has the same connotation.

I accept your ruling Sir. I withdraw it, but there is a ruling that it is in fact permissible.

†The hon. member also said—

This is not true, Sir. They did not agree to streamline the new council. They started the negotiations more than a year ago or almost a year ago. [Interjections.] That was the gravamen of the hon. member’s argument. The hon. member went on to say that the Society of Journalists had not been given a hearing. What are the facts, Sir? In our discussions the NPU themselves indicated that they would consult with the Society of Journalists but the first request that I received from the Society of Journalists was on Monday. I have explained that I was in this House when I received the note. [Interjections.] I explained to the gentleman who had written the letter that I had been in consultation with the Union and the Conference of Editors. It is a very interesting fact that I discussed this matter with the Union and the Conference of Editors from the beginning of this year. Before Monday I had not received any request whatsoever from the Society of Journalists. [Interjections.]

*He must not blame me then. I put my standpoint to the people with whom I was negotiating.

I want to thank the hon. members for Klip River, Mossel Bay, Roodepoort and Benoni for their contributions. However, I want to do more than that; I also want to ask people to note the difference in approach between this side of the House and the hon. members opposite in respect of this matter, which is a very sensitive one. No-one on this side of the House used this debate to launch an attack on the media and on the NPU. All hon. members on this side of the House accepted, in accordance with the standpoints conveyed to us by the media and the NPU, that we were living under exceptional circumstances. I want to say today—and I make no apology for this—that the freedom of the media is part of our general freedom. It is derived from the freedom of the individual. However, when the freedom of the individual comes into conflict with that of another, then someone has to be the arbiter in that conflict, and in an orderly society this is the State itself. What is true in respect of the individual, i.e. that the exercise of his freedom can come into conflict with the exercise of the freedom of others, is also true in respect of the media, with the qualification that the magnitude and effect of an encroachment on freedom by the media is greater and more extensive than in the case of an individual. This is true because the media address themselves to the spirit and intellect of people, and if the material damage is great, the other damage is much greater.

Therefore, when that conflict arises, the State must do its duty in the interests of an orderly State. I make no apology for the Government’s record in this connection. Since the sixties, the Government has made every attempt to enable the media to exercise self-discipline, which, by their own admission, they have not been able to do effectively. To allege now that this legislation means control over the media is completely untrue.

The hon. member for Langlaagte also made a speech, but I first want to deal with the speech …

He apologized for not being able to be here.

No, he is sitting over there. [Interjections.] Hon. members need not be concerned; it is not only one person who is fast asleep now.

I first want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Rissik. I want to tell him something. The hon. member was the chairman of my study group. The hon. member knows that I never said anything in my group which I did not say outside as well. He knows that. Anything I had to say in politics I said within the group itself. I think the hon. member agrees with this. The hon. member was a dignified chairman of the group. I also want to tell him that I still respect him, because he never made a secret of what his standpoints were. That he never did. Looking at the hon. members opposite, I want to use the words of a colleague of mine—they are kind words—and I want to say that the only hon. member who looks happy or who is happy over there …

Is I.

…is the hon. member for Rissik. He has formed a laager and his camp fire is burning. [Interjections.] I have no quarrel with the hon. member for Rissik and I am on friendly terms with the hon. member. The hon. member has once again adopted a standpoint for which I have great appreciation, because his standpoint is in line with the standpoint which was adopted in 1974. All the hon. member is asking is that we should not be in such a hurry; we should refer the matter to a Select Committee. Therefore I want to thank the hon. member for his contribution, and for the spirit in which he made it. I have no fault to find with his speech, although I cannot accede to his request.

What does the hon. member for Langlaagte say? [Interjections.] Just listen to what the hon. member for Langlaagte says.

The silence of his friends is deafening. [Interjections.]

Of course, he has to support the hon. member for Rissik now.

I am opposed to the gagging of the Press! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Langlaagte says he is opposed to the gagging of the Press. That is very interesting. I am also opposed to the gagging of the Press. However, the hon. member for Langlaagte is opposed to discipline, is he not? It looks like that.

He is.

That is what it looks like to me. [Interjections.] However, I believe that his disrespect for discipline has brought him where he is tonight. [Interjections.] That is what has landed him where he finds himself tonight. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Langlaagte alleges that the Press has been caught napping …

Yes, of course!

… and that the Press should resist legislation of any kind. Do hon. members realize what he means by that? What is the hon. member actually saying by this? What he is actually saying is that—according to him—only his own party’s publication and two others should be subject to the provision of the legislation, but that all the others should be exempt.

[Inaudible.]

That is very interesting. Therefore the hon. member wants us to make the legislation applicable to Die Afrikaner and Die Patriot, but he wants the other newspapers to be exempt and to exercise their own discipline.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what the argument of the hon. member for Langlaagte amounts to. The hon. member for Langlaagte cannot escape the consequences of his standpoints. He is prepared to create a different dispensation for the other media, and to make the legislation applicable and to ensure that it remains applicable to his own publications. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member accept, therefore, that the Government is entitled to disregard rights?

†The hon. member for Constantia has made a very strange statement. He says the Press must publish the truth as they see it. I thought something was either true or untrue. Now, for the first time, I have to learn that everyone can have his own version of the truth. [Interjections.]

*Of course, I can understand …

Have you ever heard of Pontius Pilate?

Of course, I can understand the hon. member for Constantia making such a remark. I think he made it after listening to the hon. member for Sandton, for he also showed his own perception of what was true and what was untrue. If ever one had a practical example of this, we had it today, and in this very debate.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, in his speech, only endorsed what other people had already said. Finally, I should like to refer to the hon. member for Pinelands. What did the hon. member for Pinelands do? He argues that this legislation is yet another step towards total suppression and total control of the Press. According to him that will ultimately lead to the suppression of the Opposition. By arguing the way he does what does he actually say? He alleges that the Government is on the road to a total suppression of the Opposition.

I am only warning!

No, that is not a warning. That is the hon. member’s logical conclusion. I do not, however, want to argue this issue with the hon. member now. I am being serious.

Hon. members of the official Opposition are very sensitive when their loyalty to this country is questioned. Those hon. members are very sensitive when their attitudes towards the security of the State are questioned. Those hon. members are very sensitive when their perception of the threats against this country is questioned. They are always concerned about what the outside world will think of this country. However, if I have to take cognizance of what they say, I would say that the facts belie the sentiments they express.

What does that mean?

Exactly what it says. To make a statement of this purport—and make no mistake, the hon. member for Pinelands will be reported throughout the world—does not substantiate the sentiments that those hon. members express.

*In conclusion, I want to say that there is no Press legislation before the House, and arising from talks with the representatives of the NPU, I have decided to move certain amendments in the Committee Stage in accordance with the wishes of the NPU with regard to the clauses. I shall explain these in full during the Committee Stage.

Question put: That the words “the Bill be” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Chairman, I have amendments I should like to move. For the sake of the hon. members opposite I should first like to explain the background to these amendments. I received a request from the representatives of the NPU and of the Conference of Editors to meet them in connection with the legislation. These gentlemen could not come yesterday afternoon because they had to attend a meeting in Johannesburg. I arranged with them that I would request the Deputy Minister and the departmental head to hold discussions with them in consequence of certain requests they had addressed to us. The deputation consisted of advocate Dawid de Villiers who represented the Newspaper Press Union and Mr. Harvey Tyson who acted on behalf of the Conference of Editors.

Mr. de Villiers opened the discussion by referring to the statement the NPU and the editors had released that afternoon and he repeated the main points in it. Allow me to say in all fairness that the NPU had informed me telephonically that they would release a statement and also provided me with a telex copy of it beforehand. This is typical of the spirit in which the discussions were held throughout. What it amounts to is that they object to the media council having any statutory authority. They even stated the view that participation in the council should be voluntary. However, on the basis that the legislation will nevertheless be proceeded with, as I indicated I have to do, they asked for certain amendments to the Bill which would ensure that there would be no possible suggestion that by recognizing their council in terms of the Act, statutory authority is being given to their council in the Act or that their bodies are not voluntary bodies, or that it would appear that they are participating in a system of control by the authorities because they have to issue certificates after their media council has been recognized. Mr. de Villiers submitted preliminary rough formulations of the amendments they wanted and joint formulations were then discussed. These were then submitted to me and I decided to agree to them. They then asked whether it could be stated that these were the amendments which they had requested, and agreement was reached on this. As I said they agreed to this and Mr. Tyson wrote down what the Minister could say.

†I should like to read it—

*The amendments do not detract from any principle contained in the Bill. They entail language amendments and in one case the intention is possibly made clearer. As the amendments are being accepted it can justly be argued that the NPU and the editors are satisfied that the new wording ensures—I want hon. members to take note of this—that there will be absolutely no impression of control by the authorities over the media council, even though the council is recognized by the Minister in terms of the legislation. I think that if no such impression is left, they agree that in essence there can be no question of control by the authorities over the media council. Because the amendments they proposed do not in any way alter the principles and essence of the Bill, this confirms the standpoint of the NPU and the editors that State control over the media’s handling of its own affairs and discipline in any form is not an integral part of this legislation in its original form.

1. Mr. Chairman, I now move the following amendments—
2. (1) On page 3, in lines 8 and 9, to omit “control of”;
3. (2) on page 3, in line 17, after “Minister” to insert:

, which may not be withheld if he is satisfied that the publisher will subject himself as contemplated in paragraph (a)

Mr. Chairman, the amendments which the hon. the Minister has moved to clause 1 do in fact throw a somewhat different light on the Bill than existed up to a few moments ago. [Interjections.] They do in fact bring a somewhat different light to bear upon the Bill. The hon. the Minister, through his Deputy Minister and the Director-General of his department, held discussions with members of the Newspaper Press Union last night and I assume that these amendments were formulated and prepared then. I want to state that only one copy of these amendments was given to the official Opposition. One extra copy has now been given to the hon. member for Pinelands. We have had six or seven speakers in this debate and the hon. the Minister has placed amendments which could affect the very debate on this clause before the Opposition literally moments before the clause has to be debated. I want to say the PFP had no sight or inkling of any of the amendments which the hon. the Minister wish to propose, not until a few moments ago, while the hon. the Minister had them in his hands certainly since before lunch, and he could have placed them on our desk to enable us …

Despicable!

… perhaps even to brief some of our hon. members for the Second Reading debate which may or may not then have taken a different line.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon. member for Greytown to refer to the conduct of the hon. the Minister as being “despicable”?

The hon. member for Sandton may proceed.

We had no sight of those amendments. The hon. the Minister knew that he was going to make those amendments. He had known it for probably six hours, maybe even longer. Yet he has allowed this debate to continue under the impression that he was going to bring no amendments at all. He did not mention them until the very last moment of his one hour and 15 minutes’ reply to the Second Reading debate. The amendments that hon. members of the PFP proposed, have been put on the Order Paper. Some of them were placed on the Order Paper as long as 48 hours ago. We also have the amendment by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, which was put on the Order Paper this morning. Why? Because we wished the Government to consider them. Why? Because we wished the hon. the Minister to see them. His Department has had the opportunity to look at them to see if they could be fitted into the Bill in some or other way. Now the hon. the Minister wants to bring in amendments. He has received representations and, having used this Bill to create a furore in the Press, he now wants to bring these amendments into the House and then he will be able to say: “Look, I am a reasonable man. I have received representations and here are the amendments which are wanted by the NPU. Obviously the NPU is now in favor of this Bill.” And so on and so on.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Why? He has been in Parliament for a long time. Why did the hon. the Minister not provide this Opposition and the other Opposition parties with the amendments at least several hours ago? Why did he keep them up his sleeve and why did he present them in this manner? The hon. the Minister said a few hard things about some of the hon. members and certainly about myself too. Well, in politics you can take it on the chin and there will be no hard feelings. However, I want to say this: The hon. the Minister says that I have no manners. He said that several times.

I did not say that.

Yes, he did. He said I had no manners. [Interjections.] I do not take offence about it. I do not want the hon. the Minister to be worried. He can say those sort of things. However, what I want to say is that I do think that it is discourteous of the hon. the Minister to create a carefully orchestrated situation by suddenly—he said in his Second Reading speech that he was going to place amendments—without explanation, placing amendments on our desks. May I say that I regard that as discourteous. [Interjections.]

I have studied these amendments and I want to concede this point: The amendments certainly bring an improvement to the Bill. They bring an improvement to the Bill as it is printed. However, this party claims some of the credit for those amendments, because if the Bill had gone through in the way in which it has been allowed to go through by the NRP, there would have been no amendments. I want to tell you that there would have been no time spent on it. This Bill would have gone through in ten minutes and it would have been law long before there would have been any chance to place amendments in order to improve it at all. I wonder if the NRP is going to support the amendments, or if they would prefer to have something tougher.

I want to look at the amendments in honesty. The first amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister, is—

This means that it will read as follows—

The words that are taken out, are “the control of” a body. It is now just to be subject to the discipline of that body. Quite frankly, I think that this is somewhat of a semantic change, because if you are going to submit yourself to the discipline of a body, it is almost exactly the same as saying: “to the control and discipline of that body”. However, we accept the amendment. I think it leavens the provision and to the extent that it does, we will support that amendment.

I now want to come to the second amendment which the hon. the Minister has put in. The new section 4(4)(b) determines that a newspaper which has had its registration withdrawn, may not apply for re-registration without the approval of the Minister, the amendment now adds the following—

This is also an improvement. It is not as good an amendment as the one proposed by us. I think both amendments should be accepted; both this amendment and our amendment. In other words, a publication’s registration should not be withdrawn without proper warning and the right to put the case. Secondly, once it is withdrawn, the re-registration of the publication may not be unreasonably withheld. I think that both these amendments should be inserted.

However, there is one point that I am still unhappy with and that is that the words “if he is satisfied” are contained in the amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister. In other words, it is still the subjective view of the hon. the Minister which will hold sway and not an objective test as to what the position is.

But having said that, I would like to say that the two amendments proposed by the hon. the Minister certainly do improve the situation and we on this side of the House will support them. Having said that, we will still oppose this clause because the present situation is that all newspapers must be registered with the Department of Internal Affairs. There is a procedure and this has been tightened up by the Internal Security Act. The registration fee is now R40 000 and these moneys can in certain circumstances be forfeited. That is bad enough, but the effect of this clause, even with the Minister’s amendments, is to force a newspaper to submit itself to the discipline of a statutory body or a body which is recognized by statute or by regulation. Although the word “voluntary” appears in the text of the clause—we will come to that later—the fact of the matter is that the entire element of voluntary submission to discipline is being discarded. It is a compulsory discipline—State sanctioned discipline, no less. If that is disputed, the test is in the text, for it is the Minister—a political figure—who in his discretion holds the final answer and the final sanction, the final sanction being that of cancellation of registration—the closing of a newspaper without warning, redress or right of appeal. To make matters worse, once such cancellation has been effected, registration cannot be granted again without the approval of the hon. the Minister, but to that extent we have a slight leavening of the situation in a post-cancellation situation proposed by the hon. the Minister in his amendment.

Even with the amendment, this is still quite frankly a blunt instrument to enforce a form of Govemment-sactioned control. Who can argue to the contrary? Does the hon. the Minister really understand the implications of this clause, even with the amendments that are now proposed? It will be interpreted that way in South Africa and it will certainly be interpreted in that way abroad. Even the most conservative elements in the United States and the United Kingdom hold a tremendously strong brief and a commitment to free expression and to the absence of governmental licensing of newspapers. This clause throws all those values out of the window. I wonder if the hon. the Minister has consulted the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs in regard to this matter? Does he know what the result will be for South Africa once this law gets on to the Statute Book?

My colleague the hon. member for Pinelands will propose amendments which, while not curing the basic defect, will at least leaven its provisions. But suffice to say that we find the basic tenets of this clause obnoxious, and we will vote against the clause as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, I will not repeat what my hon. colleague has already stated, but I would, however, like to underline one fact and that is that it is indisputable that if we in these benches had not conducted the debate as we have done, there would have been no time at all for the hon. the Minister to receive representations and to put forward his amendments. I want to say immediately that I am very grateful that this has taken place. I am glad that the NPU had had these consultations via the hon. Deputy Minister and the Director, and I am also glad that the hon. the Minister has accepted the amendments we have before us at the moment. Like my colleague said, it is not easy to get the full force of these amendments in a few moments, but we will certainly support them as we have indicated.

I would not like to move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 3, in line 6, to omit “the Minister is satisfied that”;
2. (2) on page 3, in line 13, after Gazette to insert:
   : Provided that a registration shall not be cancelled unless the said publisher has, after having received fourteen days written notice to do so, failed to subject himself for disciplinary purposes to the control of the said body
3. (3) on page 3, in lines 14 to 17, to omit paragraph (b).

As far as my first amendment is concerned, it seems to us that the words we seek to omit are totally unnecessary. Either it happens or it does not happen and, if there is going to be any sort of test at all, obviously it should be an objective one. However, it seems to me that the words themselves are redundant. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider this amendment sympathetically and to accept it.

As far as my second amendment is concerned, I think that here too it should be acceptable to the hon. the Minister. I think the amendment is perfectly reasonable. It gives the publisher concerned proper notice. That is all I am appealing for here, nothing more and nothing less. I hope that in this case too the hon. the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment.

As far as the third amendment is concerned, I know that it is highly improbable that the hon. the Minister will accept it. However, I want to say that this provision is a closing of the door, it is a very harsh provision, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to see his way clear to improve this clause even more than he has done already by moving his own amendments, by accepting the three amendments that I have moved.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the amendments of the hon. the Minister are satisfactory and we also agree with them. I just want to say that I think that this proves that if we had had a chance to consider this at our leisure we may possibly have reached a consensus sooner and prevented the situation in which we now find ourselves. I just want to say that although we accept the amendments we basically still have difficulties with the possibility that a few independent newspapers may be forced into membership of an association they want nothing to do with.

Then there is also the entire matter of the powers of the Minister as provided in the new subsection (4)(b). I do not want to say much about this but I should like the hon. the Minister to explain to us in greater detail about the notification to the owner of a newspaper which is infringing the law. How frequently must such an owner transgress? Must it be deliberate? Must there be mala fide We should like to have these particulars from the hon. the Minister.

I also want to say that I am still fairly sceptical with regard to the powers of the hon. the Minister in this connection. However, I also want to say that if the name Heunis appeared here I may have been satisfied because when one knows the Minister concerned then one is more inclined to say: Very well, let it pass. However, tomorrow or the next day there may be another Minister and then there could be problems.

Mr. Chairman, this party and I myself had to endure a few gibes and insults from the Official Opposition which we treated with the contempt they deserved and the contempt that those who made them merited. The point I want to make is that we now suddenly have a totally new approach on the part of the Official Opposition. They have adopted a new attitude. We do not have their hysterical exaggeration any longer. [Interjections.] We have had the complaint that the hon. the Minister did not inform them. However, the point is that the principle of the Bill has been accepted at the Second Reading and the debate up to now has been on the principle of the Bill. What this party supported was the principle of the Bill. We believed this was not Government control of the Press or the removal of Press freedom.

We shall naturally support the amendments of the hon. the Minister just as we shall support the first two amendments of the hon. member for Pinelands. Unfortunately, we cannot support his third amendment. The hon. the Minister’s amendment does in fact improve the position. If there is no right to withhold a certificate, it improves the position. The 14 days’ warning seems a reasonable proposal as does the proposal to delete the words “the Minister is satisfied”, although this deletion does not seem to me to be necessary. The principle does not change, however, and we accept the principle now as we accepted it at Second Reading.

We welcome the hon. the Minister’s amendment for two reasons. The first reason is that we believe that it makes the purpose of the Bill clearer. I am sorry that the PFP was perhaps a little confused and unable to understand the Bill, but these amendments now allow even them to understand it. We understood it from the start. We analyzed it, judged it on its merits and supported it. These amendments make it possible for the PFP now to start to understand it also, and we welcome that as well. We welcome the amendments which we support. We support amendments Nos. (1) and (2) of the hon. member for Pinelands and we are glad that the position has now been reached where the hysteria of the Official Opposition’s opposition to this Bill is put into proper perspective so that one can see it was inspired by what they read in the Press rather than by a study of the Bill and an understanding of what is in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I shall start with the hon. member for Durban Point. I owe the hon. member an apology because I did not refer to him in my reply to the Second Reading debate. I apologize to him for this. I should like to place on record my appreciation for the support he has pledged for this Bill.

I should now like to deal with the criticism of the hon. member for Sandton. When we were discussing the Referendums Bill the hon. member Prof. Olivier sent me an amendment he intended to move on clause 7, when we were already discussing the Committee Stage. I accepted the hon. member’s bona fides that he could not have it ready earlier. The hon. member will remember that I did not mention that I had received it while we were discussing the clause.

He gave it to you as soon as he had it.

But that is not important. Please let me make my point. The only point I want to make is that the hon. member Prof. Olivier gave it to me when he had it available. I accepted that that was the first opportunity he had to give it to me after he had gone through it. I do not know why that hon. member is now pointing his finger. I am merely trying to make the point that in that debate …

That is no point.

You are too truncated to know it is a point.

When did you get it…

But can I not please tell the hon. member that…

Was it four o’clock, five o’clock or six o’clock? Do not beat about the bush, Chris, just give us …

Order! I do not know an hon. member here with the name “Chris”. There are only “hon. members” in this Chamber.

If the hon. member would cease his hysterical attacks, I shall proceed. The point I want to make is that I did not object to the hon. member Prof. Olivier’s behavior because I accepted that that was the best opportunity for him to do so. As far as the amendments are concerned which I moved on this clause, I must point out that they were handed to me while a debate was in progress. The hon. members know that I have been sitting here all day. The final document certified by the law advisers only reached us a few minutes ago. 1 therefore say in all fairness that we shall just have to differ with each other. However, I am asking those hon. members to accept my bona fides, just as I accepted the bona fides of the hon. member Prof. Olivier.

Do you really believe that this is a proper way for the legislature of the Republic of South Africa to operate in respect of an important measure such as this one?

Mr. Chairman, I am bound to the rules of this House, just as the hon. member for Groote Schuur is, and I subject myself to the rules of the House.

But they have been suspended! [Interjections.]

I really do not want to react to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. I think that the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Sandton are arguing in a fair way. I am replying to their arguments in the same fair way. I have already indicated that at the earliest opportunity I went through the documents in detail to determine the motivation for the amendments. Unfortunately I cannot accept the amendments of the hon. member for Pinelands. In the first place I cannot accept it in view of the amendments of the NPU on the contents of which we have agreed. Allow me to make one matter very clear. We did not agree on a specific wording. I do not want any misunderstanding on this. I am referring now to the amendments I moved myself.

In any case, I cannot accept the first amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands because there must be a body which has to decide in a specific case, after investigation, whether or not disciplinary steps ought to be taken against the publisher. Someone must take such a decision.

It should be objective rather than subjective.

No, let us not argue about this now. For the moment we are only discussing the question of whether there should be a body—and surely there should be—which has to make a factual finding on this. Surely the hon. member will understand this. We are not arguing about whether the courts should do this. We are arguing about the fact that it is essential that this be done.

In the second place, the retention of this provision is also necessary since the relevant Minister is charged with the consequential duty of announcing the cancellation of the registration in the Gazette. The hon. member will understand that the relevant Minister is compelled to announce the cancellation of a registration in the Gazette. Consequently there must be a functionary, and in this case the Minister is the functionary.

In his third amendment the hon. member for Pinelands moved the deletion of the proposed new subsection (4)(b), which would mean that after the cancellation of the registration of his newspaper by the Minister, an editor will simply be able to apply for reregistration. I am dealing with this point because we have not discussed it before. Such an application for reregistration cannot then be refused. As the legislation now stands, the Minister would have no choice but to register the newspaper. This would destroy the purpose of this provision. I feel I have now replied fully to the amendments of the hon. member for Pinelands.

I have already referred to the hon. member for Sandton, and I do not intend to deal any further with his arguments.

This brings me to the hon. member for Rissik. I want to explain again that no one is being compelled against his will to become a member of a body. What does in fact happen in that he is forced to subject himself to the disciplinary steps of a recognized body. That is all that is happening. I do not want to argue about this at length. The argument that we are dealing with enforced membership here is untrue. Of course, we could have a long discussion on enforceable or enforced membership if we wanted to.

Basically I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point that these amendments do not affect the principle we are debating.

For the reasons I have given I can therefore not accept the amendments of the hon. members.

Amendment (1) moved by Dr. A. L. Boraine negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment (1) moved by the Minister of Internal Affairs agreed to.

Amendment (2) moved by Dr. A. L. Boraine negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (3) moved by Dr. A. L. Boraine negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by the Minister of Internal Affairs agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, obviously the hon. the Minister’s amendment is self-explanatory and we think that it brings about an improvement to the Bill. I do not personally see that there is any significant difference, but we shall certainly support that amendment.

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

Clause 2 amends section 18 of the Publications Act and that section deals with the duties of a publisher. It requires, amongst other things, the name and business address to be printed in a conspicuous place on the various publications. Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) that is being amended provides that the provisions of this section shall not apply to a member of the Newspaper Press Union of South Africa. The amendment contained in this clause seeks to replace “a member of the Newspaper Press Union of South Africa” with “the holder of a certificate”, or documentary proof. The certificate or documentary proof is issued in terms of the proposed section 18(2)(b) contained in clause 3 of the Bill and this remains although there has been a slightly expanded definition of the body in terms of it being “independent and voluntary”. We have not reached that clause yet and I am not quite certain in terms of law what is meant by a “voluntary” body in the sense whether it is unpaid or whatever, or “independent”, but we shall be coming to that clause. To me, however, it is still not going to be very clearly defined in law. We consider the whole concept of this body unacceptable and as such, although we shall accept the amendment, we shall still oppose this clause.

Our feeling is that if we are going to have this clause we should not prejudice the NPU or its members who have been negotiating over a period of months with the hon. the Minister. Apparently some progress at least has been made in recent months in these negotiations between the hon. the Minister and the NPU. This amendment will not prevent others from being subject to the discipline of some or other body, but it will enable the NPU members to continue on a basis of their voluntary disciplinary codes. The effect of this amendment then is that a publisher can be a member of the NPU, in which case he will be subject to its discipline, as is exactly the situation with the members at present. In addition, however, for publishers who do not fall in that category there would be a body as provided for in clause 3 which would then exercise that control over the people who are not members of the NPU.

Amendment moved by Mr. K. M. Andrew negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by the Minister of Internal Affairs, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 3, in line 33, to omit all the words after “of” up to and including “purposes” in line 3 on page 5 and to substitute:
   documentary proof that he subjects himself for disciplinary purposes to an independent and voluntary body striving for the attainment and maintenance of the highest possible standards by persons disseminating news, and which is recognized by the Minister by notice in the Government Gazette
2. (2) on page 5, in line 8, to omit “a certificate” and to substitute “documentary proof”.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister’s amendments bring about a certain improvement in this clause and to some extent change the basic meaning of it. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we will support his amendments. However, I believe the hon. member for Pinelands will move his amendments as well, which I think will again be an improvement on the amendments of the hon. the Minister.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions about this amended clause. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would be in a position to answer those points so that we will at least know what we are legislating for. For instance, the hon. the Minister, in his amendment, talks about “documentary proof’ that a publisher subjects himself for disciplinary purposes to an independent and voluntary body. I would like to know precisely what the hon. the Minister means by the word “independent”. Independent of what? I would like a definition of the hon. the Minister’s idea as to what is meant by the word “independent”. Independent of the NPU? Independent of the newspapers? Independent of the law, or of what? I think there should be an explanation of that.

Secondly, he uses the words “voluntary body”. Perhaps I should tell the hon. the Minister what I see in these words and he can then either confirm or deny it. I see a voluntary body as being a body of people whose membership is voluntary; in other words, members are not forced to be members of that body. However, the problem I have with the amendment is that although the body is voluntary, the discipline is compulsory. One can voluntarily become a member of the body but one has to submit oneself to the discipline of that voluntarily composed body. So, the one basic element…

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

Mr. Chairman, I am busy asking questions myself. Yet the hon. member may put his question.

The hon. member for Sandton voluntarily achieved membership of this Parliament. Does he thereby submit himself to the rules of this Parliament?

For the moment the analogy escapes me, but the answer is “yes”. What I am trying to say to the hon. Minister is that while I understand that the body which is to exercise the form of discipline will be composed of people who voluntarily are members of that body, the fact that newspapers have to be subject to the discipline of that body is not voluntary at all. That is compulsory. That is one of the basic problems that we have with this Bill, and that is the compulsory nature of the discipline which is meted out by that voluntary body. That is something to which we object and to which the NPU and the newspaper editors have objected, and I do not think that that objection, whether or not we agree on the actual gravamen of it, has been removed. Then we also have in this amendment, and I must admit also in the original Bill, a certain amount of loose language.

“Imprecise”?

Imprecise language is what I meant.

I almost thought I understood you!

He talks about people disseminating news. What is meant by that? Who are people disseminating news? Are they editors, are they publishers, are they news editors, are they reporters, are they broadcasters, politicians? Is the information officer of the governing party not a person who disseminates news? What I am trying to say, is that this language is very imprecise and does not in fact define what really is intended by the Government. It is far too broad.

Then, Sir, the hon. the Minister referred to a voluntary body, and the provision continues as follows—

I do not think that anybody can object to those words. There is no objection to that aspect. I further quote—

I have referred to the vagueness of this. Then it continues—

Here is another problem which still remains as far as this Bill is concerned. What is being deleted, are the words “which is recognized by regulation”. What is in its place, is “and which is recognized by the Minister by notice in the Government Gazette”. That was a basic objection which we tried to raise during the Second Reading. I do not think that the change that the hon. the Minister has introduced, is any more than cosmetic, because the hon. the Minister is not going to recognize a body of which he does not approve. He is not going to recognize in the Government Gazette a body the composition of which he does not approve, the standards and procedures of which he does not approve as well as the final make-up of which he does not approve. What I am therefore saying, is that it is still in the hands of the hon. the Minister, and that it is still a negotiating force with whoever is going to form such a body, to shape the sort of body and the sort of discipline that he wishes to bring about. What is this body? How does the hon. the Minister see it? Is it an NPU body or is it not? Is it the Press Council or is it a new body to be created? If so, how does the hon. the Minister envisage that such a body will be created?

Finally, on this clause and on the hon. the Minister’s amendment, I should like to say that the words “documentary proof’ are also vague. What does the hon. the Minister mean by that? A certificate?

A letter from you is documentary proof.

Fine. Does the hon. the Minister say that if the editor or publisher of a newspaper concern writes a letter to him and states that he is prepared to submit his newspaper to the discipline of that body, it is documentary proof?

Yes.

All right, I think it is a fair enough answer to that question. However, the two basic problems that we have, i.e. the “compulsory discipline” and the “recognition by the Government” of that body remain in this clause and therefore we are still going to vote against it when it comes to the vote.

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

The hon. the Minister may feel that that is not the intention of the Government. We would prefer to see that in law because we believe that if that body does contain members appointed by the Government, it would do exactly what we have said it will do, hour after hour all day. Therefore, I hope that the hon. the Minister will, without any waste of time, accept that amendment, because I believe it will certainly satisfy us. I also believe it will satisfy many people outside this House who are disturbed by this legislation. The hon. the Minister has nothing to lose if he is not going to do that. Therefore, I hope that he will accept that.

I must say that I hesitate to move my second amendment, because 1 acknowledge that the hon. the Minister, in his amendment, actually does away with the words “and which is recognized by regulation”. Nevertheless, I move as a second amendment—

I think the hon. the Minister will know that one of the major reasons for our own spirited opposition to this Bill, and therefore also to this clause, stems from the words “recognized by regulation”, which is another way of saying “to be licensed by the Government”, to which we, of course, object most strenuously. It gives the State a license whereby to operate. I am not sure if the hon. the Minister can accept or incorporate those words, but it is certainly a fact that he has deleted them in his own amendment, although the wording will still read “recognized by the Minister by notice in the Government Gazette”. The only reason why I motivate this, is to stress how very strongly we feel about these words “by regulation” and about any control whatsoever by the State.

Finally, I must confess that I too am puzzled about the fact that there will be an independent and voluntary body which will have to discipline people who are not members of that body, because by definition they do not have to be members of that body and they do not have to join it. Only if they wish or volunteer to do so, they can join it. Nevertheless, they have to give an assurance that they will be subject to that discipline. It places an enormous onus on and creates a problem for the body concerned which now in a sense will also be compelled to impose discipline in the same way as those who are not members of that body have to accept discipline. It seems to me that there is almost a contradiction in terms, and I should like to hear the hon. the Minister on that.

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, we accept the amendment of the hon. the Minister. It is an improvement. But I personally still have problems with the question of the independent and voluntary body which is to be established. It is not clear to me how it will be composed, how it will function, if other bodies can exist side by side with it and on what grounds the Minister will accept one body and not another. For this reason we shall not support the clause.

Mr. Chairman, just to prove my bonafides, I am prepared to accept the first amendment relating to the body the Government is going to establish.

Hurrah!

Let us be honest with one another. The fact of the matter is that there are two bodies today which exercise discipline over newspapers. The one is the NPU, which does it through the Press Council. This is a voluntary but also an independent organization. It should therefore not be a problem to understand what “voluntary, independent organization” means.

I want to know what is meant by “independent”.

It is a voluntary organization because its members voluntarily subject themselves to its discipline by means of contract, by signing its articles of association. It is voluntary in that sense, as in the case of members of a club or a political party. If anyone joins a party voluntarily, the disciplinary codes in terms of the constitution of that party apply to him. I hope the hon. member now understands what this terminology means.

The hon. member also asked what the word “disseminate” means.

†It is quite obvious what it means in relation to this, as we are dealing with the Publications Act. It is quite obvious, firstly, that such a body will determine who its members are, but once it has determined that, those members who are busy with the dissemination of news must subject themselves voluntarily to the discipline of that particular organization.

*In reply to the hon. members for Sandton, Rissik and Pinelands I indicated that it was a voluntary organization independent of the Government. That organization therefore decides on its composition, its membership and its procedures but, as the legislation at present recognizes the NPU as such a body in terms of the new amendments more than one body may exist provided that they are approved—not determined but approved—as bodies which meet those requirements. I think this is a fair approach because the Government does not appoint it. I think the hon. members must accept in all fairness that the amendment I myself moved has now satisfied the Press Union and the Conference—that it is voluntary, that is is independent and that it does not bear the stamp of Government opinion. I really do not think that we should argue with one another now about what is acceptable to the people and the media.

I turn now to the hon. member for Rissik and I want us, once again, to be clear on this point. There is now statutory discipline in terms of the Publication of Newspapers Act. That now exists.

Is it by way of prosecution?

No, by way of the law.

By prosecution in an open court.

No, Sir. That is not the point I am trying to make. I am talking about the principle of control. Whether it is or is not a criminal offence, there is control. One can only escape that control in terms of exemption. That has been the position up to now provided one was a member of the NPU. The reason was because the NPU had their own code which agreed, among other things, with the criteria to be applied. These were more or less similar to the provisions in the legislation relating to the criteria. What will happen now—and this is acceptable to the media and to the Union—is that instead of its just being described as the NPU, it is now to be approved of by regulation. However, that does not detract from the fact that there could be more than one body that would exercise discipline. That is the only point I am trying to make. In view, therefore, of my acceptance of the hon. member’s amendment and in view also of the acceptance by the Union of the my amendment, I want to appeal to hon. members to accept this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendments to this clause—

1. (1) On page 3, in line 31, after “not” to insert:
   a member of the Newspaper Press Union of South Africa or
2. (2) on page 5, in line 7, after “is” to insert:
   a member of the Newspaper Press Union of South Africa or

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the amendments moved by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens as they are inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to this clause, the hon. the Minister has elaborated on the question of a body and what he has in mind. Unfortunately, I still do not entirely follow his reasoning. However, he has expounded on it at some length and I think therefore that it would be unreasonable to ask him to do so any further. I think that the critical point remains that this body, whatever it is—it could apparently be the NPU—needs to be recognized by notice in the Gazette which in effect means that the Minister himself must be satisfied with that body and whatever discipline its exercises in order for it to be recognized. As far as I am concerned if that is not either implicit or explicit control, then I do not know what is.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein North said yesterday evening—I paraphrase his words—that it is not good that a sword should hang continually over the heads of the Press in South Africa and that he hoped that this Bill would result in the creation of the necessary instrument whereby that sword over the heads of the Press in South Africa could be removed. I would suggest that it is a forlorn hope. The sword that the hon. member talked about is now part of the law. The hon. the Minister has said that during the course of his negotiations over this and a similar matter, he did not bring threats to bear on the NPU.

We can discuss that during the Third Reading.

I am referring to this body and want to know whether the Minister needs to recognize it.

If that is so—I have no reason to doubt it—it would be useful to know what sword the hon. member for Bloemfontein North—I do not hink he is present at the moment—was talking about and who was holding that sword. I think it is fair enough to ask this question, and I hope that at some stage the hon. member or possibly the hon. Minister himself would elaborate on that.

There is a basic conflict problem built into this clause even after it is is amended in accordance with the hon. the Minister’s amendments. I refer to the body. If one has a body, a media council or a Press council or whatever it may be, which is properly representative—in other words, it reflects the proportions of the media in a reasonable way—the result of that is surely going to be that it will be dominated by the big groups. If one is going to have a council which, in relation to their activities in the newspaper or publishing field in South Africa, is going to reflect that situation, it is going to be dominated by the big groups. In those circumstances the small independent publishers and newspapers could be unjustly treated and furthermore it would surely also entrench a situation that is supposedly undesirable according to the Steyn Commission and I would imagine according to the hon. Minister’s thinking as well.

If on the other hand one goes the other way and if one attempts to create a media council or whatever on a broad spectrum approach—that is to say one brings in all the small independent newspapers and makes sure that they are not dominated within that council by the big groups—then that council could become unrepresentative of the Press in South Africa as a whole. This in turn could unduly prejudice the biggest and most important newspapers in South Africa. One could in those circumstances end up with the tail wagging the dog.

Various comparisons have been drawn with ethical codes of various groups of people, but this conflict is not equivalent to situations in the medical or legal professions where, generally speaking, one is either dealing with individuals or with relatively small firms in relation to the whole being represented or being on those councils which control their members. In this situation one can be dealing with very big groups that control a large percentage of the market.

I believe that there is an inherent conflict and for this reason in addition to the many others mentioned by my hon. colleagues, I shall oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I do my level best to understand …

No, you cannot!

I must deal with the Bill as it stands at the moment. Let us look at the Act as it stands, the Act which the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens wishes to retain. What does it say? It says that only the members of the NPU are exempted from the provisions of the Act. There is nothing in the Act which prevents what the hon. member argues from happening.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member would just listen! What the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens wants to retain is only a name—the National Press Union. There is nothing in the Act which prescribes the composition of this body; nothing whatsoever. Within the NPU—and I am only replying now to the hon. member’s argument—it is possible for a group to dominate. It is possible today. The hon. member does not suggest a remedy for that situation.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

No, just give me a moment, please. I should like to finish my argument first. The hon. member simply argues that within a voluntary body there could be domination by the big ones of the small ones.

Or vice versa.

Or vice versa, yes. In terms of the existing legislation, however, there is no remedy for that sort of situation, while in terms of the amending legislation there could be a remedy. When the Bill enables us to improve the situation—a situation which in fact exists in terms of present legislation—the hon. member still says he is going to oppose the amendment of that legislation.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister tell us whether it is correct that at present newspapers have a choice either to become members of the NPU and then not be subject to the provisions of the Publications Act, or else they can choose not to be members of the NPU, and be subject to the provisions of the Publications Act? They do therefore have a choice of being dominated or not. Is that not so?

They do of course have a choice of whether they want to join the NPU or not. The result of that choice in terms of the existing legislation is that if they are not members of the NPU they fall under the provisions of the Act. They do, however, have a choice of their own.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but it is controlled by legislation. Let me take it a bit further, however. We all agree that it is preferable that discipline of the media should be selfdiscipline. All hon. members have argued that.

[Inaudible.]

Please!

[Inaudible.]

In all my discussions with the Press Union and with the Conference of Editors, they have, in terms of their own restructuring of the proposed media council and its procedures, used the British model in the sense that the British model council also adjudicates in cases of complaints against non-members, the basic argument being that a mere finding against a publication will eventually bring it into the fold.

So, there are no penalties?

Not among members. It will, however, ultimately bring them into the fold. That might be so. I have said that I would be prepared to accept that the proposed new council could adjudicate in cases of complaints among members. Let us accept for one moment that that is a right taken to oneself without reference to those members. I have argued—and I still argue that way—that I prefer that one institution applying the same criteria, using the same procedures, adopting the same codes of conduct, should adjudicate among them all, because of the reasons I have enunciated here today. There are no objective tests. These tests to be applied have to be built up by way of precedent. The hon. member will understand that if there is a different body, it will apply different precedents and different standards. In view of the attitude of the NPU and the Conference of Editors I would ask that we accept it because they are prepared to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether I am correct in saying that what he in fact is saying comes down to this: He is requiring the NPU to do a job by statute, which it does not want to do?

No, that is not what I have said. What I have said is this: I share with the NPU one approach, and that is that I would prefer the media to discipline themselves. The NPU accepts that as well. Secondly, I would want that to be done effectively. The NPU accepts that as well.

Where do you differ?

I will come to that. Thirdly, we all accept that up to now it has not been effective. That does not mean that it has been completely ineffective, but it has not been sufficiently effective.

What has not been effective?

The application of the norms.

From outside?

No, inside. I have accepted and I have agreed with the NPU that they can redraft or reconstitute the council. Secondly, they can redraft their rules of procedure and the way of mediating in complaints. We have all agreed on all of these things, but the basic problem is: What do we do with the non-members? The hon. members’ colleagues in the Select Committee agreed with that point. There is only one way in which one can achieve the aim that we all share, and that is that they must adjudicate on all. To achieve that we need an enabling law that provides for the council adjudicating on complaints of non-members and for their findings to be enforced. That is where we differ.

Amendment (1) moved by the Minister of Internal Affairs agreed to.

Amendment (1) moved by Dr. A. L. Boraine agreed to.

Amendment (2) moved by Dr. A. L. Boraine negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by the Minister of Internal Affairs agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I think I would not be exaggerating if I say that this has been a dramatic debate. The hon. the Minister and several other hon. members, from all sides of the House, made some very personal remarks about each other during the course of this debate. In fact I think that quite a few hot words were expressed in both directions from time to time. I hope therefore, the Second Reading debate being passed, that we can now sail in calmer waters and deal with some of the merits of this legislation before us in its amended form.

It has been an extraordinary debate, and the legislation has been passed in a rather extraordinary manner. Up until some 72 hours ago, neither the newspaper industry, nor any hon. member of this House, nor in fact anyone in public life at all, had even an inkling that legislation of this sort was going to be introduced. When it was introduced and it became clear that the implications of the legislation were very serious for the freedom of the Press, it caused a considerable uproar in public circles throughout the country. We have witnessed emergency meetings of the NPU; we have had emergency meetings of the Conference of Editors; we have had representations being made to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. the Deputy Minister late last night by senior people who have flown long distances in order to attend these meetings, and we have had a debate in this House in which tempers sometimes became frayed and in which strong words have been used.

However, one thing has not yet happened in this debate, and that is that the hon. the Minister has not answered the question put to him at the very beginning, and that is why was this legislation introduced in this House, contentious as it has been, in this the dying moments of the session, with hardly a moment to consult, to research or to take up a standpoint. Before this measure is finally voted upon I hope that somebody, hopefully the hon. the Minister himself, will stand up and explain to this House why he has thrown the newspaper industry, this House and many senior administrative people in business into an uproar in the manner that he has done.

If one tries to rush legislation, as this legislation is being rushed through this House, it can only make for bad legislation. Even in the amending legislation now before us, we notice language which is inprecise; we have language the meaning of which is not clear and we have differences of opinion as to what some of these phrases mean. I appeal to the Government at this late stage, in the Third Reading of the Bill, that it is not too late even now to withdraw this legislation for more mature consideration. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to withdraw this legislation and to give it maturer consideration than it has been given so far and to come back to us next year with a Bill, if the hon. the Minister needs a Bill at all—which I doubt—which has been more fully considered. There are precedents for this. In 1977, I think it was, Dr. Connie Mulder introduced a Bill dealing with newspapers. It was withdrawn and, after mature consideration, was never proceeded with. The Advocate-General Bill is another precedent for this. In midstream during its passage the Minister, Mr. Lourens Muller, stood up and withdrew the Bill on the instructions of the then Prime Minister. It was withdrawn in the middle of the debate. That Bill was then proceeded with later in a different form. I want to conclude this point by appealing to the hon. the Minister and the Government not to rush through hastily measures that have been badly thought out, but to withdraw this Bill even now at this late stage.

There are a few unanswered points, some of which I want to mention. The Government feels—this was stated both in the Second Reading debate and in the Committee Stage—that the Press Council has been ineffective, but this has never been motivated. The hon. member for Simon’s Town …

Did you listen to the hon. member for Benoni’s argument about The Cape Times?

That is one example. The hon. member for Maitland refers to the case put by the hon. member for Benoni. Unfortunately, I do not have knowledge of the particular circumstances in that case. It may or may not be an example of an injustice perpetrated on The Cape Times or by The Cape Times and involving the NP. As I say, I am not even sure what it is all about. I want to say, however, that one cannot use one small example to justify the entire case relating to the Press Council. In 1981 the Press Council was used only eight times by the Government and seven out of those eight times the cases of the Government were allowed to lapse or were withdrawn and in only one case—this is according to the statistics of the hon. the Minister himself—redress was given. We keep hearing the story that the Press Council is ineffective, but no one says why it is ineffective. The hon. member for Maitland does not have to put his hand up to speak. He is not in school. [Interjections.] What did he want to say?

I said it is a kangaroo court.

The situation is that there is criticism levelled at the Press Council and yet that criticism has not been substantiated. That is the first point.

On several occasions the hon. the Minister has said that he is in agreement with the NPU that there is a need for greater disciplining of the Press. I think that that is a very strong and outspoken statement. On what does he base that? Why is there a need for a greater disciplining of the Press? We have these bland statements made both in the Second Reading debate and in the debate during the Committee Stage concerning this need for greater discipline, but at no stage is it ever said-why there is this need. I maintain there is no need for any further disciplinary bodies to be set up relating to the Press. I maintain that there are sufficient laws under which the Press has to labour. There are sufficient laws which keep the Press almost in shackles.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister another question. A big point made by him in the Second Reading debate and during the Committee Stage was that all newspapers are subject to the control of the Publications Act except those which are exempted in terms of section 47 relating to the Newspaper Press Union. Now section 47 is being amended by deleting reference to the Newspaper Press Union. I should like to ask what happens if there is disagreement between the Newspaper Press Union and the media council which is being established. Are the newspapers of the Newspaper Press Union—and this includes virtually all the newspapers in the country—then suddenly going to be subject to the Publications Act? Is that the intention of the hon. the Minister? It is the effect of this Bill.

There is a last major question I want to ask. The hon. the Minister has said that the Newspaper Press Union agreed to the amendments he has proposed. I am sure they do, because those amendments leaven the provisions of the Bill. The truth of the matter is, however, that the Newspaper Press Union did not ask for this legislation at all. What we want to know is: Even with these amendments, do the Newspaper Press Union agree with this Bill as it stands? Is it a Bill which they have asked for? Do they wish to have it, or what? The basic objections still remain. What are those basic objections? The basic objections are that the Minister continues to have the power to cancel the registration of a newspaper. That is a basic objection which remains in the redrafted form of this Bill.

The second basic objection is that newspapers are compelled to submit themselves to the discipline of a body as yet undefined. This is a voluntary body, an independent body and a body with fine objects, but the compulsory aspect is there, because all newspapers are going to be forced to submit themselves to that compulsory body for disciplinary purposes.

The third basic objection is also still retained in the Bill, and that is that that body which is going to exercise the discipline, is a body which will have to be licensed by the Minister. This body will no longer be recognized by regulation, but it has to be a body which is recognized by the Minister by notice in the Government Gazette. That remains the same. It is a cosmetic change. The situation is now that the Minister merely approves of the body or does not approve of it. However, it is still a question of compulsory discipline being exercised by a voluntary body approved of by the Minister.

