House of Assembly: Vol108 - FRIDAY 5 MAY 1961

FRIDAY, 5 MAY 1961 Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 10.5 a.m. NEW MEMBER

Mr. SPEAKER announced that Mr. Frederick Jacobus van Eeden was elected a member of the House of Assembly for the electoral division of Swellendam on Wednesday, 3 May 1961.

QUESTIONS

For oral reply:

Establishment of Modern Bantu Town near Pietersburg *I. Mrs. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) Whether it is the intention to remove the Bantu inhabitants from the township of New Pietersburg; if so,
  2. (2) whether compensation will be paid to Bantu owners of freehold properties in the township; if so, (a) on what basis will compensation be assessed and (b) from what funds will it be paid;
  3. (3) where are the Bantu inhabitants to be moved to; and
  4. (4) whether they will be permitted to obtain freehold tenure in the area to which they will be removed.
The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

(1), (2), (3) and (4):

The possibility of the establishment of a large modern Bantu freehold township within Bantu territory, in the immediate vicinity of Pietersburg, is at present being investigated, and, as the future of the Bantu inhabitants of New Pietersburg is tied up with this project. I cannot give the honourable member a definite reply to her question at this stage.

I may add, however, that, if they have to move, they will suffer no financial loss as they will be adequately compensated for their properties. Moreover they will be permitted to obtain freehold tenure in the proposed township, the establishment of which is now under consideration.

Prosecutions under Native Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act *II. Mrs. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Labour:

Whether any (a) employers and (b) employees were (i) prosecuted and (ii) convicted under the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1956, and the Native Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 1953, respectively, during 1960; and, if so, how many of each race in each case.

The MINISTER OF LABOUR:

Yes, prosecutions were instituted and convictions obtained against quite a large number of employers and employees for various infringements ranging from wage under-payments to strikes. Many of these prosecutions are instituted by industrial councils, and my Department has no record thereof. It is regretted therefore that the information asked for cannot be furnished.

Recruitment of Members for Voluntary Police Reserve *III. Mrs. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Justice:

Whether any instructions have been given to the South African Police to recruit members for a voluntary police reserve; and, if so, (a) why and (b) in what areas is such recruitment taking place?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Yes.

  1. (a) To assist in the performance of ordinary police duties when the police are employed on other essential services.
  2. (b) A senior officer has been appointed to organize and recruit members for the police reserve on a union-wide basis.
Total Bantu Population in 1960 *IV. Mr. VAN RYNEVELD

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1)
    1. (a) What is the total Bantu population of the Union according to the 1960 census and (b) how is this population divided among the Xhosa, Zulu, Swazi, Ndabele. Tsonga, South Sotho, Tswana, North Sotho, Venda and other ethnic units; and
  2. (2) in what national unit or units will the Ndebeles be placed for the purposes of the Promotion of Bantu Self-government Act.
The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) The provisional census figure is 10,807,809.
    2. (b) The figures are not yet available but a pro rata break up of the total census figure according to language groups shows the following approximate members.

Xhosa … … … … …

3,423,000

Zulu … … … … … …

2,959,000

Swazi … … … … …

301,000

Southern Ndebele … …

162,000

Northern Ndebele … …

47,000

Tsonga … … … … …

366,000

Southern Sotho … …

1,089,000

Tswana … … … … …

863,000

Northern Sotho … …

1,122,000

Venda … … … … …

195,000

Other … … … … … …

280,000

10,807,000

(2) The Ndebele are still to be consulted. It is, however, anticipated that following the language spoken by them, some will elect to join the proposed Northern Sotho Territorial Authority while others might link up with the Tswana Territorial Authority or a Territorial Authority of the Nguni group of their choice.

Asiatics Employed in Department of Justice *V. Mr. BUTCHER

asked the Minister of Justice:

  1. (1) Whether any Asiatics are employed in his Department; if so, (a) how many in each province, (b) how many in each grade and (c) what are the salary scales in these grades for (i) Asiatics and (ii) Europeans; and
  2. (2) whether consideration is being given to extending opportunities for employment for Asiatics (a) in larger numbers and (b) in a wider range of grades; if so, in what respects; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Police Department:

  1. (1) Yes.
    1. (a) Natal Province 361, Transvaal Province 10, Orange Free State, Cape Province and South West Africa, None.
    2. (b)

Senior Sergeant … … … …

2

First Class Sergeant … … …

7

Second Class Sergeant … …

32

Constables … … … … … …

330

(c)

  1. (i) Asiatics.
    Senior Sergeant: R780 x 60 — 1,200 p.a.
    1st Class Sergeant: R720 x 60 — 1,140 p.a.
    2nd Class Sergeant: R660 x 60 — 1,080 p.a.
    Constable: R360 x 40 — 600 x 60 — 840 p.a.
  2. (ii) Europeans.
    Sergeant: R1,400 x 100 — 1,800 x 120 — 2,160 p.a.
    Constable: R720 x 60 — 900 x 100 — 1,700 p.a.

(2) (a) and (b) Increasing of establishment and posts is considered in accordance with the exigencies of the force.

Justice Department:

  1. (1) Yes.
    1. (a)

Transvaal … … … … … … …

4

Natal … … … … … … … …

31

(b) Indian Interpreter Clerk Grade I: 8.
Indian Interpreter Clerk Grade II: 18.
Indian Assistant Grade II: 8.
Indian Deputy Messenger of the Court: 1.

(c)

  1. (i) Indian Interpreter Clerk Grade I: R660 x 60 — 1,380.
    Indian Interpreter Clerk Grade II: R480 x 40 — 660 x 60 — 1,080.
    Indian Assistant Grade II: R480 x 40 — 660 x 60 — 1,080.
    Indian Deputy Messenger of the Court: R520 x 40 — 600 x 60 — 900.
  2. (ii) These posts have been graded exclusively for Indians and no alternative salary scales exist for Europeans.

(2) (a) and (b) Not at the moment. The above-mentioned posts have been created with a view to serving Indians in exclusively Indian communities. Additional posts will be created if and when necessary.

Prisons Department:

  1. (1) Yes.
    1. (a)

Natal

4

Other Provinces

Nil

(b) One Indian Interpreter, Grade I.
One Indian Interpreter, Grade II.
One Indian Warder.
One Indian Wardress.

(c)

  1. (i) Indian Interpreter, Grade I: R660 x 60 — 1,080.
    Indian Interpreter, Grade II: R480 x 40 — 600 x 60 — 900.
    Indian Warder: R360 x 40 — 840. Indian Wardress: R296 — 320 x 40 — 440.
  2. (ii) No posts exist for European Interpreters.
    European Warder: R720 x 60 — 900 x 100 — 1,700.
    European Wardress: R540 x 60 — 960.

(2) (a) and (b) The number of Indian prisoners will not justify the proposed extension in the Department of Prisons.

Asiatics Employed by Railway Administration *VI. Mr. BUTCHER

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) Whether any Asiatics are employed in the Railways and Harbours Administration; if so,
    1. (a) how many in each province,
    2. (b) how many in each grade and
    3. (c) what are the salary scales in these grades for
      1. (i) Asiatics and
      2. (ii) Europeans; and
  2. (2) whether consideration is being given to extending opportunities for employment for Asiatics
    1. (a) in larger numbers, and
    2. (b) in a wider range of grades;
      if so, in what respects; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) Yes.
    1. (a) 1,036 in Natal only.
    2. (b)

Labourers

700

Messengers

59

Watchmen (Compound)

7

Watchmen (Level Crossing

24

Sorters

159

Police Constable

19

Brakesmen

8

Sirdars

7

Chief Sirdars

8

Boiler Attendants

2

Hospital Attendants

8

Commissionaires, Class 1

2

Pumpers (in sole charge)

8

Porters

4

Firelighters

5

Blue Print Boys

3

Salesboy

1

Dispensary Attendants

6

Salvoiding Labourers

2

Assistant Cook (Hostel)

1

Cooks (Hostel) Class 1

3

1,036

(c) (i) Asiatics

Designation

Rates of Pay

Minimum

Maximum

Ordinary Labourer

54c p.d.

R1.09 p.d.

Ordinary Labourer on Landing and Shipping

58c p.d.

R1.13 p.d.

Messenger

62c p.d.

R1.17 p.d.

Watchman (Level Crossing)

62c p.d.

R1.17 p.d.

Watchman (Compound)

62c p.d.

R1.17 p.d.

Sorter

62c p.d.

R1.17 p.d.

Sirdar

62c p.d.

R1.17 p.d.

Brakesman

62c p.d.

R1.17 p.d.

Boiler Attendant (under supervision)

62c p.d.

R1.17 p.d.

Station Porter

62c p.d.

R1.17 p.d.

Salvoiding Labourer

62c p.d.

R1.17 p.d.

Dispensary Attendant

62c p.d.

R1.17 p.d.

Blue Print Boy

65c p.d.

R1.31 p.d.