The elements of indirect disciplining by the Government of the Press are in fact still inherent in the Bill. We believe that there are enough laws to hamper the Press. There are enough laws under which editors have to labour every day of their lives. Even though this Bill has been slightly improved, we believe the Bill is bad legislation and that it holds out an ominous threat towards the freedom of the Press. We shall continue to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, in the debate thus far I have noticed a lack, on the part of the official Opposition, of the responsibility such an Opposition must have with regard to order, peace and stability. One also discerns a lack of the will to clamp down firmly on those people who are threatening the order, stability and peace which a good Government wants by way of the Press and in other extra-democratic ways. In the counter-arguments of the official Opposition I noticed a particular deficiency in that connection. This is probably the case because I have not been on this side of the House for as many years as the hon. members of the PFP. However, it remains a real problem that a Government is confronted with people who do not want to honour democracy and who do not want world stability. It is then the responsibility of a Government to try to clamp down on such people.

Like the Wit Kommando?

Of course one must clamp down on the Wit Kommando.

And the AWB?

Of course one must clamp down on those who do not want to maintain order and stability. In fact, I want to come back to that point. [Interjections.]

At the beginning of his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister referred to a process of reform which was under way. I want to tell the hon. the Minister—and in this regard I agree with him; I also mentioned it in my Second Reading speech—that the Whites in South Africa inherited a situation which none of us want to retain. On this we are all ad idem. We all agree with this. However, the methods we are seeking to bring about the specific changes differ. The hon. the Minister has a specific plan of action he wants to follow, but I differ from him. I am seeking another way. The same is true of change and reform processes. Similarly you differ from me on the processes I want to initiate. But we are all agreed that in our reform processes, we do not want strife, instability and other negative things. I also said that the fact that we are not a homogeneous community makes the entire situation we inherited in Africa more difficult. It is a world-wide problem. In that respect I must say I have great understanding for the hon. the Minister. While we voted against certain provisions this evening, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the day may come when he will be in the situation in which I now am, whereas I shall be sitting on the opposite side. I think we shall then still have the same understanding of one another. I want to say in a few sentences that I appreciate the kind words the hon. the Minister addressed to me. I think in many respects we should perhaps address such kind words to one another. I thank him most sincerely.

Since we have now arrived at the Third Reading of this Bill I want to refer specifically to the role of the Minister in this situation. I understand that there are people who for good reasons do not want to join a specific body or union or whatever it may be, and that there should also be control over them. If there is a Newspaper Press Union, there is at least a body consisting of recognized people affiliated to the Press. The Minister may then say that he recognizes that body and that the body may exercise a degree of control. However, I can understand the hon. the Minister’s problem, because there can be certain people who say they do not want to belong to that body. There could be two reasons for such a standpoint. The one does not want to belong to the body because he does not agree with it, but the other reason—in this connection I want to agree with the hon. the Minister’s argument—could be that there is a small or a large newspaper which does not want to belong to such a body in order to evade its responsibilities and work against order, peace and stability. It is then the responsibility of the Minister to call such people to order. In this connection I agree with the hon. the Minister. If I were in his position I would have done the same.

However, I now have a problem. In this connection I want to quote a report and when I do so I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider my argument as objectively as he can. When reference is made in the Bill to “a Minister”it is difficult for one to say that one trusts such a person. As I said in the Committee Stage, if a name such as Van der Merwe or Heunis had appeared in the Bill, I would have been able to say I know the man, I know the honourable gentleman, and as long as that man occupies that position, I can agree with it.

He may not be so honorable, but at least he is a man.

Yes, at least he is a man. In reply to this I want to mention that the hon. the Minister once said that he sometimes doubted the manliness of my hon. leader. But that was in another debate and in a different climate when we were perhaps being a little more vehement towards one another.

This morning in Beeld. I read a report on a speech of a colleague of the hon. the Minister. In the debates we are holding today in South Africa the hon. the Minister’s colleague attacked the Conservative Party. Of course he has every right to do so and I think this should be done, but just listen to what the hon. the Minister said about us. If such a man were to become Minister of Internal Affairs and he had to exercise control over a body or instrument which stated the standpoint of the Conservative Party, one would feel very special. I want to quote what his hon. colleague said about us to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. I am referring to the hon. the Minister of National Education. He held a speech at Vanderbijlpark which was reported as follows—

That I do not mind because it is the sort of thing politicians say about each other.

It is also the truth.

Very well, let us for the purposes of my argument say that it is true. I can say the same things about those hon. members and they can say it about me. That is part of our political game. But the hon. the Minister went further. I do not know whether the terminology used is parliamentary or not. The hon. member for Virginia knows me. Because of my background I very seldom use ugly words. That is the way I speak. However, I am now reading what the hon. the Minister said. Having said this, he went on to say—

That is what he said about us.

Order! The hon. member may not quote improper remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. However, I want to assure you that I myself have never used that word except in an emergency.

You may not have said it, but you have often thought it, have you not?

I have frequently wanted to spit out these little epithets; that is true. The sentence continues—

He is now referring to the CP, but he could just as well have said “Vra vir Daan van der Merwe”—

This in fact concerns what South Africa does not want. As far as I myself am concerned—and that is also the feeling among my hon. colleagues—we do not want a racial war in South Africa. We do not want trouble between the population groups. That is our conviction. However, an hon. Minister comes along now and says these things about us. Elsewhere in his speech he referred specifically to the Coloreds and he said we want to shoot the people, and once we have finished shooting we do not know what we are going to do next. I want to say that the hon. the Minister …

Order! The hon. member must not digress so far afield from the legislation.

This involves an hon. Minister who has a particular responsibility and power with regard to other parties and their instruments. I mentioned it as an example. That is why I want to tell the hon. the Minister that one sometimes is faced by the problem that we—the people who have to make the laws—frequently in the heat of the battle place the Press in a situation where they have to contend with our sins. That is why it is difficult for me, so difficult that I cannot support the Third Reading, because here we are placing power in the hands of a politician, a Minister, who himself says things which are so irresponsible and which are then used by the Press. If I was a member of the Government and I trusted myself and the principles I stood by, I would have taken strong action against such a member of my Government under such circumstances. There was a time when the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications—at that stage I was still in the same party as him—referred in a very friendly way and not in a derogatory way to the thinking ability of specific people. However, that sort of thing is very sensitive in South Africa and the newspapers had a field day. But the point is that when one lives in a democracy an Opposition must take careful note of the powers it gives to an hon. Minister. [Interjections.] I see this from a standpoint I have always adhered to and on these grounds we shall not support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik began by genially pointing out that he could not agree with the misconception, as he put it, for the responsibility of the PFP. I can agree with the fact that the PFP has another approach to these matters.

I am convinced that the actual intention of this legislation is not contrary to the beliefs of the CP. I think the one thing which drove them to oppose this Bill is the fact that the newspapers cried wolf and spread a rumour that the Bill was actually aimed at the newspapers of the CP and Die Afrikaner. Then they got a fright. I think they would have supported this legislation a week ago. However, when they read those stories in the local newspapers, they said: No wait, we must think again. Perhaps this was a tactic to give them a fright. I found it interesting that whereas the PFP moved an amendment at the Second Reading in terms of which the Bill should be read a Second Time today six months, the CP asked that it first be referred to a Select Committee which would have resulted in the earliest possible Second Reading date of the Bill being in eight months time.

With regard to the matter the hon. member for Rissik has now raised in connection with the newspaper report on what the hon. the Minister of National Education was supposed to have said at a certain meeting, surely the hon. member should know that it has nothing to do with this Bill. It concerns the reaction of a Minister regarding a standpoint, not necessarily a standpoint printed in the newspaper of the CP, not necessarily on what the public representatives of the CP say at public meetings, but the sort of gossip one hears in the street from people who align themselves with other people who are inclined to adopt a more radical attitude to this sort of matter. When we in South Africa are dealing with sensitive population relations and we are dealing with the possibility of finding methods for closer co-operation and a certain standpoint is adopted by the hon. members of the CP, there is a tendency—this is not necessarily what they want—for radical elements to make overtures to them. After all, that is why there were closer links particularly at the beginning between the AWB, which is extremely irresponsible, and the CP. I am not accusing the CP of making overtures to them. That is what happened.

He said that CP speakers had said that. [Interjections.]

I would have liked to discuss this further but at meetings I myself have heard supporters of the HNP—I have not yet come across CP supporters in my constituency—adopting that sort of attitude. [Interjections.] May I not express my opinion on CP speakers? I am referring to this sort of remark and its significance, and I want to suggest that this has nothing to do with what is written in the newspapers. These are not the opinions of editors per se. For this reason it has nothing to do with this Bill. It would have had something to do with this Bill if this had been the kind of spirit which pervades a newspaper like Die Patriot. I am saying, if this were the case. I am not saying it is. [Interjections.] Then the newspaper would be subject to possible action by the voluntary organization in the first place, and if the newspaper is not prepared to subject itself to voluntary discipline then the Minister would have the right to intervene. That is what it amounts to. The premise adopted in the Bill is that our only endeavor is to ensure that self-discipline is applied. This also hangs together with the question I put to the hon. member for Sandton. Every hon. member in this House comes here with the premise that he will discipline his own behaviour in the House. However, we cannot leave it at that. We cannot leave it at self-discipline and surely all the hon. members of this House are honorable hon. members, or if not, they are at least supposed to be responsible hon. members. However, there are certain rules, and the rules of the House of Assembly provide that no hon. member may tell another hon. member that he is lying. If hon. members of the PFP infringe the rules, in spite of the normal dignity an hon. member is supposed to display, then surely Mr. Speaker, as the final arbiter, has to give a ruling and may order such hon. members to withdraw. He may even take stronger action. Consequently there must be a final arbiter. The most desirable and preferable is that self-discipline be applied, and that is the premise.

I now come to what the hon. member for Sandton said. He asked why this Bill was introduced at such a late stage. Surely he knows that two years ago a commission was appointed under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Steyn. The Opposition has stated repeatedly that they respect the opinions of judges. The judge reported and his report was tabled and debated. This took place at the beginning of this session. The hon. the Minister stated quite clearly at that stage that the Government was working on this. The Opposition consequently cannot claim now that they had absolutely no idea that the Government was going to do something of this nature. They cannot be so naive as to think that once a report has been made, in which a clear standpoint has been adopted that everything is not as it should be, the Government is simply going to ignore the matter. I am convinced that the entire Opposition knew that the hon. the Minister was holding discussions with representatives of the Press. Those discussions took time. He did not hurry through those discussions. He held long discussions with the aim of liaising in a responsible way with representatives of the Press.

Our point of departure has always been that we strive to obtain the co-operation of the Press in so far as it can affect the South African population structure. In a normal homogeneous country the situation under normal circumstances is far less explosive. However, here in South Africa, which is a focal point in the world and where we know that institutions inside and outside South Africa would like to encourage unrest, there is after all so much more reason to act in an extremely responsible way here. If there are therefore institutions that do not augur well, for the orderly existence of the community in South Africa, then there must be a right to take action, preferably the right of self-discipline.

The Medical Council and the Accountants’ Association, as professional bodies, also have their own voluntary organizations which discipline their own members. They are professions. After all, journalists refer to themselves as professional people. If they are a profession, they must surely accept as professional people that there is a certain ethical code which makes it necessary for them to subject themselves voluntarily to the discipline of that institution. For this reason the point of departure of this legislation still remains our efforts to apply voluntary self-discipline. However, it goes without saying that considering the competition between the media in South Africa, and because, unlike the South African Medical Association or the Accountants’ Association, they do not all maintain the same norms but where there is keen competition, and where strong political emotions are involved, whereas there are also institutions involved which do not even support the normal democratic parties, it is after all more difficult to apply voluntary self-discipline. Then it is after all necessary that the Government should be able to maintain certain norms, but only in extreme cases. That was the reason why it was necessary to introduce this legislation.

After the hon. the Minister had spent many hours in discussions with the responsible leaders of both the main Press groups—the English and Afrikaans group—it is therefore not inappropriate for this legislation to be proceeded with. I also think it is irresponsible of the hon. member for Sandton still to adopt the standpoint that the hon. the Minister should withdraw this legislation.

I should like to ask the hon. member for Rissik, who understands these circumstances—the legislation is not aimed at Die Patriot or Die Afrikaner, but at irresponsible behavior—if he has confidence in the behavior of his Press, to express his support for the desirability of maintaining an orderly society in South Africa; of maintaining democracy in South Africa. For this reason I am asking the hon. member for Rissik to prove this by supporting the Third Reading of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill has emerged from the Committee Stage in an improved form. I think it is better now than it originally was, and we will support it at Third Reading. [Interjections.] Now that the tempest and the fury have passed, one should think that the vociferous hon. members of the PFP would be satisfied. If they are satisfied—and let us be kind and nice and accept that they themselves were misled—then they have misled the public of South Africa. They have misled the whole world into believing that Press freedom in South Africa has died tonight. [Interjections.]

I want to make two appeals this evening. I am thinking here particularly of the speech made by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. While we think of this and of the damage that has been done to South Africa by the debate conducted here by hon. members of the official Opposition …

You have done more damage! [Interjections.]

The Cape Times hailed two hon. members of the PFP as “God’s gift to 1982 South African English-speaking people”. That newspaper also stated: “Not since Rhodes and Jameson have we had two such members of Parliament”. These are, of course, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and the hon. member for Constantia. [Interjections.]

When we talk of damage to South Africa I do not know which of those two hon. members takes the title of Jameson. We know however, what Jameson did to South Africa.

Vause, is that true?

Yes, that is what The Cape Times said. [Interjections.] Joel Mervis wrote this for The Cape Times. It was written by a PFP public representative. [Interjections.] A PFP public representative said that they were God’s gift, the greatest members of Parliament since Rhodes and Jameson. [Interjections.]

I should like to be serious now. I must state that damage has been done both in and outside South Africa. That is why I want to make two appeals this evening. I am sorry to see that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has just walked out. I am sorry he has left because one appeal is meant for him. I therefore ask hon. members of his party to pass it on to him. I ask him to instruct the member of his party, the public representative who sent this story that Press freedom is dying tonight to the International Journalists’ Society and by so doing spread it all over the world … I also ask him to instruct the same Joel Mervis to notify that society that that report was a mistake, and in that way try to undo the damage that those reports will have already done. [Interjections.]

My second appeal is to the South African Press that has spread this issue all over their headlines. This afternoon we have had frontpage headlines stating that we are going to fight all night over the Press Bill, and look at the Press Bill as it is now. [Interjections.] The discussion on this Bill was going to go on all night, until the light of day tomorrow. That is what the headlines on the front page of The Cape Times said. But where is the battle, Mr. Speaker? Let that same Press now please tell the people of South Africa that it was a misunderstanding. Press freedom is not dead in South Africa. They must also tell the public that the media itself is now voluntarily going to try to tighten up its own instrument for safeguarding the people of South Africa against misuse and abuse of the freedom of the Press that does exist in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kliprivier took the hon. member for Sandton to task because he had said that he could not understand why this particular piece of legislation dealing with the Press was introduced so late in the session. The hon. member for Kliprivier gave the feeble excuse—in truth there is no other type of excuse for it—that there was a commission. Yes, we know about the commission. It brought out a report and we debated it as far back as February.

The hon. the Minister in his introductory speech in the Second Reading, made it clear that the Government had not yet decided for or against the recommendations made by that commission. We have been given no warning whatsoever. Therefore our charge still stands. To bring a sensitive piece of legislation so late in the session is simply not done, and we do not accept it.

The hon. the Minister, when he introduced this legislation, told us that he had had some consultations with the Press Union and with the Conference of Editors, but made it clear in his reply to the Second Reading that they never saw the contents of the Bill. Since then he has also told us that he had received representations from the Press Union and as a result he introduced certain amendments. As the hon. the Minister knows, we accepted those amendments; we are glad that they were moved as we believe that the Bill has been improved.

I am also enormously grateful that the hon. the Minister accepted at least one of our amendments, a very important one at that. That was an assurance that we have been seeking, and now we have it in law.

There are, however, still some questions that remain. Do I understand the hon. the Minister correctly that the amendments introduced were decided upon after consultation with the Press Union? I am not saying that they saw and are aware of the exact wording, or perhaps they did see it, and I should like to know whether the amendments were introduced at their request, which would mean that the hon. the Minister acceded to their request.

However, now that the Bill is in amended form, can the hon. the Minister give this House the assurance that the NPU will support the Bill that amended form? In other words, are they now completely satisfied? They were not happy before, but have now had their meeting and made their statement. There were reports in the Press and, as the hon. member for Durban Point said, their word has gone out—not just the word of the Opposition—all over the world, complaining and saying that they did not want this legislation, but now that the amendments have been moved and have been accepted by the Committee, can I now take it, in this the Third Reading stage, that the hon. the Minister can give this House the assurance that the NPU now accepts that this legislation is necessary and desirable and consequently supports it?

I now want to ask a second question. Has the hon. the Minister the NPU’s assurance— and can he give us that assurance—that the NPU will actually enforce the disciplinary code in regard to those persons who do not join the independent, voluntary body? If he cannot, I suggest to the hon. the Minister and to this House that we are still no better off, because there is still an impasse. It would still mean that the hon. the Minister is going to have to force the proposed media council, the NPU—whatever one would like to call it—to enforce the measures, but what does he do about those who do not join that body, and let us remember that it is a voluntary body? Does he propose to resolve the impasse by appointing his own council, or what is he going to do?

In all fairness, in terms of what provision could I appoint my own council?

Well, the hon. the Minister can do anything he likes. [Interjections.] Of course! If he wants to, the hon. the Minister can introduce legislation in this House concerning …

I am talking about now.

Well, not now, no. Would the hon. the Minister concede, however, that my question is at least a fair one, because what he has been trying to do—one of the reasons for the introduction of this legislation—has been to try to ensure that there is one norm, to try to ensure that the discipline of the NPU can extend to nonmembers. If after all these hours, after this legislation has been passed, the media council, NPU, Press Council—whatever one wants to call it—a voluntary and independent body, refuses to impose its discipline on non-members, we have made no progress. I think it is very important for the hon. the Minister to respond to that. I obviously do not expect him to answer me across the floor of the House, but I await his reply with interest.

I now want to be brief, because we have had a very long innings. I have not had dinner tonight, nor has the hon. the Minister. I think we all realize that we have done our job and would like to get on with other important legislation that still has to be debated. Let me say, however, that we in these benches make no apology at all for the stand we have taken about this particular legislation.

What about the volte face?

I say this because I believe that very often, because of the threats that have come from many hon. members on that side about the Press, their claim to place a high premium on the freedom of the Press has what I can only describe as an Orwellian ring of “doublespeak”. For that reason we have stressed over and over again that the Press cannot afford to be seen—and must not be seen—as a creature of the State. I can understand the dilemma of the Government. If one accepts the basic premise of the Government—and indeed the Steyn Commission’s report and its conclusions about there being a total onslaught against South Africa—I can understand the dilemma of holding, on the one hand, onto the freedom of the Press, whilst on the other reacting to the appeal of, let us say, the higher law, the law of security, the law of order, the law of control—the law of law and order, as it were. One of the reasons why we have gone to battle, as it were—and people can dismiss that and say that we are exaggerating, or that we have wasted time—is because we feel very deeply indeed on this issue. I agree that there is a cardinal difference between the hon. the Minister and ourselves on this. However, the hon. the Minister must understand, and I think that our performance during this debate has displayed one thing—it may have displayed a lot of other things and I accept all the criticisms and weaknesses that may be attributed to the hon. the Minister—and that is that we have an enormous regard for the freedom of the Press even in an imperiled society and perhaps because of the situation that exists in South Africa. If what I am suggesting is true, then I think that the Press has to assume an opposing role—and if it does not it will fail South Africa—in such a situation where a Government feels that it has to take extraordinary powers. I say this because very often it is only the Press and any opposition which exists in the country which can help the Government of the day to understand the measure of public opinion, and especially where we are a deeply divided society. We are a society in conflict. I believe that the Press has an enormously important role to play in that. Of course, we accept the fact that there must be self-discipline, but I believe that it is very, very important that the Press is allowed to play the role that it must. Let me quote someone who put it much better than I could ever do. He said—

We believe that is so and we believe it is necessary. That is why we believe we have made a real contribution by continuing this debate until we have, and that is why we shall also vote against the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to sense the different atmosphere that is prevailing now. I have no objection to hon. members opposing the legislation in this House. At no stage was that the basis of my criticism, as the hon. member for Pinelands will recall. The basis of my objection was the spirit of the speech by the chief spokesman of the PFP. The hon. member was extremely disparaging of the people of the media. I do not want to take this point further at this stage. I have already said to the hon. member for Sandton, and I want to repeat it this evening, that the truth is not more true for being expressed crudely. Indeed, the terminology employed by the hon. member destroyed much of his argument. It was possible for the Government and myself to introduce this legislation long ago, but then it would have had to be done before the Press Union and the Conference of Editors could inform me about their final standpoints. I find it remarkable that the Government and myself are now being criticized for having afforded the Press Union and the Conference of Editors an opportunity to formulate their final standpoints and proposals. I therefore think that criticism in this particular regard is unfair.

I heard the voice of Joel Mervis in the debates. It reminded me of Jacob and Esau—one’s voice and the other’s hands. This is a very old story. The hon. members opposite perform their role in Parliament and outside Parliament in terms of the freedom guaranteed by this Government. I wish to go further and say that the media, too, perform their role and owe their freedom to what is maintained in this country. However, the freedom of the media is only part of the total freedom that prevails in the country; it is not a special freedom. There is not a single objective outside observer who does not comment favorably on the freedom of the media in South Africa.

That is why we want to preserve it.

The hon. member must give me a chance now. The point I want to make—and I am merely making it in passing—is that nowhere on this continent is a comparable degree of freedom to be found. The hon. member knows that.

The final remark I want to make in this regard is that the hon. members know that the degree to which individuals, and others who derive their freedom from that of the individual, exercise that freedom, is often determined by the circumstances of the country. Surely I need not take that any further, except to say that in times of war there is a restriction on freedom because in such circumstances, security and safety are the top priorities. We may differ with one another in this House, perhaps because it suits us politically, or perhaps because we really believe what we say, but there is no one who does not have a sense of what this country is the target of.

Why are we a target?

I am really being serious now. The hon. member must give me a chance. We may differ as to the causes, we may hurl reproaches at one another, but that will not detract from the fact that there is a threat to the country. Everyone is agreed on that score. We may differ as to its intensity and extent, but the fact is that it is perceived by everyone. Therefore it behoves us all, and the institutions that derive their origin from the democracy that still prevails here, to treasure the security of the country. I make no apology—indeed it is my responsibility—for the security of the country enjoying the highest priority in these circumstances. In moments of clarity—of thought, that is—hon. members will agree with that, and that is what I am advocating. I also advocate something else, and that is that there may be a relaxed atmosphere in this country so that we may continue with our task of reform which—as the hon. member for Rissik also concedes—must take place. I say this evening that if we do not succeed in that, then it will not be Press freedom, but the freedom of all of us in its totality, that will be jeopardized. That is all that will be jeopardized. Therefore, let us not resort to this kind of terminology and ingenious argument. I cannot sufficiently emphasize that.

†The hon. member for Pinelands has asked me a question and I want to repeat: The amendments which I have introduced have been introduced in consultation with and with the approval of the Press Union and, I would presume, also of the Conference of Editors on whose behalf they also spoke. I have repeatedly said that they do not accept the necessity for legislation as such. I have said this already. The answer to the hon. member’s question is therefore the same.

The other question the hon. member asked me was whether they will enforce the discipline. Of course they cannot enforce it—that is the whole purpose of this Bill—because they do not have the right to enforce their findings on non-members. I have to introduce empowering legislation so that their findings can be enforced. That is the whole rationale for this Bill, and I have explained that. We are not dealing here with a creature of the State; we are dealing with a creature of the media themselves. It is their creature. I only hope that it will succeed.

There is a last observation I would like to make in relation to the hon. member for Durban Point. Damage has been done by this debate.

No, by this Bill.

No, Sir, by this debate. If the atmosphere that now permeates this Chamber had permeated it before …

This happened only after you moved the amendments.

No, Sir, that is not the case, because the amendments did not change the principles involved. [Interjections.] If that atmosphere had prevailed and if the hon. member for Pinelands had counted his words in the Second Reading, I think the damage would have been much less.

I stand by my words.

Fair enough. It is the hon. member’s right to stand by his words. [Interjections.] I am just giving the hon. member a friendly warning—it is not a threat—that the final judges, be they wrong or right, who have the final responsibilities for the security of the State, is the Government of the time. That is our responsibility. We can be rejected if we judge wrong, but nobody can doubt our intentions. Therefore it is wrong to suggest that what we are doing is to end or suppress the role of the Opposition. It is going to be read with glee. It is going to be read with glee by the enemies of this country.

And the United Nations.[Interjections.]

Please, I do not want an argument. I am just stating my own perception of this.

*I now turn to the hon. member for Rissik. I just want to say this here and now: Neither the hon. member for Rissik nor any other member of the CP argues against the need for this legislation. Of course it is true that Ministerial powers may be abused. Of course that is true. But surely it is not only one Minister that decides; these are surely Cabinet decisions. The hon. member need not, therefore, be concerned about what will happen one day when it is not I who makes the decisions. There will still be a good Cabinet. However the hon. member will, I am sure, permit me to make this remark, and with that I wish to conclude. Mr. Speaker, you will, I am sure, permit me to say that.

A charge has been levelled at me personally. I should just like to say that I receive my guests, who are my colleagues, in my home and that I have received young members of Parliament in my office. The suggestion and the insinuation are being made that I used this for other purposes. Let me say this; let me just say one more thing: I have never undermined my party. I have never conspired against my colleagues.

Let us refrain from these mutual reproaches.

Give me a chance. I just wish to finish off. I do not wish to have a quarrel with my colleagues. I wish to place on record—and there are hon. members here who know this—that I have defended the hon. member for Waterberg, to my cost.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

During 1980 the Constitution was amended to provide for an increase in the number of persons who could be appointed as Ministers by the State President, from not more than 18 to not more than 20 persons. These amendments were necessary to give effect to the programme of rationalization of State departments.

It is now being proposed in clause 1 that the constitution be further amended to provide that the number of Deputy Ministers who may be appointed be increased to not more than nine. The increase in the number of Deputy Ministers is a further result of the programme of rationalization, which is aimed at ensuring a more balanced distribution of work in the various Ministries.

Mr. Speaker, the special interests of the territory of Walvis Bay and its people entail that the territory will have to be given day-to-day attention. Due to the unique position and great distance from the rest of the electoral division into which Walvis Bay falls, the Government has decided that the best way of meeting this need will be to abolish the post of Director of Walvis Bay and to establish an autonomous and separate electoral division for Walvis Bay in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope.

Clauses 2 and 6 embody proposals in which special provision is made for the representation of Walvis Bay in the House of Assembly and in the Provincial Council of the Province of the Cape of Good Hope. Since this special provision in an interim measure, it is further proposed in clause 7 that the State President may by proclamation in the Gazette declare that Walvis Bay shall again become part of an electoral division in the province of the Cape of Good Hope as mentioned in that proclamation.

†Mr. Speaker, existing legislation does not prevent all persons from serving in a dual capacity as an official or servant of a local authority and as a member of Parliament or a provincial council. On the other hand, however, the ordinances on local government of the various provinces prevent officials of local authorities from serving as councilors of the local authority where they are employed whilst public servants are also prevented from serving as members of Parliament or a provincial council. In clause 3(a) an amendment is introduced in order to remedy this shortcoming.

The existing section 55(d)(vi) of the Constitution does not make any provision for the payment of subsistence expenses to members of Parliament and of provincial councils who serve on any council, committee, board or similar body. Consequently hotel expenses and other subsistence costs must be paid out of the allowance determined by the Minister of Finance from time to time in terms of subparagraph (d)(vi). Although members of Parliament and of provincial councils serving on councils and the other bodies mentioned above, may not receive a subsistence allowance, other persons serving on those bodies could well be entitled to such an allowance. In clause 3(b) an amendment is proposed to remedy this situation.

Mr. Speaker, because circumstances can and do arise during the term of office of persons in public office that disqualify them from continuing in that office, statutory provision is usually made for such an eventuality. Thus the State President vacates his office on a resolution passed by the House of Assembly, judges may be removed from office by the State President upon an address from the House of Assembly whilst ministers and deputy ministers hold office during the pleasure of the State President. There is, however, no similar provision in respect of members of provincial executive committees. Clause 4 introduces an amendment making it possible for a member of an executive committee to be removed from his office by the council that elected him.

*Mr. Speaker, at present persons occupying an office of profit under the Republic may not be appointed as members of the President’s Council. This prohibition appears to be unnecessarily restrictive because it may mean that persons who could make good contributions in the President’s Council may not be appointed. Section 55, read together with section 70, in fact concerns the inability of persons to be members of the House of Assembly and the provincial councils, both of which are legislative bodies. The President’s Council, on the other hand, is merely an advisory body, like a commission of inquiry, and accordingly there ought to be no reason why an office of profit under the Republic should be an impediment to appointment to the President’s Council. Provision is therefore being made in clause 5 to cancel the prohibition.

Mr. Speaker, in this Bill provision is being made, as the hon. the Minister indicated, for various amendments about which one could of course adopt various standpoints. One could feel more strongly about some of them than others. I want to say here and now that there are some of these proposed amendments to which we have no objection, whereas there are one or two about which there is some degree of uncertainty. Finally, there are one or two about which we feel very strongly.

† I should like to start off with what is possibly the most contentious part of this piece of legislation and certainly the one which has enjoyed more publicity than any of the others. It is also one which concerns me in more than one way. I refer to the provision in terms of which Walvis Bay will become a constituency on its own. Let me say first of all that I believe that this provision casts somewhat of a reflection on the Government’s attitude towards the constitution of this country in general and towards constitutional principles and on its respect for constitutional conventions. I want to say right away that I believe that if one makes any town, any enclave, whatever one should call an area like that, which contains in the order of 3 000 voters, a separate constituency, one violates the constitutional conventions in this country.

We all know to what extent it becomes a contentious issue when there are different numbers of voters in different constituencies. We all know too, in spite of what I have just said, that this has a long history of our country. Governments which preceded the present one already made provision so that certain constituencies could be loaded with more voters than others while others could be deloaded. This trend has now increased to such an extent that it is possible for one constituency to have very close to double the number of voters than some other constituency. If one looks at the most heavily loaded constituencies in for instance the Transvaal, one may find that they may well have very close to twice the number of voters than a deloaded constituency or a special area constituency in for instance the Karoo or in the Western Transvaal where the areas are sparsely populated. There is no question about it that when one analyzes this, it simply means that the vote of a voter who lives in a particular constituency then acquires double the value of that of a voter who lives in another constituency.

If one really respects democracy to a sufficient extent, I believe one will find this a worrying consideration as it indeed is. We are all aware of the reasons advanced for this over the years. We all know to what extent it is contentious and what arguments have been advanced on this matter. The point remains, however, that at least in theory the voter in a heavily deloaded constituency, for instance Namakwaland, has a vote which has double the value of the vote of voters who live in constituencies such as Edenvale or possibly Bezuidenhout or Hillbrow. This, I believe, is not a good idea.

I maintain that the provision to make Walvis Bay a separate constituency is a violation of constitutional conventions, but I think this takes this unfortunate trend which unfortunately is part of our history to ridiculous extremes. We also know at the same time that there has been a time in the history of this country where South West Africa had special representation in this House. We also know that the constituencies in that territory had a limited population, but I do not believe that that justified the situation at all, and particularly in the circumstances in which this provision is sought to be enacted. Here we have an enclave which is not really in every sense a rural area. It is a fairly compact area, a fairly small area, and although it is far removed from the Republic the voters of that area are in a sense mainly urban voters. There are about 3 000 of them, and Walvis Bay will now become a separate constituency.

As I have indicated, we certainly object to the fact that the voters in that territory are being placed in a situation in which their vote in fact counts four or five times as much as the vote of voters in another constituency. Their vote carries between four and five times the weight of the vote of a voter in any other average constituency in this country. There are also other aspects of this provision which worry me, aspects through which, I believe, constitutional precedents and constitutional conventions are violated. These matters are the following.

First of all I believe it violates practices and conventions linked with delimitation. On the one hand it is said that Walvis Bay should in future be a separate constituency of the Province of the Cape of Good Hope. Yet, at the same time, for purposes of future delimitation Walvis Bay should not be considered to be a constituency of the Cape of Good Hope and the voters of Walvis Bay should not be counted among the voters of the Cape of Good Hope. I really do not know why it is specifically necessary to write these provisions into the Bill. The only reason I can think of is that if this was not done it could upset the delicate balance of the distribution of voters in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope as opposed to the other three provinces, and more particularly the Transvaal.

Hon. members will know that in previous debates on constitutional legislation during the last year or two these aspects were also raised. I think it was during the session of 1980, or perhaps even last year, that legislation was passed in which a provincial quota was introduced for the first time. It was very clear then that there were hon. members in this House who felt unhappy about it. I believe there were unhappy hon. members on both sides of the House. It really meant that the Transvaal voters, as a result of that arrangement, were rendered less effective as voters in terms of their representation in this House than voters in the other three provinces.

I maintain that possibly the most important reason why these provisions are being written into the Bill is in order not to upset that delicate balance, and also in order not to create a situation in which a future delimitation commission will decide that the Cape Province has too many constituencies with too few voters. That, of course, will aggravate the unequal arrangement and the unequal ratios even more than they have been upset up till now. Once again, I believe, this is tantamount to tampering with constitutional law and with constitutional convention in this country, and I believe this will prove to be a source of aggravation and frustration for other people. There is no doubt in my mind that this has an effect on the value of people’s votes and people’s representation.

It is also interesting to note that in terms of one of the provisions contained in this Bill, should a delimitation be undertaken, a delimitation commission will in effect have no power to interfere in the situation. We know of course that in terms of our present constitutional law the delimitation commission takes into account the total number of voters, and undertakes the delimitation of constituencies on the basis of that total number of voters. A delimitation commission normally consists of judges of the Supreme Court. There are, of course, very good reasons for that. That is done obviously so that hon. members of this House, and, more important, the voters of South Africa, the citizens of this country should be satisfied to the maximum possible extent that this very vital constitutional function is carried out by an impartial body such as a delimitation commission. In this instance the power of the Delimitation Commission in respect of Walvis Bay is completely excluded. In fact, it is provided that the Delimitation Commission will report the fact that Walvis Bay is a constituency and that it shall contain a certain number of voters, depending on how many voters happen to be registered there, as if this had been delimited in the normal course of events. In that way the Delimitation Commission is rendered powerless in respect of this particular new little constituency. Once again, I believe that this is a very unhappy and unfortunate aspect of the provisions before us.

Finally, in regard to the constitutional aspects of the provision for a separate constituency for Walvis Bay, the entire provision which is now sought to be made law can be withdrawn by proclamation in the Government Gazette. Once again, the constitutional provisions and arrangements that decide how many constituencies there shall be, how many members of Parliament there shall be, how constituencies shall be delimited, etc., are deemed to be so important that they have to be dealt with by Parliament. Very often they are even referred to the Constitution Select Committee of Parliament. In fact, these are provisions that often are very hotly debated in this House, and for very good reasons. We now not only pass a provision that is extraordinary in the sense that a very small number of people, relatively speaking, now become entitled to a representative in this House, but in terms of a provision in this Bill the State President can by proclamation in the Government Gazette at any time withdraw this arrangement. In other words, if this Bill becomes law, we will find an hon. member for Walvis Bay sitting in this House at some future stage, possibly not in the too distant future, and then one day, suddenly, this hon. member will not be here any more. This will not of necessity come about because of an election, nor will it be because of the fact that this House has voted that Wavis Bay should not be a constituency, but merely because a proclamation had appeared in the Government Gazette. With all due respect to the Government, to the executive, that deals with this, I must say that if the executive is empowered to deal with constitutional matters in this way, then I believe that we are really on the skid, because at least in theory that means that the executive can remove a member from this House. We do realize that at this moment in time there are hon. members who can be removed from this House, depending on their appointment by the State President, and that already is an unfortunate situation. However, I would say that any provision that makes it possible for the executive to change the composition of Parliament in any way whatsoever, even by the removal of one member is, I believe, a dangerous provision and one that will remain unacceptable to us. [Interjections.]

*What justification did the hon. the Minister advance for this specific measure, that Walvis Bay should now become a separate constituency? In his speech the hon. the Minister said—

It is therefore being said that Walvis Bay must be given day-to-day attention, and I want to say at once that I have no quarrel with that. The more attention a territory like Walvis Bay gets, the better for it. There is not a single inhabitant of that area who would not complain in one way or another that he has in the past been neglected to some extent, and that is understandable, because it is a part of the Republic of South Africa which, geographically speaking, is very remote from the Republic, and the population of Walvis Bay is simply too small to justify proper representation by the Public Service in the normal course of affairs. Therefore, what I am really saying is that Walvis Bay is not a town which, by normal standards, is large enough to justify the presence of a senior official of the Department of Manpower, of the Department of the Prime Minister, of the Department of Community Development and of every other department. That is one of the problems. Essentially, however, this is an administrative problem. With this in mind, the Government created the post of Director of Walvis Bay. This post is occupied by a very senior public servant who is supposed to have relatively direct access to the executive in the Republic. His appointment was an effort to resolve this problem. What all this means, however, is that the problem of Walvis Bay is, in the first instance, an administrative one. An effort is now being made to resolve an administrative problem by creating additional political representation for Walvis Bay. I think I am just as fully aware as the hon. member for Namaqualand, who represented the area before, of the problems it entails when one represents a constituency that is situated so far away. To a very large extent, similar problems would be experienced by any member of the House of Assembly who might have to represent this constituency in future, because he, too, will have to spend five months of the year in this House of Assembly. It is necessary for him to do so.

No.

I think this is a problem of which I have had more experience than that hon. member. I think I have far more experience of this than that hon. member. A member of the House of Assembly who represents Walvis Bay in future will have to spend just as much time in the House of Assembly as I do now, which the hon. member for Namaqualand had to until a short time ago. In other words, there is this problem as well. There is no possibility of his being able to give day-to-day attention to his constituency. Of course, the same applies to a lesser extent to a member of the provincial council. Leaving aside this problem, however, no-one can tell me that mere political representation, or a change in political representation, can resolve the administrative problem of a town like that. If it is an administrative problem, then an administrative solution must be sought.

†What I want to say is that this is not a solution to the problem. It is a sop to the people of Walvis Bay. It is a pretended solution. Let me say right away that there are people in Walvis Bay who are keen on this solution, because there are ambitious people around there and many of those chaps would like to come down here and be the MP for Walvis Bay or even the MPC for Walvis Bay. There are indeed people who are very keen on that. The NP of Walvis Bay has been fussing around with nomination activities for a very long time now. So there is no doubt about the fact that for reasons very often connected with self-interest, there will be people who would be very keen on this solution. I venture to say that in the long run it will undoubtedly be proved that this was merely a pretended solution for the problem of that enclave, but not a real solution at all.

Let me just deal with a number of the other subjects that I want to discuss. The provision in this Bill that makes it impossible in the future for employees and officers of a local authority to be able to serve as a member of Parliament at the same time enjoys our support. We have always felt that as far as possible it makes sense that there should be a division of powers and functions in that respect and that it could lead to abuse if people not only fulfilled those two functions at the same time, but are also open to the dual influences—and this is very important—as a member of Parliament and being an employee or officer of a local authority.

Then, at the same time, there is another provision in the Bill which to some extent is in conflict with the provision that employees and officers of a local authority will in future be rendered incapable of serving as a member of Parliament. This is the provision which now makes it possible for a member of the President’s Council to enjoy an office of profit under the Republic in terms of the legislation provided for it. The hon. the Minister’s speech says no more than that the President’s Council is not a legislative body while Parliament and the provincial councils are and that this therefore does not apply to it.

*I concede at once that the fact that the President’s Council does not have powers to pass financial legislation, for example, creates a difference, a valid difference between the House of Assembly and the provincial councils on the one hand, and the President’s Council on the other. However, there is one aspect concerning which there is no such difference, and that is the influence that can be exerted on such a person. In that regard I believe that there is no essential difference, in that a person who held such an office of profit ought not to be a member of the House of Assembly or a member of the provincial council, but ought not to be a member of the President’s Council either, in spite of the hon. the Minister’s argument that persons who occupy such a position may have the competence to be of use in a body such as the President’s Council. Of course, there are other examples one could quote where one would want to appoint to a commission of inquiry persons occupying an office of profit under the State, in cases where it ought not to be necessary for them to forfeit their offices of profit. As far as the members of the President’s Council are concerned, surely they are not persons who are not properly remunerated. Surely these are not persons who merely receive allowances for their daily expenses, an allowance such as an hotel allowance or a travel allowance. After all, these are people who receive good salaries and allowances, just as much as hon. members who sit in this House. Surely, then, it is not a question of there being a tremendous need on the part of these people to have another income from an office of profit under the State. Already the situation is such that the members of the President’s Council have more time—there is no doubt about it—than hon. members in this House to occupy another post or another position. I say that it will create an unhealthy situation if hon. members occupying such an office of profit should have a seat in the President’s Council. This quite simply means that they may be subject to influences relating to that office of profit, influences which are not healthy and which will not have a positive effect on their role in the President’s Council. For that reason we are not satisfied with that provision and we shall accordingly oppose it.

Then there is the measure relating to the situation of members of an Executive Committee of a provincial council. We shall support this. We believe it is right that if a provincial council can elect its own Executive Committee then in the nature of the matter, it ought also to have the right to remove such a member from office. What we do not agree with, however, is that this is to be done without prior debate, as defined in the Bill. In that regard we shall move an amendment during the Committee Stage to rectify this matter, because we believe that the election, in the first instance, and the removal from office of a member of the Executive Committee of a provincial council are as important, if not more important, as any other political matter about which a provincial council has to take a decision. Therefore it is not more than right that there should be prior debate on the matter, that such a member of the Executive will be accorded the opportunity to state his case during such a debate and that he should at least be told why it is deemed appropriate to remove him from office. He would then also have the opportunity to defend himself in that regard.

I am not going to deal any further with the other aspects of the Bill before us. I just wish to deal briefly with one aspect of the electoral division of Walvis Bay for which provision is made in the Bill. In the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech he said that this was regarded as an interim measure. I take it that he speaks of an interim measure in the sense that Walvis Bay is now getting its own constituency and its own member of the House of Assembly who will serve it from now on, until such time as some other arrangement is made, quite possibly, that Walvis Bay may become part of an independent Namiba or South West Africa. I think the hon. the Minister will concede that. I want to say at once that this in itself is already an unhealthy aspect of this measure. We all know that there is uncertainty with regard to the future of Walvis Bay. Members of the Cabinet are constantly visiting Walvis Bay, and although some of them have nothing to do with the matter, oddly enough, all of them are constantly saying—I take it they do so in order to set the minds of the local population at rest—that Walvis Bay is and will remain part of the Republic of South Africa. Strangely enough, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development said this in Walvis Bay in November or early December last year. With respect, the hon. the Minister is used to shifting territories to and fro and placing them under different jurisdiction, but I do not believe he has had anything to do with Walvis Bay thus far. I was somewhat surprised to hear that he had said that at Walvis Bay. I can only infer that it is a kind of standard brief or instruction to Cabinet members to reassure the people of Walvis Bay that their connection with South Africa is still strong and sound.

However, we are here being told that this is an interim measure. For how long are we to put up with an interim measure of this nature? It seems to me that the fact that it is an interim measure is also mentioned as justification to some extent. What does the Government intend doing about Walvis Bay if a hostile Government comes to power in Namiba? As I understand the standpoint of the Government in this regard, they consistently state that in such a case they would not be prepared to give up Walvis Bay, but that it would then remain part of the Republic, whereas if it were a friendly Government, they hold open the option—the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has certainly said this—of negotiating on the position of Walvis Bay. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made it very clear in his reaction to the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech—and it is probably quite natural—that the part of the Bill which he is most concerned about, or which hurts him the most, is the provision in respect of Walvis Bay. It is probably understandable, since Walvis Bay is part of his constituency. However, the hon. member must forgive us if we think that he voiced his objection with his tongue in his cheek. I think anyone in his position ought to have welcomed this provision. After all, it is not a case of that area being situated near his constituency, or that the people of that area are particularly well known to him, or even that his party enjoys particular support in that area. To tell the truth, one would really expect that any MP who finds that a large opposition stronghold is being removed from his constituency, thus leaving him with considerably less work, would welcome this. I shall come back to the argument of the hon. member for Green Point concerning Walvis Bay in a moment.

One feels that this legislation is in fact of a temporary nature since constitutional change is in the air. It is generally accepted by all sides of the House that the Westminster system is at present being reviewed in our country. There is also every indication that this system will disappear in time. However, it is also true that it will not be an immediate process, but a rather protracted one. In the meanwhile, the country has to be governed according to our present system and constitution.

The hon. member for Green Point said that a considerable number of principles—six or seven altogether—are contained in this Bill, and that it is pre-eminently a Bill which lends itself to being discussed during the Committee Stage. Like the hon. member for Green Point, I am not going to elaborate on all the principles either. I shall simply touch on a few of the most important ones.

The first principle is the increase in the number of Deputy Ministers from six to nine. I think we have here a logical result of the process of rationalization which we have seen in the Public Service over the past few years. As the first step, the Cabinet itself was enlarged in 1980 from 18 to 20 Ministers. This legislation represents a subsequent step, which, in my opinion, is logical. It is probably unavoidable in any rationalization process—it is also the case here where the number of State departments are being decreased from 39 to 22—that certain departments have to deal with related activities, but not necessarily identical activities. It is therefore logical that such activities should fall under the supervision of one Minister, and it would contribute a great deal to the effective governing of the country if he were to be assisted by a Deputy Minister. The fact that there are fewer departments now, is a step in the right direction for better co-ordination and overall planning. However, one must take into consideration that there could still be a diversity of facets in one and the same department. It would really be ideal if every Minister who has to supervise matters of a divergent nature, could be assisted by a Deputy Minister. However, one would have to set about it in an extremely circumspect way in this case too, otherwise we shall end up with a political structure which is just as top heavy as the administrative structure we had before rationalization.

Next I should like to express a few ideas on the position of Walvis Bay. The hon. member for Green Point placed particular emphasis on this aspect. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the history of the area and South Africa’s claim to it. This is widely known to all the hon. members in this House as well as to people outside this House. However, what is unquestionably true, is that the area’s circumstances are of a unique nature. It is unquestionably true that the addition of this area to a South African constituency—whether it is Namakwaland or Green Point is of no consequence—has to be an artificial arrangement. However, it is true that in this period preceding the independence of South West Africa, the circumstances of Walvis Bay, which is bordered on three sides by South West Africa, require particular attention, since the future of Walvis Bay will always be influenced to a large extent by what happens in South West Africa. Because the position in the adjoining area is fluid and subject to a process of change, it is only logical that the Government does not wish to give finality at this stage concerning the constitutional and political future of Walvis Bay. However, the fact remains that the area’s interests definitely demand more attention than if it were an additional part of a constituency hundreds of kilometers away.

I think hon. members in this House would agree with me that Walvis Bay is not simply the outpost of a few South African officials. If it were simply an outpost, there would perhaps be little justification for stronger representation than merely by an official appointed by the Republic, for example a director, as is the case at the moment. But Walvis Bay is, after all, the home of a vital community with its own industry, an industry which is experiencing its own problems at present. 1 think that one could no more compare Walvis Bay with a constituency or part of a constituency in South Africa, than one could compare the foreign areas of different countries in the world with their own local, domestic constituencies. Yet there are many examples throughout the world where such overseas areas are represented in the Parliament of their mother country. In this regard, I refer to the position of Scotland and Wales, which are not really overseas areas, but which are adjoining areas and which are represented in the British Parliament as such. I could also refer to the representation of Madeira in the Portuguese Parliament, although it is on a different constitutional basis. I could also refer to the fact that Hawaii and Alaska are incorporated in the political set-up of the United States of America as separate States, and not as part of the existing component States.