Commissionaire Class 1

69c p.d.

R1.35 p.d.

Hospital Attendant

69c p.d.

R1.35 p.d.

Firelighter

69c p.d.

R1.35 p.d.

Assistant Cook (Hostel) Class 2

69c p.d.

R1.35 p.d.

Pumper (in sole charge)

69c p.d.

R1.35 p.d.

Chief Sirdar

76c p.d.

R1.42 p.d.

Cook (Hostel) Class I

90c p.d.

R1.56 p.d.

Police Constable I

125.59 p.m.

R49.27 p.m.

(c) (ii) Europeans

Grade

Rates of Pay

Minimum

Maximum

Railworker;

R2.05 p.d.

R2.40 p.d.

No European equivalent.

Messenger

R2.20 p.d.

R3.60 p.d.

Crossing Attendant

R2.20 p.d.

R3.60 p.d.

No European equivalent.

No European equivalent.

No European equivalent.

Shunter

R2.60 p.d.

R4.30 p.d.

Attendant (Stationary Plant) Class 3

R2.60 p.d.

R4.20 p.d.

Porter

R2.20 p.d.

R3.60 p.d.

No European equivalent.

No European equivalent.

No European equivalent.

No European equivalent.

Wardmaster Assistant

R120.50 p.m.

R140.00 p.m.

Attendant Shed

R2.40 p.d.

R3.80 p.d.

No European equivalent.

Attendant Stationary Plant

R2.60 p.d.

R4.20 p.d.

No European equivalent.

No European equivalent.

Police Constable

R76.00 p.m.

R152.00 p.m

The above mentioned rates of pay are applicable to Indian servants employed in Durban and Pietermaritzburg.

Indian servants employed outside these two centres are paid 11c per day less on basic wage determination.

In addition temporary allowances are paid as follows—

50c p.m. in the case of casual servants.

R1.00 p.m. in the case of regular servants who have completed less than five year’s service.

R2.00 p.m. in the case of servants who have completed five years’ service or more.

(2) (a) and (b) No sufficient Bantu and Coloureds are offering.

Asiatics Employed in Post Office *VII. Mr. BUTCHER

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (1) Whether any Asiatics are employed in his Department; if so, (a) how many in each province, (b) how many in each grade and (c) what are the salary scales in these grades for (i) Asiatics and (ii) Europeans; and
  2. (2) whether consideration is being given to extending opportunities for employment for Asiatics (a) in larger numbers and (b) in a wider range of grades; if so, in what respects; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (1) Yes;
    1. (a) Transvaal 7, Natal 62, Cape 1,
    2. (b) and (c)

Number

Grade

Salary scale with scale applicable to corresponding European grade in brackets.

2

Indian Assistant, Grade I

R660 x 60—1.380. (R1,300 x 100—1,800 x 120—2,160.)

10

Indian Assistant, Grade II

R480 x 40—600 x 60—1.080. (R660—780 x 60—900 x 100—1.800.)

1

Temporary Indian Assistant

R480 x 40—600 x 60—1,080. (R540 x 60 —900 x 100—1,500.)

21

Indian Postman

R400 x 40—600. (R600 x 60—900 x 100 —1,400.)

20

Temporary Indian Postman

R400 x 40—600. (R480 x 60—900 x 100 —1,300.)

13

Indian Postboy

R136 x 16—200 x 24—248. (No corresponding European grade exists.)

3

Temporary Indian Messenger

R136 x 16—200. (R176—200 x 40—280); and

(2) (a) and (b) yes, in accordance with the Department’s policy of having the various racial groups served by their own people.

Sport Undertaken by Ethnic Groups at Ngoya *VIII. Mr. MITCHELL

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

  1. (1) To what ethnic groups do (a) the students attending the Bantu University at Ngoya and (b) the teaching staff at the University belong;
  2. (2) what forms of organized sport are undertaken at the University;
  3. (3) whether it is proposed to allow teams composed of University students to participate in competitive sport with outside teams; and
  4. (4) whether members of the White staff at the University are restricted to organized sport among staff members only.
The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) Swazi—3. Zulu—52.
    2. (b) The Bantu staff all belong to the Zulu nation.
  2. (2) Soccer and Tennis.
  3. (3) Yes, with teams of other Bantu institutions or clubs.
  4. (4) Yes. They can, of course, also compete with other White institutions or clubs.
Inquiry into Disturbances at Warmbaths Location *IX. Dr. D. L. SMIT