The hon. member for Green Point referred to the earlier representation of South West Africa in this Parliament. I wish to point out that such outside areas represented in mother Parliaments elsewhere in the world, are not subject to the same delimitation requirements as the requirements which apply in the mother country. The particular circumstances of Walvis Bay also make it necessary for that area’s interests to be dealt with in a way that is different to our system of electoral delimitation.

I referred a moment ago to Scotland and Wales. The quota for the constituencies in England is an average, according to the position in 1979, of 67 000 per constituency. In Scotland it is 54 000 per constituency, and in Wales, 57 000 per constituency. Therefore we already have the principle of different quotas there. The point which the hon. member for Green Point raised here concerning the relatively small number of voters in Walvis Bay would have been a valid argument if it had been part of the South African mother country. However, we are dealing here with an area which is removed from the mother country and which could, as such, lay claim to special treatment.

If, then, it is true that the normal delimitation measures do not have to apply there, the question of the calculation of Walvis Bay’s position is not at all in question in determining a South African quota.

I wish to refer briefly to the position of members of Executive Committees. Since 1910 the position has been that members of Executive Committees could not be relieved of their office, although they were elected by provincial councils themselves. No one at all had that right. In fact, Henry John May, in his book The South African Constitution, which is a standard work, put it as follows—

I think that such a position is unique in a democratic country. I do not think there is any other political office in the Western democracies in which the bearers are not responsible to anyone at all. Nor is it only recently that it has been realized that there is a deficiency. It is, in my opinion, one of the greatest weaknesses of our provincial system, since it detracts from the democratic principle in provincial government and it means that provincial government is not, in fact, responsible government. I think the origin of this position is clear. Originally, at the time of Union, a system of proportional representation was instituted in provincial councils, and different parties obtained representation in Executive Committees according to their relative strength in provincial councils. Consequently it was not possible to empower provincial councils to dismiss members of the executive committee, for example, simply because they did not like them. That it was a weakness, was understood as far back as 1926. I wish to quote here from Gey van Pittius’ book Die Stelsel van Provinsiale Rade in Suid-Afrika, in which he raises this problem as follows—

We should remember that this was written 16 years after Union, i.e. 55 years ago—

This has been the case in our country for 20 years. Furthermore, he had this to say about the party which had the majority in the House—

In other words, this is a deficiency which has been felt for a long time and which should have been rectified as far back as in 1962, when Parliament decided that the majority party in the provincial councils should appoint the Executive Committee. One asks oneself why this anomaly was allowed to exist for 20 years. I think it is obvious that it could very seldom be the case that problems could arise if a majority party elects the full Executive Committee. Yet there is a matter which ought to be rectified. If one believes in the principle of government by people, the right to appoint and to elect should also include the right to relieve a member of an Executive Committee of his office. In addition, there is always the possibility of ill-health or physical disability for which provision ought to be made.

I wish to refer briefly to the reference made by the hon. member for Green Point to the appointment of persons to the President’s Council, persons who occupied offices of profit in the State. The hon. member pointed out that such persons could be influenced if they were in the service of the State. However, the influencing of people is not an essential factor if they are not taking part in a legislative process. The people who are serving members on the President’s Council are taking part in an advisory function and nothing more. Therefore influence is not worthwhile on the one hand, and it cannot have a real effect on the other, since the recommendations of the body on which such a person is serving, still has to be considered by the legislature in any case. However, the main deficiency—and that is why this provision is being made—is that at the moment, in terms of the present provision, a lack of expertise may arise in the President’s Council. After all, the President’s Council is meant to be a specialized body, and it is quite possible that in particular cases, in particular spheres of expertise, there are simply no better people to be appointed than people who occupy positions in the service of the State. This is therefore a step which is aimed at keeping the quality of advice which the President’s Council can offer the Government on occasion, at the highest possible level.

I do not wish to go into the question of the employees of local authorities at all, since we have the support of the hon. member for Green Point on this. I think that I have, in fact, dealt with most of the points on which I expressed doubt. If there are other specific points upon which one could reflect in the Committee Stage, we can talk about them during that stage.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words about a few of the clauses of this Bill. As far as clause 1 is concerned, I want to say that I can understand why the number of Deputy Ministers is being extended to nine. I think the original introduction of deputy Ministers in our system of Government was a very good move. If we think of the hon. members who have filled these posts over the years, then we can say that they have done their work very well. Deputy Ministers are also a great help to their Ministers and, in general, with regard to the functions the Government must perform. Naturally a Government has a specific plan with regard to particular Government departments, etc. I think this is basically a matter on which a Government alone can judge and obviously the Opposition can sit back and watch how these gentlemen perform their task.

As far as Walvis Bay is concerned, the basic point of departure is that one wants fair representation for the voters. I think the origin of Walvis Bay as an electoral division must be seen against the wider background. There is the matter of loading and deloading which has been accepted as a principle in delimitation. However, there is another very important point about which I feel very strongly and that is that representation must be a service to a community. I think this is also something we have accepted over the years. For this reason my personal view is that this is a good development. At the time of previous delimitations, certain arguments were advanced as to why Walvis Bay should form part of Green Point. I think we must accept that the citizens of Walvis Bay are citizens of the Republic and that they therefore have the right to specific representation, in such a way that they can be represented in the best way.

Daan, do you think you can win the seat?

Every political party is entitled to contest any electoral division, and I think in most electoral divisions in South Africa we stand a good chance. I do not know how we would fare in Houghton; there we may come off second best. Nevertheless I think we even stand a good chance in Sea Point. [Interjections.]

Fifty years ago one could have argued that it was appropriate, because at the time the necessary means of transport were lacking, and other methods of communication did not exist either. I think there are also other circumstances which have led to the needs of electoral divisions growing in a modern society as well. For this reason I think that the fact that representation for them can now be provided is a change for the better.

There is another argument, too, that we have already heard before, namely the matter of provincial divisions, and the so-called jealousy there could be because, it is said, one province is being given preference over another. [Interjections.] As far as this party and I are concerned, I think that we accept that there must be a minimum representation for the respective provinces and that one must make provision for growth in the minimum number of seats for the provinces where there is an increase in the number of voters. This therefore does not worry me at all. [Interjections.]

However, the Transvaal is being prejudiced.

I also accept that if one has a specific position—here I am referring to the provincial council—provision should also be made to allow one to intimate, through the body which placed one in that position, that one is no longer able to perform the work. I think it is quite correct that provision is being made for this in clause 4. As far as the proposed subsection (2)(b) is concerned I do have a problem. I can accept that in certain cases one can say that one would rather not discuss the situation of the person in question, because there may be personal reasons why one does not wish to discuss his dismissal or expulsion. There may be personal reasons why one would prefer to remain silent. However, there may also be other reasons why for the sake of the argument or the political atmosphere, one may feel that the dismissal or expulsion of such a person ought in fact to be discussed. At this late stage I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he cannot find another way for it to be discussed, unless he has better arguments, in which case we may be able to accept it.

As far as clause 5 is concerned, this is a situation we must keep an eye on to see to what extent the President’s Council is going to grow under this Government and what role it is going to play and what locus standi it is going to have in our country. We must keep an eye on this.

I should also be obliged if the hon. member could elaborate a little on clause 7.

I am not going to put it.

That is a very good thing.

I thereby state that we shall support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavor to be a little bit less verbose than some hon. members in an attempt to shorten the procedures a little. [Interjections.] We have no objection to clause 1 of the Bill. It does, however, seem somewhat strange that when one has a rationalization it seems that one always tends to get more people at the top. We are nevertheless happy to go along with this clause.

In so far as the clauses relating to Walvis Bay are concerned, we would not normally be very happy about this at all. We are realistic enough, however, to appreciate the fact that Walvis Bay and the situations prevailing there are sui generis, and that the circumstances there are such that we have to make some such change. I appreciate the sentiment expressed by the hon. member for Green Point. It is part of his constituency which is being excised, but I do not believe he can really do a very good job in serving that area anyway because it is too far away. [Interjections.] The fact that he is an hon. member of the PFP is of course irrelevant. The point is, however, that Walvis Bay is a long way away. For many years it has been treated as part of South West Africa/South Africa, but in the near future the situation is going to change. Although we are not prepared to use the emotive words “undemocratic”, “unconstitutional”, etc., in any other circumstances than those one could indeed consider them to be so.

The hon. member for Umlazi—for once I can agree with him—is quite right in stating that frequently, in other countries overseas where these peculiar circumstances do exist, one also has these differences in constituencies.

In regard to clause 3, I merely want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. I am not sure whether this provision does in fact preclude a municipal official from becoming a member of a provincial council.

T Yes, it does.

I asked this question because I had some problem a couple of years ago in Natal with this very issue.

This is done for purposes as requested.

I see. I was not certain whether it also included a member of a provincial council. I knew it did include a member of Parliament. If that is so then, I shall not waste any more time on that. I am perfectly happy.

In so far as clause 4 is concerned, the situation is somewhat different. There are a number of ex-MECs in this hon. House, including the hon. the Minister himself. I can indeed see other hon. Ministers who were also MECs. I can of course appreciate the intent behind this measure. As a matter of fact, this particular clause, for some reason or other, has been referred to by several people as the Latsky clause. I am not quite sure what that means. [Interjections.]

Since 1910, however, this system has prevailed, and, I believe, for a very good reason. That is the system that MECs should not lightly and easily be turned out of office. The point made by the hon. member for Rissik in connection with the effect of the proposed new section 76(2)(b), is the one which I really find a little upsetting, because while I am prepared to accept the desirability from time to time of having a means of removing an MEC, it is a little bit incongruous to have a situation in which one can in no way turn a man out. Also, as has been mentioned earlier, the situation today is one of “the winner takes all”. Therefore, to have a man from another party serving there, must be considered to be incongruous. I am prepared to accept that. I have in fact indicated in the amendment that I have on the Order Paper that that is reasonable and that I accept it as such.

There can also be circumstances, such as we had in Natal some years ago, in which an MEC is ill and cannot be removed. Even then, I believe, there is good reason to have a measure in terms of which an MEC can be removed. I do believe, however, that the proposed new section 76(2)(b) is really unacceptable. I do not wish to be excessively emotive about it, but at the same time I must point out that it means a man is not even allowed to defend himself. He may have done something which is a little bit unpopular with his colleagues, and, as a consequence, in a fit of pique they can throw him out in an unjustifiable manner.

I would therefore ask the hon. the Minister to consider the deletion of the proposed new section 76(2)(b), because in my view this is contrary to any provisions we have elsewhere in this regard. In fact, it is an infringement on the rights of the province itself in that it is virtually dictating their rules of order and procedure. I would therefore suggest to the hon. the Minister to consider the deletion of this paragraph, because I think a man must be permitted to defend himself under certain circumstances and this provision precludes it.

We are prepared to go along with the provision in regard to the President’s Council because we do realize that under certain circumstances it may be desirable.

Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed that this is the debate of the Van der Merwes, because every second speaker would seem to be a Van der Merwe.

Actually, I do not want to cross swords with the second Van der Merwe who spoke, but rather with the first one. I think the hon. member for Green Point really went out of his way to find fault with this legislation although in fact it has no faults. Looking at his long story about the loading and deloading of electoral divisions, one finds that it had very little to do with the principle under discussion, namely that there is a special place where special conditions prevail which do not and cannot exist elsewhere in South Africa. The position of Walvis Bay at present, with its geographic isolation and its specific problem of being an enclave in South West Africa, where the political circumstances are in a state of flux, has created such a unique situation that it requires special attention. That is the only reason for this amendment.

The hon. the Minister has already indicated that he is not going to put clause 7, but I nevertheless want to reprimand the hon. member for Green Point for the unjustified inferences he drew from the existence of clause 7, in the sense that he wanted to infer from it that the Government considers Walvis Bay’s position as temporary. However, this is not an inference that can be drawn from clause 7 as it reads at present, because the only change which can be made by proclamation is that Walvis Bay can again become part of an electoral division in South Africa, and nothing else. This is all which can be done by proclamation, and therefore the inference drawn by the hon. member for Green Point is totally unjustified.

The hon. member for Green Point, as well as the hon. members for Rissik and Umbilo, referred to the proposed section 76(2)(b) in terms of which a person can be removed from office as member of a council or committee without debate. If such a removal were for political reasons, one could have a very interesting debate on it. However, this removal may also be on other grounds, for example personal grounds etc. In that case a public debate would not be to anyone’s advantage. Nor does this mean that that member would all of a sudden find himself without a job. After all, any caucus of a majority party in a provincial council would have the decency to speak to such a member within the confidenciality of the caucus and give him a chance to state his case. I accept that it is not necessary to embody this in the legislation. However, it could cause embarrassment and create a tremendous problem if the removal of a member were to take place publicly under specific circumstances. For that reason I support the clause as it reads at present, and I cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the Constitution Amendment Bill solely on the basis of principles. I want to start off with the principles that were laid down at the National Convention when the Union of South Africa came into being. The question of representation was a very important matter that was discussed. Eventually the Convention set out five principles that have remained in our Constitution, principles in terms of which hon. members are able to represent their constituencies in this House.

The first one was that constituencies or electoral divisions should be area-based. The second was that a quote of voters would be the basis of distribution. The third principle was that the distribution or delimitation of electoral districts would be done by a commission of judges of the Supreme Court of South Africa. The fourth principle was that a variation from the quota, in the form of a loading or deloading of up to 15%, would be considered by the commission. The fifth one was that in arriving at the variation from the quota, the commission was limited to certain factors such as community of interest, sparsity or density of population, means of communication, physical features and boundaries of existing electoral divisions.

The first real change that took place in our Constitution, as far as this was concerned, took place in 1965 when this House appointed a Select Committee to go into the question of the large-area constituencies. With the increase in urbanization in South Africa and the concentrations in the metropolitan areas, the comparison between the country districts and the urban areas became such that the Select Committee came to the conclusion that it was necessary to allow the deloading of country districts to be greater than was laid down by the National Convention, and so the large-area seats were created with a deloading of up to 70%.

What about the six South West African seats in 1949?

I am coming to that. Up to 1922 Walvis Bay was actually a part of South Africa, but in terms of section 1 of the South West Africa Affairs Act of 1922, Walvis Bay was administered by the South West Africa administration, until this was rescinded by proclamation R202 dated 31 August 1977 and proclamation 248 of 30 September 1977, when the State President proclaimed that as Walvis Bay had at all times been part of the Cape of Good Hope, the said area would henceforth be administered by the Cape Province. In 1949—what the hon. member for Durban Point said is perfectly true—it was decided to create six seats in South West Africa, and Walvis Bay, from a voting point of view, was incorporated into South West Africa.

Let us now see why the Delimitation Commission classified Walvis Bay under Cape Town.

We know about that. That is history.

Yes, I know the hon. member knows about that. Let us deal with it, however, because it is a question of principle. As soon as this proclamation was issued, the voters of Walvis Bay were included in the Namakwaland constituency, because that was the nearest constituency as the crow flies. When the delimitation took place, two political parties decided that Walvis Bay should be included with Namakwaland, whilst another decided that it should be grouped with Saldanha Bay. What was the quota of voters at that particular time? This is very important, because it is one of the principles laid down by the National Convention. The quota was 12 626 for the Cape Province, as compared with the average for South Africa which was 14 029. One of the points raised by the commission in dealing with the factors that apply in delimitation was that good means of communication are of great value in an electoral division as they make it easy for voters to reach one another, to communicate with one another and to consult with one another. In this delimitation the commission said that this was certainly a consideration in the placement of Walvis Bay in the Green Point division. One of the reasons why the commission did not put Walvis Bay into Namakwaland was that Namakwaland would still have been a large area division but it would only have had an unload of 3,9%. The reason why the commission eventually put Walvis Bay into the Green Point constituency is stated as follows—

It was provided by Proclamation No. 202 of 1977 that Walvis Bay was no longer to be administered as a part of South West Africa but as a part of the Cape Province. Apart from being the provincial capital, Cape Town is also the seat of legislative ‘authority and hence the place where Ministers and heads of Government departments are present during the session of Parliament. Obviously, therefore, the inhabitants of Walvis Bay will go to Cape Town which is also their nearest industrial and commercial center in the Cape Province for business reasons.

As at 31 March this year the number of voters in polling district 1 of the consituency of Green Point, which is Walvis Bay, was only 3 633. These people have voted in the electoral division delimited according to the principles laid down for the Republic of South Africa and therefore they have already voted in one election. Therefore they are already represented in this House.

They have a bad representative.

The purpose in the convention of laying down that there should be a judiciary to take part in the delimitation and in regard to the allocations of voters was for the purpose of having a fair election.

What are you quoting from?

I am quoting from a book on delimitations. The commissioners have placed Walvis Bay directly in the electoral district that in their opinion, despite evidence from political parties which quite naturally seek the greatest political gain for their proposals, is most equitable and fair to all. They have explained their reasons and that is where Walvis Bay should really remain.

It has been the practice in this House, where the question of representation in this House has to be considered, to refer any matter that has to do with representation to a Select Committee. In this case, this Bill, which is an amendment of the Constitution, has not been referred to a Select Committee. The Government, through the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, has stated that any amendments that will be made to the Constitution will normally go to the Select Committee on the Constitution. This was not done in this particular instance. Tonight the Government wants by means of unilateral legislation pushed through this House to change the whole spirit of the Constitution and, as has been explained, it is going to change the whole question of representation in this House. What does this do? Five principles were laid down by the convention and now we have a whole set of new principles which this Bill introduces.

New principle No. 1: A constituency which has already elected a member to this House can now suddenly be divided into two electoral divisions and an additional member with full voting rights can be elected to the House. Walvis Bay has only 3 633 voters, but it is going to elect a full member to the House. That means that one is producing a constituency which has a deloading of over 70%. That is based on the Cape quota figure of 1980.

One man, four votes!

It seems that for any reason it wishes and because it has a straightforward majority, the governing party can at any time create as many seats as it likes. Mr. Speaker, if one takes this to the point of absurdity, why not for historical reasons let us create in your constituency of Vryburg another two seats, one called Stellaland and one called Goosen. After all, these were two republics that played a very important role in the history of South Africa. Let us then divide your constituency into three seats, Sir. For political reasons, a Government, seeing its majority being whittled away, can create a few more seats, because that is the principle we are establishing tonight. It will create a situation similar to that which pertained in Great Britain during the last century when one had a whole lot of “rotten” boroughs and there was one constituency which consisted of one voter and which elected a full member of Parliament.

New principle No. 2 … [Interjections.] …: No matter how many voters there may be in a constituency, the quota of voters either for the Republic or for the province will no longer be the basis of distribution in delimiting electoral divisions. This is completely against the principles laid down in the present Constitution as foreseen by the National Convention. The argument often stated is that the National Convention laid down the principles. The hon. the Prime Minister stated that there was not to be “one vote, one value”. Sir, this reduces the value of a vote to an absurdity as far as the House is concerned.

New principle No. 3: It is no longer necessary to subject electoral divisions—because they can be devised by this Parliament—to the consideration of a delimitation commission. This is indeed an exceptionally bad principle and creates a very poor precedent. The whole purpose of appointing judges to do a delimitation was to avoid gerrymandering—and this is gerrymandering.

New principle No. 4: The deloading of this electoral division exceeds 30% of the quota, despite the fact that it does not exceed 25 000 square kilometres. [Interjections.] What is more, this is an urban seat. Anybody who has gone to Walvis Bay knows that the “platteland” parts of Walvis Bay are sand dunes. The people of Walvis Bay are urban. One of the problems here is that the urban people should be loaded and not deloaded as far as delimitation is concerned.

New principle No. 5: It is no longer necessary to have a constituency or an electoral district delimited according to the seven factors now laid down for the rest of South Africa. One does not have to consider sparsity or density of population or anything else.

Talk about the farmers of Walvis Bay.

One does not have to consider any of those factors. This means that this Parliament is now abusing its sovereignty in that it lays down new principles for the election of members to this House when the system of majority rule applies. Passing this legislation is completely contrary to the letter of the Constitution and it is not in accord with the spirit of the Constitution. I am tempted to say that it is a prostitution of the Constitution. [Interjections.] Should the governing party pass this Bill they must remember one very important thing: One constitutional safeguard goes today and the next will go tomorrow. That is a very important thing to remember. Let the people of South Africa take this warning. We are just about to create a new constitution and here we are busy destroying the one which we had before.

In conclusion I would like to mention another very important factor. I want to go into the question of the possible international repercussions of this Bill. I wonder whether the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information has been consulted on this Bill. The proposed new section 40A(3) of the Bill reads, inter alia, as follows—

1. (a) Walvis Bay shall be deemed not to be part of the Republic or the Province of the Cape of Good Hope; and
2. (b) the voters in Walvis Bay in terms of the current voters’ list … shall be deemed not to be voters in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope …

This to me seems absolutely incredible stupidity. I want to quote from a speech made in the House by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information on 6 May this year.

It will be held against us at the United Nations.

I am going to deal with that. I quote from the hon. the Minister’s speech (Hansard, 6 May 1982, col. 6231)—

Who said that?

Minister Pik Botha, the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. I quote further-—

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. I quote further—

He goes on in col. 6233 to say—

I am not going to read the whole of Resolution No. 432. [Interjections.]

Go ahead, read the whole resolution.

This Resolution 432 states—

1. (1) The Security Council declares that the territorial integrity and unity of Namibia must be assured through the re-integration of Walvis Bay within its territory;
2. (2) decides to lend its support to the initiation of steps necessary to ensure the early re-integration of Walvis Bay into Namibia:

The hon. the Minister asked: Who voted for this? He answered that all 15 members of the Security Council, including the five permanent members, voted for it. The hon. the Minister went on to say—

Even though it may be for the purposes of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, the Statute Book of South Africa will have the following in it: Walvis Bay shall not be deemed to be part of the Republic of South Africa.

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

No.

Mr. Speaker, I shall address you. For how long is this hon. member still going to go on speaking? Until the day after tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker, I take that remark as a reflection on the Chair. I as a member am entitled to speak. If the hon. the Leader of the House wishes this to be an all night session until the discussion is concluded each and every member here is entitled to speak in terms of the Standing Orders. [Interjections.]

As I have said, Walvis Bay shall not be deemed to be part of the Republic or the Province of the Cape of Good Hope. This is the very antithesis of what we have been telling the world. For petty political reasons—I say it is for petty political reasons because I can see no other reason no matter what any other member of this House has said why Walvis Bay should not be part of a constituency in South Africa; that is where it was put and that is where it should remain—we are putting a noose around our necks for which we are going to be extremely sorry. We have eliminated the six members of Parliament representing South West Africa because we did not wish to have an association with South West Africa/Namibia. We have proclamations incorporating Walvis Bay into South Africa because it is truly South African territory.

For all these reasons and because of the dangers and the principles I have enunciated I think it would be for the best if clauses 2 and 6 were withdrawn by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Rissik for his overall support of the Bill. I must say it came as no surprise to me, because as I see it, their approach this evening is more or less one of one for you and one for me. They vote in favour of one Bill and oppose the next. In the case of the previous Bill they were even prepared to vote with the PFP. Nevertheless I want to thank the hon. member. I also thank the hon. member for Umbilo for his support.

This brings met to the hon. members for Green Point and Bezuidenhout. When the hon. member for Bezuidenhout begins discussing the mechanics of public representation, it is quite clear that he is really enjoying himself. He raised a number of points—I think he ended with 8—and when he came to Resolution 435 of the UN, I was afraid he was going to begin at number one again. Earlier this year we had a debate in this House on the matter of public representation. At the time we discussed this matter with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and pointed out that in the main, two important principles are involved in public representation.

The one is proportional representation, concerning which we have no problems with the hon. member, nor he with us. However, he does not want to admit that there is also a second important principle in connection with public representation, namely effective public representation. This is the important factor. I venture to state this evening—and the hon. member for Green Point can tell me whether I am right or wrong—that he is not able to represent the voters of Walvis Bay effectively. [Interjections.] I am also specifically saying this against the background that Walvis Bay is the most important export harbor for South West Africa. If we can achieve an acceptable solution to the problems of South West Africa and they become independent next year, say, hon. members would surely expect economic activities in South West Africa to increase, and Walvis Bay would then become steadily more important to the area. In the light of this it is imperative that we have a special representative for Walvis Bay to represent the people there in this House.

The remaining clauses discussed here can be debated during the Committee Stage. Meanwhile I should like to support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down suggested that it was impossible for the hon. member for Green Point to represent Walvis Bay properly. I am going to come to that point a little later in my speech.

I said “effectively”.

I am going to read out to this House …

That was not meant as an insult …

Whether it was meant as an insult or not is not important. I intend to read to this House in the course of my speech a letter from the municipality of Walvis Bay which adequately demonstrates how well and effectively my hon. friend from Green Point has represented Walvis Bay.

I believe there is one constitutional idea in South Africa today that all parties in this House and those not in this House will agree on, and that is that the simple-majority-rule system or the unitary Westminster system, to give the more correct description, finds no favour in the South African situation. The NP, the President Council and we ourselves agree that unitary systems are out. Mr. Speaker, one might well ask why this is so. I believe that it is so because it has been demonstrated over the last 34 years by successive NP Governments how subject that system is to abuse in the hands of unscrupulous and self-seeking political parties. This Bill that is before us today is yet another demonstration and proof that this is still the case. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the constitution of the Republic of South Africa has been amended no less than 42 times in its short history of only 21 years. Since 1961 we have amended our constitution 42 times. In 1980 alone it was amended by six different Acts introducing many different amendments. Ours must be the most flexible constitutional system in the Western World today. I would like to contrast that with the Constitution of the United States of America which, as we all know, has a federal system of government, a system which this party, is in favor of as we support a federal system. In contrast, the United States of America, in a history which has spanned more than 200 years—have only altered their constitution 26 times. That is a rigid constitution, and that is what we in these benches believe should be brought about in South Africa. The very type of …

Are you pleading for a rigid constitution?

We believe that there should be a rigid constitution. A simple majority vote should not be able to alter a constitution, as this House is doing tonight. Our total history and the history of this Government and its predecessors shows that they disregard constitutional norms when it serves their own ends to do so. They started within three years of coming into power in 1948. In 1951 we had the classic example of the Separate Representation of Voters Act. In 1952 the Supreme Court declared that Act invalid. Then, in 1952, there was the High Court of Parliament Act which again the Appeal Court declared invalid. Eventually, as we all know, the NP enlarged the Senate. This was not done in the interests of South Africa but was done in the interests of the NP. I believe that the Government is regretting the steps that it took in regard to that legislation and in regard to the Colored people at that time, and the Government is paying the price today. The split in its own party is one of the prices that it has had to pay for what it did 30 years ago. This has been the case so often since that time and is also the case in regard to this Bill before the House today. This Bill is nothing but a blatant device to enable one more NP member to take his seat in this House. [Interjections.] The cynicism involved is quite obvious. I want to state categorically that had the NP won Green Point in 1981, clause 2 of this Bill would not be before us tonight. [Interjections.] Secondly, I also want to state categorically that if the majority of voters in Walvis Bay supported a party other than the NP, this clause too would not be before this House tonight. Thirdly, I again want to state categorically that if another party should win the seat at any time in the future, then—and I had written this in my original speech—clause 7 of this Bill would be invoked. However, the hon. the Minister has told us—and we welcome it—that he is dropping clause 7. I would far rather he dropped clause 2! Nevertheless, dropping clause 7 is an improvement of a situation that looks pretty bleak. However, should another political party win Walvis Bay it would not surprise me at all if this NP Government then introduced a further Constitution Amendment Bill to repeal the relevant provisions of section 40A of the Act. This clause is blatantly cynical.

The hon. member Mr. Kritzinger suggested that the hon. member for Green Point could not possibly represent Walvis Bay properly, and I want to refute this statement by quoting from a letter written on the letterhead of the municipality of Walvis Bay. The letter is dated 28 September of last year and it is signed by the Town Clerk of Walvis Bay. It reads as follows—

I guarantee that the hon. member for Turffontein who interjected earlier has not had a letter like that from any municipality that he has represented.

Have you ever had one?

No, I have not. I make no bones about it. However, the hon. member for Green Point has and that demonstrates just how well he has represented that particular constituency. I want to ask this question: Does the Government consider that Walvis Bay must have its own special MP? I ask this because, if they do want this, other than tampering with the Constitution—as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said, gerrymandering the Constitution, which is precisely what it is—then the solution is in their own hands. Between the State President and the NP they appoint no less than 11 members to this House. It would be the easiest thing in the world for that party to get one of their members to resign his seat and, if I were to have a preference, I would suggest that it be the hon. member Mr. Aronson. He could then resign his seat and allow a representative to be appointed for Walvis Bay. Then the NP would have accomplished its purpose without once again gerrymandering the Constitution.

This Bill, I believe has done two things. It has exposed the NP as only being interested in democratic principles that can be suborned or twisted to the advantage of the NP. Secondly, it has demonstrated that the prime purpose of the NP’s total strategy is to keep the NP in power by any means whatsoever. This equally is obviously not in the best interest of the people of South Africa.

I believe that this House will pass the Bill, but I believe it definitely ought to reject it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point commented on certain aspects of the legislation. In the first instance, he discussed the issue of the quota system, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did later, which is one of the principles which applies to the delimitation of constituencies.

If there is one member of this House who really ought to know and understand the distinctive position of Walvis Bay then it is the hon. member for Green Point. We could very easily win an academic argument if we wanted to assess the Bill in terms of the general rules and principles applying to the delimitation of the country as a whole. After all, not a single hon. member of this House would deny the distinctive position of Walvis Bay. Apart from any other consideration it is surely the only territory of South Africa which is totally separated from the electoral division into which it falls. That alone makes this a unique situation.

Secondly, the hon. member is aware of the distance from Walvis Bay to the electoral division that has to serve it.

I am aware of that.

Yes, the hon. member is aware of it.

But nowadays we travel by air.

The hon. member is making matters difficult for me. It was not my intention to discuss the position of the hon. member for Green Point vis-ä-vis that constituency, nor have I done so. Hon. members must not provoke me on this subject. The fact is that the community of Walvis Bay have a need to be in contact with their representative. When I say this, I do not wish to intimate that the hon. member for Green Point was not available to his people. Nor do I imply that. The fact is that in the nature of the situation of the territory it is difficult not only for the hon. member for Green Point, but also for every member who has to represent Walvis Bay in these circumstances. It is just as difficult for the people in that territory. Therefore the historic survey given by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was very interesting. I listened to it with interest. However, that does not solve the unique problem of Walvis Bay. There is nobody who can argue against that fact.

After all, this House recognized previously, when South West Africa was provided with six parliamentary seats to enable it to be represented here, that the same quota system did not apply to Walvis Bay. Here I refer of course to the principle of the quota system which applied at the time of the National Convention. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout knows that too. Why, then, should we argue about things that we all know, in any event?

The hon. member went on to argue—and I am going to react to this very briefly—about the position of the members of the President’s Council with regard to the provision concerning offices of profit. Let us be very brief about this. The rationale for the provision that people in a legislative assembly may not hold offices of profit under the State is, purely and simply, that they take decisions in those legislative assemblies to which effect has to be given, while the distinctive position of the President’s Council is that it is in fact a commission of inquiry. After all, all of us in this House have argued that in essence the President’s Council is a commission of inquiry. Therefore it is for the legislators to decide whether its proposals will be accepted in the final instance or not. That makes a cardinal difference.

The hon. member for Umlazi replied very effectively to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Green Point in this regard. I thank him for doing so. The hon. member for Umlazi also pointed out very effectively to hon. members that there are examples elsewhere in the world of remote territories that are represented in their Parliaments on a totally different basis to that of the ordinary electoral division.

I now come to the hon. member for Rissik. He accepts the proposals but has problems with the proposed new section 76(2)(b), if I remember correctly. Of course, I have already indicated to the hon. member for Umbilo that I will accept a proposal for the deletion of this provision. Permit me, however, just to outline the motivation for this provision.

It is always possible to criticize a Minister or MEC. Therefore no restriction is imposed on the expression of criticism, whether it be a Minister or a MÉC. The motivation of this is that one prefers not to conduct a debate in regard to such a motion, because it could be unpleasant for the person involved. Why, then, should we not spare these people the embarrassment? Such a provision also exists with regard to the State President; a provision to the effect that such a motion is not discussed. A similar provision also applies to the Vice-State President. It is a motion that is not discussed, but merely voted on. The fact is that when a Minister is dismissed, that is not discussed either. Thus, all that is envisaged by way of this provision, is to afford the body that elects members of the Executive Committee, the right to dismiss them in the same way that they are elected. However, if hon. members feel that they want such a matter to be discussed, then I shall willingly accommodate them in this regard.

†The hon. member for Umbilo referred to the same clause. I have already indicated that I cannot accept his amendment for certain technical reasons, but that I am prepared to accept a motion from him for the deletion of the relevant stipulation.

*The hon. member for Helderkruin argued very effectively about the distinctive position of Walvis Bay. I agree wholeheartedly with him. He also argued that the circumstances in Walvis Bay can change. I agree with that too. Indeed, circumstances have changed frequently in the past, and this could happen again. However, I am withdrawing clause 7 for a different reason, viz. because I do not wish uncertainty to prevail among the inhabitants of South West Africa as regards the attitude of the Government towards them. I also hoped that we would not advance arguments in this debate which would give rise to uncertainty. Accordingly I am quite prepared to withdraw the provision in question. However, we must make no mistake. On 6 May this year, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout correctly remarked, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated South Africa’s standpoint with regard to South West Africa. I therefore contend that these proposals that are before us provide further confirmation of the Government’s views in connection with the ownership of Walvis Bay. Therefore I want to concede at once that we must have no discussion whatsoever of that uncertainty. The fact is that Walvis Bay is not simply part of the Republic; it is also strategically important to the Republic. Apart from that, it has a tremendous potential for development, and the Government is taking steps to stimulate and develop economic development there.

†I want to thank the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for the historical review he has given of the principles and the development of the electoral laws in regard to the delimitation of constituencies. However, I submit that the hon. member was not very fair. Firstly, he refers to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and asked whether he had been consulted. Sir, the legislation that we introduce in this House is not initiated or decided upon by one Minister alone.

It is a Cabinet decision.

Yes it is a Cabinet decision, and therefore that point was not well made. However, the hon. member argues that Walvis Bay is in terms of this Bill excluded from the Cape Province, from South Africa. I should like the hon. member to refer to the relevant clause, because it is important. Subsection (3) on page 5 of the Bill reads—

1. (a) Walvis Bay shall be deemed not to be part of the Republic of the province of the Cape of Good Hope …

The point I am trying to make is that it relates specifically to sections 42 and 43 of our Constitution Act. If the hon. member will refer to that Act, he will find that the matters dealt with in those sections are matters relating to delimitation and quotas. In all fairness, therefore, why does the hon. member use this scurrilous argument, because he tried to create the impression that in this Bill we now, not only for the purpose of sections 42 and 43 of the Constitution Act, are excluding Walvis Bay from the province and from the Republic. I submit that that is not fair, Sir, because it creates the wrong impression.

That is a very dangerous argument.

[Inaudible.]

I can accept that somebody may do it, but I cannot understand why an hon. member of this House should do it, because he ought to know better.

We are warning you.

I do not want to start a row now, but should like to suggest that the hon. member should go and read what he has said. He did not qualify his statement as, in fact, subsection (3) is being qualified. It states that it is only for a specific purpose that Walvis Bay is excluded from the Cape Province.

[Inaudible.]

I thank the hon. member Dr. Odendaal for his contribution. He made the important point that it is not only a matter of representation; it is also a question of whether the representatives are there to represent the territory, and whether the territory is effectively represented.

Once again I wish to thank the hon. members for their support. I am prepared to withdraw clause 7 and accept an amendment to clause 4.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister, in dealing with the substance of clause 2 and also with the other clauses in the Bill which affect the Walvis Bay situation, emphasized on the uniqueness of Walvis Bay and said that we all accepted this. He is quite right. He also placed emphasis on the distances the representative of Walvis Bay is faced with. He then said that for this reason Walvis Bay was experiencing problems in making contact with its representatives. I concede all these points to the hon. the Minister. He is quite right. Anyone acting as a representative for that constituency would experience problems, and these problems are aggravated by the fact that a part of the constituency being represented is not in the Republic of South Africa.

However, the fact remains that we see the problems that Walvis Bay is experiencing and which make it different from other parts of the Republic of South Africa, as being mainly problems of contact and communication; problems, therefore, of an administrative rather than a political nature. We believe that if the administrative problems could be ironed out, there would be no need for the Bill at present before us, nor would it be necessary to provide special political representation there.

Frequently in public life a Government or authority which wants to give satisfaction where there is dissatisfaction, concedes to the people who are objecting that there is a problem. Then, as long as it then takes some form of action, as long as it just does something which is supposed to be a solution to the specific problem, frequently the people who objected are temporarily satisfied. I think it is quite possible that something is being done in this Bill which purports to be a solution to the problem, whereas in our opinion, it is in fact not a solution. Even if it is a bonafide attempt, we still think that the concession being made in taking this special measure, is far too great a concession. In our opinion, it is a concession which will result in an unhealthy exception in our constitutional arrangements, and which for this reason is unacceptable to us. For this reason we shall oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point himself admitted in the Second Reading debate that Walvis Bay ought to receive more attention—I noted down his words. The hon. member alleged that the deficiency at Walvis Bay was merely an administrative deficiency. However, he forgets that an entire community is involved. I have said before that if Walvis Bay was no more than an outpost with a few officials, perhaps a case could be made out for administrative improvements and for an improvement in communications and services to that area. However, since it has a community of over 3 500 voters, it is better to rectify the lack of attention those people are getting by electing their own representative.

I should also like to refer briefly to the contention of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that principles of delimitation and electoral divisions are being violated here. Let me put it this way: The existing position, viz. that Walvis Bay is part of a Cape electoral division, already violates certain principles of our system of electoral divisions in the Constitution. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout objected to the numerical strength of the proposed electoral division of Walvis Bay. However, he conveniently forgot that the finking of Walvis Bay to an existing electoral division in the Cape totally negated the issue of the diversity of interests, the matter of geographic characteristics was totally ignored and the matter of communication links was totally ignored. Therefore, if the proposed solution transgresses a single principle, the existing solution transgresses at least three or four that we could mention offhand.

Mr. Chairman, I am amazed at the hon. member for Umlazi. As far as I am concerned, it almost amounts to a contempt of court. A delimitation commission consisting of three judges of the Supreme Court in terms of the Constitution of South Africa goes into the situation in respect of a piece of territory that is removed from South Africa by some hundreds of kilometres and comes to the conclusion that the best place for it to be put in is Green Point—not Saldanha or Namaqualand. It also gave its reasons. I did not go into all the reasons. There are about seven paragraphs devoted to Walvis Bay. One of the most important reasons advanced by the commission for not putting it in Namaqualand was that there is no regular air service with Namaqualand. We are living in 1982, and in 1982 …

I want to point out to the hon. member that the principle has already been accepted. [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon. member for Umlazi did not …

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon. member may only discuss the particulars of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not take up much of the Committee’s time. As you indicated, the principle has already been accepted. I just want to remark in consequence of what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that one learns something new here every day. On the one hand, the hon. members opposite had something to say about the position of Mr. Justice Steyn as a commissioner and also about Mr. Justice Rabie, but on the other hand the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that the hon. member for Umlazi was in contempt of court because he criticized the chairman of the Delimitation Commission.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, in view of the response that I had from the hon. the Minister in respect of this clause, that he would be prepared to delete the proposed new subsection (2)(b), I will be quite happy not to move the other amendment which I have on the Order Paper. I accordingly move the amendment as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, as far as clause 5 is concerned, I just want to indicate very briefly that the hon. the Minister again indicated that what is at issue is the situation where a person who is a member of a legislative body can be influenced, if he is a member of this House or of a provincial council, but that these circumstances do not apply to members of the President’s Council. This is correct, of course, and I agree with him, but I just want to make the point that if such influence—the influence which is guarded against in the case of members of Parliament and members of the provincial council—is in fact exerted on a member of the President’s Council, it could still have the same or similarly adverse consequences, because in my opinion, and certainly as far as the Government is concerned, the recommendations of that council are regarded as tremendously important and most definitely of more importance and more weight than anything an ordinary commission of inquiry deals with. I see that the hon. the Minister now wants to point out that I am also saying so. I am not saying so, but I am saying that he says so. On this basis we oppose the clause.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 6:

This party will oppose this clause too. It is a clause which also deals with the situation in Walvis Bay. It is consequential and the reasons for our opposition are therefore on record.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate that the reference on page 7 in line 18 to “8(2)” and in line 41 to “2, 6 and 7”, will be changed administratively to “7(2)” and “2 and 6”, respectively.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 7 negatived.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The reasons why we opposed this Bill in the Second Reading are on record, and for the hon. members’ sake I shall not repeat them. I think it is quite clear that there is a difference in priorities which has resulted in our approach to this Bill differing from that of the Government. We shall therefore oppose the Third Reading as well.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members will recall that an Environment Conservation Bill was introduced during the first Parliamentary session of 1981, and then referred to a Select Committee for examination and report. Owing to the dissolution of Parliament, the Select Committee was unable to dispose of its task and this led to the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry into Environment Legislation, the report of which commission was recently tabled. The report of the commission and the White Paper on a National Policy regarding Environmental Conservation (W.P.O.—’80) contains full particulars of the principles and need for legislation on environmental conservation and consequently it is not necessary for me to elaborate on this in detail.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. member for Kuruman, as well as of the Commission of Inquiry into Environmental Legislation, and the members of both, for their contributions in this connection, and to congratulate them on the report which they published.

In the White Paper on a National Policy regarding Environmental Conservation an attempt was made to formulate a national policy in respect of the divergent aspects of environmental conservation. This White Paper also served as a guideline for the legislation before you and shall serve as a further guideline for legislation which may appear to be necessary in future to place environmental conservation in South Africa on a firm foundation.

By way of summary, the purpose of the Bill before this House is to make provision for the protection of the environment in general so that essential development may take place in a balanced way, and to ensure the achievement as far as possible of a harmonious interaction between man and his habitat.

Arising out of the rationalization attempt on the part of the Government sector, a need also arose for overall co-ordination in order to carry out a critical review of existing and contemplated legislation on divergent aspects of the environment and to make recommendations which will ensure that legitimate regard is in fact had to environmental matters and considerations.

†I should like to elaborate briefly on certain basic aspects contained in the Bill before the House. Firstly the Bill makes provision for the establishment of a new Council for the Environment. This council will not follow the pattern of the existing non-statutory council which is mainly representative of the public sector. Members of the statutory Council for the Environment will mainly be appointed on the ground of their expertise on any aspect of the environment or for the contribution that they, in the opinion of the Minister, will be able to make towards the conservation of the environment.

A second measure is the provision for the establishment, with the approval of the Minister, of committees, including an executive committee, to assist and advise the council in its functioning and the execution of its duties.

It is considered desirable that the proposed Council for the Environment and immediately thereafter two committees, namely one for noise abatement and the other for solid waste and littering, be established and become operative as soon as possible. The fact that the Government has been under pressure for a considerable time to take active steps, particularly with regard to these two aspects of the environment, can be advanced as the most important reason for this urgent action. It will furthermore serve to demonstrate the earnestness of the State to combat these evils of modem society.

*In the third place the Bill makes provision for the establishment of management committees in respect of nature areas which have been reserved as such in terms of the Physical Planning Act, 1967 (Act 88 of 1967). I am convinced that hon. members will concede that the management of these areas is very closely associated with the entire concept of environmental conservation. The task of these management committees will be to advise the Minister in connection with the drawing up and the implementation of a development and management policy for nature areas, as well as the financial aspects in regard to the implementation thereof.

In the fourth place the Bill makes provision for the appointment of honorary environment conservation officers. The principle of honorary officers has already been accepted in the Sea Fisheries Act and the Forestry Act which make the appointment of honorary fisheries officers and honorary forestry officers, respectively, possible. Honorary environment conservation officers will undoubtedly be able to render a fully supportive service in respect of environmental conservation and will be able to make an important contribution to stimulating and promoting an awareness of environment conservation among the general public.

That, Mr. Speaker, is in brief the scope of the legislation before this House. Only the basic machinery is being established for positive action and the involvement of the community in the sphere of environment conservation. Hon. members will note that the Bill deviates only slightly from the legislation recommended by the commission, and that the fundamental principles remain unchanged.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches support the Bill. It co-ordinates the approach to conservation and, as the hon. the Minister has said, it provides and creates the basic machinery for that purpose, and as such it is to be welcomed.

I know that the NRP’s representative on the commission which gave rise to the Bill produced a minority report and that the reason for his dissent was that in his opinion the Bill would result in the taking over of the existing powers of provincial councils. We have read the Bill as well as his minority report very carefully and we think it is a wholly fanciful idea. I and my party are implacably opposed to the Government taking over any provincial council or the Natal Parks Board and if there were any such actions we would fiercely fight such actions, but we see no clause in the Bill which would give any such power. We therefore think that it is completely unrealistic to contend that it does. Nowhere in his minority report did the commissioner of the NRP suggest which clause could give any such power. It may be that the Government at a later stage might try to achieve something like that, but the Bill certainly gives no such power. In fact, clause 18 provides that no other Act of Parliament is affected by the Bill. Therefore the provincial councils cannot be affected because their very existence is created by other Acts. Clause 12 empowers the Minister to make regulations, but subsection (6) provides that any proposed regulation shall be published in the Gazette within 60 days’ notice. Any interested party may then make representations to the Director-General. It does therefore provide the audi alteram partem rule, and while we ourselves will brook no interference with the Natal Parks Board, we will support this Bill.

Finally, I should just like to make one point. That is that we did have a serious difficulty with clause 10 of the Bill because in terms of clause 10 the Minister is empowered to issue directions with regard to the management and development of any land situated within a nature area. In any case, to cut a long story short, what the Minister can do is that he can direct in effect how that land can be used. The effect of such a direction may well be that an owner or occupier, or a successor in time, has a lesser use as a result of that direction than he had at the time the direction was issued, and that may cause patrimonial loss.

I may point out that in terms of this Bill the owner or occupier is in a worse position than under the Physical Planning Act in terms of which the status quo could only be frozen. I do have to point out though that we in this party contacted the department some two weeks ago about this problem, and I am very pleased to say that this department, unlike any other departments I have to deal with, has reacted to our problem, and we have before us, from the hon. the Minister, a proposed amendment which fully meets the problem that we have.

I do in fact want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on coming up with this proposed amendment, which I trust he will move later. That amendment will meet the difficulty we have in respect of clause 10, and it will in fact provide for a recompense for patrimonial loss to any owner or occupier who is affected by a direction issued in terms of clause 10 of the Bill.

Therefore we will be supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we thank the hon. member for Pinetown for his support of this measure now before the House. I do not want to steal the hon. member’s thunder, but the fact is that the question which he mentions in respect of the problems he has with clause 10 of the Bill, has in fact been dealt with in our caucus, that is his problem in respect of the direction on how land can be used, and also the matter of diminished valuation in the case of change of use without expropriation. The hon. member for Sundays River dealt with it over a long period, and I am sure that he was also instrumental in the bringing about of this amendment. Nevertheless, we thank the hon. member for Pinetown for his support of this measure. We are very grateful for it.

This is, I believe, perhaps the most important conservation measure that has been introduced here since the Second World War. It is without question the most important conservation measure since the promulgation of the National Parks Act.

The fundamental problem in this respect is very simple to describe. It results from the population pressure owing to the massive population explosion, as well as from increasing urbanization, and is also very closely linked with the phenomenon of expanding agricultural activities, and also, of course, ever-increasing industrial activities. All these and many other problems are envisaged to be taken care of in terms of this measure.

It is also true, of course, that in South Africa we have taken a decision to grow. We have decided that we want our living standards to rise, and that that should include all our population groups. That decision brings with it of course a massive impact on our environment and on the quality of life wherever we live, and it is therefore imperative that we do give attention to this very important matter. What happens is that when every department of State and every big developer that takes any action it indeed has some impact upon the environment, and as ideas and decisions are being put into practice and certain projects get underway, the impact on the environment increases, and the public and the Government alike are becoming increasingly apprehensive of the degradation upon the environment. One tier of government after the other—local government, central government, regional government—have in fact tried to address themselves to this problem. They have taken administrative, executive and legislative action, and as these actions have grown and the jurisdiction of these individual tiers of government and authorities has grown, so has the need for co-ordinating all these increased rights.

In 1973 when the Department of Planning was renamed the Department of the Environment, for the first time, a Cabinet committee was established and that was called the Council for the Environment. This was basically a public body, and was the first halting step in this whole process that has reached its culmination here today. In 1980, with rationalization, the Department of Water Affairs took over the functions of the then Department of the Environment and changed its name, but of more importance was the White Paper that was then published shortly after and tabled in this House, the White Paper on a National Policy regarding Environmental Conservation. That was the forerunner to this Bill. The other forerunner to this Bill was, of course, the amendment to the Physical Planning Act in 1980. That was withdrawn, and then formed part of a Bill which was introduced last year and was then referred to a Select Committee, later a Commission.

This Bill in fact attempts To create and maintain a state of harmony between man and his environment. How does it go about it? It creates a statutory body, the Council for the Environment, which was first mooted in the White Paper which was tabled in 1980. On page 5 of the White Paper, clause 2.4, it is stated—

It then goes on to suggest that a statutory body such as the one that is being dealt with here today, should be established.

Because these things are highly technical, the Bill also makes provision for technical support for the statutory council of 20, that will be looking after the policy issues in regard to the environment. The Bill therefore seeks co-ordination between the various tiers of government, between the various Government departments as well as between the public and private sectors.

We do not have much time, but I should like to deal with a couple of important objects of the Bill. Clause 4(d) is of particular importance. It provides—

*The Bill at present before us and the establishment of a statutory council already embody the essence of rationalization, of equalization on a national scale, i.e. the centralization of policy and the decentralization of the implementation of policy. This is essential, because co-ordination can be a very tedious process. In fact, the Directorate Environmental Conservation of the department is at present concerned with no fewer than 50 committees, study groups and panels. The commission deliberated on this aspect and considered also putting forward proposals with regard to the rationalization. However, they decided against it because that in itself was a tremendous task. It was therefore decided to leave it to the council, in co-operation with the department, and perhaps also with the President’s Council, to deliberate on the manner of rationalization. However, the commission took the view that rationalization should be implemented.

*‘Clause 4(h) is also a vital provision, introducing as it does a new conservation principle into our law. It states—

That opens the way for impact studies and assessments which have been the subject of public debate over the years. We know that Government departments, on a voluntary basis, already subscribe to this policy of prior consultation, but this provision opens the way for a wider application of that principle.

Clause 4(j) is also very important, because here we see that the object of the council is to—

We know, in this House, that environmental issues have been the subject of extremely vehement clashes between the Government and the private sector. In Cape Town we have had certain issues that have drawn attention throughout the country. Certain things happened that brought the public authorities into conflict with the public, and some have brought private developers into conflict either with the authorities or with the public. The fact is, however, that there will now be a body with the clearly defined function of looking after all environmental matters, a body through which the public in general will have an open and clear line of communication through to the Government. I think that is a very important principle indeed.

Clause 9 also introduces a new principle, that of the management of areas which are subject to multiple jurisdiction or multiple ownership. That is also a vital new principle in our conservation law and management in the sense that one will now see these great peri-urban areas—many of them of national importance—being subject to an authority that can take those areas which are subject to multiple use, and very often multiple ownership, and develop a common management policy for them. That flows from the findings of the Hey Commission which reported on the future control of Table Mountain. I only want to quote one extract from that Commission’s report, and I refer to the summary of the more important recommendations. On page 103, in recommendation (8) it is stated that—

He reached that conclusion while dealing with the Table Mountain and Southern Peninsula mountain chain, which were subject to various totally different owners, e.g. local authorities, provincial authorities and even private owners. The area was therefore subject to multiple ownership and multiple use. We welcome the relevant provision.

I should like to conclude by just stating that the other new principle in the Bill involves the fact that we are now addressing—in my view properly for the first time—the whole question of solid waste disposal, littering, noise pollution and air pollution, things that are very important. In terms of this proposed legislation the hon. the Minister will be empowered to make regulations with regard to these matters. What is also very important is that he will not only be able to delegate the authority for the control and regulation to the local authority concerned, but will also be able to make provision for the funding of those local authorities to do what is necessary, because for example the instrumentation for doing these things can be very expensive and many local authorities cannot, in fact, afford it.

To those few points, let me add that we welcome this legislation. It is indeed very important legislation, very far-reaching legislation. It is going to affect tens of thousands of people. It is also going to affect every local authority in the country. We welcome the legislation. 49 persons and authorities gave evidence before the commission. For all practical purposes there was unanimity about the necessity for this legislation. The Government and conservationists outside Parliament were unanimous. We say thank you to the hon. the Minister and to the Department, and also to all of those who helped us in the commission that drew up this Bill that is now before the House, with a few minor changes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Maitland on the neat speech he made. That hon. member takes a great interest in environment conservation and also made a fine contribution on the commission in getting this legislation drafted. I agree with him that it is very important legislation.

I should also like to thank the hon. the Minister very sincerely for having persisted and ensured that this legislation was introduced, even if it is in the first few minutes of this Saturday morning. We are grateful that this legislation can be piloted through Parliament.

I also wish to thank all the hon. members who served on the commission very sincerely for the wonderful contribution which they made towards the drafting of this legislation. There was wonderful co-operation, and it was a privilege to work with this team of men to create this fine piece of legislation for South Africa.

I should also like to thank Mr. Ferdi Schreck, the secretary of the commission, and Mr. Jacobson and Mr. Labuschagne, two of our officials, for their huge share in the drafting of this legislation.

We hope that the approach of the commission is also going to be the approach of South Africa towards this legislation which I think is wonderfully embodied in the short passage which serves as a preface to the report and which was submitted by M. S. Zakrzewski. It reads as follows—

This was the approach of our commission, and we hope and trust that it will also be the approach of the whole of South Africa to this very important legislation.

I should like to emphasize the excellent work which is being done at present in respect of conservation in South Africa by existing organizations and institutions. People who gave evidence before the commission, as well as at the places we visited, told us about and showed us with great pride the work of conservation they were engaged in doing. The great diversity of voluntary organizations who have busied themselves with conservation work over the years, and who are still doing so, compelled our greatest admiration and are also deserving of our greatest support for the wonderful work they have done over the years and are still doing.

The object of this Bill is to create a mechanism by means of which co-ordination, administration and the management of environmental matters can be made effective. The task of the Council for the Environment is to co-ordinate environment conservation efforts and to advise the Minister after expert advice has been obtained through research. Another very important principle, which forms an integral part of the legislation, is that this council should also be accessible to the public and to organizations dealing with conservation.

The hon. member for Langlaagte mentioned the examples here this evening of the mine dumps in his region which have, over the years, been very neatly planted to grass, but that the mining companies are now beginning to exploit those mine dumps again, and as a result of that exploitation, the environment is again being polluted with dust. Now this community is at liberty to approach the Council for the Environment, once it has been established, so that one of its expert committees can be instructed to do research on the pollution which is taking place there, and then advise the Minister on the right decisions in order to put a stop to the pollution.

In my opinion the most important task of this council is going to be—and I also hope that it will be one of its first tasks—to take steps to counteract littering and the question of solid waste in South Africa. We hope and trust that steps will be taken against people who pollute our beautiful country, the litterbugs who, without caring, want to turn our beautiful South Africa into a rubbish dump. We hope and trust that uniform laws, ordinances and enactments emanate from this council so that we will be able to take uniform steps against these people throughout the whole of South Africa.

As far as the question of solid waste is concerned, one finds that precious waste material ends up on the rubbish dumps of South Africa, waste material which could very well be re-utilized. As a practical farmer I can tell you that the bone-meal factory pays more today for a ton of bones than the price for which South Africa’s iron ore is sold in America. If one could utilize the thousands of tons of bones which end up on the rubbish dumps of Johannesburg every day, by converting it into stock-feed, it would mean a very great deal to South Africa. We consequently hope and trust that this council will also give attention, as a priority, to the question of solid waste which ends up on the rubbish dumps of our towns and cities every day.

With these few words I should very much like to support this Bill. We hope and trust that this Environment Conservation Bill, as a launching pad, will make a great contribution to the conservation of our beautiful country, South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that I am being given a turn to speak after the hon. member for Kuruman this evening because this affords me an opportunity to testify, in the first place, that it was a privilege for me to serve with the other members on the commission of inquiry of which the hon. member for Kuruman was the chairman, and also to testify to the competence in which the hon. member took charge of the proceedings of the commission. It was a pleasure for all of us to work together on that commission.

I think we are justified in saying that history is being made tonight. The passing of this piece of legislation is an historical event. I assure hon. members that in conservation circles there is very great interest in this measure. And not only great interest, but this legislation has aroused great expectations as an instrument to help realize the dreams and ideals of conservationists. I wish to express the hope that the hon. the Minister and his department will find it possible to ensure that these expectations are not disappointed.

It is impossible, in the short space of time at our disposal, to deal with this Bill in full. I think it would be best if I just singled out a few aspects of the legislation in my contribution, on the basis of certain problems which confronted the commission in the course of its deliberations. In the first place there was the question of whether we should confer executive powers upon the Council for the Environment, which is being established by this Bill.

After exhaustive deliberation and reflection on this matter, it was ultimately decided that the body should at this stage have only an advisory function, namely that of advising the hon. the Minister on all aspects of conservation. The second question confronting the commission was to determine how widely or how narrowly it was to have interpreted its terms of reference. Very strong representations were made from all quarters to the effect that the widest possible interpretation should be attached to those terms of reference. On the other hand, of course, there were also many bodies and institutions which were active in the area of conservation and which feared for their autonomy and their right to exist, and who therefore addressed representations requesting that a limited interpretation be given to our terms of reference. In this way, for example, the question was raised as to whether or not those terms of reference should be extended to include the man-made environment, more specifically the cultural-historical aspects, or whether they should have been limited to the actual natural environment. The reply which the commission gave to that question is recorded in paragraph 6.7 of the report, and I am not going to spell this out in detail now.

There was for example the question of soil conservation—whether the Council for the Environment should be given responsibility for that aspect, or whether it should provisionally remain the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

In connection with the provisions of clauses 9 and 10, certain pertinent questions also arose. These two clauses in particular contain the provisions in this legislation which will produce the first concrete results, i.e. that it will be possible for management committees for nature areas to be accorded legal status. I intended raising the question of compensation in the discussion of these two clauses. However, I understand that the hon. the Minister is going to make provision during the Committee Stage for compensation in respect of the regulations which are to be promulgated in terms of clause 10.

My idea was that provision should be made for compensation over a wider area. This is connected with the power which is going to be conferred on the Minister in respect of the management of nature areas. In terms of the provisions of section 4(2) of the Environment Planning Act, the Minister is now going to obtain full control over the management of administration of areas which are declared to be such nature areas. When such an area is proclaimed, an automatic freezing of rights takes place. I thought that the power to compensate should possibly be extended so that it will be possible to compensate people who are affected by such a declaration, through the mere reservation of a nature area. This is considerably wider than the amendment which the hon. the Minister is going to move. I think it is something which will, I hope, be looked into in future.

In paragraph 6.6 of the report the commission expressed the idea that it would be the logically appropriate thing to do to make it a function of the Minister of Environment Affairs to declare such a nature area. At present such a nature area is declared by the Minister responsible for physical planning. In practice it will probably be done at the request of the Minister of Environment Affairs, and therefore the idea is that that power should be now be transferred from the 1967 Act to the legislation which is at present under discussion.

We also had the feeling that it was possible that certain deficiencies could arise in that similar provision is not being made in the legislation for such a form of compensation. In particular I want to mention that the Cape Province it is a firm tradition that where actions by the authorities affect the proprietry rights of an owner, or remove or reduce these rights, it is almost a sacred principle that provision should be made for compensation. Consequently I trust that it will in due course be possible to extend that principle to this legislation as well. We consider the freezing of proprietary rights cannot but have a detrimental effect on the realizable value of a person’s property. For that reason it is perhaps the correct principle to have provision for compensation.

Then there are also the questions which arise from developments which could possibly affect the status and authority of this Council for the Environment. I am thinking in particular of the announcement made by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday on the assignment which has now been issued to the President’s Council to examine the position of nature conservation in the Republic. This is obviously related to the so-called function-orientated investigation on which the Commission for Administration is already engaged as part of the rationalization programme of the Public Service.

In this connection I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to try to ensure that these investigations and the results of such investigations should not detrimentally affect the status of this Council for the Environment. It is certainly highly undesirable that another authoritative structure in respect of environment conservation, or some aspects thereof, should exist side by side with the Council for the Environment. I think it is no more than fair to this new Council for the Environment that it should be seen as the nucleus of any rationalization process in respect of environment conservation, and all its aspects, and more specifically in respect of nature conservation. Since that function-orientated investigation is concentrated on nature conservation and tourism I have a measure of personal concern at the possibility that we may get a new authoritative structure here, side by side with the Council for the Environment, which could have a detrimental effect on the status and function of this council. I hope that the hon. the Minister and his department will ensure that at these investigations, i.e. the one which the President’s Council is going to undertake, as well as the one on which the Commission for Administration is engaged, will be given the necessary inputs to ensure that nothing will be done and no decisions will be taken on the basis of the reports of those investigations and the results thereof, which could have a detrimental effect on the position on the Council for the Environment.

Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset just say that I think the members of the commission deserve to be complimented on the efforts that they have put in to submitting a comprehensive report. It is quite apparent that those gentlemen who were involved in the commission put in a lot of effort and approached their task in a very conscientious manner.

I am also conscious of the minority report that was tabled by Mr. Nigel Wood. In the course of my speech I should like to deal with certain aspects of this, because some of the concerns that were expressed in his minority report are matters that we should like clarification on, as well as, expressions from the hon. the Minister.

Nobody can deny that there is a need for co-ordination within the sphere of environmental planning and conservation. However, this should be viewed in the light of control being exercised at a decentralized level with co-ordination taking its place at a higher level. The contrast that exists in the environmental pattern in this country makes this necessary if any success is to be achieved in bringing into effect a co-ordinated environmental programme. In other words, what I am saying is that each province has developed its own individual programme to allow for the diverse environmental conditions that exist in the various provinces.

I must point out that public awareness and co-operation are prerequisites to success in all aspects of environmental conservation. Every member of the community must be made to feel that he has a commitment, a responsibility and an obligation to protect and preserve those things around him which form part of the environment. In this we have an obligation to posterity and it is so necessary that this ideal be brought home to the public at every possible opportunity. This can only be engrained in a person at the grass roots or local level of administration. It is essential, therefore, that the provisions of this Bill be seen in the light of prevailing circumstances and present administration factors. It is logical, therefore, that, where present nature conservation requirements are being adequately met and well catered for, a certain scepticism has crept in with regard to the Bill. There is a fear that its provisions will lead to interference in the functions that are presently being performed by such organizations as the provincial administrations. It is on this basis that I welcome the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Environmental Legislation as contained in paragraph 5.3 and 5.4—and I quote from paragraph 5.3—

These are the organizations to which I have referred—

I also quote from paragraph 5.4—

I would query whether the principles and recommendations that were made by the Commission have been adequately carried forward and accommodated in the provisions of this Bill. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this has not happened. We appreciate the significance of provincial representation on the Council, but I contend that this does not go far enough. The provinces require an assurance and a safeguard that what they have built up over the years in the field of nature conservation will not be tampered with. Here I must also point out that the provincial administrators at a recent meeting were unanimous that nature conservation should remain under the control of the provinces. The Natal Provincial Administration, as much as any other administration, is conscious and jealous of its achievements in the field of nature conservation through the Natal Park Board, and of the services that this Board is providing to the public and the contribution it is making to the tourist industry of this country. The Natal Parks Board could be termed a specialist organization when it comes to the services it provides for the public in the form of nature conservation. I would go so far as to say that no other Province can claim as good a track record in this regard. I do not intend to elaborate any further at this stage but I would like to point out that the Natal Provincial Administration has lived up to the responsibility conferred upon it in terms of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. We on this benches see the establishment of the council as a positive step in that its advisory function can assist the Minister to arrive at decisions which can improve overall co-ordination within his department. At the same time we accept that there is a need for greater liaison between nature conservation bodies in order to avoid duplication.

As an example, I would point out that the department controls large sections of land for water and general conservation purposes in Natal and during recent years more and more land has been opened up for recreational purposes. This is a possible area in which duplication can take place. In the case of Natal the Natal Parks Board has the expertise and infrastructure to handle both management and recreational facilities for these areas. In this regard I refer to such areas as Midmar and Albert Falls where the facilities that are provided for the public are beyond comparison with any other.

It is logical, therefore, that in the case of Natal the Natal Parks Board should administer all aspects of nature conservation in such areas. The need for greater attention to be given to the control of solid waste, littering and noise pollution and of the obligation of local authorities to enforce regulations in this regard is a provision we regard as a positive measure. Financial assistance to the local authorities that co-operate is also welcomed. Measures to compel local authorities to implement regulations are desirable. I would also like to say how very much we welcome the amendment of the hon. the Minister in regard to losses incurred by and the compensation that will be made to owners and occupiers of farms and properties within nature areas.

Mr. Speaker, there is an amendment in my name on the Order Paper and I do hope that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to accepting it when this matter is discussed during the Committee Stage. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to give this House a clear and unequivocal assurance that under the terms of this Bill those functions that are performed by the provincial administrations at the present time will not be impaired or interfered with or tampered with in any way in accordance with the recommendations made by the Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members sincerely for supporting this Bill. There is not much I have to reply to in this connection.

In the first instance I want to thank the hon. member for Pinetown for his support.

†l think the hon. member for Pinetown should speak to his fellow Natalian and try to convince him in regard to what is happening. In quoting from the report of the commission, the hon. member for Mooi River convinced almost everybody but himself. However, I want to thank hon. members for their support and I hope that I shall have their support in the future as well.

*I want to thank the hon. member for Maitland very sincerely for his contribution. I realize that he is particularly interested in environmental conservation and that he himself has already done a great deal in this connection. We are now in the early hours of Saturday morning, but one is never rid of the environment and consequently one must simply carry on with it. I thank the hon. member for his support.

I thank the hon. member for Kuruman for the work which he did on the commission. I think he conducted the proceedings well and achieved exceptional success with the report which he submitted to this House on behalf of the commission. In my opinion the commission produced a Bill which may ensure that environmental conservation will be dealt with properly. In this connection one must take cognizance of the proposed council, in connection with which clause 4 provides as follows—

I think it is necessary for us to tell one another that if we think we can simply preserve things in South Africa without utilizing them, we are engaged in something that will fail. What we are concerned with here is striking a balance and the utilization of the environment in such a way that it may also be preserved for posterity. It seems to me our basic task is to carry out the commandment which we find in the first chapter of Genesis—be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth. “Replenish the earth” surely indicates that the earth is to be utilized and preserved. It seems to me that this is our task, but there is a great educational task attached to it.

The hon. member for Sundays River raised a few points. He referred, inter alia to certain problems which they encountered on the commission. For example the commission had to decide whether the council for the environment should have only advisory functions or should also have executive functions. I think they wisely decided that the council should have advisory functions to enable the Minister to bring home the need for implementation of what ought to be done to existing organizations such as the provincial administrations, local authorities or whichever bodies are best suited to do what is necessary. I do not think that the creation of new organizations should be contemplated, for if we were to do that, we would be on the wrong road. I think that if we are able, among ourselves, to organize matters so that what ought to be done, is done, we shall manage very well.

As far as the wide functions are concerned, I have the necessary appreciation for this. I admit that the advice which the Minister may be given and on the basis of which he may act, implies exceptionally wide functions which will have to be dealt with wisely.

The hon. member also raised the question of compensation in terms of clauses 9 and 10. He expressed his satisfaction with that. However, he had reservations concerning the administration and freezing of rights which could cause people certain material loss after an area has been declared to be a nature area. I sympathize with the standpoint of the hon. member, but I am afraid it has no place in this Bill. In the Bill provision is made for people who could possibly suffer material loss as a result of directives issued in terms of the Bill.

Another problem which the hon. member pointed out was one which arose as a result of the declaration of nature areas in terms of section 4 of the Physical Planning Act by the Office of the Prime Minister, but if attention has to be given to this matter, it will have to be done in terms of another Act and not in terms of the legislation which is now before us. Nevertheless I have sympathy for what the hon. member said. The hon. member went on to discuss the assignment given to the President’s Council, as well as the function and the function-orientated investigation of the Commission for Administration. I do not believe that these things overlap in any way. The assignment given to the President’s Council is in fact a very clear one. Objections and accusations are constantly being laid at the door of the Government, implying that we are not doing anything about these things, and that we are not maintaining world standards as far as the conservation of nature areas and national parks are concerned.

The assignment given to the President’s Council states that that council must investigate these matters. I think it is a good thing that a body which is absolutely independent of the Government should institute this investigation and determine where we find ourselves in regard to the world standard for nature conservation, and also to determine what ecosystems there still are in South Africa which ought to be preserved. The council also has to make recommendations on the financing of the conservation of those areas that still have to be preserved. I believe that these are important matters, which can be done independently of the Council for the Environment, a council which in fact has far wider powers, and which should therefore in fact, as I see it, be involved in the actual practice of conservation. Of course I am not alleging that the Council for the Environment should not undertake investigations of that nature as well, but I do not think that there will be a conflict between the two bodies.

As far as the function-orientated investigation by the Commission for Administration is concerned, I do not think that it will be involved in any of these things. It will deal with an entirely administrative matter; the question of rationalization, on what organizations should be located where, etc. Regardless of where these various functions will eventually be located, after the commission has made its recommendations, and they have been accepted of course, I think that the Council for the Environment, which is to be established in terms of the legislation under discussion, will still be in the same position in that as it does at present, it will be able to give advice. Consequently I do not expect any real problems in this connection.

†I also want to thank the hon. member for Mooi River for his congratulations on the measure of co-ordination already achieved. He voiced certain complaints though, and I do not want to blame him for doing so. He was merely performing his duty unto Mr. Nigel Wood. I do not believe, however, Mr. Wood is correct, because he says that this Bill will also be rushed through Parliament, as he says has happened before, without consultation with the provinces, etc. Meanwhile, Mr. Wood ended up on this commission because the provinces were consulted. He is therefore completely wrong in making that statement. I am sorry to have to say this, but I think this attitude on the part of Mr. Wood stems from immense frustration owing to his losing his seat in this House during the last election.

I think you are being very small now!

I am not being small. Mr. Wood is, however, really talking a lot of nonsense in this regard. He is talking utter nonsense. [Interjections.]

*His entire story is utter nonsense. What possessed him to say that this measure will simply be rushed through Parliament without any prior consultation with the provinces? The Commission of Enquiry and the Select Committee sat because the the provinces objected. This matter was referred to a Select Committee for that very reason. What nonsense is he talking now?

He distrusts the intentions!

He distrusts the intentions? What reason does he have to distrust the intentions? No one else distrusts the intentions. [Interjections.] The real intentions with this measure were clearly pointed out by the hon. member for Pinetown. He also pointed out that if we had wanted to deprive the provinces of their rights, we did not need this legislation to be able to do so. That much is certain. This legislation cannot take away any rights conferred upon them by the constitution and the Financial Relations Act, but we can in fact ensure that they discharge those functions. I have great respect for what the Natal Parks’ Board is doing as far as nature conservation is concerned, but I believe that with their “strip development” along the coast they are ruining the Natal coast, and I think the hon. member will agree with me on this.

What are they doing?

Strip development. [Interjections.] As far as nature conservation on the coast is concerned, there will be nothing left for posterity. They are doing exceptional work in Natal as far as nature conservation is concerned, but heaven has not descended upon them in regard to all the other things.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

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

1. (5)
   1. (a) If by virtue of a direction in terms of subsection (1) limitations are placed on the purposes for which land in a nature area may be used, the owner or occupier of such land shall be entitled to recover compensation in respect of actual patrimonial loss suffered by him as a result of the application of such limitations.
   2. (b) The amount to be paid as compensation for actual patrimonial loss suffered by such owner or occupier, shall be determined in an agreement concluded between the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, and such owner or occupier.
   3. (c) In the absence of such agreement, the amount so to be paid, shall be determined by an appropriate court in terms of section 14 of the Expropriation Act, 1975 (Act No. 63 of 1975), and the provisions of that section and section 15 of that Act shall mutatis mutandis apply in the determination of such amount.
2. (6) The Minister may, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for that purpose, and subject to such conditions as he may determine, render financial aid by way of grants or otherwise to the owner or occupier of land in a nature area in respect of expenses incurred by them in compliance with any direction in terms of subsection (1).

I think we have already discussed the importance of this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12:

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

I want to motivate quite clearly the reasons for taking such a firm stand in regard to the Provincial Administrations being accorded the safeguards to which I feel they are entitled under this Bill. I want to make it clear to the House why we in Natal particularly cherish the success that has been achieved by the Natal Parks’ Game and Fish Preservation Board, bearing in mind that the Natal Parks Board, is responsible for an area of some 275 000 hectares. It accommodates something in the vicinity of 1,5 million people annually who visit the recreational areas in their parks and participate in the pleasures that are derived from the facilities that the Natal Parks Board offers. It offers bed accommodation for 1 500 in camps and 1 000 in the open camp sites; indeed, it offers more accommodation than some of the major hotel groups that are spread throughout the country.

You must speak to the clause.

I am motivating the reasons for my amendment. Hon. members will realize that we have something in Natal that we cherish very much indeed, and we are not ashamed to let this House know exactly what we think of it. Natal has seen fit to bring the whole responsibility of nature conservation under the wing of the Parks Board. The Parks Board has also accepted responsibility for the development of outdoor recreational facilities around State dams. Here again let me refer to those facilities that are offered around dams such as Midmar Dam where all sections of the community are accommodated on an equal basis. The result of decentralized control at provincial level has led to greater initiative and involvement across the broad nature conservation spectrum in Natal. The staff employed there are completely dedicated people. The Natal Parks Board controls something like 53 parks, including game reserves, nature reserves and recreational resorts. In the annals of nature conservation it has one unparalleled achievement in the preservation of wild life. Let me point out here that when the white rhino were faced with extinction, it was due to the efforts of the staff of the Parks Board that those species were preserved. This was extended to such a degree that it was possible, over a period of years, to donate some 300 of these animals to the Kruger National Park, animals that were once on the verge of extinction.

I hope that this will give some indication of the picture I am trying to present to this House concerning the importance of the role that provincial administrations can play in nature conservation. It is purely on this basis that I have moved my amendment. The object of my amendment is to give effect to this concept.

Mr. Chairman, I must briefly respond to the speech of the hon. member for Mooi River. As the hon. the Minister has said, the hon. member is being led astray by the minority report of Mr. Nigel Wood. I do not know what assurance we can give the hon. member. After every possible assurance had been given that the commission had no intention whatsoever of reducing provincial authority, and after having made that abundantly clear by writing it into several chapters of the commission’s report, and even writing it into the proposed Bill, with special provision being made at the behest of the provincial authorities—we inserted a clause to guarantee that provincial authorities would be represented on management committees—and after inserting clause 18 to make provision for the fact that this Bill would, in no way, supersede any other legislation, the hon. member for Mooi River gets up this evening and repeats exactly the same argument.

I just want to say that in the White Paper that led to this legislation, it was made abundantly clear that no one wanted to erode provincial authority, or local authority for that matter. In this session of Parliament the hon. the Minister himself said that he believed, as a matter of principle, that environmental conservation should be as close to the top of Adderley Street—I think those were the words he used—as possible. In the Bill we have seen provision made, undertakings given and provisions written in to allay any possible fears in Natal. Yet we have had the same problem from the hon. member for Mooi River today. I want to repeat that nobody has any intention whatsoever of eroding provincial authority. However, it strikes me as rather strange that when the reports of the President’s Council were published hon. members of the NRP said that they hoped that the Government would not dilute the recommendations of the President’s Council. But the report of the President’s Council makes provision for the erosion, in terms of the hon. member’s argument, of provincial authority as far as it deals with the devolution of power from the level of regional government to the level of central Government. Then there was no problem, but when we had the problem …

Who says that it has been accepted by the Government?

It has been accepted by your party. In any case it is agreed that there is no intention of eroding regional power. The hon. member for Mooi River says that he cherishes the work that the Natal Parks Board does. I want to tell him that the ecosystems and the conservation areas being controlled by Natal do not belong to Natal. Natal is the custodian of a national asset and we are as proud of what they do as what they are. In that spirit we also admire the work that is being done.

So, Sir, we cannot accept this amendment. There is no intention of eroding provincial authority, and, frankly I think the NRP is taking this matter to an absurd level.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Maitland has in fact replied to that question. I want to tell the hon. member for Mooi River that I have the greatest respect for the Natal Parks Board. We are aware of what they have done. I also want to remind the hon. member of the co-operation which they have received over the years from the Department of Water Affairs, now the Department of Environmental Affairs. The hon. member referred to Midmar and to Albert Falls. The ground at Midmar is still the property of the department.

Yes, I know.

You trust us and you spend millions of rands on a piece of land which we say you can use. The hon. member for Durban Point, however, said that they objected to this because they distrusted us.

He did not say that.

One does not do that. At the moment the area of Eastern Shores is being guarded by the Natals Parks Board in collaboration with the Director of Forestry. We do things together why should we try to eradicate one another? That is not the issue. The hon. member wants to turn this into a political issue. Then he will be losing out. If the hon. member expects me to accept an amendment in terms of which he wants me to prevent a law of Parliament to affect a provincial ordinance in any way, he is asking the impossible so I am sorry, but I cannot accept his amendment.

Amendment negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I note in the Hansard report of my speech during the Third Reading debate of the budget on 9 June this year that I said that I had received certain information from a foreigner. I should like to rectify this. I meant to say that I received information from a third person who was present when the information in question was conveyed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we remain unconvinced at this the Third Reading stage that this Bill as a whole represents a sensible improvement on the present system of population registration. Our point of view is mainly based, as I have said before, on the requirement for fingerprinting and in due course possible palmprinting to be taken up in the population register and in time possible also in identity documents. Once again, we believe that it will not only create extra administrative problems for a department already overburdened with problems and one which is already having grave difficulties just keeping the population register up to date, but that it also introduces a system which will not find favor with the public but will be viewed with suspicion and a certain degree of hostility. We further remain unconvinced that this system has any substantial advantages for purposes of security whatsoever. In fact, if the system is introduced as gradually as is envisaged in this Bill, I really cannot estimate how long it is going to take before one can really even claim that it will have some kind of advantage for security purposes, because it will probably take literally decades before everybody in this country will have been finger-printed and before a record of master finger-prints will be available at the offices of the department. So, quite frankly, we believe that those arguments have been rather superficial and have not dealt at all substantially with the potential value this system can have. Therefore we remain opposed to it, as I have indicated before.

Furthermore, extra responsibilities are to be imposed upon particularly employers to ensure that their employees do apply for identity documents and that they notify the department of changes of address. While there may be some advantages to this system, we believe that that should remain on a voluntary basis rather than that it should be imposed by law as is now being done.

I have also indicated that the discretion that is given to the State President in several clauses in this Bill is unacceptable to us. Let me state again that, in a sense, the introduction of this Bill and its very discussion here will have the effect that similar changes will not have to be brought to Parliament in future. This, too, we find unacceptable. To use a ridiculous example, if it should be decided that foot-prints should be used for some purpose of identification, it would not be necessary to introduce an amendment to that effect in Parliament because that could in fact be provided for by proclamation. This is the kind of possibility we find unacceptable. Hon. members will know that in this country there are many aspects of identification which have political overtones and which create sensitivity, particularly in regard to Black people. Those people, particularly, will probably have reason to view some of these measures with a degree of suspicion. Then also the provision that is made for extra powers for certain classes of people to ensure the putting into operation of the Bill before us, is very vague. Once again we believe that that will not ensure the co-operation of the public to make the system work as it will also not result in any improvement of our system of population registration but may lead to further confusion and further burdens on the department.

For these reasons mainly we shall oppose also the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the intention of this Bill is to streamline the use of the identity document. The intention is to involve a larger number of people and to make people aware of the need to up-date their identity documents. If employers, municipalities and other organizations are therefore involved, it is to make this identity document something which has real value in the lives of people, and not just a document that has become a nuisance to carry around. In any developed country an identity document plays a major role. In most countries of Europe it is the normal practice for a person who changes his address to notify the authorities thereof. We have not gone as far as that yet, but the hope is that our people will become aware of the need for up-dating their identity documents. This Bill intends to inculcate that awareness into our people. That is why the various clauses in the Bill are merely intended to up-date these measures and to bring them into line. Where it is also the intention to have a common identity document for the whole population—for Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks—it is essential that provision be made to cater for particular circumstances. That is why in South Africa circumstances the advisability of finger-prints has been considered from all points of view. A large number of people are illiterate and it has been proved over and over again that finger-prints are the one infallible way of positively identifying people. It is a fact that in South Africa it is of particular importance that there should be an infallible way of identifying people to make sure that the legal and rightful population and citizens of South Africa can be identified and that those who are not here legally can be identified by exclusion. That is why security is one of the important aspects that eventually have to be dealt with by the population registration. Primarily the purpose is not to identify whether a person is White, Black, Indian or Colored. That might have been the reason for the original introduction of registration, but today it is less relevant because that aspect has been attended to and has virtually been finalized. I feel that we should not view the provisions of this amending legislation with any suspicion, but that we should view it as something which is essential for proper administration in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am merely rising to say that our party supports the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall follow the example of the previous hon. speaker and speak very briefly, since there is the possibility that we will be able to dispose of business before the cock crows.

I just wish to remark in passing that the hon. member for Green Point did not advance any new standpoints at all.

What is striking about the official Opposition, is that any measure which envisages even the slightest degree of discipline, is not acceptable to them. It has been obvious recently that discipline of any kind whatsoever is not acceptable to the official Opposition, even if it is in the interests of the general population. They see things through political spectacles through which only the disadvantages of any proposal by the Government can be seen. They simply cannot see the excellent features or the merits of a proposal.

I wish to state briefly that this identity document will have a great deal of value once everyone has been provided with one. The hon. member for Klip River expressed a similar opinion. It will also be of value to the bearer. A reliable proof of identity is also of value to the bearer. That is why I think this measure is of great value and I believe that many other institutions will benefit when this document is available and everyone has received one. It will then be a great advantage to everyone. We have already discussed all the inherent advantages in the previous debate and I therefore wish to conclude by saying that at this stage, at the Third Reading of this Bill, we are still convinced that this measure contains only advantages for the general public.

Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading debate we made it very clear that we appreciate that there were certain aspects of this Bill which could be very helpful as regards security. However, there were certain other points to which we objected. One in particular to which we objected most strongly was in respect of finger-prints. We moved amendments during the Committee Stage which were unacceptable to the hon. the Minister. Such being the case, in so far as we are concerned, we cannot support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am merely rising to say that I do not think that I shall be able to convince the hon. member for Green Point in these early hours of the morning.

I want to say at once that I should not like to be here when the cock crows, but I want to thank hon. members for their contributions to this debate. Since we are dealing here with an amendment to the Population Registration Act, I should also like to thank the population. I have previously said that one of the problems we experience on this side of the House is that we take our own people for granted while arguing with the other hon. members, and that in this process one forgets one’s own colleagues now and then. I forgot to thank the hon. member for Bloemfontein North for his contribution to a previous debate and I wish to thank him for that contribution now. I also wish to thank the Whips who dealt with my debates under difficult circumstances. I also wish to thank the officials of my department who worked hard and worked late hours.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This is indeed a special moment for me in these early hours of the morning, since I am able to take the first step in an important series of steps towards what the Press has called a new dispensation for the urban Blacks, and I am glad that I am in a position this morning to begin with the legislative action which will give effect to it. As hon. members of this House know, the Commission of Inquiry into Legislation affecting the Utilization of Manpower, the Riekert Commission, made a variety of recommendations affecting my department to the Government. Among these was a recommendation that local authority functions to be performed in urban Black residential areas should be incorporated into a municipal code. Furthermore, according to the recommendation, these local authority functions should be entrusted to administration boards for as long and in so far as they are not entrusted to community councils. The Government has accepted this recommendation and it is being implemented by means of this Bill.

However, I want to indicate at the outset that this Bill is one of a series of measures which will have to come before this House in order to make possible the full proposed spectrum of reform in this sphere. In addition to this Bill, I may refer, firstly, to the Development of Black Communities Bill, which contains, in the first place, the machinery for the provision of better residential areas, and which contains many amendments to the legislation regulating the administration boards so as to convert them into development boards—with much less emphasis being placed on the administration function and much more on the development function. This was another one of the many recommendations of the Riekert Commission which has been accepted and to which legislative effect will now be given. Secondly, I, want to refer to a Bill which deals with the regulating of the orderly movement and settlement of Black persons in the urban as well as rural areas.

The Bill which is before this hon. House at the moment, as well as the other two Bills to which I have referred, actually complement one another, and together they form a whole. The regulations which will be made in terms of these measures will naturally be extensive and far-reaching, and I have no doubt in my own mind that the three measures plus the regulations are not only a small reform package, but will indeed usher in a totally new dispensation in this sphere. I believe that our ever-growing urban communities will now be moving towards an exciting future and that they will now be able to realize their own aspirations to the full at the managerial level in their own sphere and under their own authorities. In terms of these three measures, they are being given the necessary instruments of authority, and I trust and believe that they will use them responsibly.

Because of the time factor, I shall not describe the events which led up to this Bill and related measures.

†This Bill follows in the main the principles embodied in the Transvaal Local Government Ordinance, 1939 (Ordinance 17 of 1939), with minor departures in principle here and there. The most significant departure is that the Black local authorities provided for in this Bill will not, as most other local authorities do, fall under the jurisdiction and control of the various provincial administrations. In this respect the Government agreed, as a general principle, with the Riekert Commission’s view that separate provision for the various population groups should be made for community development functions with the inclusion of local government. The Government therefore agreed with the Riekert Commission that the proposed Act relating to Black community development, together with the municipal code, the latter now being embodied in this Bill, should remain the overall responsibility of the Department of Co-operation and Development which in fact represents the Executive in so far as Blacks outside the national States are concerned as can be clearly seen from the provisions of section III of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961. The relevant provision reads as follows—

This Bill now provides for two categories of local authorities, namely, village councils and town councils, each council with jurisdiction in the Black township for which it has been established. It also makes provision for local committees to be established for those communities for which, due to inability, no local authorities have been or can be established, these committees having only a consultative or advisory function relating to local government matters in their respective areas.

The main difference between village councils and town councils lies in the degree of responsibility and powers entrusted to them. Capability will determine whether a village council or a town council is to be established and the actual size of the township it serves, is of little importance. Village councils will have varying powers and responsibilities according to their ability to perform the relevant functions, while town councils will automatically have power in relation to all the matters listed in the schedule to the Bill.

At this stage I want to make it clear that I do not want to pretend that the schedule contains a comprehensive list of all the powers that can be given to a local authority and for this reason provision is made in clause 23 to identify further matters pertaining to local government with which town councils can be invested and charged.

Following on the system in the Transvaal, a Director of Local Government, being an officer of the Department of Co-operation and Development, is to be entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the effective implementation of this Bill on a countrywide basis and generally to promote the advancement of local government in Black townships.

*This Bill was published quite some time ago and it was considered by the Select Committee. After the greatest degree of unanimity on the Bill had been achieved, a report on it was published. I should like to take this opportunity of conveying my sincere thanks to the chairman of the Select Committee on the Constitution, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, and the members of the Committee for their very constructive contribution in the interests of this Bill.

In terms of the Bill, a Black village council or town council can be invested with jurisdiction in a particular Black township, portions of a Black township or in a group of Black townships. I want to point out that every community council established in terms of the Community Councils Act, 1977, will be abolished in terms of clause 4, as amended by the Select Committee, as soon as a local authority has been established for the area for which it had been established. This will inevitably mean that the Community Councils Act, 1977, can only be repealed when all community councils have been abolished and replaced by local authorities. The intention is to do this as soon as is practicable.

Every Black local authority will have its own mayor and town clerk or secretary and every town council will also have an executive committee to perform the day-to-day functions of the local authority. A Black local authority can appoint its own staff and can create its own departments with their own departmental heads. In terms of clause 33, these may include a department whose principal task will be law enforcement by means of its own law enforcement officers. However, the establishment of such a department will always have to take place in consultation with the South African Police, and such a department will perform its duties in conjunction and in co-operation with the S.A. Police.

In this connection I want to make it quite clear, in order to remove any possibility of confusion, that unlike the so-called makgotlas, these people will have no powers to administer justice. This provision has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called makgotla institution, and must under no circumstances be confused with it. They will merely have executive law enforcement functions, such as the performance of security functions, traffic functions and the implementation of the regulations of the local authority in general.

As far as the staff of these local authorities is concerned, provision is being made, in addition to their power to appoint staff themselves, for staff to be transferred from administration boards to the local authorities, and provision is also being made for any of the officials of administration boards to be seconded to the local authorities. Provision is also being made for the Minister of Co-operation and Development to make staff available to Black local authorities on a temporary basis. With regard to the transfer of officials from the administration boards to the local authorities, I would like to draw attention to the amendment of clause 35 by the Select Committee. In terms of the original provision, only Black people could be transferred from administration boards to Black local authorities. After consideration by the Select Committee, and after negotiations had been conducted, at the behest of the Select Committee, with the South African Association of Municipal Employees, generally known as SAAME, it was decided to make this amendment, but I want to make it quite clear that I fully realize that this transfer clause in its amended form holds major implications for the White officials of the administration boards who have up to now assisted us in developing the community councils, and in many other spheres as well. They may say that the amended clause will expose them to summary transfers and to changes in their careers which they did not take into consideration when they entered upon their present careers. However, it is necessary that a mechanism be created by law to deal with the question of transfers, and I give the assurance—as, in fact, I undertook to do—that no White official is in danger of being summarily transferred, and that if there is ever any question of a transfer, it will never take place without the consent of the White official concerned.

I should also like to record my thanks and appreciation towards the Administration Boards for the important role they have played up to now in promoting the community councils and these new authorities. I should also like to thank the Administration Boards and the officials for the major role they have played in this connection and are still prepared to play. Administration Boards are themselves faced with serious financial problems and with staff shortages, and for that reason, the sacrifices they have been and still are prepared to make are even more highly appreciated.

The Department of Co-operation and Development, in co-operation with the various Administration Boards, will assist the Black authorities in practice and provide the necessary aid, resources, training, expertise, etc. This assistance will be in the form of so-called creative withdrawal; that is to say, assistance, staff and training will be provided until the local authority is able, as soon as possible, to perform a particular function independently, whereupon the Administration Board will withdraw completely and the local authority will only be responsible to the Director of Local Government and the Minister of Co-operation and Development.

There are another two aspects I wish to deal with before I conclude. The first is the amendment by the Select Committee of Clause 22(l)(c). In terms of this, it will be possible for a Black local authority to obtain ownership of immovable property within its area of jurisdiction. After all, a local authority is a level of government administration, and as such it is part of the system of Government, and for this reason it is deemed fitting that a local authority, being such an organ of government, should be able to acquire immovable property within its area of jurisdiction.

The final aspect I want to single out is the question of the financing of the local authorities. This is a problem with which all local authorities throughout the country are faced. The Browne Committee was specifically appointed to investigate this problem, and at the request of the Department of Co-operation and Development, the Committee also examined the problems of the sources of revenue of Black local authorities. The Croeser Working Group has examined the matter more closely, and a great deal is expected to result from this study. As far as financial viability is concerned, the Government knows and understands that a basis for the acquisition of funds has to give fundamental support to the structure of local authorities. Under the present circumstances, however, it is impossible to incorporate provisions into this legislation which will reflect this premise. The whole system of financing at the local government level, both White and Black, is under consideration at the moment, and decisions will be taken in the near future which will affect all local authorities in South Africa. Among the factors that will be considered will be the Government’s decisions on the recommendations made by the President’s Council and the Croeser Committee. The Government has committed itself to the principle of independent local authorities for Blacks, properly supported by suitable financial provisions. Hon. members will note that the new bodies can be fully autonomous at the local government level, and I have no doubt in my own mind that the Black public will operate these bodies in a meaningful way, with great dignity and with great responsibility. Although the local government system is a sophisticated one, I know that my great expectations and those of others will not be disappointed. The Black public has already had experience of a system of local government as contained in the Black Community Council Act, 1977, which involved some degree of self-government and executive powers. However, the community councils were hampered by the fact that they had few executive powers.

Therefore I do not doubt for a moment that the local communities will be able to put these new instruments to very good use.

Under the present circumstances, it is only fair towards our Black people in the cities to assist them in this way and to lead them to fully autonomous local self-government, with meaningful powers which are being conferred upon them by this Bill. In this way, effect is being given to the policy of the Government to bring about self-determination for the Black people at all levels.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has come to us by a fairly long route. In fact, it was first published way back on 16 October 1980. During the past 18 months it has been referred to various committees within the Government structure and was finally referred to the Select Committee on the constitution. Although it is late, I think it is appropriate that we in the official Opposition state our attitude towards the Bill itself and also to some of the background relating to this Bill. Over the months, and particularly during the course of its reference to the Select Committee, we have devoted a considerable amount o time to this Bill because we consider it as one of the most important pieces of legislation that have come to us during this session and perhaps for many sessions past.

We consider local government as one of the key elements of the structures of government in South Africa. I think there has been a tendency to see local government as merely the third tier of government, a tier delegated to provincial and from provincial down to local level. We prefer to see local government as a substantial tier of government on its own, a place in which people can express real political power in that field which is delegated to that particular arm of government. Because we consider local government so important, we have given a considerable amount of time and attention to this particular measure.

Secondly, Whites should regard local government as being important but, particularly outside the homelands in South Africa where Blacks have no other way of exercising political power within the non-homeland area, local government assumes a special importance. It is, in fact, the only way in which Blacks can express themselves politically outside of the homelands. To that extent not only is local government important but it becomes even more important as it the only avenue of expression available to the Black people of South Africa outside the homelands.

We have considered this, and we are greatly appreciative of the in-depth discussions we had and studies which we were enabled to make on the Select Committee on the Constitution. I think it was an extremely wise and sensible move on the part of the Government to refer it to that Select Committee.

One of our problems was that where we were considering introducing for the first time in the history of South Africa a new structure of local government for Blacks, we felt that we could not test that against the overall constitutional structure into which it was going to fit. On the one hand we have the Government still committed to what I call a Verwoerdian approach to the Black constitutional structure and we have no clear perception of what the future holds. At the moment the Government is committed to a constitutional structure of Black independent States. That is the framework within which it should be seen. On the other hand we are faced with introducing a local government structure that appears not to fit in with the concept of Black independent States. We therefore had to approach this problem with no clear picture of what the final constitutional structure was going to be. We do not, of course, believe that it is a good thing to introduce structures on an ad hoc basis. We would have preferred to have seen a clear picture of where Black local Government was to fit in today, and how the Government saw it fitting in in the future. We were, on the one hand, discouraged by seeing a system of local government that did not seem to fit into the Government’s perception of the overall constitutional structure. On the other hand, we see South Africa moving in the other direction. Whatever the Government might say, we see an increasing move towards the recognition of Blacks somehow fitting into an overall political structure. When the Government has moved—as it already has—into the field of trade unions, when it has moved towards desegregating of a whole range of activities in South Africa and when it has—as it will in the Bill that has been published and has been referred to a Select Committee—finally and officially recognized the permanence of the urban Blacks, we somehow believed that in due course the constitutional framework that the Government envisages for the future is going to be amended to accommodate this aspect in a much more logical way. We would have preferred, at this stage, to have been able to see the constitutional road ahead. We would have preferred, quite frankly, to have seen Black local government fitting into exactly the same pattern as that for Coloreds, Indians and Whites. To our way of thinking that would have been the ideal situation, a common system of local Government for Coloreds, Indians, Whites and Blacks in South Africa. We do accept, however, that for the moment this is not possible.

On the other hand, if this system of local government now before us in this Bill were to have been linked directly to the homelands—in other words if there had been anything in this Bill to have directly linked this system of local government to the national States—this Bill would have been unacceptable to us. It would have been unacceptable to us if it had been linked directly to the constitutional structure of the independent Black States or the national States. In fact, the structures in this Bill do not link local Government up with the national States. The structures in this Bill link local government directly to the central Government of South Africa, through the Ministry of Cooperation and Development.