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a report in the Cape Times of 1 May 1961, of disturbances at the Warmbaths Location;
  2. (2) what were the circumstances attending the suspension of the manager of the location by the Town Council and his reinstatement by the Department;
  3. (3) whether he contemplates any further action in the matter, having regard to the attitude of the Native inhabitants; if so, what action; if not, why not; and
  4. (4) whether he will make a statement in regard to these disturbances.
The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) The manager of the location was suspended by the Town Council in view of the fact that a charge under the Immorality Act had been brought against him. He was convicted in the Magistrate’s Court but on appeal the Supreme Court found his not guilty and set aside his sentence. He was subsequently reinstated by the Town Council and not by the Department.
  3. (3) Yes. A Commission of Inquiry consisting of Mr. N. P. J. O’Connell, a permanent member of the Central Native Appeal Court, who will also be Chairman, is being appointed with terms of reference inter alia to inquire into and report upon the events in the Warmbaths location on 28, 29 and 30 April 1961.
  4. (4) No. Not at this juncture at any rate.
Dr. D. L. SMIT:

Arising out of the Minister’s reply may I ask whether the ruling of the President of the Appeal Court will be made available to members if necessary?

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Yes, it will be made available.

*X. Mr. WILLIAMS

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

Whether he will appoint a commission to inquire into the causes of the recent troubles in the location at Warmbaths and the manner in which the situation was dealt with.

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Yes. A Commission of Inquiry consisting of Mr. N. P. J. O’Connell, a permanent member of the Central Native Appeal Court, who will also be Chairman, is being appointed with terms of reference inter alia to inquire into and report upon the events in the Warmbaths location on 28, 29 and 30 April 1961.

Alliances between Citizen Force Units and British Army *XI. Mr. ROSS

asked the Minister of Defence:

Whether it is the intention to cancel any alliances existing between Citizen Force units and British Army units; and, if so, which Citizen Force units and allied British units will be affected.

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

No.

Raping of Pondo Woman by Defence Force Private *XII. Dr. D. L. SMIT

asked the Minister of Defence:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a report in the Cape Times of 1 May 1961, of a case in which a private of the Defence Force was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment (two years of which were suspended) and three strokes at the Circuit Court at Kokstad for raping a Pondo woman;
  2. (2) whether the offence was committed by the private concerned whilst he was on official duty in connection with the enforcement of the emergency regulations in Pondoland during the recent disturbances; and
  3. (3) whether the Government will sympathetically consider making an ex gratia award by way of compensation to this woman; of not, why not.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) Yes.
  3. (3) No. The offence has no direct connection with the execution of the culprit’s duty as a private and, therefore, there is no obligation, either legal or moral, on the State to compensate the complainant. I may also mention that the decision is not influenced by the race of the complainant.
Subsidies Withdrawn in Respect of Bantu Teachers *XIII. Mr. MOORE

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

How many cases have there been in each year since the establishment of his Department, of the withdrawal of Government subsidies in respect of (a) graduate teachers and (b) qualified teachers without degrees.

The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:

The hon. member’s question has reference to teachers in community schools where subsidies may be withdrawn because a teacher makes himself guilty of active participation in politics contrary to general instructions.

Thus far no separate record of such cases has been kept and to obtain the information now would mean going through 40,000 files.

I consider the work entailed too great to give instructions that it should be carried out since the Department already has to manage with limited staff.

I can assure the hon. member, however, that such cases occur but seldom.

Mr. MOORE:

Arising out of the Minister’s reply, do I understand that no records are kept of the teachers who are dismissed by these communal school boards?

The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:

The records we keep are in the files of the teachers concerned, and to give the number would mean going through all the files of the teachers, and that is the difficulty. But I will give instructions that records of that nature should be kept.

Calculation of Employment Tables for Various Races *XIV. Mr. EATON

asked the Minister of the Interior:

  1. (a) How are the employment tables for the different racial groups calculated and
  2. (b) how are the unemployment tables calculated upon which the official indexes for the different racial groups are based.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

(a) Statistics in respect of employment are collected by the Bureau of Census and Statistics as follows:

  1. (i) In respect of the mining industry the Government Mining Engineer furnishes the Bureau with the average number of persons in the service of the industry every month, separately according to race.
  2. (ii) In respect of the manufacturing industry and construction the information is tabulated which is obtained by the Bureau by way of a monthly sample survey of personnel in establishments in these industries. The number of persons employed at the end of each month is furnished separately for Whites and for the Bantu and in respect of Asiatics and Coloureds. 5968
  3. (iii) The South African Railways Administration and the Post Office furnish the Bureau with the number of persons employed at the end of each month for each race separately.
  4. (iv) All Government Departments furnish the Bureau with the number of persons employed at the end of each quarter for each race separately.