So on the one hand the Government will have the independent States, whilst this Bill finks local government for Blacks with the central Government of South Africa. There is in this Bill only one reference to national States, and that is contained in clause 22(l)(o), in which it is stated that co-operation or assistance may be given to representatives of national States. Because the Select Committee agreed to change the injunction that they “shall” give co-operation—it is now a matter of choice, because now they “may” give it—we believe that this Bill, while silent on the future constitutional dispensation, at least does not lock local Government into the concepts of national States in South Africa. So a problem which would have been an insurmountable problem as far as we were concerned, has been overcome, and the constitutional structure that this fits into is no longer a dilemma as far as we are concerned, and we can support it, in spite of having no clear image of the future development of the Blacks in South Africa.

The second problem with which we have to contend is the fact that we are creating this new constitutional structure at a time when South Africa itself is in the process of constitutional transition. So we are actually making this part of the Constitution of South Africa on the trot, on the run, on the move, and not just fitting in to the existing pattern of things. We have a number of constitutional structures that are changing. Community councils, which have been operating for years now with varying degrees of effectiveness or ineffectiveness, are fading out. We therefore cannot use them as a yardstick for the future. Secondly, even White local authorities, while they function effectively from an efficiency point of view although they have always had financial problems, are under re-examination by the President’s Council and may well be changed in the future. Thirdly, there is an indication, if the report of the President’s Council and the reaction of the Government are anything to go by, that the Coloureds and Indians who have had no local authority rights are in due course going to get local authority rights. So South Africa is in a state of tremendous constitutional fluidity at a time when we are trying to create a formal constitutional structure for the Black people outside of the homelands.

Then we were confronted with another situation and that is that the Government itself has been making and is making in-depth studies of the whole question of the Blacks outside of the homelands. As the hon. the Minister mentioned, the Grosskopf Committee made an in-depth study of all of these matters and was partly responsible for the three Bills which we have or will have before this House. Secondly, we have the two Bills, namely the Black Communities Development Bill and the Orderly Movement and Settlement of Black Persons Bill which have also been referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution. While we have these Bills before us and while they relate to Black local authorities, as we sit here tonight we do not know how these Bills are going to look when they come back from the Select Committee or how they will be passed and in what form they will be passed when Parliament considers them next year. As the hon. the Minister mentioned, we have the Croeser working group examining the whole question of the financing of local authorities. However, we do not have before us the recommendations of that working group. Therefore we raise the problem of the necessity to create this important structure at a time when there is a lot of uncertainty and indecision as to what is going to be created around it, both in the way of other Bills to which it relates and to the question of financial viability.

We have these problems, but may I say that because we believe it is important to create viable, effective local government for Blacks and because of the amendments to the Bill that have been introduced via the Select Committee on the Constitution, we in the official Opposition are going to support this Bill at Second Reading. As the hon. the Minister knows, we shall suggest some further minor amendments at Committee Stage, but in the main we believe that this Bill has met the most important criteria for establishing Black local government in South Africa today.

At this stage I do not want to go through the whole history of this matter. The hon. the Minister will know that it has a long and chequered history. I want to introduce the two sparring partners, the hon. the Minister on the one hand, who on 16 October 1980, announced a great new deal for Blacks, and the hon. the member Prof. Olivier, who actually read the Bill which perhaps the hon. the Minister had forgotten to read and found that it was no deal at all. Whilst I know that the hon. the Minister was very angry with the hon. member Prof. Olivier and whilst he said that he did not know what he was talking about, the hon. the Minister silently had the good sense to send the Bills back to the workshop and to start all over again. I think we owe a considerable debt of gratitude to the hon. member Prof. Olivier for having drawn the hon. the Minister’s attention to this and for having vigorously attacked the Minister to the point that the hon. the Minister, with good grace, referred the Bills back to the department and to the Grosskopf Committee.

When he did so, I had already done so.

I am just saying that I think some credit should be given to the hon. member Prof. Olivier for being as perceptive and blunt as he was at that time. I was in America at the time and on the front page of the New York Times it stated “Piet Koornhof announces new deal for Blacks”. Then, two months later, we found that he withdrew the new deal and he sent it back to the workshop for redrafting.

Did you read that Bill?

It does not matter. The fact of the matter is that this has been one of the best exercises that I know of, in constitution-making on the part of this Government because at least it published a Bill. It was hammered because of the deficiencies in that Bill and the Bill was then referred back to the Grosskopf Committee. As we understand it, there has been considerable consultation with Blacks and with the Urban Foundation in this regard. It came back to this House, it went to the Commission on Co-operation and Development and it was finally referred to the Select Committee. In the main, therefore, this Bill has now been thrashed out as adequately as was possible against, as I have said, an unsatisfactory constitutional background. Given that other problem I believe that not much more could have been done as far as this Bill is concerned.

We too should like to express appreciation for the way in which the chairman handled the Select Committee and for the general spirit of co-operation which existed there. We should also like to express our appreciation to the officials of the department and the Parliamentary secretariat who assisted us. In particular, we should like to express our appreciation to those few but very important people who made representations. There were brief written representations from Mr. Khumalo and from Mr. Gibson Thula on behalf of Inkatha. Then there was very substantial evidence and guidance given to us by the Urban Foundation. I must say that I doubt whether this Bill would have been before us in this form or whether this Bill would have been acceptable to the Black people of South Africa had it not been for the input of the Urban Foundation. I think that that should go on record. I think that the hon. the Minister will agree that the Urban Foundation played a very significant part in seeing that the Bill has come back to the House in a much more acceptable form than when it came to the House some three months ago.

On that Select Committee the hon. member for Houghton, who is not here today, the hon. member Prof. Olivier and I adopted one dominant approach, namely that if this Bill was to be worthwhile—and we wanted it to be worthwhile because local government has to be worthwhile—on the one hand it had to make provision for the effective functioning of local government and on the other hand it had to be acceptable to Blacks. Quite frankly, even if a Bill had been produced which provided for effective local government, it would have defeated the object of setting up local authorities if that Bill had been unacceptable to Blacks. We believed that these two criteria, viz. efficient functioning on the one hand and acceptability to Blacks in the urban areas on the other, were critical criteria which we had to apply in looking at the Bill and suggesting amendments to it. When one considered both these criteria, one found that one was forced to the conclusion that one should try to ensure as far as possible that in substance the Bill for Blacks was as close as it could possibly be to local government regulations or ordinances for Whites. We say this not because the position for Whites had to be imitated, but because White local Government had been functioning for a long time. It has been tried, tested and modified. Therefore, one should try to follow the model of a system that has been put into practice. We must say that in the main the measure was amended to comply with the general requirements for White local authorities.

The second reason why we believed it should be modelled very closely on White local authorities, even if one could have produced a better Bill based on a different model, was that, if the Bill for no good reason was different from the legislation for Whites, there would be a high level of suspicion and a low level of acceptability. So it became tremendously important that it should be based as far as possible on the White model in order to symbolize that this was a Bill that would give full and, let us say, similar or equal local government to the Blacks. As the hon. the Minister has indicated, this has in fact been largely achieved.

I do not want to deal much further with our general approach, save to say that we have given our approval in principle to the Bill. If one looks at the provisions of the Bill, one sees first of all that in substance, if not in detail, they are the same as those for White local authorities in Transvaal. Where they depart from those, they do so for practical reasons. They depart from them because White local government fits into a provincial system whereas Black local government is going to have to fit into a national system. Therefore, of necessity there have to be departures.

Secondly, we are satisfied that the powers of the local authorities are now to be written into the law and will not be dependent upon ministerial favor. As the Bill came to the House some three months ago, the powers were not written into the Bill, but were to be determined by proclamation or regulation via the Minister. Now the powers, certainly for town councils—which is the higher level of government at local level—have been written into this Bill. We believe this is fundamental because Black local authorities now know what their rights are. They now have these rights and they can exercise them outside of the ministerial favor or the ministerial whim.

Thirdly, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, Black local authorities as instruments of government in South Africa, are now going to have the right to control their own land on the basis of freehold. They are going to do this not because they are black or because they are white but because they are integral instruments of government. They are elements of the State structure in South Africa. We believe that the elements of the State structure as local authority level should have rights and access to land on a freehold basis.

Finally, I come now to the question of who shall vote and the system of election. This system is still in an embryonic stage and there will have to be a certain amount of experimentation. There will have to be a variance between for example the city of Soweto with 1,5 million people and a small dorp with only 500 people. One cannot have an identical system of government. There has to be some degree of flexibility. Nevertheless, within that flexibility we believe there is a clearly defined system of election and a clearly defined system of who shall vote. A system defining who shall vote must be as generous and democratic as can be, for it extends the vote to all people over the age of 18 years, basically provided they have lived there lawfully in the area between one and three years. We think that whether it is embarrassing or difficult or whether it comes up with demands that irritate the Government from time to time, it is imperative that if Black government is going to work at the lower levels, at local government level, in South Africa, it should be a broadly based Black government based on the broad will of the Black people. We believe this Bill has managed to achieve this.

There are still two snags as we see it, not related directly to the Bill but related to the implementation of the Bill. The one is that while this Bill is one of a trio of Bills, it is part of the new deal, namely the Black Local Authorities Bill, the Black Communities Development Bill and the Orderly Movement and Settlement of Black Persons Bill, the other two Bills have not yet been passed by the House. That is the problem. This Bill therefore still refers to the outdated Blacks (Urban Areas) Act. It still refers to the old dispensation. All we can say to the hon. the Minister is that we want to advise him and tell him that we do not believe that elections should be held in terms of this Bill until the other two Bills have been passed. While one can do all the preparatory work, while one can set up the local authorities, we believe it will be very bad if the first local government elections are held before the other two Bills are passed so that the Blacks, when they go to vote, can see this as a new package deal. However, to have an advanced step such as new local government grafted onto the old Bills, may very well be self-defeating as far as the image which local government has for Black people is concerned. We hope the hon. the Minister can give us an indication that he is not going to rush into elections before the other two Bills which have been referred to a select committee, are before us.

There is also a second snag which we would like to raise—the hon. the Minister touched upon it but perhaps he can develop it still further—namely that the viability of a local government depends not only upon its powers and its electorate but also on its financial and economic viability. One of the problems confronting the select committee was that just as in provincial ordinances the financial viability of local government for Whites is not entrenched—it is entrenched in a variety of other laws and ordinances—so it is not possible to write into this Bill provisions to ensure that Black local authorities will become economically viable. We cannot stress sufficiently the need for the Government to act boldly and to act in the same way as it is in reviewing the whole question of the economic viability of White local government. The economic viability of Black local government must be reviewed in the same terms. If this Government has seen fit, as it has done, to say the powers and general functions of Black local authorities should be similar to those of Whites, then we want to say to the Government that we believe that the economic criteria, support and assistance which must come to Black local government, should be on a par with the economic support and assistance which goes to White local authorities, because nothing is going to be more frustrating than to give Black people in South Africa a semblance of local government and then to find that local government comes crumbling down around them because of lack of adequate finances.

We will ask the hon. the Minister to once again stress before this Bill is passed at the Third Reading the Government’s determination, if it indeed has this determination, to ensure that Black local government is going to be adequately financed.

Provided that this Government can provide adequate finance and provided that it will see that these other two Bills, which go with this Bill, namely the Community Development Bill and the Orderly Movement and Settlement of Black Persons Bill, are passed in a suitably amended form and are read together with this Bill, we believe that this Bill, although there might still be problems, areas of rejection and areas in which there will have to be experimentation, perhaps with minor amendments, provides an adequate basis for a new start.

Just say something new.

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member has been sitting on these Bills for the past three years in the private smoke-filled corridors of Government power. We have not. I want that hon. member to realize that this Government has made mistakes before. We will continue to emphasize that economic viability is absolutely vital and that, in fact, these other two Bills are also equally vital. It is only because the hon. the Minister has given us the assurance that these other two Bills are going to be passed and that the Government is going to see to the economic viability, that we can give what we want to give and that is our support to this measure at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that we have the support of the official Opposition for this very important Bill before the House and I should like to thank the hon. member for Sea Point for a very positive contribution. The hon. member considered that in this Bill he found all the aspects and matters the Opposition seeks in order to support such a Bill in this House. Naturally the hon. member restated the philosophy of the PFP, namely that they seek a structure in which the Black people will become part of the structure of government of the Whites, Coloureds and Indians. We shall have to differ on this, because that is not our policy, nor is it the intention of this Bill. I shall refer to this again later in my speech.

This Bill is an historic event in the history of local government in South Africa. The establishment of local government as a third level of government has had a long history in the democratic world.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Rissik and that hon. member want to pursue their conversation they had better do so, but they must at least give me a chance.

Perhaps we should pursue it in Parys.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is an historic event which will ensure greater stability and continuity in the regulation of Black communities in South Africa. As it happens, I completed my studies for a masters degree in political science with a thesis entitled “Die beheer deur provinsiale administrasie oor die finansies van plaaslike besture”. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Rissik has some facetious remark about that. However, I am proud of it. In order to cover the entire field of local government, I wrote my thesis for my doctor’s degree on “Owerheidsbeleid en beheer oor die ontwikkeling en administrasie van kleinhoewes in Suid-Afrika”. Smallholdings are probably better known to most of us as plots in the vicinity of cities and large towns. That is why it is a special privilege for me to be able to speak this evening on this very important historic event with regard to local government in South Africa.

The establishment of local authorities is a very interesting field of study; already many books have been written and papers read on this subject. In South Africa, too, this field of study has aroused exceptionally wide interest, particularly because there is an active and strong United Municipal Executive in South Africa. Interestingly enough—I derive this information from a speech of the hon. the Prime Minister which he made here in Cape Town on 29 September last year, and I shall refer to it again later—the United Municipal Executive was established 50 years ago at a meeting of which Mr. Troskie Maré, the then MPC for Parys, was chairman, and for this reason it is even more of a pleasure for me to be able to take part in the discussion on this Bill this evening. The development phase and the course of development of government control over local authorities is an equally interesting field of study. When this chapter on local government for Black people has been written, it will make an equally great and valuable contribution to the already existing literature on local government in South Africa and elsewhere in the world. I think that prospective students in this field must prepare themselves for exciting times ahead.

The history of the establishment of local government in Great Britain could form a foundation for study of this subject by students in the future. Because the hon. member for Sea Point elucidated the Bill so positively I do not want to speak along the same lines, but I should like to approach it from another angle. I should like to give a short summary of the course of development of local government because we can also learn valuable lessons from this in the future with regard to the legislation before us, and perhaps be forewarned in some respects. After a long struggle the British Parliament eventually succeeded in gaining control over local government, but after an equally long struggle that control was delegated to a second level of government, namely the countries. In this way local government became the third level of government in the democratic world.

As you will realize, this is the position in a nutshell, because the struggle for control had already begun to be waged in earnest in Britain during the last two decades of the sixteenth century. At that stage the circuit court judges were charged with the task of interpreting regulations and statutes of local government. Up to approximately 1834, i.e. for a period of almost 250 years, this judicial control was the only method of central control over local government, and at that stage the relationship between the central Government and the local authorities was completely disjointed. The control was inefficient and corruption, extortion, fraud and malpractices were the order of the day. The system lacked a method of ensuring that the same irregularities did not occur repeatedly and in all local governments. But after a long struggle both Houses of the British Parliament, at the instance of leaders like Bacon and the great lawyer Cope, and Archbishop Whitegift and other clergymen, made a determined effort to place local governments under central control, and this was done mainly with the aim of overcoming poverty among the population. In that way the central Government established its control and leadership over local authorities and government control over local authorities became an accomplished fact.

What about Cromwell?

Now we in South Africa are facing the same situation with regard to local government and this Bill is the foundation for Black local government. In this connection I read the following in a speech of the hon. the Prime Minister which he made on 29 September of last year during the fiftieth annual general meeting of the United Municipal Executive—and I should like us to take note of the emphasis placed on the political process with regard to local government as well—

This is a very important aspect. The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say—

The view of the hon. the Prime Minister coincides with that of well-known authorities who have written authoritatively on this subject of local government and the concomitant political process, and to sum up briefly, I should like to quote two translations. The first is from the book by J. W. Noteboom, Leidraad vir Antirevolusionair Gemeentebeleid, on page 43. He said—

Sir, I want to emphasize those words: “Dit prikkel tot nadenke en kritiek en versterk die behoefte om aan politiek op hoer vlakke deel te neem”. This legislation on Black local authorities will have exactly the same effect on Black people in South Africa—it will stimulate their thinking about this matter and develop in them the desire to participate in the political process at higher levels. Our next step must in fact be to create those structures through which Black people can participate in the political process at higher levels without jeopardizing the structures of the Whites and without affecting the right to self-determination of the Whites. I think that with the necessary expertise and will it will be possible to create such structures in accordance with which Black people can participate in a higher level of politics in this way.

The next writer is H. Colijn—Toelichting Op Het Antirevolusionair Beginselprogram. On page 220 he has the following to say—

This is very important. He says we must guard against local authorities becoming puppets in the hands of the central Government. He goes on to say—

This is what we want with regard to local government. This writer also emphasized the necessity as part of an anti-revolutionary principle program of citizens being given the opportunity to participate in the political process. I have already stated that we must create the necessary structures to make their participation possible on a different level from that of the Whites. What I now want to emphasise is the warning that local governments must not be puppets in the hands of the central Government. I do want to point out that in this Bill I do not see the possibility of local governments becoming puppets in the hands of the central Government through the implementation of the legislation. The Bill gives Black people autonomous local government through which and by means of which they can manage their own affairs. For this reason it is a pleasure for me to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parys made an extremely interesting speech with regard to the development of local authorities as this took place in England. This is also, to a certain extent, how this took place here. One cannot argue with him with regard to much of what he said in respect of the motivation for this Bill.

I should also like to become so enthusiastic about the Bill, but there is one aspect of it which has been marred by the Select Committee. We are unhappy about this, and this is of such crucial importance to us, that we are going to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.

With the Progs again. [Interjections.]

The Bill forms part of the evolutionary process whereby greater responsibility is being given to Black people as far as local government matters are concerned. We are quite satisfied with the way in which the hon. member for Parys has dealt with this. The Bill has also been investigated by the Grosskopf Commission. The original Bill which we in the CP were pleased with, was also referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution, which body effected a particular amendment to the Bill with which we cannot associate ourselves.

Interesting things also happened on the Select Committee itself.

But you were never there. What are these interesting things?

I shall come to that.

The position is that the Select Committee had the benefit of hearing very interesting evidence given by Adv. Cilliers and other persons who were involved in the civil case which resulted from the Soweto riots. The hon. the Minister also had the privilege of hearing that evidence, since he was present when that evidence was given.

On the basis of page 23 of the preliminary issue of the Report of the Select Committee on the Constitution (on Black Local Authorities Bill) [S.C. 10—’82], I wish to describe the kind of witness from whom Adv. Cilliers obtained the information that enabled him to submit his dissertation, if one wishes to call it that, to the Select Committee. He was involved in the civil case for three months. He had the benefit of hearing evidence from people like Prof. J. H. Coetzee, Professor in Social Anthropology and African Studies; Mr. J. C. de Villiers, the Chief Director of the West Rand Administration Board from 1973 to 1978; Mr. John Reece; Miss Pauline Morris; Mr. Jaap Strydom, the Regional Director of Education in Soweto after the riots; Mr. Gibson Thula, the Chief Urban Representative of Inkatha; Prof. Marinus Wiechers, Professor in Constitutional Law and Public Law at Unisa; and so on.

By saying that?

Just wait; you will hear.

I hope that the hon. the Minister is not going to withdraw from the Chamber now since I wisji to deal with a matter we are very perturbed about. The hon. the Minister was also a member of the Cabinet which was responsible for policy in 1976. During the Third Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill the hon. the Minister said certain things with regard to the riots in Soweto. He also said that he wished to quote to the House what Mr. Justice Cillié, chairman of the Cillié Commission, had had to say when the hon. member for Waterberg was the Deputy Minister of Education and Training, and then, the hon. the Minister added, hon. members should go and see for themselves what monuments the hon. member for Waterberg had built in this country. Then the hon. the Minister continued by quoting from paragraph B 1.1.1 on page 41 of the report, the paragraph in which the commission discloses its findings with regard to the most important causes which gave rise to the outbreak of the riots in Soweto on 16 June 1976. Furthermore, the hon. the Minister pointed out that he was in a completely different department at that time, and he then put the question as to who was responsible for the policy on the medium of instruction that was being applied by the Department of Education and Training at that time. According to him, it was the hon. member for Waterberg, who was then the responsible Deputy Minister. The hon. the Minister further referred to the findings of Mr. Justice Cillié and said—

And then the hon. the Minister went on to say—

But he did so for two years in any case! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to mention the findings of Mr. Justice Cillié in this regard. Mention is made on page 81 of the Cillié Commission report of a telegram sent by Mr. F. van Wyk, director of the SAIR, to Mr. R. M. de Villiers, then MP for Parktown, in May 1976. The telegram reads as follows—

According to Mr. Van Wyk, the situation in the schools in Soweto was apparently getting worse by the day because of the use of Afrikaans as medium of instruction, violent incidents had already taken place and could easily have been repeated. Mr. Van Wyk also expressed the fervent hope that Dr. Treurnicht was aware of what was happening. The report went on to say—

Later, Dr. Treurnicht notified Mr. De Villiers that he had been contact with his officials and that he had no reason to believe that the matter could not be solved. He also said that talks were continuing. Mr. Justice Cillié expresses the finding in his report that the Deputy Minister was therefore justified in giving Mr. De Villiers the reply he did. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development is the third most senior Minister in the Cabinet. He said all these things in his lengthy speech in this House the day before yesterday. I referred the contents of that speech to Mr. M. C. Botha, the former Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and to the former State President, Mr. B. J. Vorster. I have Mr. Vorster’s permission to tell the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development that the accusations levelled at the hon. member for Waterberg are untrue and that it is disgraceful that he should have done such a thing. [Interjections.]

Order! I have allowed the hon. member for Brakpan to conduct a very wide discussion on this matter. I therefore request him now to confine himself to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to you, I do, however, just wish to argue that the Select Committee which investigated this legislation, as I stated earlier, was for three months privileged to hear the advocates who were involved in the civil action which resulted from the whole situation of unrest in Soweto and elsewhere. The Select Committee therefore had the advantage of the knowledge of these people who could inform and advise them with regard to the drafting of this Bill so that any political dangers which could perhaps have existed in this regard, could be removed. That is why I believe that the Cillié report on the Soweto riots also forms part of the reasons for this Bill.

That is precisely my point. The material relating to this legislation has been thoroughly sifted so that the hon. member could discuss the legislation before him. Therefore it is not necessary for the hon. member to go into the material which has already been sifted by the advocates.

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, the problem would not have arisen if the hon. the Minister had not brought up this whole matter the day before yesterday and placed a great deal of blame on the leader of the CP. I have almost finished what I wanted to say in this regard, and I respectfully request you to give me the opportunity to conclude.

I shall allow the hon. member to continue with this point until I call him to order.

I appreciate that, Sir. If the hon. the Minister would consult the Cillié report, he would see that 88 pages are devoted to the causes of the riots. The hon. the Minister said in the discussion of the report that we should not accuse one another, since we would not achieve anything by doing so. He also said that we should not try to score political points off one another. However, he has been bearing this grudge, together with all the other grudges he referred to the day before yesterday since 1976, yet he voted for the hon. member as leader of the Transvaal on more than one occasion after 1976, despite the fact that he was well aware of these facts. Is this the morality of a senior Minister of the State?

Order! The hon. member must not take this point any further.

Very well, Sir. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt accused me, as well as the hon. member for Rissik, of not attending meetings of the Select Committee very regularly, and I wish to give some of the reasons for our absence now. Firstly, the meetings of that committee coincided with sittings of the Standing Committees in the Senate Chamber. Hon. members are also aware that sittings of the Select Committee usually took place in the evening.

We tendered our apologies.

We tendered our apologies. However, the most important reason is, as the hon. member is aware, that we discussed these matters in the caucus and that we drew certain inferences there. We were confident that the NP would not allow any interference with extremely important concepts which the NP has always stood by. But unfortunately, for the umpteenth time this year, since the NP has ventured into the slippery slope of concessions, it has now also acceded to the demands for Black freehold in White areas. It is well known that over the years the Government has held to the simple standpoint that Black people may not receive freehold ownership of the land in White areas. The hon. the Prime Minister even spelt this out as his policy by way of an interjection during this session.

But Ferdi Hartzenberg proposed it … [Interjections.]

In the Bill which was first placed before the Select Committee, there was nothing whatsoever about freehold ownership of land being given to Black local authorities. When Dr. Hartzenberg put other aspects to us in the caucus, this was not yet the standpoint. [Interjections.] To empower Black local authorities to become the owners of immovable property in terms of the provisions of clause 22, paves the way for the following step to private freehold. The argument has it that a local authority is a State institution, and State institutions must have the right to own immovable property. What kind of argument is that?

A sound one.

It is a sound one? Not even White municipal authorities have that right. [Interjections.] They definitely do not. [Interjections.] That hon. member must please just give me an opportunity of completing my speech. I have here section 63 of the Local Government Ordinance of the Transvaal.

What does the Cape Province Ordinance say?

The hon. member is asking: “What does the Cape Province Ordinance say?” Surely he is aware that the Select Committee took the Local Government Ordinance of the Transvaal as a guideline for drafting this Bill.

This is not true. There are many exceptions.

Section 63 of the Local Government Ordinance of the Transvaal reads—

Then a further provision is added—

It is now stated what those words mean—

Now I have taught that hon. member something. [Interjections.]

This legislation expressly passes it to the council.

However, the point is that White local authorities are not the owners, they do not have the dominium. They do not have dominium over open spaces within the White municipal areas. [Interjections.] This Bill grants Black local authorities more rights than White authorities have. [Interjections.] We have been told that this Bill must correspond as closely as possible to the Local Government Ordinance of the Transvaal. It is even claimed that where the right to policing is granted, the question is asked whether White local authorities also have these powers. This simply goes to show how sensitive the Black people are concerning the fact that these rights have to be precisely the same as those of White authorities.

The post-22 February 1982 National Party Government is granting Black local authorities greater powers than White local authorities. Is this how discrimination is removed, or is this once again an example of clandestine reform? [Interjections.]

What do you mean by “clandestine reform”?

Just read what Mr. Niemann has to say about clandestine reform in the morning newspaper. If this principle is taken further, corporations will also have to obtain freehold in the national States. We agreed on the rationale for this policy a long time ago. Granting freehold to Black local authorities leads to freehold for individuals. Freehold is therefore the thin end of the wedge for demands to participate in the power structures. The hon. member for Parys talked about the power structures. We must associate those power structures of the Black people with their homelands and their own national States. We all believe in that. Is that not so?

I did not say that at all.

No, I concede that to the hon. member for Parys. He is in favour of it.

I did not use those words.

However, the hon. member does not want them to be drawn in to the structures of the Whites, the Indians and the Coloureds.

Of course not!

But he is granting them freehold in the White areas.

I am not granting it to them. I am granting it to the authorities.

Yes, the authorities who govern them. I say that freehold is therefore the end of the wedge for demands to participate in our power structures. [Interjections.]

We find the evidence before the Select Committee on page 30 of the memorandum of the Urban Foundation. There we find the difference between these two relevant rights. It is set out clearly. I do not think that, for the purposes of my argument, it is necessary to point out that there is a difference between these two rights, the new 99-year-leasehold and freehold. Nowhere did the Foundation or any of the witnesses, or the hon. member for Sea Point, or the hon. member for Parys, or the hon. the Minister, make out a case for the deletion of this principle. Now the whole question of freehold title and leasehold title is bound up with the question of tax. A great deal could be said about this aspect. The hon. member for Sea Point had a great deal to say about this. He said that these municipalities have to be financed. The President’s Council is also giving attention to this aspect. The Browne Commission is also looking into it. The Croeser Working Committee is also considering it. At the NP congresses—and I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Finance is present here—we pleaded for the total abolition of land and property tax on residential properties, since it is a form of capital tax. If that property produces an income, one can pay tax on that income. However, why should one pay tax on the capital asset? One pays tax on one’s income. In this way the provincial tax has also been abolished.

It is one of the oldest taxes in the world.

However old it is—this is perhaps another reason as well, since we are busy with reform. Then we could also consider this reform. [Interjections.] One pays tax on one’s income; one does not pay tax on the increase of one’s capital assets. The hon. member for Smithfield will agree with me on this.

You are a bigger baboon than I thought.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw that. He is not a bigger baboon than I thought.

Order! The hon. member for Stilfontein must withdraw the remark unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally.

Harry Oppenheimer’s lackey. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to say that I am Harry Oppenheimer’s lackey? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Brakpan may proceed.

It is typical of the mentality of that hon. member to become insulting when he cannot reply to arguments. It is typical of the hon. members of the NP. If they cannot reply to an argument, they become insulting. [Interjections.] This was also the case with the hon. the Minister the day before yesterday, and we shall not forgive him. I have known that hon. Minister for 10 years and I was deeply hurt by what he said. I hope that he will rectify that matter. Freehold is now being given to Black urban government bodies. This is a principle we rejected two months ago. That principle is now being accepted and it is central to this Bill. This is why we cannot support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Order! Which hon. member said that the hon. member for Stilfontein was a lackey?

I said that.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Sir, I also said that the hon. member for Stilfontein was Mr. Harry Oppenheimer’s lackey. I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I also said that and I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to react to the speech of the hon. member for Brakpan, except in regard to one statement he made, viz. that no one on the Select Committee argued in favour of freehold. That is of course totally untrue. The hon. members of the CP were seldom present. Otherwise the hon. member would have known that, on my motion, this was fully discussed and that, also on my motion, the wording in regard to freehold was changed so that now only freehold is mentioned without relating it to leasehold. However, this remains subject to the provisions of other laws. We discussed the matter fully. My party is in favour of full freehold rights in Black townships. That is our policy. Consequently, that was what we advocated. It was not accepted, but the wording was changed so that it would not merely apply to leasehold. [Interjections.] I said this remains subject to other laws. Our standpoint is that this legislation should be brought as close as possible to the pattern of the legislation relating to other local authorities. I do not want to interfere in the argument between the Government and the CP. Let them fight their battle among themselves. I just want to make it clear that it is not true that we did not discuss this matter.

†I also do not want to repeat arguments raised by other hon. members in this debate. With some of those arguments I agree and with others I do not. I do, however, want to support what was said about the Select Committee. I want to pay a particular tribute to the chairman and members of the Select Committee and more particularly to the hon. the Minister and his departmental staff. This was a Select Committee which functioned in accordance with the true tradition of Parliamentary Select Committees. If one looks at the amendments the Select Committee introduced, 27 pages of them, it gives one an indication of the thoroughness with which the matter was dealt and of the willingness there was to compromise and seek agreement. Where we started with a measure on which there were deep differences of opinion, we ended with a new Bill with 27 pages of amendments on which there was not one single division when we came to put the clauses. Every single clause was accepted although we had differences. However, by compromise and by give and take we came out with an agreed measure. That is the spirit in which a Select Committee should operate. I want to say here in public what a pleasure it was to serve in the atmosphere in which that committee worked, to be able to debate often radically different views and to seek and eventually find agreement and a formula which every one on the Select Committee could accept. Perhaps it was as well that the hon. members of the CP were not often present, otherwise we might not have made the progress which we made. [Interjections.]

It is not often that I do so but I would also like to pay tribute to the spirit of the members of the official Opposition on that committee who were also prepared to give and take. As I did, they did not bind themselves blindly to the official policy of their party or to the policies which they advocate either. They were prepared to seek agreement provided it fitted in with the broad objectives we were aiming at. I think, with one or two exceptions which we can discuss at Committee Stage, we have before us a vastly improved measure and, with the exception of financing which the hon. member for Sea Point referred to and which I do not intend to take further, there were very few gaps and very few areas in which there were shortfalls in what was necessary. The minor differences we can discuss later. However, we do now have a measure which I believe can and should work and a measure which should certainly be acceptable to the nonhomeland Blacks of South Africa.

I looked at the Bill particularly carefully to seek points in it—as did the PFP and the Urban Foundation—which could be interpreted as discriminatory and as different from normal procedures in local government. Wherever we found them we were able to eliminate them, with one exception in regard to definition to which I will come later. I believe this has been a major step forward. I believe it has put the non-homeland Blacks on a new course from which we can have further development and in which I have a great deal of hope for the future. Particularly—I think this must be said—in the light of the President’s Council’s recommendations I can see this new system of nonhomeland Black local government fitting into the pattern of metropolitan authorities where there can be co-ordination on a metropolitan basis and on a regional basis. I welcome the fact that the principle has been accepted. I do not want to quote the correspondence because I think it is confidential. However, the principle has been accepted in respect of the Durban metropolitan body which was under investigation for a long time in regard to Black townships which fall within the metropolitan concept. I think that these two factors, namely the fact that there will be comparable local authorities and that these will be able to liaise, consult and co-ordinate within a metropolitan structure in the area in which they are situated, are certainly the start of a tremendous step forward in regard to the question of local government and the position of the non-homeland Blacks. It accepts the permanence of the non-homeland Black as a fact. It accepts the fact that there are in that community, in the urban community, people who are permanently established, whose whole future is wrapped up in that form of life and whose communities will, I believe grow, as they have grown in Soweto, into new cities in our country. I do not intend to follow the line of the hon. member for Sea Point, who dealt with the background and the detail of the Bill. I believe that there has been enough talk, enough investigation and background for me merely to have to say that we in the New Republic Party will support the Second Reading. We shall discuss one or two of the clauses and we shall support this Bill at all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that there is a fair degree of unanimity with regard to this matter. I really think that the hon. member for Brakpan was not at his best this evening in this regard, because he and his colleagues who served on the Select Committee, were never present when this specific aspect was discussed. [Interjections.] They can take a look at the minutes. They were never there. Merely because they are opposed to one or two matters with regard to the entire question of freehold, they are opposed to the entire principle of local government. I should just like to know where the hon. members were when the NP said that the Black people were going to be given local authorities. Even Mr. Vorster said they were going to receive more than local authorities. Where were the hon. members then?

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Waterkloof must give me a chance to speak.

[Inaudible.]

You may go, Vause, I am not quarrelling with you! [Interjections.] The hon. members must tell us where they were at that stage. When we discuss local government, we must look at this legislation. This legislation embodies more than ordinary local government in a White area. After all, hon. members know this was the purpose from the start. It is being provided here that certain powers with regard to education may be vested in local governments. It is also being provided that the local governments may acquire certain powers in connection with law and order not usually associated with local governments in any White area. The hon. member for Brakpan told me in a roundabout way that White local authorities do not have freehold. That is simply not true. The hon. member said that I was discussing open spaces, streets, sewerage and heaven alone knows what else. Every White local authority in South Africa can own property in terms of that same clause 63 the hon. member quoted from.

Let us consider this entire question of freehold for a moment, as it is qualified here. I want to tell those hon. members that there are hon. members on their side who served with me on the commission, and supported freehold for Black people in White Areas. They are sitting there.

How many?

One of them.

Yes, but there is not more than one of them here. [Interjections.]

Hennie, are you not speaking out of the commission now?

But the hon. member speaks out of the caucus. [Interjections.]

All I want to tell those hon. members is that this is not the way to handle this matter. Let us consider what is said about freehold in this Bill. Leasehold is not being abolished in terms of this Bill. Additional provision is being made for proprietary rights in this regard. In terms of this Bill local authorities will not only be concerned with roads, etc., but also with education and the maintenance of law and order. Other assets are also at issue, assets which, as hon. members are aware, can be offered as security. It is far easier to offer these things as security if it falls under conventional freehold and not under leasehold. Hon. members will concede this too. After all, hon. members know that we argued that leasehold was just as good as freehold. In 1977, when Dr. Connie Mulder introduced leasehold, we argued that leasehold was just as good as freehold.

I was told it was not the same thing.

Yes, it was said that it was not the same thing. [Interjections.] Let me make my point first. It was said it was not the same thing, and it was then argued that if it was not the same thing, why not introduce leasehold instead of freehold, because one would be achieving the same thing. We all argued like that; there is no doubt about that. I think it is outrageous to argue that proprietary rights will lead to the franchise and that this would be the thin end of the wedge. We are concerned here with an institutional body to be established by passing legislation in this House. Nowadays administration boards own property. For the simple reason that they are staffed by Whites, they may own property, but the Administration Boards function only for Black people. However, they may own property. An Administration Board cannot be abolished except by way of legislation of this Parliament. A local government cannot be abolished other than by a method stipulated in the Act. The Act prescribes what will become of the property of that local government if it is abolished. This is a transparent political game the hon. members wanted to play in this debate. [Interjections.] Let us not split hairs about this. This is a transparent political game those hon. members wanted to play here today. It is not in the interests of …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Waterkloof and I argued for hours about the matter of freehold. Those hon. members are now pretending they are the only ones who can argue on this matter from their point of view.

I just want to say that we are grateful that we have this legislation before us and that we were able to incorporate in it those things that will give our Black local authorities more than merely the power of ordinary local governments, because these are things we have promised them. It is a good thing that we are doing this today and for this reason we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to start by saying that few of my colleagues in these benches probably expected us to witness this unsavoury and unpleasant battle between the CP and the NP at this time of the morning.

It is the battle you started 20 years ago.

No, I just feel that we are dealing here with an important matter. I do not think this is the right time to iron out the differences between the two parties here. I honestly want to tell hon. members that it was really unpleasant for me, as a member of this party, to sit here and witness this sort of thing. However, I leave it at that.

I just want to make two remarks in connection with the controversy which the hon. member for Brakpan touched on and which he will probably refer to again in the Committee Stage. I refer to his quarrel with the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt regarding the matter of freehold, etc. I just want to state two specific points in this connection.

In the first place, whether it be freehold or 99-year leasehold or whatever, my party’s standpoint is quite clear. We believe that the Blacks in the urban areas ought to be given full right of freehold. However, the essence of the matter is what we want to achieve in our urban areas. We want to create a Black population there which will ensure the greatest possible degree of peace in South Africa so that we can prevent those circumstances which gave rise to that unfortunate episode in 1976. That is the essence. It seems to me our main consideration ought to be that whatever is necessary to ensure a state of peace, in other words, to make our urban Black communities as content as possible—and I am not now referring to a threat to the self-determination of the Whites, because that is not at issue—must be done. I think—and I have every respect for the hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. members of the CP—that the matter of full right of freehold for our Black people in the urban areas is in fact a prerequisite if we are to ensure that degree of peaceful coexistence among our urban Black population.

The second general point I want to make—and it is a pity that we must discuss these general matters now—is that the insistence of the Black urban dweller on participation in the political system is not determined by whether he has freehold or leasehold or whatever. It is a mistake for us to think that if we deny him freehold, his insistence on participation in the political structure can lessen or be removed. This is a fatal mistake. It does not matter what freehold or other rights to land we give him; it is not going to reduce his demands to participate, to have a joint say in the political system of the country in which he lives. We must therefore refrain from constantly saying we are not going to give him freehold rights, because if we give him these rights we also give him the right to demand participation in the political structure. I repeat that this is a fatal mistake.

I do not want to speak for very long because my colleague, the hon. member for Sea Point, covered the field comprehensively and effectively. He did it as well as anyone could, and I agree with what he said in this connection. I agree in particular with the appreciation he expressed to the hon. the Minister for having adopted the procedure of referring this Bill to a Select Committee prior to the Second Reading. I also want to express my appreciation for the way in which that Select Committee operated, and the fact that in the same way the hon. the Minister referred those other two Bills to the Select Committee on the Constitution. If I had been younger, I would probably have blushed at the kind remarks of my colleague here regarding my modest share. I feel the hon. the Minister should take the credit, because when he saw there was considerable opposition to the Bill, he did in fact withdraw that Bill. The hon. the Minister and I understand one another. We spar with one another, but I think the hon. the Minister knows in his heart that what I am trying to do is to make a constructive contribution in connection with this matter and that the standpoint I adopt does not result from pettiness or any form of spite towards him or the Government.

In conclusion, I just want to say that we are here entering a new dispensation. If we want these local authorities to work, in the first place we must not make the structures that are being created impotent by transferring powers and functions to them too tardily. As far as finances are concerned, too, we must also make adequate funds available to them so that they can do their work. The hon. member for Sea Point discussed this.

There are two other essential implications of the steps we are taking now. The one is that those structures, those institutions of local government, will not be able to make the grade, will not be able to fulfil their functions with regard to their own communities, if we do not also improve considerably the standard of living of those people in our urban areas. This is a function which cannot be performed by those local authorities alone. It is the task of the central Government to change those standards of living through all the services which must be provided and which those local governments will not be able to provide. The status those local governments will have and the respect they will have from their own voters in those urban areas will also depend on the extent to which we succeed in improving the quality of life of those people.

My final remark is simply that I hope that in this way we shall get what we have had had thus far, and that is the development among the Black people themselves of a leadership corps, because since the necessary political structures have been lacking, it has been impossible for the Black urban community to produce leaders who are accepted by the urban Blacks and regarded by them as their own. I hope that what we are doing here this evening will be the start of a process by means of which we shall make it possible, in a natural and organic way, for those people to produce their own leaders.

I take great pleasure in supporting the Bill and I associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to convey my very sincere thanks to the various parties that have supported the Bill. I must point out to the hon. member for Sea Point that the Bill, which is actually a measure which reflects self-determination in a very positive form at that level, does not in any way detract from the development of national States. We are dealing here with a unique solution to a unique problem, and the introduction of autonomous government at the third level over their own people in their own areas of jurisdiction is without any doubt a very important step forward in the history of our country. In spite of the objections raised by the hon. member of the CP, I have not the slightest doubt that this will prove to be the case.

I want to associate myself with the appreciation expressed by the hon. member towards Mr. Jan Steyn, a former judge, and the Urban Foundation, for the contribution they made and for the hard work they did to enable us to produce this Bill which is before us tonight.

The hon. member asked me whether I would not consider postponing elections until the other two pieces of legislation had been placed on the Statute Book. I do not want to commit myself on this occasion by promising to accede to his request, but I undertake to consider it. Together with the department and other interested parties, I shall consider all relevant factors, and then we shall decide when the best time is to have the elections take place.

As far as the question of economic viability is concerned, I made my standpoint in this connection quite clear in my introductory speech. In reply to the hon. member’s question I want to confirm once again that the Government has indeed committed itself to assisting the Black local authorities so that they may become as financially viable as possible. We are in the process of doing so. The Croeser Working Group is conducting its investigations, and decisions in that connection will be announced within the near future. I therefore convey my sincere thanks to the official Opposition for their positive approach on the Select Committee as well as in the House tonight.

This brings me to the hon. member for Parys. He is really an expert on third-tier government. I listened to him and I must say that although he spoke in the early hours of the morning, hon. members really listened to his speech with interest, because he knows his subject so well, of course. I thank him, too, for his positive contribution.

Now I come to the hon. member for Brakpan. I want to make it clear to the hon. member for Brakpan that I am very disappointed in him.

Just as disappointed as we are in you!

I am bitterly disappointed in the hon. member for Brakpan. I really did not expect, nor would I ever have imagined when that hon. member was Deputy Speaker of this House, that the day would ever come when I would have the experience—at three o’clock in the morning—which I have had here tonight.

We had a similar experience with you two days ago!

No, give me a chance to speak. I really did not think such a thing could happen. Naturally, I cannot examine in detail some of the allegations made by the hon. member for Brakpan tonight. I do want to reply to certain aspects, though. However, I want to add at once that we on this side of the House do not play the game of trying to destroy esteemed, respected retired State Presidents of South Africa. We on this side of the House very definitely do not play that game. That is all I want to say about this aspect.

You do try to destroy the leader of the CP, though. [Interjections.]

I do not want to take it any further. That is all I want to say about this.

What the hon. member for Brakpan said, he said with the consent of Mr. Vorster. [Interjections.]

Of course the hon. member will feel hurt when I reprimand him for having done this. [Interjections.]

Am I not allowed to phone him, then?

With regard to the other matter which the hon. member for Brakpan raised during the discussion of this Bill tonight, namely the riots in Soweto—and in this connection he made certain quotations from my Hansard—I want to point out at once that my predecessor, former Minister M. C. Botha, a man for whom I have the greatest respect and appreciation, was not really responsible on that occasion as Minister of Education and Training. That was because that task had been delegated to the Deputy Minister of Education and Training. That is something which cannot be denied. I have known this department very well for 30 years. What I am saying now, therefore, is based on facts. In addition, I did no more than read from the findings of the Cillié Commission. [Interjections.] I did not have time either to go into the matter in detail. However, I want to ask again who is responsible for policy. The commission found that to a large extent this contributed directly to the disturbances that broke out in Soweto on 16 June 1976. All I said was that the hon. member for Waterberg did not have the best reputation with regard to the treatment of other population groups. I said that, and I say it again. [Interjections.]

In fact, the commission found that one of the primary causes of the riots was the policy with regard to the medium of instruction. And then I ask who was responsible for the policy, if not the man to whom that responsibility was delegated. I also ask who was responsible for the official implementation of the policy. What I did not even add, however, is this. On page 565 of the Cillié Commission’s report we read the finding that there was no exchange of views and that the impression was created that the authorities were inaccessible and unyielding. Surely that is a fatal, inexcusable state of affairs. Hon. members on this side of the House and I … [Interjections.] However, we on this side of the House willingly took the hon. member for Waterberg under our protection. We gave him every opportunity in the world … [Interjections.] However, I could go on quoting from this report to show what the attitude of the hon. member for Waterberg under these circumstances was. If we bear in mind the fact that the riots broke out in Soweto on 16 June 1976, the following fact is very interesting and illuminating. In reply to a question asked in this House on 27 February 1976, the hon. member for Waterberg, who was at that time the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, gave the following reply (Hansard/Questions, 1976, col. 400)—

I could go on like this. On 25 May 1976, according to a report in Rapport, the hon. member for Waterberg declared that he was not aware of any real problem, but that he would have the matter investigated. I could quote many more examples of this kind. I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I do want to point out that on 11 June 1976, the Deputy Minister said in this House, in reply to a question by an hon. member, that five schools had applied for exemption from the 1955 rule, and the names of the schools were mentioned, A week before, all five these schools had been mentioned as schools at which there had been boycotts. Their applications were turned down because it was found, after inspection, that all the teachers were qualified to teach in both official languages. The commission went on to say—

The Urban Bantu Council regretted the refusal for the same reason. I could go on in this vein, Sir, and what I am saying here now is not hearsay. But I have never alleged either that the hon. member for Waterberg, who is today the leader of the CP, was responsible for these riots. I never said that, and hon. members can look it up in my Hansard. All I did was what I have done again tonight. I made a very thorough study of the report of the Cillié Commission, and I just made certain quotations from it. Of course, we must accept joint responsibility in this connection, and I am not evading my responsibility either, just as no hon. member in this House can evade his responsibility. All I did was to substantiate the truth. I said that the hon. member for Waterberg—and I deal with Black people day and night—does not have a good record among other population groups in this country, and that is the truth. [Interjections.] Those hon. members go to a retired State President. Why? Because these things hurt, of course, because the truth hurts. [Interjections.] That is why they carry on like a lot of cats on a hot tin roof as soon as one refers to this. [Interjections.] Of course they will get angry, because the truth hurts. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please contain themselves.

I want to conclude by saying that I also find it difficult to refer to such a truth in this House, and I would have left it at that, but the hon. members raked up the matter again. Why was I forced to refer to it again, Sir? I did it because the lives of my sons and the children of other people are at stake in this country. That is what is at stake, and those hon. members will not solve our problems by behaving in that way, by getting excited and angry. [Interjections.] By reacting in such a way, they are simply proving how bankrupt they really are in their inability to face the problems of the country squarely. Therefore I advise them to calm down a little.

The final point raised by the hon. member concerns the right of ownership, and in this respect, too, the hon. members of the CP are showing how absolutely bankrupt they really are, because this whole Bill is concerned with self-determination and is the finest example of self-determination. Surely this is in the interests of everyone in this country, and that is why everyone supports it. The only discordant note is being struck by the CP. This is a great pity, Sir, for what is the position with regard to ownership? The Government’s decision that Black people can obtain 99-year-leasehold remains absolutely unchanged. The decisions of the Select Committee are also very clear on this point. This aspect was fully discussed at three meetings, but the hon. members of the CP concerned were conspicuous by their absence on those occasions. [Interjections.] I do not care what other meetings those hon. members had to attend. The fact is that since this is so, the hon. member should not behave in this House as he has behaved tonight. After all, it was his duty to attend those meetings. But he did not.

On the Select Committee there was total consensus in connection with this question, after it had been discussed at length on three occasions. Why? For a very simple reason. We adhere to our standpoint of 99-year-leasehold for individuals, but because one is here introducing an autonomous third-tier government institution, it is imperative that they be treated in the same way as other third-tier government instruments, because in that sense they form part of the organization of the State. [Interjections.] If one fails to do that, one is being dishonest, in the first place, and in the second place one is discriminating blatantly against councils, at the very moment when one is trying to raise the level of acceptability and when there is such splendid development in terms of which we can enable Blacks and Whites to work together at the third level of government in the interests of good relationships, and therefore in the interests of all of us in this country, but then those hon. members adopt the attitude they are adopting here tonight. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt argued very clearly that the point raised by the hon. member about the fact that more is being given to Black local authorities than to White local authorities is absolutely ridiculous.

Go and read section 63.

That hon. member should go and read section 4(b) and (c) of the legislation dealing with the development of Black communities. Then the hon. member will see—with all due respect—that he does not know what he is talking about. I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily at this hour of the morning, but I have here the Transvaal local government ordinance, which says—

The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt is absolutely correct, therefore, when he says that White local authorities do, of course, have ownership. However, that hon. member really and truly wants to bring the country under the impression that White local authorities do not have ownership … [Injections.] … and that this side of the House now wants to give the Black people something which the White people do not have. [Interjections.] It is not even worth arguing about. It only shows the colossal bankruptcy of those CP people if they have to resort to this kind of argument. [Interjections.]

This brings me to the hon. member for Durban Point. I want to thank him sincerely for his support and that of his party, and also for the words of appreciation which he addressed to me personally, as well as to the other bodies that were involved in this. I also want to thank the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt for his words.

To the hon. member Prof. Olivier I want to address a special word of thanks on this occasion, because he made a valuable contribution in connection with these matters. He also takes a great interest in this. I want to endorse his remarks about the question of finances, which we do indeed regard as very important. I want to conclude by telling him that I believe that this will now create an opportunity for Black leadership to develop from within their own ranks. I have frequently said in public that the best Black intellects will come forward to staff their own local authorities, and if they do that, it will contribute to the welfare of all the people in this country.

I also want to address a special word of thanks to my officials on this occasion, as well as to Mr. Justice Grosskopf and all the members of his commission who assisted him. I thank each and every one who helped to make this moment possible in this House.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz. Messrs. S. P. Barnard, J. H. Hoon, T. Langley, F. J. le Roux, Dr. W. J. Snyman, Messrs. C. Uys, H. D. K. van der Merwe, W. L. van der Merwe, R. F. van Heerden, Dr. F. A. H. van Staden and Mr. J. H. Visagie) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

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

1. (1) On page 7, in line 15, after “right” to insert “of leasehold”;
2. (2) on page 7, in line 20, after “right” to insert “of leasehold”.

I do not think that for the purposes of my argument it is necessary to repeat the argument I advanced during the Second Reading. However, as far as leasehold is concerned I just wish to inquire from the hon. the Minister whether the leasehold will also apply to the Black local areas of the Western Cape.

You are talking nonsense.

Do not say I am talking nonsense. The hon. the Minister must tell us whether the leasehold rights will also apply to the Black municipalities in the Cape.

Mr. Chairman, we have already debated this whole matter at length during the Second Reading, and it is therefore unnecessary for me to add anything. I just wish to reply to the hon. member in respect of the Western Cape. He is well aware of the fact that the Government regards the Western Cape as a preference area and follows the policy that Whites and Coloureds enjoy preference in this area. As far as this matter is concerned, where they are in fact to be given local authorities, there is no deviation from the basic policy.

Amendment (1) negatived and amendment (2) dropped (Conservative Party dissenting.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

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

May I just, with your permission, make a short statement. I understand and accept the need for a process of delimitation which is demonstrably fair to all concerned. However, to provide for this procedure in the legislation itself seems to me not only cumbersome but also inappropriate. I will accordingly provide for it by way of regulation. I am happy to give the undertaking that in the prescribed procedure two fundamental principles will be maintained and enshrined. The first is that there will be an objective intervention by an official like the Chief Commissioner or his nominee and, secondly, such official will not make any recommendations or decisions without hearing representations from all interested parties.

*I should just like to place this on record. I think it is essential that I should do so. So this must be read together with the amendment I have just moved.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister in a sense takes away the right of the local authority to withhold its concurrence with the form of election which the Minister wishes to have. It now places that right firmly in his hands, provided there is consultation. We would have been unhappy to accept this amendment had it not been for the statement of the hon. the Minister. We believe that, perhaps, neither the Minister nor the local authority is necessarily the person to decide, but that the best person to decide on the form of election and the delimitation that should take place would be a neutral person. To the extent that the hon. the Minister has indicated that he intends by way of regulation making it possible for a quasineutral person to adjudicate in this matter, we are happy to accept the Minister’s amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

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

I think that the purpose of my amendment is self-evident. The clause deals with qualifications of members and voters. It sets out various categories of people who “shall be competent to vote at any election of a member of a local authority,” and includes in those categories the fact that such a person must be a Black person. One is aware that in many of the areas at which this legislation is aimed, there are people other than Black people who perhaps own property and are resident in these areas. I am referring to members of other race groups. I believe it would be unwise and unfair to exclude such people living in these areas. It is a matter of interest that in the draft Bill on the development of Black communities, which is to come before the House next year, provision is made in, for example, clause 8 for the question of Coloured persons resident in Black townships. Clause 8 of that Bill reads “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act contained … members of the Cape Coloured, Malay, Griqua or other Coloured groups may reside in such townships”. It goes on to refer to the rights of Coloured people in townships. Quite clearly in the other Bills which are still to come before the House there has been provision made for the fact that there will be people other than Black people living in these townships. I believe that the purpose of my amendment is perfectly obvious and I believe it would create a far more equitable position if it were accepted.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to say that I support the amendment. In subsection (l)(c) it is made clear that only persons who are legally resident there in terms of section 10(1) and section 9bis of the Black (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act will be qualified to vote. People lawfully resident will be qualified to vote. If a person is lawfully resident, it means he has been approved for residence and is acceptable to the local authority in all ways. With the hon. member for Berea, I believe it is unnecessary to put this in. This is the one, and probably only place in the Bill where there is the possibility that it may be exploited as an example of discrimination.

Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry to say that it is unfortunately not possible for me to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Berea. However, I have given the matter considerable thought and have discussed it with my departmental officials and we are prepared to meet a problem which has been highlighted here in a fashion which I honestly believe is better than the one proposed by the hon. member. I now move as an amendment—

That will give the opportunity for people, if there are any, to make a request. We can then meet the problem that was highlighted. I thank the hon. members for drawing my attention to this problem. I am very happy that we could meet the problem in this fashion.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the hon. the Minister’s explanation, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment with the permission of the Committee.

Amendment moved by Mr. R. A. F. Swart, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Cooperation and Development agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

The purpose of the amendment is to afford the Broadcasting Corporation too, for example, and not only members of the Press, to attend meetings as observers.

Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member’s amendment effects an improvement to the clause, I shall gladly accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following two amendments—

1. (1) On page 23, in lines 34 to 36, to omit subparagraph (i) and to substitute:
   (i) hire immovable property situated in its area or acquire a right of leasehold (as referred to in section 6A of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945 (Act No. 25 of 1945)) in respect of such immovable property;
2. (2) on page 23, in line 38, after “(i)” to insert:
   or allocated to it as referred to in section 6A of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945 (Act No. 25 of 1945),

The effect of the amendment is that leasehold is substituted for freehold. In his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister said that I had to look at the provisions of clause 4 of the Black Community Development Bill. But surely the hon. the Minister knows that that legislation is not yet on the Statute Book. He says that notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in any other Act, a local authority can possess immovable property. The legislation to which this provision will be subject is not yet on the Statute Book. In other words, to argue that that legislation protects the question of leasehold is completely nonsensical. I now come back to section 63 of the Local Authority Ordinance. Section 63 of the Local Authority Ordinance deals with a certain kind of property held on behalf of the public by the local authority but over which it does not receive dominium. However, here a Black local authority receives dominium over all property, whether it be a street or an open space or a site where the town hall is to be erected. I say that this is discrimination. This is why I moved the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, I have already argued this whole question and also quoted from clause 63, as the hon. member also did. I just want to state again categorically, as the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt, too, stated, that the hon. member’s submission here that a Black local authority is here being given something more than White local authorities is an absolutely untrue statement, and that as far as I personally am concerned, it does not deserve any consideration. That is not the intention. Apart from the fact that reference is being made here to an Act that has not yet been piloted through Parliament, the hon. member’s statement is by no means correct. It is not necessary that we argue this matter with one another any further.

I should just like to make a brief statement with reference to clause 23(l)(p).

†Clause 23(l)(p) reads as follows—

For the purpose of clarity I should like to state that provision is made that a levy may be imposed. There seems to be doubts as to whether a levy includes a rate. I wish to confirm that a levy does include a rate. I sincerely believe that making this statement is much better than trying to amend paragraph (p) because this statement covers the whole situation and brings absolute clarity with regard to levies and rates.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has incorporated in this Bill a right to determination for Black local authorities. Is that correct? I just want hon. members to understand clearly what I am saying. We must not misunderstand one another. An open space now falls under a local authority. May I now make the assumption that the streets, the subways and the open spaces become the freehold property of a specific municipality of local authority?

Yes.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is so.

I shall answer you.

No, I am asking the hon. the Minister now. If the hon. the Minister does not answer now, then I shall have to speak three or four times. If that is so, I want to say that the local authority of Soweto can convert the open spaces in Soweto into townships.

[Inaudible.]

Oh, what does that hon. member know about it?

But that hon. member knows everything about it.

The hon. the Minister says that hon. member knows everything about it. If what the hon. the Minister has just told me is true, that they have a right to determination, and that the open spaces are the property of that municipality, then a municipality has the right to convert an open space into a township. [Interjections.]

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

I think that hon. member should rather sit down. I have listened to him long enough and the arguments he advanced were weak. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he knows where the Carlton Centre is. The Carlton Centre was built on a street. 90% of the Carlton Centre was built on a street. The portion of the Carlton Centre standing on the street is an enormous portion, and what happened to it? It became the portion which the city council could sell to private owners.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but wait a moment…

But then you will have to change the whole layout of the town.

But then the hon. member must not tell me that one cannot alienate it. The Black municipality has the right, because of the housing shortage in Soweto, to partition open spaces for a township and to sell it to the Black people of Soweto. If this legislation is accepted, one will not be able to do anything about it.

Now the next question is whether that is the hon. the Minister’s intention. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Mossel Bay should just keep quiet now and then. To me there is no bigger problem than, a lawyer who wants to be too much of a lawyer. Clause 23 of this legislation, read together with certain other pieces of legislation, provides for the rights and powers of local authorities. I have had a great deal to do with these matters and the number of streets I have closed is greater than the number of court cases in which the hon. member for Mossel Bay has appeared. We have closed many streets so as to use them for purposes of building houses …

Order! I think the hon. member has made his point …

I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and I am glad that you think that I have made my point. However, I hope that I shall be allowed to make a few further points as well.

Order! The hon. member is digressing a little too far afield with his argument about streets. No reference is made to that in the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I think that as long as I stick to the clause you should please allow me to carry on with my argument. I am saying to the hon. the Minister that he cannot read the legislation. I do not blame him for that, because he does not understand the legislation. [Interjections.] Hon. members must remember that this is a complex measure and I do not think that the hon. the Minister has this result in view as far as this legislation is concerned.

A Select Committee considered it, and I trust them.

The hon. the Minister should not trust everybody. After all, he is the Minister. The hon. the Minister should only look at what is stated here, he must please look at this, and if that is not the result he wants, he must change this clause. Therefore I call upon the hon. the Minister to give serious attention to this clause.

Mr. Chairman. The argument of the hon. member for Langlaagte does really not hold water. I do not want to make a long story about this, but surely the hon. member knows that before anything happens such as that which he anticipated in regard to the Carlton Centre, etc., it first has to be proclaimed. That is the first point. In the second place, I think I have already quoted the following provision to the hon. member—

Let us please not try to score political points off one another or conjure up spectres when it is really not necessary to do so. The point I want to make is that we are here concerned with buildings; offices, workshops, warehouses—that sort of building. So when the hon. member makes the allegation that these Black local authorities are now going to be given more freehold title than White local authorities, then I want to say that the hon. member is by no means correct. I hope that I have now spelt out the position clearly for the hon. member for Langlaagte.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to cut this discussion short. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister what clause of the Bill he quoted just now when he read the provision to me?

Mr. Chairman, I quoted clause 4(7)(c) of the Black Communities Development Bill which has been referred to the Select Committee on the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, that is exactly my problem. The hon. the Minister now wants me to react to a provision of a Bill which has been referred to a Select Committee. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether we cannot refer this clause back to the Select Committee. I do not think the hon. the Minister realizes exactly what is going on here. [Interjections.] I think this clause should be referred back to the Select Committee so that this problem can be reconsidered. We are now working with Black people. They are sophisticated people. The Black people of the urban areas are people who have been trained in local government, and to tell them that they now fall under the authority of a Minister or that they are subject to the way in which a Minister wants implement legislation will be to no avail. We are going to create enormous problems if we tell them that they do have freehold title and then restrict them by means of ministerial directive. This will create enormous problems. I do not want the hon. the Minister to take it amiss of me, but I do want to ask him that he should please not refer to legislation which is not before this House when he explains legislation to us. What he has quoted to us does not form part of this Bill and therefore I want to ask him to please give me a better answer.

Amendments negatived (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25:

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

Here, too, reference is made to the Black Communities Development Bill, 1982, and I accordingly ask the permission of the Committee for the words “as referred to in section 6A of the Blacks (Urban Areas) consolidation Act, 1945 (Act No. 25 of 1945)” to be inserted.

That Act will be placed on the Statute Book and this insertion is therefore unnecessary.

But that is just the problem. The hon. the Minister mentioned that Act tonight and reference is made to it in the Bill as well. This is something which misled all of us.

What is happening here is that we are simply referring back to the original Act. It is therefore not such a terrible sin that is being committed.

Neither is mine.

No, the hon. the Minister’s sin is far greater.

The hon. the Minister should resign.

Surely it is very clear that the hon. the Minister is arguing his case on the basis of a Bill which is before a Select Committee and has therefore not yet been passed by Parliament.

The hon. the Minister says that my argument is wrong when I say that as far as open spaces, parks and public areas are concerned, in terms of Act 7 of 1939 such land belongs to the municipality in trust for the public, and that it has no dominium over such land. As the clause reads at present, the Minister is giving freehold title to Black local authorities and it does not matter what those properties consist of. So there is a difference and there is discrimination. That is why I am moving this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend reacting to the hon. member for Brakpan, but I should like to move amendments Nos. (1) and (2) printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 27, in line 15, after “(a)”, to insert:
   if such local authority is a village council,
2. (2) on page 27, in line 19, to omit “local authority” and to substitute “village council”.

This clause deals with the additional powers which the Minister may confer upon a local authority when he deems it desirable to give them the powers which were those of a development board. Development Board is going to be the new name of an administration board. It is therefore clear that this clause has to do with the event when a local authority gets the additional powers, obligations and responsibilities which would normally be the responsibilities of a development board. Quite clearly it would not be the intention of the Minister to give these additional powers to a village council; it would only be appropriate that those additional powers, equivalent to those of a development board, should be conferred upon a town council. Therefore the two amendments which I have moved make quite clear that the additional powers, or the higher powers, will be conferred upon local authorities which are town councils and not local authorities which are village councils.

Mr. Chairman, my notice has been drawn to the fact that there has been an omission as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Sea Point. I took this up with the legal advisers through the departmental officials and they too admit that there is such an omission. Therefore the two amendments are absolutely acceptable. They are both of a technical nature. I wish to apologize that that omission occurred.

*As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Brakpan is concerned, it is a consequential amendment arising from clause 23 which we have already debated ad nauseam. All I can say further is that just like the hon. member for Langlaagte, the hon. member for Brakpan is not correct in the legal sense. We went into this matter very thoroughly and made quite sure about it. There are at least seven members serving in the Select Committee who are lawyers the majority of whom are representatives of this side of the House. It is therefore unnecessary for me to debate this any further.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister drew my attention to the fact that the word “dorpsbestuur” is used in the Afrikaans translation but that in fact it ought to be “stadsraad”. So we are actually dealing with town councils here, excluding village councils. However, the word used in the clause is “dorpsbestuur”. It should actually be “stadsrade” and not “dorpsbesture”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I cannot change the wording from “dorpsbestuur” to “stadsraad”. As it appears in the clause at present the word is quite correct, and our legal advisers also agreed to it.

Amendments moved by Mr. C. W. Eglin agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. F. J. le Roux put and the Committee divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz. Messrs. S. P. Barnard, J. H. Hoon, T. Langley, F. J. Le Roux, Dr. W. J. Snyman, Messrs. C. Uys, H. D. K. van der Merwe, W. L. van der Merwe, R. F. van Heerden, Dr. F. A. H. van Staden and Mr. J. H. Visagie) appeared on one side,

Amendment declared negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz. Messrs. S. P. Barnard, J. H. Hoon, T. Langley, F. J. le Roux, Dr. W. J. Snyman, Messrs. C. Uys, H. D. K. van der Merwe, W. L. van der Merwe, R. F. van Heerden, Dr. F. A. H. Van Staden and Mr. J. H. Visagie) appeared on one side.

Clause, as amended, declared agreed to.

Clause 29 negatived.

New Clause to follow Clause 28:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

1. (l)
   1. (a) If the Minister is of the opinion—
      1. (i) that any object of this Act is frustrated by a local authority’s failure to exercise or perform a power, function or duty assigned to it by or under this Act (including a failure to make adequate charges in respect of services rendered by such local authority or to meet financial or loan commitments); or
      2. (ii) that a local authority committed an act or omission which is unlawful or which may result in maladministration,
         he may direct such local authority, after he has given the local authority an opportunity to submit representations to him, to take such resolution or to make such by-law or to take such action with in such period as the Minister may consider necessary.
   2. (b) If a local authority fails to comply with a direction under paragraph (a) the Minister may—
      1. (i) himself take such action as he may consider appropriate to eliminate such frustration or to rectify such unlawful act or omission or to prevent such maladministration;
      2. (ii) authorize any other person or body to comply with such direction on behalf of such local authority.
   3. (c) Costs incurred by the Minister or by a person or body by virtue of paragraph (b) shall be payable by or recoverable from the local authority concerned.
2. (2)
   1. (a) If the Minister is of the opinion that the finances of a local authority have become unsound he may direct that local authority to take such steps as the Minister may at his discretion determine for restoring the position.
   2. (b) If the local authority fails to take the necessary steps in accordance with the Minister’s direction within a period determined by him, the Minister may by notice in the Gazette and with effect from a date determined in the notice—
      1. (i) remove from office the persons who are then members of the local authority; or
      2. (ii) dissolve the local authority.
   3. (c) The Minister may, if he has under paragraph (b)(i) removed from office the members of a local authority, by notice in the Gazette—
      1. (i) direct that an election be held in respect of such local authority on a date specified in the notice;
      2. (ii) designate one or more persons to manage and control the affairs of such local authority and on behalf of such local authority to exercise, perform and fulfil the rights, powers, functions, duties and obligations of such local authority during a period specified in the notice.
      3. (iii) extend any period referred to in subparagraph (ii); or
      4. (iv) after the expiration of a period referred to in subparagraph (ii) or as extended under subparagraph (iii) direct that an election be held in respect of such local authority on a date specified in the notice.
   4. (d) The provisions of section 2(3)(b) shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of the dissolution of a local authority under paragraph (b)(ii), and in any such application any reference to a notice in that section shall be construed as a notice issued under paragraph (b)(ii) of this section.
3. (3) A power, function or duty exercised or performed by the Minister or a person or body as may be authorized under or by subsection (l)(b), or a right, power, function, duty or obligation exercised, performed or fulfilled by a person or persons as may be authorized under or by subsection (2)(c)(ii), shall for all purposes be deemed to have been exercised, performed or fulfilled by the local authority concerned.

Agreed to.

Schedule:

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

1. (1) On page 49, to omit item 17 and to substitute:
   17. The establishment, acquisition, construction, maintenance and carrying on, within or outside the area of the local authority, of works for supplying water and the supplying of sewerage and effluent removal services to the residents of that area, and the reticulation of such water and services, and the conditions for the supply of such water, including the discontinuance of such supply, determined and made known by by-law by the local authority from time to time.
2. (2) on page 51, in item 19, after

“water”, to insert “sewage and effluent”.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to react briefly to the question of where this legislation fits in. Into which constitutional framework does this Bill fit? The hon. the Minister said that this new body is not in conflict with the Government’s policy on national States. If the hon. the Minister is satisfied that it is not in conflict with that policy, it is all very well seen from his side, but after we have analysed this legislation carefully, we cannot see any link or connection between these new bodies and the national States. If there were such a link, this legislation would not have been acceptable to us. Because there is no such link in this legislation, we are prepared to support it.

Mr. Speaker, the CP will not support the Third Reading of the Bill, and our refusal in fact follows from what the hon. member for Sea Point has just said, namely that his party supports the legislation because it is quite clear that there is no connection between the urban local authorities and the national States. In our opinion, the hon. member is mistaken in this regard. If the hon. the Minister maintains that the urban local authorities are going to move away from the structures in which we have always believed, in other words that their links with the national States are going to be severed this is a further reason why we cannot support the Third Reading.

The main reason why we cannot support it is that an important principle in connection with freehold ownership of land is being conceded here. This is in conflict with the standpoint the NP has adopted over the years. In the first place, a discriminatory aspect is inherent in this legislation, and in the second place, if Black municipalities or local authorities can have freehold rights over land, the opposite ought also to apply and White corporations ought also to be able to have freehold rights in the national States, until such time as they gain their independence.

Under these circumstances the CP is not prepared to support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are now nearing the end of a debate which will certainly have far-reaching consequences for South Africa. The hon. the Minister said here—

Unfortunately the hon. the Minister did not elaborate on the “here and there”, but he said that in principle this legislation was the same as that legislation. However, I think the hon. the Minister must admit this evening—everyone in this House must admit it—that we are moving completely away from the idea that the urban Blacks must have links or ties with the homelands. Here we have a total severing of links. I can understand that the PFP and the hon. member for Durban Point’s party find this principle acceptable, but I do not think my friends in the NP are quite sure what they are voting for this evening. [Interjections.]

In the times which lie ahead, the hon. the Minister will have to accept that he gave Blacks, Black municipalities, freehold or proprietary rights in urban complexes. [Interjections.] I have already indicated what problems can arise with regard to roads that have been closed. A street may, for example, be deproclaimed. Then it is your property and you can use it for housing purposes. One can also use one’s parks for housing purposes. I have nothing against the provision of housing, but the principle of freehold in White areas is monstrous.

It is not freehold.

It will mean that one has a third aspect at full political citizenship of South Africa. The Government must not introduce clandestine reforms. The Government must tell the people what it is doing. It must tell the people that the next step will be full citizenship in a unitary State. [Interjections.] If it was merely faulty reasoning on the part of the hon. the Minister, one could overlook it, but I no longer believe that it is ignorance which is behind this legislation. In the past we held discussions in the caucus, and of course I do not reveal caucus secrets. [Interjections.] However, there were discussions on this kind of legislation. We were promised that this kind of thing would not become part of legislation and that it was not the object to introduce freehold …

He is now revealing caucus secrets!

No, I am not referring to a caucus meeting now. It was a committee meeting chaired by the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] It was an ordinary committee meeting. I hope committee meetings are not also secret now. The point I want to make is the situation South Africa could find itself in. If we tell this to the voters outside and they accept it, then I cannot argue. However, are we telling the people what we are doing? These are clandestine methods to arrive at something which the hon. the Minister has been envisaging by for years now. It appeared in his thesis, and I can understand it. I can understand that a Minister who has had this view of specific matters for many years and who has done a great deal for the Blacks for many years would eventually introduce this kind of legislation. The hon. the Minister has dedicated his entire life to giving the Black man in South Africa a dispensation. However, he must now take his place alongside the PFP and state his standpoints from that vantage point. We have seen so many committees appointed to investigate these matters and for many years we have seen successive attempts to get the things which are contained in this Bill today, piloted through this House. I am issuing a warning today …

Your warning means nothing.

… that the Government must tell the public what it is doing. It must ask the public whether it wants the Blacks to have freehold or not. The hon. the Minister has not replied to my question. He replied in general terms to the statement that the Blacks in the Western Cape will not receive freehold. I should just like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this legislation is applicable to the Western Cape.

You can look it up in Hansard. I am not going to repeat it at this hour of the morning just to please you. If you want to have fun with these matters you must do so elsewhere.

This is the arrogance we are faced with. I am putting questions on behalf of my people and I am entitled to a reply from this hon. Minister.

I have already replied to your question.

Until such time as the hon. the Minister replies to me, I shall have to continue to make these statements. I asked the hon. the Minister whether the provisions of this Bill would be applicable in the Cape. Does the hon. the Minister not know?

I have already replied to you.

Is it not applicable?

I have already replied to you.

The hon. the Minister says he has already replied. The hon. the Minister said that the 99-year leasehold was not applicable.

But of course not. Now you know that I have already replied.

The hon. the Minister does not know the difference between 99-year leasehold and this legislation. They have nothing to do with each other. There is no link between the two. The hon. the Minister is suggesting here that I may not put questions to him on the Bill before this House.

Do you not doctor your speeches?

No, we thought we would vote. We expected to vote on certain of these clauses at least and possibly to take the matter further by asking the kind of questions we shall have to reply to in our constituencies. Now the hon. the Minister is refusing to reply to questions. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it would seem that the Government’s attitude is simply to shout down any questions on its political policy.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to conduct a general political debate and to digress from the Bill?

Order! I have already brought this to the hon. member’s attention. He must confine himself to the Bill.

Thank you, Sir. I want to return to the situation where, in my country, in terms of this Bill, freehold and what has been reserved for my people over the years is now being relinquished to other people. I maintain that we in this House have not been given enough time to study this Bill properly because of the haste with which it is being bulldozed through Parliament. A Bill which is as important to the whole of South Africa as this Bill is, ought not to be dealt with during the final hours of a session. [Interjections.]

It has been available for three years now.

Yes, it has been available for three years, but the Government could not get it passed while we were still on that side. [Interjections.] Now it has been placed before us in a clandestine way because it has gone through a caucus which binds people.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a final word on this matter from our side of the House. The specific principles of this Bill were accepted during the Second Reading debate, and as we have now reached the Third Reading stage, where is at issue is the effect this will have on society. As I have come to know the NP over the years, this is not only an acknowledgement of the fact that Black people may sell their labour in the White areas and may settle there, but also that in this way the Minister concerned has made a start with the settlement of Black people in the White area, and everything this will entail, and that in a few years’ time the left wing of the NP will be making the same demands such PFP members as the hon. member Prof. Olivier made 20 years ago. Today the NP is where the PFP was 20 years ago. In conclusion, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in five or ten years’ time, if we are spared, we shall see where the left wing of the NP has in fact taken South Africa and the White man.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a great pity that in the discussion of a Bill as important as this, the hon. members of the CP saw fit to try to turn it into a general political debate. There are two reasons for this. One reason is that the hon. members are dissatisfied with me personally because yesterday evening, in a general debate, I took matters with them which really hurt them. That is the first reason.

That was not the end of that debate.

In the second place it is quite clear that at the end of the session the hon. members are trying to make the maximum political capital from a Bill which they supported enthusiastically while it was being drafted and while they were still on this side of the House.

That is untrue.

Even in his time Advocate Vorster stated most emphatically that full-fledged local authorities would be created for the Black people in this country, local authorities which would have more powers than those of the Whites. [Interjections.] They supported it. Mr. Vorster then appointed the Riekert Commission to investigate the entire matter. This matter was then studied with the greatest possible care—while those hon. members were still in the NP—to ensure it would really be a success. The matter was then referred to various committees and eventually to a Select Committee of the Parliament. The Bill being considered here this evening is the product of the Select Committee on the Constitution. This side of the House had the majority in that committee. It is therefore absolutely untrue for those hon. members to argue here that this is a deviation from NP policy—I am not even referring to principles—with regard to the establishment of third-tier government. [Interjections.] I want to emphasize that in this legislation we find self-determination on the third level of government. This is a principle and a policy that hon. members who are now in the CP have always supported. However, those hon. members are now plaintively trying to make the country believe that the Government is now engaged in a clandestine undertaking, as the hon. member put it. Sir, nothing is being concealed here. Our arguments here were based solely on sound principles, the problems were cleared up and the provisions in the legislation quite clearly give the Black people what Mr. Vorster envisaged for them. Hon. members of the CP tried to advance this in support of their own case this evening.

However, this Bill is going to have other results as well, and when I have made this final point, I hope at the same time I shall have illustrated as I already did earlier this evening, the absolute lack of policy and bankruptcy of the CP. Their lack of policy and bankruptcy since they broke away from the NP, has not been more manifestly and significantly illustrated than it was this evening. It was pitiable to see. [Interjections.] It was absolutely heart-breaking. [Interjections.] Of course the hon. members are hurt now.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member should go and sleep for a while so that he can feel better. [Interjections.] Initially those hon. members supported this Bill, but now they no longer support it.

That is an untruth, and you know it.

Surely those hon. members know the history of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Waterkloof entitled to say “that is an untruth, and you know it”?

Order! The hon. member for Waterkloof must withdraw the words “and you know it”.

Sir, I withdraw them.

We supported the original Bill, not so?

But then surely those hon. members supported the Bill.

Yes, but then a change in the principle was effected.

The CP—special provision was made for them—had two representatives on the Select Committee and they were conspicuous by their absence.

Do not tell that story again.

Of course the hon. members were conspicuous by their absence. [Interjections.] On one occasion that Select Committee sat until after one o’clock in the morning. All the other hon. members of the Select Committee were witnesses to the fact that the CP’s seats were regularly unoccupied. They therefore do not know what is happening, yet they are behaving in this way this evening. [Interjections.] I want to raise one final point. From what we have seen this evening there is something else which is quite clear, and that is the extent to which the CP is going to lag behind in this country. The effect of this legislation will not only be to favour the Black people who are going to get their own economic city councils now. As a result of the activities of the Select Committee on the Constitution another very important contribution was made, namely that in future the activities of Parliament are going to be different because it was proved unequivocally here that it is possible by means of the Select Committee system to have consensus politics instead of conflict politics. The only group in this House this evening that does not understand what consensus politics between the Whites and the various non-White groups in this country is, is those plaintive members sitting in those benches. The country will condemn them harshly for this. They are not only lagging behind, but while they wail like banshees as they are doing now, this nation which, like the rest of this House, is united this evening, will ensure that they remain such a small group until their commonsense tells them that they are lagging too far behind. If they want to keep up they will have to keep pace with the NP, which has always been right with regard to these basic matters. [Interjections.] I am very proud to be able to introduce this Bill in this House this evening, with such a great degree of consensus. The only exception in those people who are sowing discord in this country, and that is the group sitting over there.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz. Messrs. S. P. Barnard, J. H. Hoon, T. Langley, F. J. le Roux, Dr. W. J. Snyman, Messrs. C. Uys, H. D. K. van der Merwe, W. L. van der Merwe, R. F. van Heerden, Dr. F. A. H. van Staden and Mr. J. H. Visagie) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, a good officer is aware of the fact that after a certain number of hours, his men may no longer be in such a good condition to attack as they would be after a good night’s rest. We on this side of the House do have some hours left, and we believe that we shall be able to launch this attack effectively.

I want to talk about the Defence Amendment Bill tonight and I want to say that when this Bill with its far-reaching implications—economic as well as with regard to service and hardship—was submitted to this House, we decided to approach the Bill in such a way as to ensure that the economic and social interests of the community would be served in the best possible way. We therefore recommended that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading so that all its aspects could be considered calmly and so that an amended Bill could be brought to this House which would be in accordance with our principles as far as defence matters are concerned.

What principles do you have?

We in this party have always been committed to a peaceful South African society. We are committed to stability, law and order. We are also committed to the protection of our territorial integrity and to maintaining an effective Defence Force. We have always believed and propagated that the problems of South Africa should not be solved only militarily, but also by means of political action, in a democratic way. It has always been our standpoint that the role of the Defence Force is to maintain order while deliberations and negotiations are taking place in order to find an internal constitutional solution for our country. That is why we have supported the principle of Citizen Force service, while we have always believed that a multiracial Permanent Force should be expanded because it has been proved over and over again that a professional army is more effective, generally speaking, and, in particular, more cost effective. In addition, it should be said that an expanded and multiracial Permanent Force would finally put a stop to the idea that Whites are being mobilized against Blacks here in South Africa. However, what was the attitude of the members on the Select Committee?

Now you must be careful.

I want to put it to you quite frankly that little effort was made on the Select Committee, in the first place, to achieve consensus. Little effort was made by hon. members on that side of the House to achieve consensus. There was an inadequate inquiry into the economic implication of the Bill as a whole and the manpower implications were not sufficiently investigated. In the second place, there was no acceptance of the fact that the Permanent Force should really be expanded in order to lighten the increasing burden on the Citizen Force members. I do not want to take up the time of the House by quoting from the report. It is recorded here and it is there for everyone to see.

Only two important amendments to this legislation have been accepted. The one was the acceptance of the principle that it would not be retrospective and the other was the lowering of the age limit for compulsory service from 60 years to 55 years. I want to concede that in the debate that was conducted, the hon. the Minister gave the assurance that the commando forces would be regulated in such a way as to meet the local requirements. This undertaking given by the hon. the Minister was encouraging and accommodating and we are grateful for it. At the same time, however, I want to point out that this does not mean that there will be an equal distribution of the burden as far as the commando force units are concerned. This may cause problems in the sense that in certain areas, people up to the age of 55 years will in fact be called up, while in other areas, the age up to which people are called up will be lower. However, I understand that under the circumstances nothing else can be done.

†In dealing with the Bill, we try to give effect to certain principles, some of which were enunciated earlier. The important principles were firstly, that South Africa had to be defended against external aggression as well as internal terror. Secondly, that the South African Defence Force had to have adequate resources of manpower to perform its task but that the resources had to be very, very carefully allocated. Therefore, not only must the Defence Force be kept going but we must also provide in legislation for the resources which we have to be used to bring about a lasting peace. We dare not deprive the country of the manpower resources required to bring about social, economic and political change. When we consider some of the evidence that was submitted by organizations in the private sector we find that they are as concerned about these aspects as we are. I want to quote from one or two of these documents. The first quotation I wish to make from a document submitted by Assocom. They say, inter alia—

They recognized the danger that this Bill presented to the economy in the form in which it was framed. They went on to say—

Members of the Select Committees will recall that I and colleagues asked whether it would be possible for the Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister to be asked to give evidence before the Select Committee. That, however, was not possible. It was asked whether the Department of Manpower could give evidence before the Select Committee. The document which we received from that department was marked “secret” but I take it that the part which I want to quote is not secret. It reads as follows—

*The document goes on to refer to other ways in which arrangements can be made, but basically, neither the Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister nor the Director-General of Manpower had any idea of the effect this would have on the utilization of manpower.

†In addition I said that we as a party believed in an enlarged Permanent Force. We believe in this because it would be far less disruptive to the economy than the system suggested in terms of the Bill. We know that it is far more cost effective. We know that it draws from all segments of the community, and in the time in which we live it will help in the need to create jobs for those who are up to the standards set by the S.A. Defence Force.

If ever there has been a time when the S.A. Defence Force could build up the numbers of the Permanent Force, it is now, because now South Africa is in fact starting to face a real economic slow down in which the Permanent Force could offer opportunities to a great number of young men.

While we seek to bring about and advise the hon. the Minister to bring about an enlarged Permanent Force, we do not say that the Permanent Force can fulfil the entire needs of our Defence Force. It is clear to us that national servicemen will still be needed and that national service will have to continue. It is also clear, however, that with a little imagination much can be done to relieve the pressure on the non-professional soldiers. These thoughts which we expressed in the Select Committee and later on in the House were to a large extent ignored by those who could have helped in creating a better Bill.

I believe that in later years this Bill will become known as a Bill of lost opportunities. I believe that in this Bill the hon. the Minister of Defence had an opportunity to show that in his very sensitive portfolio he stood above the hurly-burly of party politics. I believe that in this he failed.

I want to remind the House that the PFP has always stood for keeping defence matters out of the political hurly-burly. In fact, we have always tried to keep such matters out of the hurly-burly of politics. This point of view of ourparty is one of the reasons why we suggested originally that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading. In the calm, quiet atmosphere of a Select Committee we would have been able to discuss improvements to the Bill without being engaged in arguments in the House where at times heated answers were given to different arguments.

You only wanted to delay the legislation, and that is why you suggested such a Select Committee.

That is the one area in which, I believe, the hon. the Minister has failed. I do believe, however, that the private sector will also never forgive the hon. the Minister for his failure to ensure that their representation was given due consideration in the Select Committee.

The hon. the Minister may well say, of course, that he did not chair that committee. That is absolutely true, of course. The people who are responsible to him however, the defence study group, are the people who will have to bear the ultimate responsibility for this, and the net result is now that all the documents that were submitted to the Select Committee by all those various organizations did not receive the fair treatment which they deserved, in spite of the fact that we in the PFP do everything possible to bring this about.

There were some institutions that only submitted evidence in writing, but who indeed asked whether they could give verbal evidence.

*I may mention two of these institutions as examples. The United Municipal Executive of South Africa says—

The S.A. Federated Chamber of Industries says—

If you wanted those two bodies to be called, why did you not ask the Committee to do so?

Mr. Speaker, I did not specifically refer to these two documents. These two documents just happened to be among many others. I asked on several occasions whether we could not consider a document which had been sent in as evidence, and the hon. member for Simonstown knows very well that that is so. He knows it as well as I do. My requests were, however, turned down; I was outvoted by hon. members on the Government side. [Interjections.] Allow me to state, however, that those bodies who expressed the desire of following up their written representations by giving oral evidence, were slighted and, I am afraid, have lost confidence, perhaps only in the hon. the Minister, but perhaps in the Government as well.

I am not alone in saying this. Even Die Transvaler—and I happen to have the report here in my hand—had reason to complain on 9 June 1982.

*What does Die Transvaler say? I quote—

This is the same omission to which I have just referred—

That is not a newspaper which supports the PFP. I take it that this is a newspaper which supports the governing party. However, even this newspaper expressed the opinion that justice was not done on that Select Committee.

†Since his becoming Minister of Defence, the previous Chief of the S.A. Defence Force indeed seems to have forgotten the need for political change in order to create a potentially peaceful society. Where, some years ago, it was that hon. Minister, in his previous position, who, frequently, at every opportunity, reminded South Africa that 80% of the solution was to be found in the political field, and 20% in the military field, we have now gone through this entire debate, and unless I have happened to walk out at the wrong moment, I simply cannot recall the hon. the Minister, as strongly and as emphatically as he used to, stressing that fact again here. I believe it is necessary that this could be done because it is not enough for young men—and after this Bill has been adopted, also older men—simply to be constantly reminded that they are fighting for a worthwhile cause, for a solution that will bring about peace rather than conflict. It is not enough for them simply to be reminded from time to time. The hon. the Minister must actually deal with the matter seriously.

I am left with the impression that we are facing a period of increasing conflict, one in which the Whites to a far greater extent than before will be drawn into the Defence Force on a semi-permanent basis, because there seems to be no end to the manpower required by the S.A. Defence Force. I believe it is the duty of the hon. the Minister to deal with the threat and to explain it in suchy a manner as to gain the confidence of the citizens so that they will be prepared to make their contribution willingly. However, it is not being done. In fact, if I may quote from another document that was also sent in as evidence, I should like to point out what Assocom had to say in this regard, namely—

That is what they require. They go on to say—

The cry of “wolf, wolf” is therefore no longer having the desired effect.

Finally, I should like to ask what the immediate consequences of this Bill are. Firstly, the result will be that the group of economically active White South Africans—and we are talking about approximately 1,2 million—will not only have to keep the economy going but will also be solely responsible for the defence of South Africa. That is one result of this Bill. When I say “solely” it is so close to solely that it makes no difference. A large multiracial Permanent Force would have countered this, and we were in favour of this right from the beginning. Secondly, it will mean that between 200 000 and 300 000 young and not so young South Africans will for considerable periods of their economically active lives be involved in military matters. In addition to this, their employers will find it increasingly difficult as time goes by to pay out salaries to equalize those being paid by the military. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister whether it was perhaps not the time this year to have come to some kind of arrangement with the hon. the Minister of Finance to amend the Income Tax Act in such a way as to make it possible for companies and employers to equalize the pay without suffering too much.

Mr. Speaker, in this Third Reading of the Defence Amendment Bill I should like to refer to Hansard, column 3629, where the hon. the Minister said that the primary aim of the amendments to the system of national service is to provide the S.A. Defence Force with a guaranteed supply of manpower for the next five years. I suggest that this amending Bill satisfies that requirement. The second object is to distribute the liability to render national service more evenly, by so doing restricting the burden on the individual as much as possible. I believe that the Bill before this House achieves this object too. The third aspect is—

The legislation before this House meets this need as well. In the past there were deficiencies in the legislation as far as the burden of defence is concerned, because in the past the burden of defence was limited to only about 20% of White men. In reality 25% of White men had to bear the total burden. Moreover, service credit was not granted on a daily basis, and we felt that this was not right. We felt that service credit should be granted on a daily basis. Experience has taught us that one cannot rely on volunteers. This was one of the deficiencies. A further deficiency was that training did not extend for long enough to establish a leadership corps.

The threat to South Africa is becoming more acute. We see this internally in the form of bomb explosions, but we know, too, that the onslaught from outside is building up. I just wish to mention briefly, for the sake of the record, that between 1977 and 1981 the armies of the unfriendly countries surrounding us have grown from 87 000 men to 270 000, a threefold increase in manpower—in potential enemies—over a period of four years. It is very clear that the onslaught is escalating. Let me take the increase in tanks. Over the same period they have doubled in number from 360 to approximately 740. However, we still have people who say that as yet there is not a potential threat. Why, then, the build-up? When the Portuguese withdrew, the manpower which would have been pro-Western also diminished, and Soviet expansionism is now reaching the crest of the wave, and we must guard against that.

A great deal has been said about the Select Committee, and I should like to raise a few points relating to the Select Committee. I was chairman of that Select Committee. The hon. the Minister had nothing whatsoever to do with the decisions on procedure I took there. I accept responsibility for the decisions I took. However, there are hon. members—I want to make special mention of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—who quoted my decisions and criticized them. However, if they were not satisfied with my decisions, the correct procedure was to have appealed to the hon. Speaker. That is the correct method, not coming and telling tales afterwards. The hon. member for Yeoville, who is technically very well informed about these matters, did not argue along those lines because he knew he would be wrong if he had argued as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was not even a member of that Select Committee. When a chairman gives a ruling on procedure, an appeal can always be made to the Speaker. However, the hon. member did not do this. This is not the place to kick up a fuss about that. That is wrong. I also think it is totally unethical. [Interjections.] Reference has been made to the fact that we have to reach consensus. That was the problem. The hon. member for Wynberg said that they wanted to have recourse to a Select Committee until “our principles have been complied with”. Those were his approximate words. How can one “reach consensus” if one says “until our principles are accepted”. An effort was made to achieve consensus.

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member tell me where their principles as regards defence differ from ours?

I just wish to tell that hon. member what we were never able to achieve consensus about. They are in favour of an enlarged Permanent Force, but one of the principles laid down during the Second Reading stage was that the Permanent Force was not at issue. In terms of the principles accepted during the Second Reading we were therefore unable to expand the Permanent Force. We simply could not reach consensus on that because apparently those hon. members simply did not understand what principles had been laid down during the Second Reading. The problem really lies with that party. One can see it in their ranks. A report in the Sunday Times of 28 March 1982 reads—

Therefore there is no consensus in that party, and that is the problem.

I now wish to say a few words about 32 Battalion. I have before me the March/April edition of Uniform, in which reference is made to the “super-success” of 32 Battalion. Our enemies have experienced the “supersuccess” of 32 Battalion. It is something outstanding. Our Defence Force is ready for action. However, what does the hon. member for Constantia say? Barely a month after that, when the ink in this publication was scarcely dry, the hon. member was already undermining the image of the Defence Force. What did the hon. member say? He took the field against …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: What has this to do with the Bill under discussion?

Do not be so oversensitive. He said the following about 32 Battalion—

I am not saying that the hon. member did that knowingly, but the effect of what he said was to undermine the battalion merely because it was being extolled, and to undermine it to such an extent that the hon. member for Yeoville had to repudiate him, and I want to give the hon. member for Yeoville full credit for doing so.

There was also a discussion of the bodies which submitted documents to us. We wish to convey our sincere thanks to the persons and bodies that submitted memoranda. However, not a single hon. member on that side of the House deemed it worthwhile to call for oral evidence to be led concerning any of the memoranda submitted. Now they come here as the great champions. When they should have done so, when they should have said that those people were so important that they had to be called, they did not do so. Therefore I cannot understand why they are complaining now. However, do hon. members know what they did do? They asked us to obtain certain information from the Department of Manpower. I had an agreement with the hon. member for Yeoville and I obtained the information for them, information relating to the economic aspect. But then those hon. members wanted something else. Their idea was that this legislation should not go through this year. That was the problem. It is early in the morning and I therefore wish to conclude by saying that the effect of this legislation is that the period of service will be 720 days after the initial two years. As far as the 11th and 12th years are concerned, the hon. the Minister said that he would take the responsibility for the call-up in those two years. We are very grateful to him for that. He also said that he would consider whether he could not enlarge the Exemption Board by bringing in private bodies. We are grateful to him for that. I want to say that we have a peoples’ Defence Force and that we believe in it. The economic problem on the one hand, and the demands of the Defence Force on the other, are being weighed up against each other. The fluctuating requirements of the economy must be reconciled with the fluctuating military requirements, and the first way in which this can be done is by means of a board. This new system will ensure that South Africa remains one of the most secure countries in the world. I believe that it is the duty of every South African to support us so that the Defence Force can perform its duty without hesitation.

Mr. Speaker, we have thus far supported the principles of this Bill, which concerns a variety of aspects, and we still support it. I do not at this stage wish to repeat all the aspects, as the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has done. There are just two points I wish to raise. As far as the utilization of manpower is concerned, particularly with a view to the time aspect, this could probably be done effectively in a number of ways. There are various formulas one could apply. However, I believe that ultimately the people in the Defence Force who deal with the matter themselves will best know what their needs are, are technically best equipped to decide on the matter and can therefore work out the best formulas. Accordingly we have indicated that the submission made by the Defence Force in this regard is acceptable to us.

It has always been our standpoint that the Defence Force must be afforded the greatest possible assistance by Parliament to enable it to carry out its task as effectively as possible. With that in mind we only ask that the assurance be given that the Defence Force will at all times make an effort to reduce the demand for manpower and that the Defence Force will regularly monitor itself as regards the utilization of manpower with a view to using it as sparingly as possible. We believe that the Defence Force strives for this too. We only wish to stress our hope and request in this regard. I shall let that suffice.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has been debated at length and very fully at the Second Reading stage. It has been to a Select Committee and it has been through the Committee Stage. Therefore I do not intend following the example of the hon. member for Wynberg or the hon. member for Pretoria West by rehashing all the old arguments we have heard over and over again. They have all been dealt with. I did not hear a single new thought or new idea put forward. I do not intend following that example.