Indexes of employment are calculated for the mining and manufacturing industries, construction, the South African Railways and the Post Office on the basis that the year 1953-4 equals 100.

(b) Statistics in respect of unemployment are obtained by the Bureau from the Department of Labour in respect of Whites, Asiatics and Coloureds and from the Department of Bantu Administration and Development in respect of the Bantu. No indexes of unemployment are calculated by the Bureau.

Members of Royal Family as Colnels-in-Chief of South African Regiments *XV. Mr. ROSS

asked the Minister of Defence:

  1. (1) Whether members of the British Royal Family will continue to be Colonels-in-Chief to South African units after 31 May 1961;
  2. (2) whether those South African units which have a Queen’s Colour will continue to have it; and, if not,
  3. (3) whether it will be replaced; if so, by what colour.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:
  1. (1) No, because South Africa will then no longer be a member of the Commonwealth.
  2. (2) No for the same reason.
  3. (3) Falls away.
Invitation to Sierra Leone’s Independence Celebrations *XVI. Mr. COPE

asked the Minister of External Affairs:

Whether South Africa received an invitation to send a representative to Sierra Leone’s independence celebrations; and, if so, what was the Government’s reply.

The MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS:

Yes. After full consideration of information at the Government’s disposal, it was decided to send a congratulatory telegram.

Income Tax Paid by Non-Whites *XVII. Mr. R. A. F. SWART

asked the Minister of Finance:

(a) How many (i) Whites, (ii) Coloureds, (iii) Asiatics and (iv) Bantu paid income tax in the tax year 1959-60 and (b) what were the total amounts paid by each race group.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Statistical data for the tax year 1959-60 is still being extracted, but in any case the information asked for by the hon. member is not extracted. The only information available is that which is disclosed in Statements 13 and 16 of the report of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue for 1958-9.

Statement 13 indicates the number of taxpayers of each race group in each category of income but, while it is possible from that data to make a rough approximation of the taxes payable by each race, the calculations will take a long time and I trust the hon. member will agree that in the circumstances the time spent on such calculations would not be justified.

Medium of Instruction in Bantu Education *XVIII. Mr. R. A. F. SWART

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

Whether the Territorial Authorities will be permitted to revert to the use of English as medium of instruction when the administration of Bantu Education is transferred to them.

The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:

When the time is ripe for the transfer of Bantu Education to Bantu Authorities this matter will be considered after consultation with the Bantu Authorities.

Social Welfare Work Taken Over by Department of Bantu Administration *XIX. Mr. WILLIAMS

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) (a) How many (i) orphanages, (ii) places of safety, (iii) crèches, (iv) homes for the aged, (v) community centres and (vi) homes and workshops for the blind did his Department take over from the Department of Social Welfare on 1 July 1960, and (b) how many have been established since that date; and
  2. 2) (a) how many social workers of each race group were employed by the Government to work among the Bantu as at 1 July 1960, and (b) how many have been appointed by his Department since that date.
The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (1)
    1. (a)
      1. (i) 16
      2. (ii) 3
      3. (iii) 61 but 3 have since closed of their own accord.
      4. (iv) 4
      5. (v) 2
      6. (vi) 5
    2. (b)
      1. (i) Nil
      2. (ii) 2 are under consideration.
      3. (iii) 1
      4. (iv) 1 and 2 more are being planned.
      5. (v) Nil. These are the responsibility of local authorities.
      6. (vi) Nil.
  2. (2)
    1. (a) 8 Bantu social workers were transferred to my Department. The number and race of those working among Bantu at that date is not known.
    2. (b) 83 probation officers have been appointed and inspections are being carried out at major centres with the view to the appointment of additional social workers.
Improvements to Louis Botha Airport *XX. Mr. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Transport:

Whether improvements at the Louis Botha Airport, Durban, are contemplated; if so, what improvements; and, if not, why not.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

The following improvements to Louis Botha Airport, Durban, have been approved and are being carried out:

  1. (a) Removal of certain interior walls to provide an enlarged overseas reception lounge in the terminal building;
  2. (b) provision of a first-aid room in the operations building;
  3. (c) enlargement of the apron; and
  4. (d) hardening of two taxiways.
School of Industries for Girls in Natal *XXI. Mr. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Education, Arts and Science:

Whether he has given consideration to the establishment of a school of industries for White (a) boys and (b) girls in the province of Natal; if so, what steps have been taken or are contemplated; and, if not, why not.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:
  1. (a) No, at the beginning of 1961 a school of industries for 200 White boys was opened at Kimberley.
  2. (b) Yes, at Utrecht.