I am disappointed that, after the Bill was before a Select Committee and was dealt with here in the Committee Stage, we have arrived at the Third Reading stage with none of our objections in essence having been met. In respect of the previous Bill I paid tribute to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs in his absence—and since he is present now, I should like to repeat it—that the Select Committee of which he was the chairman reconciled divergent views and in some cases fundamentally different views. The Select Committee on this Bill, however, was unable to reconcile differences. The Minister and the Government had already made up their minds and we have the Bill before us essentially as it was introduced. All I therefore intend to do is to state again, though without repeating any of the arguments, the problems we of this party see and which give rise to this party’s attitude to the Bill. Our concern is for the security of South Africa as well as for the men who have to provide that security. We are concerned about the practical effect of this measure, particularly on the men in the Citizen Force. Our attempts to seek alternatives, our attempts to reduce the problems which we foresee, which we believe will create real problems in the Citizen Force, came to nothing. The hon. the Minister gave an undertaking, to which the hon. member for Pretoria West has referred, that he would personally authorize the use of the 11th and 12th years. When I put in an amendment he refused to accept it. I raised with him the possibility of a three year cycle instead of a two year cycle, and this was his answer—

*Whereupon I asked whether the hon. the Minister would not even be prepared to consider a three-year cycle. To that the hon. the Minister replied—

†Of course I did that. Sir, when I asked the hon. the Minister across the floor of the House whether he was not even prepared to look at it, his answer was that I had had my opportunity in the Select Committee. He also said—

What we were trying to do was to find methods to lighten the burden which we believe will react adversely on the men who are the backbone and the core of our defence and on whom the security of South Africa depends, namely the men of our Citizen Force regiments. That remains as it was.

As far as the commandos are concerned, there is a reduction of five years from 60 to 55. We believe 50 would have been better but again the hon. the Minister has said that administratively he will have a 40-50-55 strength. There are problems in this, of course. One may have people who will see it as unfair that a man in one area has to serve for a certain period while a man in another area has to serve for a further 15 years. However, I accept that; I believe one has to be realistic and I do not believe one can use the 800 000 men whom it is intended to register. As far as the commando’s are concerned, I think this measure will help to meet the problems. We accept that with the adjustment the hon. the Minister will not place an unreasonable burden on people.

I see no point in going over the whole debate and repeating all the things that have been said. For those hon. members who may still want to talk, I might point out that there will be no press or publicity for this matter. I do not know what is sought to be achieved by the PFP by just going on and on with a filibuster. I do not intend doing it; 1 merely want to say that disappointed as we are, we will have to vote against the Third Reading of this Bill,

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point expressed his disappointment at certain aspects in his characteristic way. I suppose he has every right to express his disappointment. Of course it is not necessary for those of us on this side of the House to agree with him. In my turn I just want to say from this side of the House that I have tremendous appreciation for the work the chairman of the Committee did.

If the South African Defence Force is expected to provide the necessary security and safety for the Republic of South Africa, it goes without saying that we must look after the Defence Force. We must also consider the position of the Defence Force and what it has done to give us that security. For this reason this new dispensation of longer military service is not a sign of panic as the PFP and their newspapers have alleged. I think it is more a matter of new hope and confidence in the future, because the new dispensation not only brings a better distribution of national service, but also imparts a new feeling of safety and security, both in the cities and in the remote areas of our country. It is true that the practical application of the measure might cause disruptions and problems. However, this must be seen and experienced in the spirit that it is a privilege rather than an obligation to serve in the Defence Force. The South African Defence Force has already fired the imagination of thousands of families, who are directly or indirectly involved in our present military service system. In terms of the new dispensation in the years behind every family will be involved in this national defence force, and this involvement will fill them with pride.

Sir, you must grant me these few minutes this morning. I am extremely grateful for the fact that the South African Defence Force has warded off the onslaught against the RSA, both externally and internally, in a most honourable way for almost two decades. We thank the young men for their valour, their courage and their bravery and we also remember the young men who laid down their lives. I should also like to take this opportunity to convey my sincere thanks to the generals and the other officers involved in drafting this Bill, which took months of research, for their expertise. We know that they are also exemplary patriots and that they only want the best dispensation for South Africa. They took cognizance of all the problems, inter alia, the manpower position and the economic position. We want to convey our thanks to them and tell them that we have every confidence in them.

In conclusion I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his staff for trying to do only what is best for the security of the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, at this hour, when one is legislating by exhaustion, I do not want to repeat all the points raised by previous speakers. I just want to say that the hon. the Minister now has the Bill that he wants. He now has the power to call up all the manpower that he believes he would require. He spoke about wanting ample reserves and he now has it. However, he has a number of tasks to perform. I think these tasks are very important in order to ensure the proper utilization of the manpower that will now be available to him. I think that the first and most important thing that he must do, is to ensure that he has a proper registration right now, before the end of the year, so that he can know what sort of manpower is available. There is an axiom in the Army that good reconnaissance is worth half the battle. The hon. the Minister should ensure that the registration that he does is a good one whereby he will get a proper indication of exactly what each man who comes to him is able to do. I think it is important that he does that. I want to go even further and recommend to the hon. the Minister that it might be advisable to have registering officers rather than sending out forms for everybody to pick up. We know that 70% of the forms in respect of national service that are sent out to be filled in, are completely incomplete. I also want to suggest that every single person in South Africa over the age of 16, including those who are at present in the armed forces, should fill in a registration form. I want to see that this is properly drawn up so that a complete classification of every single person can be obtained. This could then go onto the computer so that the Minister and the Army will have at their disposal the details about people, details which will enable them to know what those people can do. The essential thing is that once one knows what one’s people are capable of doing, one can use them properly in doing just that. It is perfectly truê that in the Army we not only need people to do ordinary jobs but also a lot of fighting men. I clearly agree with what the hon. member Mr. Vermeulen has said. The Army must remember that it also commands civilians in uniform. Civilians constitute a part-time army and therefore it is essential that they be utilized to the full. Once and for all we should try to stop this idea of hundreds of people saying that they have just been wasting their time in the armed forces.

The second point I want to raise is that the Army depends on co-operation between the soldier worker, the employer and the Army. The socio-economic relationship is of great importance. I should like now to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. The manpower requirements of the Defence Force have not been properly calculated in relation to the economic situation in South Africa. As far as I am concerned it is not too late. The Army should do it now. For its own sake it should know what its requirements will be in relation to its demands upon the private sector. I believe the hon. the Minister would be advised to form a committee which consists of the various employers’ organizations, the Department of Manpower, trade unions and, very important, I would also suggest the regimental associations, because through the regimental associations he will be advised of the problems experienced in the commando and ACF units. They are the people who will be able to tell him what the complaints and troubles are. It is very difficult for a commanding officer or an officer in the Active Citizen Force or the commandos to keep on telling his superior officers about the problems experienced by his men. In addition, South African Defence Force officers should serve on that committee as well.

The inter-relationship between the soldier and the civilian lies in the fact that the soldier is a civilian. At all times the hon. the Minister must remember that such a person is part of the Army for a short period and then goes back to civilian life. I can also refer to the question of apprentices and graduates in this regard.

I should like to make one last appeal to the hon. the Minister. I believe the time has come that university students should be utilized while they are at university so that they can render some of their service while they are still at university. I believe something should be done about this. At every university in America, for instance, there is a branch of the ROTC organization for the training of officers. I believe that this is something that should be done.

I believe that the utilization of aptitude tests in the Army should be enlarged to a greater extent. Something should be done about creating a core. Once one knows what one has, one will be able to create commando units of specialists, of older people and to have certain types of commando units which one has never had before. These should not be necessarily fighting units; one can have a psychological commando unit consisting of personnel officers from various firms. One can utilize them all year round. They could spend their three months doing the aptitude tests. There are hundreds of ways one can utilize the available manpower in South Africa. For God’s sake, use it properly!

Mr. Speaker, this is clearly one of the most far-reaching measures that Parliament is being asked to pass this session and probably one of the most far-reaching measures which any recent Parliament has been asked to pass. It is noteworthy that this is turning into a complete non-debate. I suppose that is not too surprising considering the hour of the morning. It is now that one begins to understand what legislation by exhaustion really means. This House has the atmosphere of a forced route march. The only controversial point that has emerged in spite of the very valid arguments advanced by this side of the House was the attempt by the hon. member for Pretoria West to do a little stirring about something that is about seven weeks old. I suppose I should react to that. I must say that to the extent that there was an issue in regard to the questions I put to the hon. the Minister during the discussion of the Defence Vote about 32 Battalion in regard to matters that had been published, I think that the hon. member for Pretoria West should take his complaint to the hon. the Minister. Quite frankly, at 22h20 the hon. the Minister could have reacted quite differently and simply dispatched the matter and nothing would have been heard or said about it. [Interjections.] However, he chose to react in a somewhat different way, a rather disappointing way, and the matter was more widely aired than it otherwise might have been.

May I ask a question? Has the hon. member ever apologized in regard to what he said about 32 Battalion?

Mr. Speaker, I owe that hon. member absolutely no apology whatsoever. [Interjections.] I do not owe anybody on that side of the House an apology. Although I could make some remarks about remarks that were passed at the time, I shall leave the matter at that.

I want to say that this side of the House, the official Opposition, sees it as a legitimate area of concern to monitor the conduct of any conflict in which we are engaged in Southern Africa. We see that not only as a legitimate concern but also as a duty of an Opposition, and we will not be deterred from asking whatever tough questions may need to be asked in the future. [Interjections.]

This Bill before us has been brought to this House because it has been put to us that there is an excalating threat and the Bill is required in order to meet that threat. It has been suggested in this and other debates that there is a difference in the approach between that side of the House and this side of the House on the question of the escalating threat. Some hon. members have accused us of not taking the escalating threat seriously. I want to tell hon. members that we certainly do take the escalating threat seriously. We can see that there is an escalating threat.

You do not believe that there are Russians on the border?

Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with that hon. member. We have no argument in regard to the seriousness of the threat that is developing in Southern Africa. It does not require much perception to see what is happening in South West Africa and Angola. It does not require much perception to see what is happening within the borders of South Africa. It is quite clear that there is conflict. There have been analyses made of revolutionary warfare around the world, and a classic five-stage pattern of revolutionary warfare has been identified. The hon. the Minister will be well aware of this five-stage pattern where by a start is made with propaganda and where by regular warfare is the end results. It is clear to any observer with insight that in South West Africa and Angola this pattern has reached a fairly advanced stage and that one can possibly say that the isolated attacks which have taken place within the Republic fit into the early stages of that same pattern. We recognize that.

The difference between us and that side of the House, when we talk about the escalating threat, lies in our respective views regarding the nature of the threat and the methods of dealing with the threat. This is what the debate is all about and it is a profound debate in which we should be engaged in a serious and objective manner. We should not simply be abusing each other.

When it comes to the nature of the threat, we would argue that too much emphasis is placed upon the communistic elements and too little emphasis on the Black nationalism elements of the threat. No sensible observer will deny that there are elements of communist power stirring up the pot, stirring up troubled water, involved. Nobody can deny that, but it is the extent to which those elements are a factor that can be debated. Furthermore, I do not believe that any objective observer can deny that there is a strong element of Black nationalism involved in the threat. It is the extent to which that is a factor which needs to be debated and taken into account in this House.

The method of dealing with the threat is perhaps the most important debate of all. We would put it to the House that after all these laws have been passed, after we have adopted this Bill which is one of the most far-reaching Bills one could possibly adopt because, on paper, it conscripts most of the White males in South Africa; after doing all this which is about the maximum that can be done, we shall actually not be better off and we shall not be in a better position to deal with the escalating threat; we shall actually be in a worse position.

Why do you say that?

I put to you that the more one puts into the military machine, the more the military machine absorbs of the precious resources of South Africa, the less will be available to be applied in the socioeconomic areas …

And now you want us to abolish the military machine!

Don’t make yourself ridiculous.

Vlokkie, you are not that stupid, are you? [Interjections.]

It is a common wisdom that the problem is 80% socio-economic and only 20% military. It is a common wisdom, but we do not do enough about it. The Government does not take it up seriously. If one is going to draw manpower and resources out of the economy, one is going to make it that much more difficult to solve the socio-economic problems. If one applies that manpower and those resources to the purely military element of the equation, one must bear in mind that the military element is only 20% of the problem.

It is important for us to remember that there is a rather chilling analogy between what we are doing tonight and what was done in Rhodesia ten years ago. Ten years ago they had a nine months’ call up in Rhodesia and they passed a Bill in the face of a fair amount of opposition from commerce and industry to bring into effect on 1 January 1973 a virtual doubling of the manpower resources available to the Defence Force of Rhodesia. We know what happened in Rhodesia. Their military efforts were inadequate and never helped them to solve their problems. I thought it would be useful just to refer the House to two quotations which arose at the time when Rhodesia went through that phase because I think they are opposite to our situation today. The first one I want to refer to is a statement made by Mr. Alan Savory, a man who was prominent in political circles some years ago. The hon. the Minister may be familiar with this statement. It was made in April 1973. Apart from his political activities, Mr. Alan Savory was also a territorial officer, a man with extensive experience of guerrilla warfare. In his statement Mr. Savory said—

That is what Mr. Savory said at the time, and I believe there was wisdom in that statement, wisdom which was overlooked.

Another quote which, I believe, contains wisdom of which we should take note, is a statement made by Gen. Sam Putterill. Gen. Putterill could speak on this matter with some authority because he was a very successful commander of the forces that dealt with the Zambezi raids in the 1960s. He said the following—

What did the Government do to Gen. Putterill? They denounced him as a traitor and a communist. That is the tragedy of it all, that in this kind of situation objectively is clouded, and the real possibilities of reaching solutions are lost.

I am going to tell Harry Schwarz what nonsense you are talking here! [Interjections.]

No, he is only telling the truth!

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of comment one can expect from the kitchen of the National Party. [Interjections.] I should like to conclude by pointing out what possible effects this legislation could have. This Bill presents White South Africa at least with a rather sombre prospect of a lifetime involvement in an increasingly militarized society. It is sad but this is not going to be an attractive proposition for many of our youngsters. I hate to say it, but I believe that we are going to find what was found in Rhodesia, namely the great numbers of youngsters will decide to leave the country of their birth because they will not be willing to face up to this rather sombre prospect. [Interjections.]

Order!

When the Government talks about the escalating threat we believe it is our duty to continue to say to the Government that the way in which we should deal with this escalating threat—the most effective way—is to go to the heart of the problem and to remove the points of friction, to remove the underlying causes of discontent in our society. Having done that we will have gone a very long way to solving the escalating threat, and we will also not have to put as much of our resources into the military as we are being asked to do now. True security for the Republic of South Africa can only lie in justice for all its people. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, to start with I should like to convey my most sincere thanks to the members of the Select Committee, and in particular the chairman of the Committee, the hon. member for Pretoria West, for the capable way in which the Committee carried out its assignment. Although the Committee could not reach consensus with regard to certain of the controversial aspects, I hear that there were nevertheless meaningful discussions between members, and between the Committee and the representatives of the Defence Force, from which members gained a better insight into certain security matters. The chairman of the Select Committee definitely cannot be blamed for the fact that consensus could not be reached with regard to all the clauses. I accept full responsibility for this.

With regard to the major issue in this Bill, namely guaranteed manpower to defend our country, I think there is in fact unanimity among the respective parties. As far as I am concerned, this is most important, because herein lies a message to our enemies, namely that this House still stands united on the defence of the Republic of South Africa. We may differ on what we need to defend South Africa, and on how we are going to do so, and it is also a good thing for us to have divergent opinions on this, otherwise our military leaders could easily become over-confident and complacent. However, as long as we can discuss our difference in a responsible way—as was again proved during the debates on this subject—this can only be to the good of our Defence Force and the defence of our country.

†Apart from the support by all hon. members of the fact that we do need more manpower because of the escalating onslaught, it was also acknowledged in the leader articles of the opposition Press that the onslaught was escalating and had to be dealt with accordingly. I am not going to quote from any newspaper in regard to the matter before the House, but The Cape Times wrote in a leader as recently as 4 June that—

The author of the article also made the point that the systematic programme of sabotage in South Africa was getting worse. In the same leader there was extensive reference to various types of unrest within the borders of South Africa. In another article the editor of an English Sunday newspaper made a very valid point when he said that—

In a recent independent and scientific survey among the urban White population of South Africa, almost 70% of the respondents indicated that it was in the country’s interest that the national service system had to be changed and adapted to counter the escalation of the onslaught. They also indicated that it was their duty to support alterations to the system. Only 16% of the respondents was of the opinion that there were better alternatives. For the edification of the hon. member for Wynberg, I wish to make it clear that this survey was conducted for the Defence Force by an independent and scientific market research body. It should also be noted that the purpose of this survey was not to prove anything to hon. members of this House, but it was done for the S.A. Defence Force in order to enable them to do their planning for the marketing of the system to the public of South Africa and, after approval by Parliament, the marketing will now be done. Another point that should prove interesting is the fact that this research was done in the urban areas where the Opposition will acknowledge that they have their grass-root support.

*With regard to the work of the Select Committee, I also want to thank all the bodies and individuals who submitted written evidence for their interest and for their opinions and suggestions. Unfortunately there was not sufficient time for them to give oral evidence before the Committee as well. In future, cognizance will, however, be taken of their standpoints. The mere fact that so many bodies and individuals put forward their views on matters and made suggestions, is in itself encouraging and an indication that the general public has the defence of our country at heart.

I also want to thank hon. members on this side of the House and members of the CP for their positive support for the measure, and for their contributions during the respective stages of the Bill. The contributions of hon. members attested to a good understanding of the times in which we live, and to thorough preparation. I think that in future they will remain important agents for the marketing of the system among their voters, because what is at issue, after all, is our continued existence in this country.

If we consider the recent acts of sabotage in the Republic of South Africa, and we link these to what has already been said about the onslaught, there can no longer be any doubt in the minds of hon. members of this House regarding the necessity for the overhaul of the system. I am referring here specifically to the most recent events which are still fresh in our memories, for example the acts of sabotage at Hectorspruit, Paulpietersburg and, last week, at the President’s Council building right here in Cape Town. This, in fact, proves that regional coverage is essential.

I should like to take this opportunity to convey my congratulations to Philip Scheepers who shot the two terrorists at Paulpietersburg. He is a member of the commandos, the regional force, and his father is an officer in the commandos and a volunteer as well. I should like to convey our thanks to them on behalf of this House. The most important aspect of this is that it proves that the system works. Another important aspect was Philip Scheepers’ comment on the incident. He said that he is still alive today because he was protected by God and his good military training. Of course, this regional coverage does not mean that sabotage will no longer occur, but hon. members will agree with me that it will be greatly discouraged. In addition, training gives the general public greater self-confidence. Hon. members must realize that terrorism is a modern phenomenon which can be compared to crime. No Police Force has ever been able to eliminate crime. However, an effective Police Force can combat crime. In the same way, an effective regional force can keep internal terrorism within bounds.

What was, however, noticeable about the general public’s understanding of this system, was the fact that the public considered an adjustment essential, but did not yet realize what this change involved. During the Second Reading debate I indicated that we were to a great extent frustrated in our attempts to inform the public of the scope of this measure in a balanced way. The leak to a certain newspaper group resulted in the hard facts of the Bill being announced to the public without any motivation and without any reference to balanced application. I hope and trust that in future the media, with due regard to their ethics, will rectify this matter and in the national interest will inform the public properly about the reasons for this legislation and the way in which it will be applied. Members of the public approached me and certain of my colleagues under the impression that they would be called up at random and marched up and down on parade grounds just for the fun of it. This is definitely not the object of this measure.

†There has been some doubt about the effect of the new system on the economy. I should like to emphasize that a sound economy can only exist and grow in an atmosphere of security. Security is a requirement for economic growth. The question before the House is not whether we should maintain security, but rather how best to achieve it. We are agreed on the necessity for a larger Permanent Force, but a Permanent Force large enough to combat the present onslaught would be a greater drain on the economy than the proposed new national system. It is also a fact that no Public Service can compete financially with the private sector. The only alternative is therefore the extension of the present national service system. The proposed system will ensure that all members of the White population will have the privilege of serving their country in a military capacity. This will ensure a more equal distribution of service and a bigger total involvement. To ensure that the manpower requirements of the South African economy are met, I shall make it my task to give organized commerce and industry ample opportunity to state their requirements. I am prepared to discuss this matter with the hon. the Minister of Manpower, to expand the Manpower Board by the addition of more representatives of organized trade and industry, if this proves necessary. Such a step would ensure that trade and industry are able to put forward their problems more effectively to exemption boards.

Another question that was raised involves the fallacy that these measures would adversely affect foreign confidence in the South African economy. It has been proved in several countries that a nation’s determination to defend itself is a prerequisite to foreign confidence in the economy. Foreign investors can rest assured that the system of free enterprise will be maintained in the Republic of South Africa.

*It was also asked whether manpower was being used effectively in the S.A. Defence Force. I think it was the hon. member for Waterkloof and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who asked this question. The Defence Force is always trying to prevent idleness and promote productivity. In this connection I want to support the appeal by the chief of the S.A. Defence Force in Paratus of 11 June 1982 to all members of the Defence Force, in which he ordered commanding officers and leaders at all levels not to tolerate idleness. He went on to confirm that a few months ago he publicly invited people to bring complaints regarding idleness to his attention through the complaints office. I have just heard that to date he has not received a single complaint.

Another aspect which is frequently raised is service by so-called aliens or immigrants. This is a sensitive matter, but I can give the assurance that this aspect is receiving close attention. Depending on the recommendations of the committee concerned, legislation will be considered during the next session of Parliament.

Another thorny problem is the matter of conscientious objectors. Because there can be vehement differences of opinion about this matter, I also ordered that the S.A. Defence Force give further attention to it. Legislation on this matter will also be prepared for the next session.

As far as the use of people of colour are concerned—this was mentioned a few times—the recommendations of the President’s Council will obviously have a tremendous effect on the entire approach of the Defence Force in this connection. The hon. the Prime Minister recently made it quite clear that one cannot expect these people to be compelled to do military service unless they also have a say in their own decisionmaking processes. At present the S.A. Defence Force is not able to accommodate a national service system for people of color. However, the system of voluntary service will, as in the past, be expanded.

With regard to those people who have over the past few years made such a tremendous contribution to the defence of the country by means of border duty, I should like to express my thanks by making a concession. Those persons who have been on three months’ border duty on four or more occasions will now be transferred to the Citizen Force reserve. In effect this means that these people—and there are 2 255 of them who have done three months’ operational duty on more than four occasions since 1976—will be exempt from further Citizen Force duty. However, I want hon. members to realize that this concession is a non-recurrent one and has been made in the light of the special circumstances in which these persons have had to shoulder the greatest burden in recent times and have had to make the greatest personal sacrifices.

The greatest misconception that is being blazoned abroad as a result of this legislation is that we are allegedly engaged in a total mobilization. The public must realize that we are only making provision for any situation which may arise during the next few years. After all, South Africa’s one great asset is its unique system of a national defence force. This means that the South African nation is in any case always prepared to defend its country against onslaughts from outside and insurgency from within. Surely this is not mobilization. This is merely the expression of a nation’s desire to survive, which has been crowned with so much success over the centuries. It is therefore also true that we constantly re-examine our military service system in the light of circumstances and that we will adjust it year by year according to our needs and we shall not willfully waste our manpower. After all, the onslaught against South Africa is not only in the military sphere. That is why we shall ensure that a sound balance is guaranteed.

I want to thank the hon. member for Pretoria West for his very constructive contribution in pointing out the essential deficiencies in the national service system and indicating what must happen and what must be introduced in the new system to put the matter right. He also referred to the threat and I am very glad because we in this House are inclined to become conditioned and fail to realize that a threat is staring us in the face. Some of the hon. members in this House are of the opinion that the threat is not aimed at them. I want to say that no one in this House will escape if the threat escalates as it is now doing. It is not a threat against a political party or against people of a certain color, but it is a threat against a system and the State structure in the Republic of South Africa.

The hon. member also referred to the very important aspect of reaching consensus. He stated that we could have reached consensus if we had accepted the principles of the Opposition Parties. That is not true. It is not principles which are at issue here, but aspects of application. Principles are not at issue. If we had lowered the age limit for commandos from 55 years, as agreed to, to 45 or 50 years, the Opposition parties would have done an about-face. If we were prepared to lower certain cycles, they would have done an about-face and supported it. It was therefore not principles which were at issue, but the application of principles. However, it is my responsibility to ensure that the manpower will be available as the threat escalates. I must therefore discharge that responsibility. I also want to thank the Select Committee for the decision they reached in this connection.

I want to thank the hon. member Mr. Vermeulen for his contribution in which he emphasized the importance of motivation. He also said that there could be problems with the implementation of this Bill. I realize that there are going to be problems and that is why the Defence Force must keep its finger on the pulse. With regard to the aspect of implementation, the Defence Force will ensure that this system functions. I also want to thank the hon. member for his thanks to the Defence Force for the important task the Defence Force and its members undertake to ensure the safety of the Republic of South Africa. I can assure him that they appreciate it.

The hon. member for Waterkloof referred to the demand for and utilization of manpower. He said this was a delicate aspect. I agree fully with him. I can also assure him that it will be used sparingly. I thank him for his constructive contribution.

†The hon. member for Durban Point made a very positive contribution, as always. He is always positive in his approach and positive suggestions also came from his side. Apparently there is a misunderstanding between us.

*I reread what the hon. member said in the Second Reading debate regarding three cycles instead of the six cycles that are now being proposed. I apologize for this. I thought he wanted the number of years to be reduced and, because there could not be three cycles in the years remaining, I made that proposal of mine. However, I want to assure the hon. member that the S.A. Defence Force and I are always prepared to consider proposals. If we can improve the system, it is a good thing to receive proposals in this regard which we can weigh up against the existing system.

I think there are certain matters the hon. member for Durban Point and I do not see in the same light. I should like to discuss this briefly. We have the system of an initial period of national service of two years and thereafter, in terms of the proposals at present before the House, six cycles of two years, i.e. a total of 12 years. I indicated clearly that in the eleventh and twelfth years Citizen Force members would only need to do service with my personal consent. If we consider the six cycles over 12 years, we see the following: In the first year 30 days are reserved for service and training, if necessary; in the second year 30 days are reserved for service and training; in addition, in these two years 60 days are reserved for operations. The total for service and training, if necessary—this will depend on the standard of the Defence Force unit or of the individual—will therefore be 30 days per year for 12 years. This gives a total of 360 days. If we consider the position with regard to operations—this is only necessary if the threat were to escalate—the legal obligation which can be enforced is 60 days per year for six years, in other words a total of 360 days. There is therefore a total of 720 days consisting of two sections of 360 days each.

In the proposal of the hon. member he referred to four cycles of three years each or three cycles of four years each. I want to refer briefly to the case of four cycles of three years. This means that in those three years there will be three cycles of 30 days each, a total of 360 days—exactly the same as in this system—but the 60 days reserved for a two-year cycle are now reserved for a three-year cycle. This gives 240 days. In other words, the total number of days is 600. If one compares these two systems, there is a difference of 120 days only with regard to operational use. This can increase the degree of risk and cause section 92ter to come into effect again, and this brings us back to the lack of motivation of the Citizen Force. It is in that spirit that I said that we must consider this matter very carefully. However, I am prepared to submit the proposal of the hon. member to the Defence Force to consider to what extent it can be implemented. Of course, this does not affect the hon. member’s proposal with regard to the commandos and the fact that they are locality-bound.

For the commandos the reservation is 30 days a year for 20 years, therefore 600 days reserved for training, depending on how well a person has been trained, and 20 days a year for operational use. This gives a total of 1 000 days. I think this also serves as a reply to the hon. member for Yeoville who said that a person would have to do one and a half hours per working day for the entire year to get through 1 000 days, provided operational use is necessary, and we did not even debate that aspect. I should like to thank the hon. member for Durban Point for his contribution.

I now come to the hon. member for Wynberg. This hon. member for the most part repeated what had already been said during the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage, and I am therefore not going to discuss this again this evening. I just want to point out to the hon. member that the flexibility with regard to the age limit of 40, 50 and 55 which will apply in the commando regions, depending on the operational development, applies to the military servicemen during the 14 years with regard to days, as I illustrated earlier to the hon. member for Durban Point.

The hon. member made an appeal for a multi-racial Citizen Force. May I, however, ask the hon. member: What is 32 Battalion? It is a multi-racial unit. What was said about 32 Battalion here in this House during the discussion of the Defence Force budget? [Interjections.]

I now come to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He always makes a very good contribution with regard to defence—he has a very good background—and I want to thank him for that. He usually makes very good proposals. He said “‘n boer maak ‘n plan”. He said that registration was important.

†The hon. member is quite right. I believe the registration side of the national service system is most probably the most important part of the whole system. The hon. member must remember that I have said that 1983 and 1984 would be reserved for registration purposes because it is important.

*Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the hon. member that I know he still has ties with other countries. I want to congratulate him on the progress that has been made.

†The hon. member also asked whether a committee could be formed on which organized labour, ex-servicemen’s organizations, etc., could serve. We have a committee like that. I shall invite the hon. member one of these days to Chief of Staff Personnel and introduce him to the committee members to see for himself.

*I now come to the hon. member for Constantia. I found it extremely interesting that the hon. member for Constantia participated in this discussion this evening, although he did not say anything during the Second Reading or during the Committee Stage. Some hon. members said he had been gagged. Now, during the Third Reading, he has replaced the person who in my opinion is the spokesman of the official Opposition. I am extremely sorry about this. I want to tell this House what the image of the hon. member for Yeoville is, both inside and outside this House, with regard to the South African Defence Force, etc. He is a positive, sympathetic patriot of the Republic of South Africa. I always classify his judgment as objective. He is just and fair and he is also extremely critical. He makes very good proposals and, above all, he makes exceedingly positive contributions. As far as the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned, I can honestly say that I appreciate his contributions. They are also appreciated by the Defence Force. Whether it be the Army, Air Force or Navy, or whether it be Whites, Coloureds, Asians or Blacks, it is appreciated.

Now the hon. member for Constantia has said that the Opposition’s task is to monitor the waging of war as far as the South African Defence Force is concerned. I agree with this. I would be extremely glad if they did so. If this is done in the spirit in which the hon. member for Yeoville does it, I welcome it, but the man who said this has never said anything positive in this House about the South African Defence Force but has always been negative. If I judge his statement against this background, I must question it.

I wish to conclude by conveying my thanks to the South African soldier, the member of the Permanent Force, the Citizen Force and the Commandos for the way in which he or she has made his or her contribution in the past and his or her determination to continue to contribute in the future for the sake of this wonderful country. The reason I am reading this is that I want to be absolutely sure that this positive message will be conveyed verbatim to the South African Defence Force.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since the Electoral Act Amendment Bill has been referred to a Select Committee it is necessary, as explained earlier, to ask this House to consider during this session a Bill which provides for certain interim measures until such time as the envisaged Electoral Act Amendment Bill has been finalized.

It is provided in the Bill at present before this House that voters will not be disenfranchised with effect from 1 July 1982 for not yet being in possession of an identity document at that stage. It is proposed in clause 3 that the date on which voters must be in possession of identity documents will be determined by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette.

It is further provided in clause 4 that the three separate voter’s lists relating to Whites, Coloreds and Indians will in the meantime be kept up to date parallel with the population register, by using information relating to the population register to supplement the voter’s lists.

The provisions of the Colored Persons Representative Council Act, 1964, have, in so far as the election of members to that council is concerned, been suspended by the South African Colored Persons Council Act, 1980. However, with a view to bringing the position relating to the registration of Colored voters into line with that of Whites and Indians, certain adjustments are being proposed in clause 1 to ensure inter alia continuous registration of Coloured voters. It is also further proposed that a Coloured living in an independent State be registered as a voter in the division the magistrate’s office in which (in the province of which the part of the independent State in which the voter lives was previously a part) is closest to his place or residence in the independent State as the crow flies.

Mr. Speaker, we shall support this Bill. The most important aspect of it, as indicated by the hon. the Deputy Minister, is to rectify the problem of the voters that would be disenfranchised on 1 July 1982. We are pleased that provision is being made for that, particularly since the Electoral Act Amendment Bill, which was previously before us, is being referred to a Select Committee.

As far as the continuous system of registration of voters for Coloreds is concerned, this is of course being brought into line with the arrangements that apply to Whites at this stage. It is to be hoped that registration will take place in accordance with the facility being created here. However, I want to make the point here and now that this will probably depend on the constitutional system which the Government envisages for that population group; otherwise I fear the arrangements being made here will have no practical value.

We have no major problems with this amending Bill. There are one or two minor problems of a technical nature in regard to which the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens will move amendments during the Committee Stage. We support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, before I say a few words about this Bill I want to say that we are all subject to the rules and the laws relating to our election as members of this House. We have with us this evening one of our Opposition colleagues who will be sitting here for the last time this evening. On behalf of myself and our party I should like to say that although we are opponents here, and sometimes argue with one another very violently and spiritedly, nevertheless the atmosphere of this House and its debates do in a certain sense bring members closer to one another. I did on occasion react to the hon. member very strongly, but since this is his last morning in this House, on behalf of our party I want to wish him every blessing and a pleasant and prosperous retirement wherever he may spend it. Our best wishes go to him and his family.

As far as this Bill is concerned we asked earlier this year that these provisions, too, be referred to a Select Committee. We have a few problems with the fact that the Brown people and the Indians are being involved in this specific legislation. Since we would have wanted it arranged differently, we shall not be able to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are very grateful to the official Opposition for their support of this measure. I do not wish to elaborate on the principles involved. The hon. member for Green Point has already referred to the fact that provision is being made for the continuous registration of Coloreds and that this is a bridging measure to provide that the date 1 July will not be applicable to the population register, and also to provide that the voter’s lists may be supplemented from the population register in future.

The hon. member for Rissik referred to their objection to the fact that Coloreds and Indians are also being included in this legislation. We find this strange, since it is very clear in the Bill that White, Colored and Indian voters will be kept on separate registers. I can hardly imagine on what basis the CP could object to this measure.

Due to reports in the Press we are aware that at present there are approximately 200 000 more people on the population register than on the voter’s lists, but there could be a problem in that the addresses of many of the people on the population register could be out of date, in contrast to those that do appear on the voter’s lists. In this regard, this transitional period is an opportunity for the State to check to what extent the existing voter’s lists and the population register are reconcilable with one another as far as addresses are concerned.

In conclusion, we wish to place on record that we welcome the fact that due to the continuous registration that is now being envisaged, voter’s rolls can be far fresher, because in the case of elections they will close at the end of the month preceding the month in which the election is proclaimed. Therefore it will be possible for the political parties to fight elections with more up-to-date voter’s lists.

We on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this Bill is aimed at improving the voters’ rolls for White, Colored and Indian people and presumably at keeping them well up to date, we are very happy to support it. The further point, of course, is that it accommodates the situation of South African voters who live in homeland States. We are perfectly happy to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, since there is such a fine atmosphere of unamimity I do not wish to spoil it. I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. members for Green Point, Rissik, Umlazi and Umbilo for their contributions and support.

I associate myself wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Rissik who bade the hon. member for Johannesburg North a warm farewell. We on this side of the House should also like to wish the hon. member a pleasant period of rest.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to express regret about the fact that this aspect of the Bill comes before this House without it having been referred to a Select Committee. There is no urgency attached to this aspect as compared to the previous clause and I believe it is unfortunate that there has now been a departure from what I believe has been a long standing precedent in that amendments which directly or indirectly affect the Electoral Act are referred to a Select Committee for discussion before they are placed before the House. I think this is a very unfortunate departure.

There is a second thing which I regret about this clause and the Bill as a whole.

I want to express the opinion that 6h30, when most of us have been awake for 24 hours, is a ridiculous time of the day for people to have to apply their minds properly to legislation. When I go back to my constituency and I am asked how I try to perform my duty as a member of Parliament, I certainly cannot claim that at this hour of the day proper and due consideration has been given to this clause.

Nothing is a better indication of that than the speech of the hon. the Minister himself because, brief though it was, he succeeded in getting the clauses mixed up. When he referred to clause 3 he was actually referring to clause 4 and when he referred to clause 4 he was actually referring to clause 5. That in itself, although he had plenty of time to prepare it, is an indication of the stupidity of trying to legislate, particularly in sensitive areas like the Electoral Act, at this time of day.

Speak for yourself.

I think that hon. member may be as bad before breakfast as he is after supper and I suggest he keeps quiet.

He is as bad after breakfast as he is before supper.

As far as the substance of clause 4 is concerned, I wish to move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 9, in line 29, to omit “may” and to substitute “shall”;
2. (2) on page 9, in line 30, to omit “at his discretion”;
3. (3) on page 9, after line 53, to insert:

• (i) any person’s name appears more than once on any voters’ list; and
• (ii) any person’s name is deleted from any voters’ list or transferred from one electoral division to another on the basis of information contained in the population register.

With regard to my first amendment, namely to omit “may” and to substitute “shall”, one sees in clause 4 that the Chief Electoral Officer may at his discretion in respect of each racial group supplement a voters’ list with name and particulars of a voter in respect of an electoral division if that person’s name is included in the population register. With regard to the words “may at his discretion”, in the context of the clause: they enable the Chief Electoral Officer to take particular groups of individuals and to put them on to a voters’ roll. There is no requirement that when he does so, all people who fall into that category must be put on a voters’ roll. That, to us, is an unacceptable discretion. Hence we want to omit the word “may” and to substitute the word “shall” and we also want to omit the words “at his discretion”. We shall also be moving an amendment to the next clause which will enable the Minister or the State President to apply different provisions at different times. Therefore this provision need only be applied at a time when the Chief Electoral Officer is in a position to do so and has the information at his disposal.

Then we want to add a proviso because there is a sentence in this clause which states “the provisions of any law to the contrary notwithstanding.” In terms of the Electoral Act a voter’s name cannot appear on more than one voters’ list, and to remove any misunderstanding we want to put in a proviso to ensure that no person’s name will appear more than once on a voters’ list as well as to ensure that the list is only supplemented and that people’s names are not either deleted or transferred from one electoral division to another, merely on the basis of information in the population register. That is the effect of the second part of the proviso.

The hon. the Minister, if I understood him correctly, suggested that this clause was’ needed to enable the population register to be used to supplement the voters’ roll. I would suggest to him, however, that there is no need for this clause at all because that information is available through the electoral office. They can send voter registration forms to those people and can inform them if their names do not appear on the voters’ roll.

Voters whose names appear on the voters’ roll but whose Book of Life number does not appear on the voters’ roll, have in exactly the same way been receiving a postcard from the department informing them of this fact and asking them whether they have a Book of Life and, if so, to supply the number and, if not, to apply for the Book of Life. In exactly the same way, but just in a reverse procedure, the electoral office can contact the people whose names appear on the population register and suggest that they register as voters.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to react to the first two amendments moved by the hon. member. I am sorry that I cannot accept these two amendments, because I think—and I think all hon. members will agree with me—that the chief electoral officer must have a discretion to be able to decide whether or not he wants the voters’ roll to be supplemented in a specific case. Although the population register is more complete than the voters’ index—I think at present there are already thousands of potential voters on the population register who are not on the voters’ index—the addresses of those potential voters on the population register are out of date. It will therefore be necessary for the chief electoral officer to ascertain, in terms of the provisions of the Electoral Act, whether the voter still resides at the address given in the population register, before statistics in the population register are transferred to the voters’ index. This the chief electoral officer ascertains by means of the prescribed notice which is sent to the individual concerned, in which he is requested to register as a voter at the relevant address if he is still resident there. Consequently I cannot accept the first two amendments.

The hon. member also moved a third amendment, but in my opinion it is really not necessary, because in terms of the Electoral Act the chief electoral officer may not register a person as a voter at more than one address. If this were to happen, all the political parties would object to it. Another voter also has the right to object to it. The computer will also take this duplication into account. The hon. member’s second proviso is also unnecessary, because in terms of the Electoral Act voters’ names can only be transferred from one constituency to another when written confirmation is received that the voter is in fact resident at that particular address. This also applies in the case of the removal of the voter’s name from the voters’ list at a specific address. I therefore do not think it is necessary. Provision is already made in the Electoral Act for what the hon. member is requesting. There cannot be any duplication and this kind of malpractice cannot occur.

I am therefore sorry, but I cannot accept the amendments.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Before I come to the Bill as such, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to Mr. Justice Hoexter, judge of appeal, chairman of the Hoexter Commission of Inquiry into the courts of South Africa and related matters, for submitting his reports to us at such regular intervals, which enabled us to introduce such legislation from time to time. The importance of this should not be underestimated, because it creates the possibility that the burden of work—of the Appeal Court in particular—can, we hope, be reduced. The importance of the matter is further illustrated by the fact that the chief Government law adviser, Mr. Fölscher, took a personal interest in this legislation, and I thank him for the special attention he gave to a particularly difficult Bill. He was ably assisted by Mr. Meyer and Mr. Geyser, and we were enabled to produce this Bill within a fairly short period of time, but after proper consultation with the interested parties. While I am dealing with the subject, I should just like to convey my sincere thanks to a member of staff of the ministry, who has done quite a lot of co-ordinating work in recent years and who is very well known among members of Parliament, for his very faithful and valued services in this connection, and otherwise as well. I am referring to Mr. Breyl.

†In its First Interim Report the Commission of Inquiry into the Structure and Functioning of the Courts drew attention to the build-up of appeals in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa. As an interim measure to alleviate the situation, the quorum of the Appellate Division in civil matters was reduced from five to three and additional judges were appointed. In its Third Interim Report the Hoexter Commission comes to the conclusion that a great number of appeals, civil and criminal, could more appropriately be dealt with by a full court of a Provincial Division of the Supreme Court. It recommends the limitation of the right of appeal and the extension of the existing appellate jurisdiction of the Provincial Divisions of the Supreme Court in respect of judgments of a single judge in all civil and criminal matters. Appeals by persons who have been sentenced to death are excluded from this proposal.

The following guidelines were also accepted by the Commission—

1. (a) In the final court of appeal all appeals, whether criminal or civil, should be heard by a quorum consisting of at least five judges of appeal.
2. (b) Any application for leave to appeal filed with the Appellate Division should be considered by three judges designated by the Chief Justice.
3. (c) A full court of a provincial division hearing and appeal against the judgment of a single judge should consist of three judges.

By accepting the proposals of the commission which are provided for in this Bill, I am glad to say that the structure of our existing hierarchy of courts would remain unaltered. While a new forum for the determination of an appeal against the judgment of a single judge in both civil and criminal trials is created, this is achieved within the existing structure by extending the jurisdiction which the full court has already exercised for many years in terms of section 20(l)(a) of the Supreme Court Act.

The Hoexter Commission’s report deals neither with appeals from lower courts which are heard by a Supreme Court bench consisting of a single judge or of two judges, nor with consequent appeals to the Appellate Division. The status quo in this regard is maintained. It is, however, envisaged that further amendments to the laws which are now being amended may become necessary as the Hoexter Commission is still investigating these aspects.

A further important amendment to the existing civil and criminal procedure was recommended by the Commission of Inquiry into the Desirability of Converting the Wit-watersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa into an additional Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, namely the Diemont Commission. This recommendation is that the Local Division in Johannesburg should be given appellate jurisdiction so that the Judge President can, in his discretion, order a long appeal arising in Johannesburg to be heard in that city. This will save costs, counsel and attorneys and the litigants will save time in not having to commute between Johannesburg and Pretoria. This is no new idea. For more than half a century, for example, the Griqualand West Local Division shared appellate and review jurisdiction with the Cape Provincial Division in criminal and civil matters. In support of this principle, the necessary provision is contained in this Bill.

*Effect is being given in the Bill to the spirit of the Hoexter Commission’s recommendation that in all civil proceedings instituted in the Supreme Court, no appeal shall be lodged against judgments or orders, except with the leave of the trial court, or, when that is refused, with the special leave of the Appellate Division. This procedure is already being followed in criminal cases. Most of the provisions in the Bill are of a consequential nature and are connected with this recommendation.

Attention is regularly drawn in the news media to the high cost of litigation. The information available to the Hoexter Commission, according to its report, does not really indicate that the cost of litigation in South Africa is higher than the cost of litigation in other countries with a comparable court structure. What cannot be denied, however, is the fact that the cost of litigation in South Africa is already alarmingly high. In evaluating the various solutions, the Hoexter Commission took into consideration the effect which the proposals contained in its report would have on the cost of litigation. Some provisions in the Bill may have the effect of reducing such costs. The Hoexter Commission has been instructed, inter alia, to make recommendations concerning the reduction of the cost of litigation. However, its investigation has not yet been concluded, and it is expected that the commission will continue to give attention to this facet.

The Bill also contains a number of consequential amendments which are related to the principles to which I have already referred.

I should very much have liked to explain the Bill in greater detail, but because of the atmospheric disturbances which I am experiencing in my immediate surroundings, I shall refrain from doing so.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House also wish to express our gratitude to Judge Hoexter and the other commissioners for a very excellent report. The report is crisp, logical and persuasive. It appears from the report that the commission took into account all the views presented to it.

This Bill is being passed against the background of an alarming backlog of work which has accumulated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in Bloemfontein. The 14 Judges of Appeal have been faced with an ever increasing load of work over the last few years. I want to refer to the statistics—I do not want to dwell on this at length—to indicate briefly what the nature of the backlog is and how work has accumulated. On 31 December 1978 there were 182 appeals pending. Over a period of three years this figure increased to 350 appeals pending as at 31 December 1981. This represents a 92% increase over the three-year period. The hon. the Minister has indicated, as did the Hoexter Commission in its report, that the judges were not able to cope. The recommendations flowing from the investigation have been taken up almost entirely in the Bill. We welcome the Bill and support it because we believe it provides sensible solutions for the problem that was investigated.

The hon. the Minister has already indicated the advantages of the procedure which is suggested in the Bill. I do not intend repeating any of those. One aspect on which the hon. the Minister could perhaps enlighten us is the aspect mentioned in the report that, as a result of the implementation of this Bill, it will be necessary to point more judges. I do not know whether he has information available on whether or not certain judges have been appointed already. If not, when does he intend appointing them and in which divisions? If he has that information available, that would be of assistance.

A second aspect of the Bill is that the appeal jurisdiction is now being granted to the local division of the Witwatersrand. This is not unique, but it is a new development for that area. It also empowers the Judge President to include under his jurisdiction certain magisterial districts. A result of this development will obviously be that amongst legal practitioners in the Pretoria area one can expect some dissatisfaction. I am sure, however, that, if this development is looked at objectively, it will be seen that it is the only step that could be taken to resolve the problems that existed and were examined by the Diemont Commission. The Bill, when enacted, will streamline appeals in the local, provincial and appellate divisions and we are therefore happy to support it and hope that its passage will be without problems.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Durban Central for his support. I suggest that this Bill will not only eliminate the backlog with regard to appeals before the Appellate Division and lead to a better dispensation whhich will promote the speedy disposal of appeals in the Appellate Division in the future, but will also enhance the stature of the Appellate Division. In future the Appellate Division will only deal with cases it ought to deal with, namely important and precedent-setting cases, and not, as the Hoexter Commission pointed out, with cases which are of little merit and are only really before the Appellate Division to gain time, or cases which are merely problems of fact. This legislation therefore represents a vast improvement.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to submit consolidated legislation in connection with appeals in general when the final Hoexter report has been published. At the moment there are three Acts dealing with appeals, and I do not think this is a good thing.

Mr. Chairman, the CP also supports this legislation. I just want to add that we actually found it very interesting to read the third report by Mr. Justice Hoexter. It is logical, understandable, couched in simple language and meaningful. One could in fact say that the aims of the commission were to ascertain whether the Johannesburg court could not function more efficiently. A further improvement was also effected in that powers of appeal and review are now also been vested in the Witwaters-rand Local Division. We in the CP are satisfied that justice in this field will benefit considerably from this.

However, it was not only the Hoexter report that made this point, because the Die-mont report, too, raised this aspect. I refer in this connection to paragraph 34(b) on page 15. Mr. Justice Diemont also recommended that the Local Division in Johannesburg should be given appeal jurisdiction so that the Judge-President may if he sees fit, direct that a long appeal originating in Johannesburg be heard in that city. In the Diemont report examples are also quoted of precedents where a local division was granted such a right of appeal.

Over the years strong representations have been made, particularly by legal practitioners in Johannesburg, for the introduction of a separate Provincial Division in Johannesburg. Of course there has been opposition from the attorneys and advocates in Pretoria, but it is interesting to note that Mr. Justice Diemont, when he published his report in 1980, pointed out that the majority of Transvaal judges were not in favour of a separate provincial division for Johannesburg. Today there are probably many arguments in favour of this decentralization, but it is also true that the decentralization will undoubtedly be a setback for the attorneys and advocates of Pretoria.

There have been such requests not only with regard to the courts, but also with regard to a new Master’s Office, a new Patents Office and a new Trade Marks Office in Johannesburg. As far as the representations for a Master’s Office and a Patents Office in Johannesburg were concerned, there was sufficient evidence before the Diemont Commission to the effect that this was not practicable.

I personally am of the opinion that the establishment of two separate courts, of two separate provincial divisions, will in due course have to receive very serious attention once again. I think this is inevitable. There are several factors which will contribute to this. I do not want to take up too much time by discussing all these factors, but I should like to point out a few aspects. There is a large-scale and increasing shift in the population towards the north, particularly to the Witwatersrand, the Vaal triangle complex, Secunda, etc. There is greater population density. During the general election the Transvaal already had over 50,4% of all the voters in South Africa. I think that, if we only knew what the guidelines of the President’s Council were, the implementation of these guidelines would also lead to Whites moving from the Cape and Natal to the Transvaal and the Free State. In this connection I want to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister that planning for the establishment of a full-fledged provincial division in Johannesburg should start now. Planning in this regard should be carried out at this stage, because clearly this is not a short process.

The Hoexter Commission pointed out in its aforesaid report that the workload of the Appellate Division has become far too onerous for the present number of judges of appeal. The hon. member for Durban Central mentioned the figures here, which indicate that this backlog is increasing slowly but surely. In fact, the appeal court judges are inundated with routine work which is very time-consuming.

The commission stated, inter alia, that our Appellate Division is also inundated with appeals that essentially concern questions of fact and are of such a nature that they should not be heard in the highest court in the land at all. However, it is essential for the man in the street, the man who litigates, to know that the highest court in the country is accessible to him. One comes to the conclusion that the Hoexter Commission made it its business to put forward amendments to the present legislation which will lead to a lightening of the workload of the Appellate Division. The amendments to the legislation before us ought to ensure that appeals will be sifted properly before they go to the Appellate Division. This will nevertheless be done in such a way as to ensure that no-one will forfeit the opportunity to have his right to fair administration of justice tested before the highest court in our land.

In conclusion, as far as the question of costs is concerned, I want to say that it is gratifying to note that in spite of the disbelief of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, litigants are also being considered with regard to the costs of the case, and that there will be relief in this regard as well. Nowadays the Press is full of reports of people who cannot afford the expensive court processes. Therefore if there is relief in this connection too, it will be most gratifying. The CP supports this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP will be supporting this legislation. 1 would like to begin by congratulating the hon. the Minister and members of his Department for the early receipt of the memorandum and the assistance given by his personnel. In fact, I think the two reports from which this Bill emanates, the Hoexter Commission’s third interim report and the report of the Diemont Commission, are, as has already been said, very clearly and lucidly set out in very simple language and contain a wealth of information, some of which has already been mentioned by all three previous speakers.

There is just one point that I would like to touch on and that is that this measure really does not give immediate relief to the tremendous work pressure. The judges will still have to catch up on a lot of backlog and they are still going to be under pressure with the tremendous number of cases to be heard. It is repeated in both of these reports that the question of the shortage of judges is something that is going to have to be looked into. We recently passed amending legislation in respect of judges’ remuneration, which will go some way towards improving the situation. However, the possibility of other courts, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Brakpan, has in fact a wealth of problems attached to it, because it requires judges, registrars, Master’s personnel and a great many more input factors which are already in tremendous short supply. I hope the hon. the Minister, in his endeavors to streamline the appeal situation, will at the same time be giving attention to the question of judges and staff. The NRP supports this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all the hon. members who participated in this debate and who supported this Bill. I would like to commence with the hon. member for King William’s Town and point out that Solution B which the Hoexter Commission has recommended, facilitates itself because to give effect to it it will not be necessary to provide infrastructure as would be the case with another solution. In this particular case, we therefore have to deal with an expected increase in work and we will have to appoint more judges in for instance the Transvaal Division. We are investigating that situation. We do have accommodation problems. We have already looked at the Palace of Justice and plans are afoot to provide more accommodation there. At this point in time the situation in Johannesburg is not so serious, but the matter is receiving our attention. I can assure the House that more judges will be appointed if an investigation proves that it is necessitated by the amount of work. We are attending to that aspect at the moment.

*The hon. member for Brakpan referred specifically to the situation in the Witwaters-rand Local Division as against the Transvaal Provincial Division. I can give him the assurance that this matter is being handled with the greatest circumspection and that we certainly took note of the realities in the Diemont report, in which it was recommended that appellate jurisdiction be granted to the local divisions. As a matter of fact, we went somewhat further than the immediate recommendations and applied this to reviews as well. I do not think we can deal with the situation overnight, but we shall consider it at our discretion. We are experiencing practical problems regarding control of the activities of the Attorney General, and all this means that we shall be investigating the package in this connection. At this stage we cannot, however», do more than hand over the administration in this regard to the Judge President so that in his hands the matter may develop judiciously and in an evolutionary way. I think that provisionally we should leave the matter at that. In the interim I have most definitely taken cognizance of the hon. member’s responsible view that in future we shall have to give consideration to the creation of two separate divisions. At this stage I do not want to commit myself to this, but I have taken cognizance of the hon. member’s standpoint in this connection.

I have also already replied to the hon. member for Durban Central by pointing out that we shall in fact appoint more judges if and when accommodation is created in the Transvaal, where the pressure is greatest. Apart from this, we are providing new courts and are taking care of the short-term needs of the Palace of Justice. In the other divisions where we possibly do not have accommodation problems, this may be implemented a little earlier, but in the interests of the country we must implement it uniformly and simultaneously. I thank the hon. members who participated in the debate and I just want to tell the hon. member Mr. Schutte that I am sorry that the analysis of the appeal situation he would have given us can no longer be given owing to a lack of time. I understand he had prepared himself for a very thorough analysis and I am sorry this House has been deprived of the privilege of hearing it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

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

1. (d) by the insertion after subsection (5) of the following subsection:
2. (6) Subsection (l)(bA) shall be in force only until 31 December 1984.

The Hoexter Commission recommended that the quorum of the Appeal Court should be five judges of appeal in criminal and civil cases. This is provided for in clause 4(a). In clause 4(b) provision is made for the Chief Justice to have the power to appoint only three judges to hear civil or criminal appeals. That seems somehow to contradict the provisions in clause 4(a). However, I do understand that the purpose behind the introduction of this provision allowing only three judges to sit on an appeal is aimed at eliminating the backlog which has arisen and which I believe will take at least two years to work through. It is therefore understandable that a provision of this nature should be contained in the Bill. However, it should also be made clear that this provision which allows the Chief Justice to appoint only three judges should only be valid for such period of time as is necessary. The Hoexter report made it quite clear that the commission was of the opinion that five judges should form a quorum, and the hon. the Minister is aware of the contents of paragraph 9.2 in which the commmission specifically states that it endorses the view that five judges of appeal should be a quorum for civil and criminal appeals. It should not happen that the public and the legal profession find themselves in a situation where they do not know whether the quorum which they will have to deal with on appeal will consist of either three or five judges. The intention of the Hoexter Commission is quite clear that it should be five and therefore my proposed amendment will have the effect of allowing for the backlog to be dealt with in terms of clause 4(b), namely by means of a smaller quorum, but that, as soon as that backlog has been overhauled, the Appeal Court will revert back to a quorum of five judges in respect of all appeals.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central for a number of reasons. Firstly, if one reaches the ideal situation, four judges will be immobilized.

That is a good enough reason.

Yes, that is a good enough reason. I ask the hon. member to accept that as sufficient reason. However, it has been indicated to us by the Chief Justice that he would prefer to have the freedom to deal with this matter and, in particular cases, the use of the quorum of judges. When one considers the history of this matter, this approach is not inappropriate. I do not wish to give the hon. member a complete dissertation on this matter especially in view of the impatience that I sense around me at the moment. Therefore, I just want to ask the hon. member to consider the amendment to section 110 that was effected in 1927. This section was again amended in 1952 and in 1959. There have been several occasions on which the quorum has been changed either to three or to five. For example, in 1927, the Appellate Division caused an appeal to a single judge to have to be made to three judges and, in respect of other cases, the quorum was reduced from five to four judges. I just want the hon. member to accept the bona fides of the department and everyone concerned in this regard, especially if one takes into consideration the fact that an appeal may emanate from a lower court, go to the Supreme Court and from there to the Appellate Division. One would have a single magistrate adjudicating in the lower court, two judges adjudicating on the appeal in the Supreme Court and why not then three judges in the Appellate Division? One will have the additional advantage of not having to mobilize four judges there. Furthermore, if a trial takes place before a single judge and if it so happens, because of the application of the legislation, that the appeal goes to the Appellate Division, then why not have it heard by three judges? The hon. member does not object that the same appeal be heard before three judges of the full bench in the lower court, and therefore I cannot follow his argument. I can see in the hon. member’s face that he now agrees with me. His amendment is unacceptable.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21:

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

The amendment is aimed at ensuring that the Attorney-General or a prosecutor will only have the power to appeal in respect of a question of law. We should like to place this beyond question.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill gives effect to the recommendations contained in the First Report of the Select Committee on Pensions. As hon. members know, the recommendations have already been approved by this House.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, and so do we in these benches.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches support it too.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

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

1. (1) a sacred trust was broken and a grave injustice committed by—
   1. (a) the forcible removal of the Fingo people from the land which had been reserved for their use and occupation more than a century ago;
   2. (b) the inclusion of the Fingo people in an independent Xhosa state (Ciskei) without their consent having been sought and against their wishes;

1. (2) this injustice has been aggravated by the fact that the necessary legal requirements had not been complied with before steps were taken for the disposal of the land to Whites;
2. (3) this injustice will be further compounded—.
   1. (a) if steps are now taken to excise the land in question from the Schedule to the Black Land Act, 1913;
   2. (b) by the proposal to provide compensatory land which is destined to be included in the independent state of Transkei.”.

In the report now before this House there is a resolution ratifying the excision of some 4 800 ha of Black trust land in the Humansdorp district. This is sought to be done in terms of the Schedule to the 1913 Black Land Act. We in these benches are totally opposed to the excision of this land. [Interjections.]

I should like to state at the outset that I believe that the events referred to in my amendment, and on which our motivation for our opposition to this resolution is based, represent one of the most distressing, one of the saddest episodes in the whole history of the Department of Co-operation and Development and of the country as a whole. [Interjections.]

I want to state emphatically that none of the specific allegations which I am going to make are not backed up either by sworn affidavits or by evidence given before the Supreme Court or by official documents of this House. We claim that a sacred trust has been broken. The land in question is land that forms the backbone of the trust. It was allocated in trust to the Fingo people by Sir George Grey, under the seal of Queen Victoria more than 140 years ago. It was a reward for the loyalty that the Fingo people had shown to the government of the day. For 140 years that trust was honored until this Government decided in 1975 that the people had to be moved and that the land be made available to White farmers. At no stage during the 140 years, as far as I am able to determine, was anyone able to accuse the Fingoes of being anything but peaceful and law-abiding occupiers of these ancestral lands. However, what was their reward from this Government? They were told that after 140 years they would have to move and to live among strangers in a barren place, in a foreign land many hundreds of kilometers away.

Furthermore, as a consequence of the move they would lose their homes, their agricultural land, their jobs, their South African citizenship as well as their protection under the trust. Of the 508 families involved it is not surprising that only 82 were resettled on a voluntary basis. The remaining 426 families declined to move.

I have on a previous occasion presented this House with evidence in which it was declared under oath that homes were broken into, that goods and property were damaged and that the people were forced at gunpoint to leave their homes. Some of those who resisted were thrown into jail. Some of these removals, according to sworn evidence, were even effected at night. This action was directed against innocent men, women and children whose only crime was that they did not agree to being deprived of their homes and their land.

I cannot reconcile this behavior with that of a government that claims that its actions are dictated by Christian principles. [Interjections.] These actions are even more difficult to understand when one takes note of the requirements of section 3 of the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936 which provides that no scheduled land may be transferred out of the charge of the Trust until provision has been made for its replacement with land of an equal agricultural or pastoral value. Mr. Speaker, you can understand how concerned we were when we saw the Fingo land being advertised for sale to White farmers, with no indication of such compensatory land ever having been made available to the Trust.

In response to a question tabled in this House, the hon. Minister claimed that it was not necessary to make compensatory land available. Fortunately, the provisions of the Act are clearly stated and the Select Committee agreed that our interpretation of them was correct. One would have thought that in a matter as delicate as this no stone would have been left unturned by this department to ensure that justice was being done.

The Fingoes are simple people, they are country folk; they are neither very wealthy nor very learned, but they do understand the meaning of justice. They do understand the difference between right and wrong, and so do we. They know that what is being done to them is wrong.

The final indignity that was to be served on the Fingo people had yet to come. In terms of a resolution in the report before this House, the compensatory land that is now being made available, is going not to the Fingoes, not to those who lost their land, not to the country that now has to feed them, but to Transkei, a foreign country that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Fingoes.

If ever there was a case of adding insult to injury, this is it. In terms of the letter of the law the department is, of course, acting within its legal rights in attaching the land to Transkei. The only requirement made in this regard, in the Act, is that compensatory land be made available in the province in which the original land was excised. But bearing in mind the special nature of the Fingo case, i.e. the fact that a trust was broken and that people were being moved against their will, let me put it to the House that any reasonable, concerned and sensitive Government would have gone out of its way to ensure that at least the spirit of the Act was honored, that compensatory land would at least be going to the country to which those people were being moved.

The actions of the Government in this matter have sown great discontent amongst the people. The seeds of discontent that have been sown will, I am afraid, bear bitter fruit. There is only one way, at this late stage, to redress the great wrong that has been done to the Fingo people, and that is by voting in support of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the matter we are dealing with here today, is a matter with a long history. It is surprising that hon. members on that side of the House have brought this matter to this House. The fact is that Parliament made a decision in 1975. That decision was implemented, and the people were resettled in to a designated place which was of the same geographic area as the land the people had.

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

No, the hon. member must resume his seat. I am not prepared to reply to his questions now. [Interjections.] He can have a chance to speak if he wants to. I should like to explain to hon. members how the whole thing works. In the Select Committee I tried to explain this to the hon. members but those hon. members were not prepared to accept the explanations. It is correct that 82 of the families moved voluntarily. The others were moved in terms of a decree of the State President. Legal proceedings were instituted opposing the resettlement of those people. The people who instituted those proceedings lost the case. This took place in 1977-’78. However, those hon. members are now discussing the resettlement of those people. One can see exactly what is going on here. [Interjections.] I think it is quite wrong of those hon. members to drag these people into a matter like this at this stage. [Interjections.] The case is closed. In the Select Committee questions were put to those hon. members on four points, and in respect of all four of those points hon. members said that no technical mistakes had been made.

No, no technical mistakes.

The hon. member for King William’s Town will also agree with me that those questions were put to them. [Interjections.] Hon. members agreed that no technical mistakes had been made. However, now an amendment is being moved that the report must not be agreed to. [Interjections.] What is at issue here?

What is at issue is the land that was stolen.

Will the hon. member for Wynberg please give me a chance to complete my speech? As I said: What is at issue here? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Wynberg said that what was at issue was land that had been stolen. I do not think the hon. member is entitled to say that. [Interjections.]

Order! At this late stage in the debate hon. members must please moderate their language. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt may proceed.

What was the task of the Select Committee? The task of the Select Committee was to ascertain whether anything had taken place here which was contrary to the legislation or against the wishes of this Parliament. If something takes place which is contrary to legislation and against the wishes of this Parliament, it must be brought to the attention of Parliament to ascertain whether anyone suffered harm in the process. That is what the Select Committee had to decide. The Select Committee had to decide whether it was going to excise that land or not. That is what was before the Select Committee; not the question whether the people could be resettled or not. Nor was it the question whether the ground could be excised, because that was decided in 1975. The decision that the people had to move was taken in 1977. What those hon. members are doing is absolutely ridiculous.

Can you justify it?

I am not discussing whether it is fair or not.

Discuss that a little.

It is on record that I treat Black people justly.

You do not act justly. This is an example. [Interjections.]

If we must have a debate on whether this is just or not, we are prepared to do so, but this is not the appropriate occasion, because we are discussing the report of a Select Committee. I really cannot see how we can debate this point which was debated in this House as far back as 1975 and on which this House took a decision. How can we debate this point again today? The question is whether there was anything technically or otherwise wrong with the steps taken in connection with this matter.

It is immoral.

How ever, the hon. member says we are doing the wrong thing by giving the compensatory land elsewhere.

Yes.

The fact is that the people received land and in terms of the Act it was quite correct to return the compensatory land to the Cape Province. If there was anything wrong—and I said this in the Select Committee as well—I think the officials who took so long with the de-proclamation of the land should be taken to task. If those hon. members would rather help us so that we could take action against those officials who caused the matter to drag on, that would be a vast improvement. However, the hon. members bring this unfortunate situation up here. They ensured that the people concerned came here.

They brought them here.

They made sure that they came here to listen to what they said … [Interjections.] … whereas in terms of the Act there was not the slightest irregularity.—I want to refer briefly to reports which appeared in the Sunday Times to the effect that the various departments had allegedly acted illegally in dealing with this matter. Since 1978 the land has been put at the disposal of other departments to enable them to deal with it. Those departments did what they had to. Because we are afraid that land will be neglected once it has been vacated, it is placed under the control of the departments which may deal with it as soon as possible.

The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is also being implicated.

Unfortunately the Department of Co-operation and Development did not proceed with the de-proclamation. The other departments acted in good faith in this connection. To date, however, nothing illegal has been done in this connection. Every step taken was taken pending de-proclamation. After all, it is quite clear that neither the Department of Community Development nor the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries could take any legal action until de-proclamation had taken place.

We discussed the matter in detail in the Select Committee. We spent more time than is usually spent on these matters. The hon. members stated categorically that there had been no infringements. Now we have the situation that the hon. members have moved an amendment to the proposal that the report of the Select Committee be agreed to. 1 find this very strange. As far as I am concerned, there is no reason for this House to be at all concerned about this entire matter as far as the work of the Select Committee is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt has indicated that, technically, within the requirements of the law all the correct steps were in fact taken and that with a view to the terms of reference of the Select Committee this particular amendment is in fact not applicable. If that is the case, then surely it should be out of order to move the amendment as printed on the Order Paper. That should then not be allowed. If one reads the amendment on the Order Paper and if the words mean what they appear to mean, there is not a single paragraph or sub-paragraph with which one can disagree because every fact mentioned in the amendment actually took place. One must therefore either agree or disagree with it. As far as we are concerned, we have no doubt in our minds that the statements expressed here by the official Opposition are true. If this amendment to the motion is therefore permitted, we have no option but to support it—albeit that the events in question took place many years ago—in order to indicate our protest at the extreme manner in which this was handled.

Mr. Speaker, it is abundantly clear that we are dealing here with a dramatized amendment on the part of the PFP. They talk about a sacred trust which has been broken, etc. This has all been dramatized. Apparently this is how the hon. members feel about it. It is not only a case of the amendment being dramatized, but hon. members have also dramatized the matter outside this House. The hon. member for Albany has gone so far as to be the leader of a deputation which was to have come to see the Minister.

Why not?

The hon. member asks “Why not”! [Interjections.] A report with the heading: “Koomhof refused to see the Fingo delegates” has appeared. Do hon. members not know that the hon. the Minister could not receive them? After all, they are citizens of an independent State. [Interjections.] The hon. member must not shout at me now. The fact of the matter is that they are citizens of an independent State and that they became independent in terms of an Act of this Parliament. Surely the hon. members opposite ought to know that the correct procedure is to go through diplomatic channels and the Department of Foreign Affairs. This is the way things are done. Now, however, matters are being dramatized and it is being said that the Minister refuses to give the Fingo deputation a hearing. [Interjections.] This is not the point at issue. On the contrary. [Interjections.] I think that if the hon. the Minister were in a position … [Interjections.] The people are now shouting so loudly, in these early hours of the morning, that one cannot debate about such an important matter. The fact is that if the hon. the Minister were in a position to give them a hearing, he would do so. After all, hon. members know the hon. the Minister.

Yes, we know him very well.

That hon. member does not know him at all. He knows nothing about him.

In other words, specific circumstances have been the cause of the hon. the Minister not being able to give them a hearing. This is therefore a false impression which is being created. It is dramatization outside this House. It is a false impression which is being created, as though the Government or the hon. the Minister does not wish to grant them a hearing. [Interjections.]

I wish to go further. Surely the hon. member must have known that they were citizens of another State. Or does the hon. member not understand, or did he not consider what the position was? I wish to put a question to the hon. member: Does he recognize the independence of the Ciskei? [Interjections.]

That has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it.

I shall tell hon. members why I put the question. I think the hon. member has insulted the Ciskeian Government by arrogating to himself the jurisdiction to serve as the leader of the deputation of the Fingos to this Government. [Interjections.] I think this is an insult to the Ciskeian Government. What right has he to appoint himself leader of this deputation without consulting the Ciskei? Or would the hon. member like to create confrontation between the RSA and the Ciskei by moving outside the normal channels and dramatizing this situation? [Interjections.]

You are agitators.

I shall deal with the question of land in a moment; hon. members need not be afraid. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North entitled to call the hon. the Deputy Minister an agitator?

Did the hon. member say that?

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the hon. the Deputy Minister was an agitator; I said that he and his colleagues were all agitators.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I shall try to argue more quietly than those hon. members, who are apparently very touchy and sensitive in the early hours of the morning.

I just wish to reiterate that I think the reason is most probably that the hon. member and his party do not entirely accept the independence of the Ciskei. I wish to state very clearly that if the Fingo tribe is unhappy about their living conditions as a result of the actions of this Government, they are, of course, free to complain to their own Government. As I know the Ciskeian Government, they would most definitely take cognizance of the complaint and would approach this Government through the correct channels. [Interjections.]

The false impression is being created that this Government, or the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, is unsympathetic towards the Fingoes. This is not true. Before the Ciskei became independent, talks were held between the tribal authorities and this department, and a committee was established, of which I was the chairman, to investigate the living conditions of, inter alia, the Fingoes. That committee recommended that funds be utilized to assist some of these backward residential areas which were experiencing problems. I was involved in this. I have been to Keiskammhoek, I visited the people and I know what their circumstances were. I am not unsympathetic, nor is the hon. the Minister and the Government unsympathetic. [Interjections.] When I arrived there, they had already been resettled. However, we accept responsibility. In the report it is recommended that funds be made available over a period of time, so that their position too may be considered. That report was accepted, and their position ought to improve within a certain period of time.

I now wish to deal with the question of land. I concede, and the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt said as much, that the handling of the compensatory land did not proceed smoothly. The department gave its reasons for this in its memorandum to this Select Committee and the committee also gave due consideration to finding ways and means of ensuring that the matter be dealt with in the spirit of existing laws. Certain technical problems arose which made the matter extremely difficult, for example, in respect of the demand with regard to compensatory land. However, the fact of the matter is that the hon. the Minister and his department acted in good faith in carrying out a decision taken by this Parliament in 1975, viz. that the Fingo tribe should be resettled and that the land should become White. We acted in good faith in carrying out that decision. After resettlement, various attempts were made to deproclaim the land so that it could become White. This did not take place. I agree that this did not take place. The reasons for this were set out in the memorandum and the evidence placed before the Select Committee. Two efforts were made to designate compensatory land, first in the Peddie area and thereafter in the Keiskammahoek area. Owing to technical reasons and because Keiskammahoek was included in the area of jurisdiction of the Ciskei last year, when the latter became independent, this land could not, however, serve as compensatory land. The Act requires, firstly, that compensatory land has to be within the Cape Province, and secondly, that it has to have equal agricultural and stockraising value. In other words, one cannot go about it on a hectare-to-hectare basis. The land has to be examined technically and agriculturally—the hon. member for Wynberg will understand this—so that the agricultural and stock-raising value are equivalent. This takes time. One needs technical people to do this work. I mention this merely to indicate that these things are not so easy.

The only land capable of meeting the legal requirements at the moment is the land in the Queenstown District, concerning which the hon. member has objections. Let me tell the hon. member candidly—since we are such heartless people—that I am sympathetic towards that standpoint of his, but we have to act within the law. If we do not act within the law, those hon. members, and the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt, who is the chairman of the Select Committee, attack us. We try to act within the law.

The way in which hon. members on that side of the House have put the case, leads me to infer that they wish to dramatize the matter. They are talking about a sacred trust which has been broken, etc. However, as the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt has pointed out, we have three departments which we have to co-ordinate in this whole matter. I wish to state that the Department of Community Development, which was notified of the proposed deproclamation, has also notified the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in the meanwhile that it may proceed with the surveying of the land and dividing it into economic units—this is also a protracted process, and a considerable amount of technical work has to be done—pending the deproclamation, so that eventually freehold may be granted to the successful applicants. Therefore, there has, in fact, been proper co-ordination among the three departments over a period of four years. If we had not done this, we would have had the position that we would have had good land which was unoccupied and which could have been neglected in the process. Hon. members make as if it is only the Fingoes who are being forced to move. I just wish to say that as long as South Africa is a developing country, people will have to move. They will have to move if their land is being expropriated for dam basins, and for consolidation. White people also move. I could refer to Victoria East in this regard. I have every sympathy with those people, but we are simply carrying out the laws of this Parliament. Whites also move, but one never hears about that. This is not simply an injustice being shown to one tribe or one group of people.

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

No, Sir. This was a method deliberately employed by the PFP in order to dramatize this whole matter so as to cause embarrassment to the Government while carrying out its duty in terms of the decisions of this Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, nothing I believe could highlight the brutality of the Government’s policies more than the example we have before us today, and I think for that reason it is incredibly important to everybody in this House. The land we are discussing was included in the Schedule to the Black Land Act of 1913 and vested in the South African Development Trust interms of section 6(l)(a) of Act No. 18 of 1936. The excision of land from a schedule is no new procedure. It is dealt with and provided for in section 3(b) of the 1936 Act. It is perfectly simple and has been done all too many times. What is required is a recommendation by a Parliamentary Select Committee that certain land which is the property of the Trust be excised from the Schedule provided that land of an equivalent pastoral or agricultural value be included in the Schedule. This compensatory land has to be found and has to be in the same province. If Parliament approves of this recommendation, the State President by proclamation amends the Schedule by deleting therefrom the land to be excised and provides that compensatory land defined in the proclamation is included in a scheduled Black area in that province.

Can one doubt that this process was clear, simple and well-known to the Department of Co-operation and Development? What took place is not difficult to reconstruct. The Department had not found compensatory land with which to replace the ground that it proposed to excise. This it has to do on the instruction of the hon. gentlemen here in this House. They have laid down that provision to safeguard the Blacks from being defrauded, but this department did not have the wherewithal to replace the ground that it coveted and so it took it just the same. This is no different from somebody going downtown and saying that he wants something and then, not having the money to pay for it, just taking it.

What is the reaction of the hon. the Minister when this is pointed out to him? He describes it as kicking up a lot of dust and fuss and as just a lot of smoke. We are told that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries “inquired again” on 17 August 1981 whether the land had been deproclaimed and so there can be no pretence that this was an oversight or that it took place by accident. I want to mention here that I appreciate the statement made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in this connection. I appreciate that he was misinformed about this land and that he has done his best to put the situation right.

Once questions began to be asked about this matter, the department, careless and arrogant, thought it could fob the people off by misleading them and by means of prevarication. Firstly, for example, by stating that the land vested in the South African Development Trust and the State, which is impossible. The land cannot vest in the South African Development Trust and the State. Secondly, the view of the department was that it was consequently not necessary to provide compensatory land. This is not true. Thirdly, it stated that the removals were carried out during normal working hours. This is not completely true either. Fourthly, it stated that there was no question of force being used. This is untrue. Fifthly, it was stated that officials moving the Fingo people were unarmed. That is also untrue. Sixthly, it was stated that they had been resettled on 8 400 ha and therefore that they did not receive nothing in exchange for the land that they had lost. This has again been confirmed by the hon. the Deputy Minister and we shall come back to it. It was also said that they had this land for their sole use. This is simply not true.

What is one’s attitude to all this, Sir? These are the answers that we have obtained over a period of time to various questions asked and various inquiries made. I put it to you, Sir, that if that is the sort of answers that we are going to be given to the inquiries we make, it will make government impossible. It makes our position impossible; it makes a mockery of this House and the whole thing is an absolute charade.

This House has been asked to put its seal of approval on the excision of this Fingo land from the Schedule. It is highly pertinent to that decision that this House should consider the effects of its action, and nothing highlights more the dangers and effects of such action than a review of the events I have just chronicled.

Quite apart from the present bitterness and misery of the Fingo people and the future consequences for inter-race relations of a step of this nature, one must also consider the effect on the people called upon to carry out this measure. When officials have been instructed to tear 4 000 people from the homes that they and their forebears have occupied for one and a half centuries, bearing in mind the fact that we have been told that of 510 families moved, 84% had to be forcibly moved, not only is a moral crime committed against the people moved but one that debases, dehumanizes and brutalizes those officials who have to carry out this work. I say that that is squarely the responsibility of this House.

Hon. members have been instruments of this type of action. If they have forced people on to trucks, sometimes at midnight, do hon. members think that it is important to excise a piece of land strictly in terms of the provisions of an Act? When they have heard women weep—and I am not exaggerating—and seen men cowed into submission in front of their sons—I am speaking here from eye-witness accounts of what happened—the legal formalities must seem to hon. members simply to be the “rompslomp” of seeing that something is carried out exactly according to the letter of the law. This is a classic case of absolute power corrupting absolutely. [Interjections.]

What a cynical mockery of the spirit of the Act to consider land due for consolidation in Transkei as compensatory land for Fingo’s settled in locations in Ciskei. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question in this regard. He has been to Ciskei, he has seen the land and he has said that these people have been resettled on some 8 000 odd hectares there. I would like to know from him whether they are the only people occupying those 8 000 odd hectares of land or not. They are?

No, he said they are not.

Well, I have the answer to a question here put to the hon. the Minister which states specifically that they are the sole owners of this land. [Interjections.] I cannot understand these actions from the Government. How can they be so insensitive, so cruel, so foolish? They of all people should be aware of the bitter seeds which are planted by actions like these. Some of their grandmothers probably watched when the British soldiers burnt farm houses down. Are we so callous, so isolated from the message of our own spiritual heritage that we cannot see what we are doing? [Interjections.] Am I exaggerating? [Interjections.] I do not think so.

It is said that many others are affected in the same way.

Some of them brazen this thing out. Some try to justify it as a bit of demolition that has to take place when one builds up some new structure. Some just remain quiet as something dies inside them. The Fingo people have been cheated out of their heritage. Our action is inexcusable.

I farmed right next to these people for 12 years. I cannot remember any instance when they caused any difficulty or problem in the neighbourhood whatsoever. Hon. members may think I am dramatizing this incident, but actions like these will inevitably seal the fate of the White man in this country, without a doubt. The hon. the Minister told us on Tuesday how worried he was for his children’s future, how hard he was working for better race relations. Sir, I am tired of crocodile tears and I am tired of seeing the ruthless implementation of apartheid wrapped in sentimental claptrap.

I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Albany and I am quite sure that if hon. members on that side could vote without the discipline of their party we would get a lot of support for the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hold up the proceedings of this House, but I feel compelled to make a contribution with regard to this specific land.

The first point I want to make is that the debate on this amendment is taking place at the wrong time. As the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt said, at the moment there is a report of a Select Committee before us to ascertain whether this specific land was dealt with legally or not.

Is that how you want to get out of this now?

The hon. member for Wynberg must just give me a chance.

Apparently the Select Committee decided that the land was dealt with legally. The discussions taking place here should have taken place when the Vote of the relevant Minister was discussed or during the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill, if hon. members wanted to raise it. I really think this discussion is inappropriate here.

Since the hon. members have seized on this opportunity and the discussion is taking place now, as far as point (2) of the amendment is concerned, there is a principle involved which I should like to clear up with the hon. member for Wynberg. I quote point (2)—

Point (2) therefore implies that when Trust land becomes available for disposal, we must wait until Parliament has finally decided whether that land can be removed from the annexure and handed over to agriculture.

Yes.

The hon. member said “Yes”. Let us argue the matter with regard to this point. In the debate on the Second Reading of the Second Agricultural Credit Amendment Bill all the hon. members agreed with me that we must make land available to farmers as soon as is humanly possible so that it does not lie fallow. I say there is a principle embodied here which we must now debate. In the second subdivision of the amendment of the hon. member, the actual point, the actual principle which we discussed with one another in the relevant debate, is totally ignored. Hon. members of the PFP must therefore tell me whether they agree with me in this regard, because I want to tell them what steps must be taken before land can be alienated permanently.

In the first place, all State departments, and the relevant Provincial Administration, must be notified that the land is available, and they must state whether they are interested in obtaining any of the land available. I visited the land involved here in November 1978. On that occasion we held a joint meeting to ascertain whether that land should be made available for agricultural purposes, or what else could be done with it. The then Department of Forestry intimated that they wanted a certain portion of that land. That was in November 1978. It is now June 1982, almost four years later. What, then, is still to be done? As soon as the departments have stated—and it takes some departments a very long time to do this—whether or not they are interested in the land, a meeting must again be held to decide which land will be allocated to which department. All the land north of the new tarred road has already been zoned for forestry purposes. The land south of the tarred road has been made available for agricultural purposes.

At that stage the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries had to send technical people to compile reports on the potential of that land. Soil samples were taken and sent to Pretoria for analysis in order to ascertain how large a unit had to be to be an economic unit, and then—after it had been ascertained how large an economic unit had to be—the services of a surveyor had to be obtained. Hon. members will therefore understand that the activities I am now referring to take years. A surveyor must now be employed to survey the relevant piece of land. After all, land cannot be disposed of until it has been surveyed. Only when that land has been surveyed can the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries place an advertisement calling for applications for the relevant land. In this specific case it took four years, during which that land lay fallow and served no purpose whatsoever. It was not used for agriculture, and at the moment it is completely overgrown. I am sorry that the hon. member for Humansdorp is not here at the moment. He is in a position to tell hon. members to what extent that land is overgrown with harmful vegetation, and how the farmers in that area have addressed representations to us on a large scale and have asked us to dispose of the land as soon as possible because the harmful vegetation growing there is spreading to their cultivated land. The criticism we have had to endure from that quarter is therefore quite understandable.

It took four years, and I am mentioning this because, as I have already said, in the second subdivision of the hon. member’s amendment a principle is involved which, if the hon. member for Wynberg were to vote for this amendment, would amount to his saying that we should leave the land just as it is, that we should resort to delaying tactics until the necessary steps have been taken. What have we done in this case? In this case we continued taking positive action. We knew that the trust on the land had not yet been terminated, but we proceeded with our activities in an effort to speed up the process so that the land could be disposed of more quickly. In spite of this, it took four years for us to arrive at the present state of affairs.

Now hon. members of the PFP must tell us whether they agree with the principle that we must dispose of land as soon as humanly possible, because the second subdivision of the hon. member for Albany’s amendment definitely says that we must not do so. That is all I have to say. This is a matter of principle I should like cleared up.

Mr. Speaker, what are the actual facts concerning this matter? The facts are that in terms of a resolution adopted by both Houses of this Parliament in 1975, the Fingos of Doornkraal, Fingo, The Gap, Palmiet River, Snyklip, Wittekleibos and Witte-elsbos farms were to be resettled. Therefore it was a resolution of this Parliament; a resolution adopted by both Houses of this Parliament.

What happened then? The decision was conveyed to the people involved at several meetings held there by officials of the department. During 1977, the resettlement of those people on the commonage land acquired for this purpose at Keiskammahoek was begun. So that was five years ago. At that time, not a single one of these hon. gentlemen was in any way involved in the matter.

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

The hon. member may put his question to me later. First I should very much like to inform the House of the facts concerning this matter. I do not want to dwell on the matter at any great length either. As soon as I have finished, however, I shall give the hon. member an opportunity to put his question to me. For the sake of all hon. members, I want to take up as little time as possible. However, this is such an emotional matter, and so many newspaper reports have been written about it, that you must please allow me, Mr. Speaker, to give hon. members the basic facts in this connection in a calm atmosphere.

Initially, 82 families were voluntarily resettled. Now I want to know what anyone, including anyone on the Government side, could have done about the matter up to now. Surely it was not possible to do anything. However, the remaining approximately 426 families refused to move. I would be very glad if the hon. member for Albany would take note of this fact. It then became necessary to obtain a State President’s order, in terms of section 5 of Act No. 38 of 1927, to bring about the resettlement. That was five years ago. The people concerned also tried to have the said order set aside in the Supreme Court, but the court ruled in favor of the department. The order was subsequently carried out, and the remaining people were removed to Keiskammahoek. Is there any hon. member of the official Opposition—the people who are turning this into such an emotional issue—who would expect us to ignore the legal procedure? Do they really expect anyone on the Government side to do this? Do they expect the court ruling to be ignored, and do they expect one of us to do so? These things happened while not one of us was present. This removal of people was completed on 28 February 1978. The land on which Black communities lived at Humansdorp consists of a scheduled area as well as a released area. The land in the scheduled area—Doriskraal, Fingo, Palmiet River, Snyklip and Wittekleibos—was initially State land, which became the property of the S.A. Development Trust when the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936, came into operation. In terms of section 6(l)(a) of this Act, therefore, it is Trust land, and not quota land.

Now I just want to set out very briefly the other facts of the matter. The Gap and Witte-elsbos farms are a released area. After all, hon. members know that a released area is not the same as a scheduled area. These farms also became the property of the South African Development Trust in terms of the 1936 Act. So it is trust quota land. The fact is that in that area, on that Fingo land at Humansdorp, no Black people ever had individual ownership of any land. So the land always belonged to the State, and subsequently to the South African Development Trust. This is a fact which is of vital importance, and if one knew this, one would not try to turn the matter into such an emotional issue as the hon. member for Albany has tried to do.

A valuation was made of the improvements which those people had made to the land, and the respective occupiers of the land were compensated accordingly. The highest payment was R2 945, the lowest was R30, and an average amount of R429,33 was paid out to the interested parties, although they did not have ownership. However, this all happened before any one of us had appeared on the scene, but what really happened to turn this into such an emotional issue?

On 17 March 1978, the then Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure was asked to take over the control of this land to prevent any illegal occupation of the land, in spite of the fact that this would necessitate the appointment of overseers. Here we must bear in mind the fact that the above-mentioned department paid the compensation to the previous occupiers when they were removed, and this was done merely in order to maintain order. Are hon. members alleging now that it could have been done in a different way if we wanted to maintain order?

There is another point concerning which a total misunderstanding appears to exist. The reason why land which has to be added to Transkei was identified as compensatory land was merely to comply with the legal requirements, namely that land in the same province should be designated as compensatory land, irrespective of where the people concerned are settled. Therefore this land must not be confused with the land made available at Keiskammahoek for the settlement of the people involved. Therefore the information which the hon. member for Albany presented here in such a very emotional way is very far from correct. The question is, therefore: If the hon. member does have the true facts available to him, why does he keep supplying the wrong information in this House? Surely that is unfair. To whom is it unfair? It is unfair towards everyone involved in this matter, i.e. I myself, all other hon. members on this side of the House, as well as the Fingo people involved. At no time did the department act illegally in dealing with this matter. The people concerned were resettled in terms of a resolution of both Houses of this Parliament, and in accordance with legal requirements, we are once again coming to this House for the necessary permission for the formal de-proclamation of the land concerned. On 4 December 1981—this is a very important fact—Ciskei became an independent Republic, also in terms of steps taken by this Parliament. The former occupiers of the land which is now to be de-proclaimed are inhabitants and citizens of the Republic of Ciskei, and if those hon. members cannot bring themselves to act in accordance with the measures taken by this Parliament and to recognize Ciskei as an independent State, I can only say that we do not intend to bring discredit on this Parliament.

We recognize the independence of Ciskei. We recognize Ciskei as an independent State, and if one recognizes Ciskei as an independent State one must observe normal rules and regulations in recognition of the status of Ciskei. If there are any matters which citizens of the Republic of Ciskei wish to bring to the attention of the Government of the RSA, therefore, there are recognized diplomatic channels for doing so. Surely, then, it is unfair of the hon. member for Albany to have spoken in such very emotional terms in this House, while the proper channels exist, and everything has been spelt out to him. I spelt out the existence of those channels in a letter to him. It would be a serious infringement of the normal international rules if individuals who are citizens of a sovereign State were allowed to negotiate with a Government of another sovereign State merely as individuals in their own right. So there is a very serious charge which can be brought against those hon. members, and specifically against the hon. member for Albany, in this connection. At no stage, for example, did I refuse to receive the deputation. [Interjections.] What I did do, however, was to write a short letter to the hon. member for Albany, who had asked for an interview on their behalf, explaining to him what the proper channels were. However, that hon. member could—with all due respect—have come to see me privately. He could have told me that he knew what the proper channels were, because I had pointed them out to him, but that he needed help because he had been approached by a deputation. Then I would have helped him, because it is in my nature to help people. It would have been a privilege and a pleasure to help him. Therefore my charge against the hon. member for Albany is a very serious one, for what happened? He can testify to the way in which those hon. members attacked me here tonight. He knows what they did and why, and for reasons which are exactly the opposite of the reasons for which that hon. member tried to embarrass me. Those hon. members know that I have dedicated my life to the promotion of good relations in this country. [Interjections.] I gave all these facts to the hon. member, there was a Select Committee to investigate the matter, and on four technical points the Select Committee found that no one on this side of the House was guilty of anything.

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

No, Sir, not now. [Interjections.] When I have finished, I shall reply to questions. However, we did make one mistake, and we admit that quite frankly. There were officials who dragged their feet over the de-proclamation of the land. We are looking at that matter, because that was a mistake. I apologize to the Deputy Minister. When an official makes a mistake, my hon. Deputy Ministers and I accept responsibility for it, and we act accordingly. However, it is unfair—and I am being very serious now—to behave as the hon. member for Albany has behaved on the basis of one such incident. What did he do? While I have always tried to behave in a fair and proper way towards him, and he would have found me very helpful if he had come to see me after receiving my letter in which I clearly told him what the proper channels were, he nevertheless behaves as he has behaved tonight. I want to put it to the hon. member that I have never shown anyone the door. I have never done that in my life. However, what did the hon. member succeed in doing? He caused a report to be published in The Cape Times under the heading: “Koomhof refused to see the Fingo delegates”. In the process I was deeply hurt. I felt deeply hurt about this, and my charge against the hon. member—and I am saying this quite frankly—is not only about the way he has dramatized this matter, but also about the way he has polarized it. In the process, he hurt me very much, personally as well. He blazoned untruths abroad and offended Parliament. [Interjections.] On top of that, it has occurred to me to wonder whether that hon. member is really and truly trying to help people. If his conduct had been bona fide, I would have done everything in my power to help him. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. the Minister answer a question?

Order! I think the hon. the Minister will answer questions later.

I first want to finish my argument. In conclusion I just want to say this. Even at this late stage, of course, the department and I are willing to try to help under any circumstances if there is any way in which we can be of assistance. However, I cannot undo the parliamentary processes. Nor can I undo the findings of the court. [Interjections.] Now there are two things I want to tell the hon. member for Albany. In the first place, if these people want to be helped—and I do want to help them—they must go through the proper channels. I am prepared, together with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to contact President Sebe and his Government and to arrange for those people to put their case and for the necessary attention to be given to it through the proper channels. There is no other way in which this can be done. There is no other way in which we can help them. Therefore I really urge the hon. member for Albany to go through the right channels. It would also be a good thing if the hon. member would consult me about the matter. As I have already said, I shall not slam the door in his face. We shall try to help him. In the second place, I seriously request him to show some understanding for matters of this nature, and not to politicize unnecessarily problems which can be solved in other ways, as has happened in this case. He must please not hurt people in the process, instead of helping them.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few questions I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. I hope he will be prepared to reply to them. I do not want to draw out the discussion unnecessarily. Accordingly I want to take part in the debate by putting a few questions. In the first place, I want to know whether the hon. the Minister will agree with me when I say that the decision accepted by Parliament in 1975 merely made provision for the removal of the people, and not for the extension of the land. That is my first question.

My second question to the hon. the Minister is whether it is correct that when those people were resettled to Keiskammahoek, that land did not belong to Ciskei. My third question to the hon. the Minister is whether those people were ever asked—when Ciskei became independent—whether they were prepared to subject themselves to the Government of Ciskei. My fourth question to the hon. the Minister is this: Would it not be appropriate for those people, if they wanted to return to the land they occupied in the Humansdorp district, land which now falls under the jurisdiction of the Government of Ciskei, to approach the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development in this connection, instead of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs? After all, they want to return to their land. These are the questions I should like to put to the hon. the Minister, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I shall try to reply very briefly to the hon. member’s questions. Surely I have already replied to the hon. member’s first question, the one in connection with the resettlement. The resolution adopted by both Houses of Parliament in 1975 was that those people should be resettled on the farms the names of which I mentioned earlier. That is the answer to the hon. member’s first question. Surely it is a full reply when I say that they had to be resettled, and that they did not fall under the jurisdiction of Ciskei at that stage. It is quite correct that they did not belong to Ciskei at that time. The third question was whether when Ciskei became independent, they were consulted in the matter. By then they were already settled there and the land had been transferred. Since the land had already been transferred and Xhosa people had been settled on it, we could not go and ask everyone whether he was content to fall under Ciskei. Surely we could not do that. So the answer to that is quite clear.

The last question was what the position would be if they wanted to return to Ciskei.

To Humansdorp.

Yes, to Humansdorp. I have already replied to that as well. It is not a matter to which I can give a categorical answer now. Ciskei has become an independent State in the meantime. That is why I say that if anything has to be done about this, there is only one way in which it can be done, i.e. by going through the right channels. Therefore it must be submitted to the Government of Ciskei by the Department of Foreign Affairs—and I shall lend my assistance. If the matter is approached in this way, it is possible that assistance can be rendered in this connection. Then it is not necessary to politicize the matter, however. If I can make a contribution, I am prepared to do so.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question now? [Interjections.]

Really, Sir, the hon. members would like to go home. The hon. member can put his question to me privately. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister questioned my integrity. I should like to ask him two very short questions, which I think may clear up why I acted in the way I did.

Yes?

In connection with the compensatory land I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he still stands by the answer he gave to question No. 405 and whether that correctly reflects the situation. His reply to the question which concerned the compensatory land was (Questions, 2 April 1982, col. 565)—

I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether that is correct. Is that a true answer, yes or no? Does he still stand by that?

My reply to that question was a written reply, if my memory serves me. Various departmental officials went into the matter. The hon. the Deputy Minister works with this kind of case, not I. However, I took full responsibility for it. With the facts put at my disposal, that was the answer and I stand by it, unless it can be proved to me that that answer is wrong.

In terms of section 3(b) of the 1936 Act it is wrong, but we can discuss that matter further.

Of course you can come and discuss it with me.

My second question concerns the allocated land. I asked the hon. the Minister whether such areas were granted for the sole occupation of such communities and, if not, which areas were occupied by other communities and what was the existing population. This is important. These are the areas we are concerned with. The hon. the Minister said they would be allocated land. The hon. Minister’s answer to that was “Yes”. Does the hon. the Minister agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister who has just said “No” in his speech?

They have to iron out the matter in the caucus first. [Interjections.]

I want to reply to that question. My reply is that the hon. the Deputy Minister is working with the Fingo land, not I. However, I obviously take the responsibility. The fact of the matter is that originally that land was intended for them. That is my answer.

Mr. Speaker, may I finally ask one very short question? [Interjections.]

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

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, I want to inform this House on behalf of the Prime Minister that a proclamation will be issued to prorogue the House of Assembly on 27 January 1983 and to summon it to meet on 28 January 1983 for the dispatch of business.

I now move—

Agreed to.