Steps are being taken to obtain a building site and to start planning.

Formal Request for National Multi-racial Convention *XXII. Mr. VAN RYNEVELD

asked the Prime Minister:

Whether the Government has received a formal request for a national multi-racial convention subsequent to the All-African Conference held at Pietermaritzburg during March 1961; and, if so, (a) from whom and (b) what reply has been given.

The PRIME MINISTER:

A letter has been received, signed by N. R. Mandela, in arrogant terms, to which no reply has been given. I trust that this question does not mean that the Progressive Party intends to accept co-responsibility for the threats contained in the letter.

*XXIII. Col. SHEARER

—Reply standing over.

Mobile Floating Crane for Durban Harbour *XXIV. Mr. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) Whether consideration has been given to providing a mobile floating crane for Durban harbour; if not, why not; and, if so, (a) when will it be put into operation, (b) what will be its carrying capacity and (c) what is the estimated cost; and
  2. (2) whether it will be equipped with engines.
The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) Yes.
    1. (a) Specifications are presently being prepared and it is anticipated that tenders will be invited in approximately three months’ time. It is, therefore, not possible at this stage to indicate when the crane will come into operation.
    2. (b) 40 long tons at maximum radius.
    3. (c) R554,400. 5972
  2. (2) The vessel will not be self-propelling. The crane will be electrically operated from a diesel-driven generator situated in the vessel.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE *The MINISTER OF LANDS:

May I, with the leave of the House, make a statement in regard to the business of the House: After disposing of the Vote of the Minister of Economic Affairs to-day, we shall proceed with the Vote of the Minister of the Interior and his Mines Vote. It is probable that the General Law Amendment Bill will be discussed on Monday. We shall then continue with the Vote of the Minister of the Interior and his further Votes, and then probably with the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

I undertook to give, as far as possible, a list of the legislation which will still be submitted this Session. The Minister of External Affairs has a Bill with regard to stand-still legislation. The Minister of Finance has the Building Societies Amendment Bill and the Unit Trust Control Amendment Bill and the Finance Bill. The Minister of Transport has the Railways and Harbours Act Amendment Bill, his Additional Estimates, and his Railway Construction Bill. The Minister of Justice has the liquor Amendment Bill. The Minister of Pensions has the War Special Pensions Amendment Bill, the Pensions Laws Amendment Bill, the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Amendment Bill, the Welfare Organizations Amendment Bill, the Pensions Supplementary Bill and the University of Cape Town Amendment Bill. The Minister of the Interior has an Aliens Amendment Bill, and Admission of Persons to the Union Amendment Bill, the South African Citizenship Amendment Bill, the Public Holidays Amendment Bill, the Newspaper Amendment Bill and the Undesirable Publications Bill, of which the first reading only will be taken. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has a Bill to provide for the participation of urban Bantu in the management of urban residental areas, and a general amendment Bill on Bantu laws. The Minister of Economic Affairs has the Iron and Steel Industry Amendment Bill. The Minister of Health has the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Amendment Bill, and the Post-Mortem Examinations and the Removal of Human Tissue Amendment Bill. Then I also have a small Deeds Registries Amendment Bill.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

First Order read: House to resume in Committee of Supply.

House in Committee:

[Progress reported on 4 May, when Votes Nos. 2 to 27, 36 to 39, 41 to 46 and the Estimates of Expenditure from Bantu Education Account had been agreed to and Vote No. 40. — “Commerce and Industries”, R9,069,000, was under consideration.]

Mr. WILLIAMS:

May I claim the privilege of the half-hour. Sir, two very important statements were made yesterday by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Affairs that hardly indicated any green light to boom conditions. I will come to those statements later in what I have to say, because I want to put certain of the events of the year that has passed into some kind of sequence Since we last discussed the Vote of the hon. the Minister, the South African economic system has been subject to a series of economic shocks, mainly psychological in impact, but none the less powerful. Last year, after the session, the concern of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs was to bring about a new equilibrium following the shock upon the emergency events that are associated with the names Langa and Sharpeville, and he said in a speech at about that time that it was only a matter of dislocation for a few days and in a few centres, disregarding the fact that that was a fundamentally superficial reading of what was a situation that shocked the whole community. The country came well out of it on the surface. That was followed by a tendency overseas to boycotts, and the economy again, to some extent, weathered that difficulty, but none the less to say that those events were of no consequence was to disregard the facts. Related to that we had the great and psychological shock to the economy of the loss of Commonwealth membership. With regard to that, hon. members on that side of the House are very concerned to say that the situation has changed since the Ottawa Agreement of 1932 and that imperial preferences and matters of that kind do not have the power and the force that they had at the time of the Ottawa Agreement, and I am ready to concede that. There are many other unilateral and bilateral agreements and agreements such as G.A.T.T. which have modified all these things, apart from which the situation of the most powerful economic nation of the Commonwealth have also altered in relation to European economic affiliation. None the less, to suppose that our situation will remain the same after the existing stand-still arrangement comes to an end would be to ignore the facts. The Minister has not ignored those facts, and he has taken what steps he can in the way of dispatching trade missions, in the way of personally visiting centres overseas, particularly in Europe, and I am sure this House will commend him for the energy he has applied in these spheres. But I want to say to the hon. the Minister that however hard he and his officers may work, the best that he can do in that regard will be a palliative unless the real cause of the decay in confidence has been removed. The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje), after giving an able economic analysis of certain aspects of the situation, pointed to the crux of the difficulty of lack of confidence in the Union of South Africa. Before I begin to agree with that central point which was the point of racial policy, I want to distinguish between those matters which lie outside our control and those which lie inside our control. In an interview given to the Transvaler during the last year, the hon. the Minister is reported to have said a number of important things; inter alia, he said that the decay in confidence in the Union was part of the pattern resulting from events on the African Continent as a whole, that in so far as overseas investors began to lack confidence in our country, it was the result of the revolutionary changes that were taking place on the Continent of Africa, and that, therefore, that was something which this Government, in effect, could not influence. While conceding that that is a factor in the situation, I want to suggest to this House that the main factor in the lack of overseas confidence in the South African situation is not merely the revolutionary changes that are taking place in Africa, which do have this effect, but the combination of a policy of rigidity in this country against those changing events. That is the basis of the lack of confidence. People overseas do not believe that a rigid formula can work any more in relation to a situation which can be described, without overstressing that word, as revolutionary in speed. Now, what has the Government’s reply been to the events that I first mentioned—the shock that we took under the emergency last year? What was their reaction in terms of policy for the outside world to look at? The hon. the Minister, in the interview to which I have referred, said that one of the big things in favour of South Africa was its stable Government. I think one must distinguish between a stable government and a determined government. We saw a determined government in the Argentine under Peron and we saw a determined government in Cuba under Batista, but anyone who described those as fundamentally stable governments would have been proved false by subsequent events. The hon. the Minister in that same address was reported as having described his policy as a progressive conservative policy. Those words, I think, are good words, particularly the first one. But to imagine that the outside world would describe the policy of this Government either in relation to economics or in relation to anything else as progressive-conservative in its application, is to close one’s eyes to the facts. The bulk of the world would describe the policy of this Government as a reactionary retrogressive policy. The only reply that the Government gave at that time in the economic field—and there were many voices raised to say that some of the fundamental causes of the troubles last year were economic—was that they would now give consideration to raising the level of non-European wages. They did suggest that there would be a certain alleviation in the administration of pass laws and so forth, and they said that they would press ahead with the development of border industries.

In passing, I would like to deal for a moment with that concept of border industries. When the hon. the Minister was overseas, he was reported in our Press as having said in an interview when the word “Bantustan” was raised, “How we hate that word!” He said, “What we are dealing with is decentralization”. If that be true, then it means a movement of industry largely on an economic basis, otherwise it means nothing at all if the process is merely one of decentralization, and so far as this Government has proceeded with its Economic Advisory Council, this is the tendency of what the Government proposes in regard to border industries; in other words, an attempt to some extent to alleviate the problem of migratory labour, an attempt to some extent to alleviate the high cost of transport, etc., of Native labour in the big urban areas, an attempt to alleviate some of the worst social evils that flow from that. In so far as it is an uneconomic process, in so far as it does not create a dual economy, nobody would oppose such a process, but if that is all it is, where are the opportunities for the African technicians going to arise in this border industry development? Where are we going to have that lack of discrimination which the Government says is its policy so far as the reserves and the border reserves are concerned? We see this border development as simply a palliative in this regard and no real solution to the fundamental problem which is the fundamental problem of Africa.

An HON. MEMBER:

What is that?

Mr. WILLIAMS:

The fundamental problem of Africa in the economic field can be summed up in one word: The consequences of urbanization. The hon. the Minister himself has said that the White man, the White man in South Africa in particular, must prove to the whole continent that his technology, his wisdom, his know-how, his discipline if you like, is of great value to the continent. That technology operates in the urban or the industrial centres wherever they may be, on the borders of the reserves or otherwise, and the same problem is faced by every state in Africa which is following the policy that we fundamentally follow, which is that the only way to full employment is an expanding economy; the only way to develop your economy is export. In other words, you can say that the general picture of Africa, the aim of every state, whether the state be Black or whether it be Black or White or predominantly White in control, is to export or bust, so to speak. That same thing was evident in the discussion we had the other day on the Rhodesian trade agreement, where it is the fact that both we and the Federation see our salvation that way that causes the difficulty in coming to an agreement If this be true, the central core of the economic problem and of the racial problem lies in the word “urbanization”, and however successfully you may fight against the poverty in the reserves and improved conditions, no amount of satisfactory progress there will solve the other problem unless you are ready to say “We abandon Western technology; in a fight for survival we do not see it that way; we would rather go back to a simpler life on a lower standard of living than expand the economy”. That would be a logical line of thought. But the line of thought of the Nationalist Party is that it wants to expand the economy on the basis of the partnership of White capital and White know-how and Black labour and to deny the consequences of that inevitable integration This is what the outside world looks at and this is why the outside world tends to have a lack of confidence in our future. The answer that the hon. the Prime Minister gave to this was on the lines of the remarks of the hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak) who said “Look at Rhodesia; they have partnership; does that solve the problem of confidence so far as they are concerned?” The Prime Minister said that it would be easy to buy prosperity and temporary peace and happiness on the basis of sacrificing certain things that he considered should not be sacrificed. I do not agree with the Prime Minister; it would not be easy. Nothing is going to be easy in South Africa from now on, and to turn from a policy of race discrimination gradually to a policy of non-discrimination, however it might ease certain burdens, would not be an easy thing. What I wish to suggest to-day is that it is the only policy ultimately that we can follow if we are not to pay a price almost beyond our means to pay. Let me turn for a moment to the statements that were made yesterday by the hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. It is a sad day for South Africa when the Minister of Finance has to get up in this House and virtually say: “I am giving an assurance to the outside world; I am only taking gradual steps at the moment but I am giving the assurance to the outside world that we will take the strongest measures to prevent danger to the South African rand. That is virtually what the Minister of Finance was saying to the outside world yesterday. It was inevitable that he might have to do this but was this a way to increase confidence internally, however much this may have a good effect on the outside world? To this extent I agree with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. In one of the statements during the recess to which I have referred, he said that one of the things about South Africa is that we have always honoured our obligations, that we have always paid our debts. That is true and it is something of which we can be proud. And we have always paid them in a non-depreciated currency, and for that reason I too would agree with the strongest measures if a situation arises where a unilateral devaluation had to be considered. My only reason for mentioning it—the last thing I want to talk is depression—is the fact that the Minister of Finance in a statement yesterday had to deny rumours that there was any intention of any unilateral devaluation of our currency. That was what it amounted to.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

If he did not deny it it might have been thought that there was something in the rumours.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

The situation I am trying to outline is a situation and an atmosphere in which it becomes necessary for our Minister of Finance to do these things.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

They had to deny such rumours in America and England and elsewhere too.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

Sir, the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) can make an economic contribution to this debate and those who value it can listen. I am concerned here not to make political capital out of an existing situation; I am concerned here to face the facts of the South African situation, the deplorable facts that exist to-day, and I have been trying to outline those circumstances over which we have no control and those circumstances over which we may have control. There are obviously many circumstances over which we have control where we might act. The hon. member for Bellville said: “Look at Canada, they import capital and look at their unemployment figures. Look at Australia; they have no race problem, but they still have difficulty in importing capital.” I do not wish to be drawn into an analysis of the differences between the Australian, the Canadian and our situation. I might equally say to the hon. member, “Look at Indonesia, or look at Tristan de Cunha.” I am concerned with the actual situation in South Africa and there is too much of a tendency on the Government side when a South African problem is before us to say “Look how much worse off they are in this or that state; look at their difficulties there”. I am concerned with what is happening here, and what is happening here is not a happy thing for the country. These measures that the Minister has proposed including the import control measures of the Minister of Economic Affairs will, I hope, work as stopgaps to the extent that those gentlemen hope, because the last thing I wish to see is a steadily increasing drain on our reserves at the rate at which it is going on. But we must remember that those things are but stop-gaps; that import control never was a solution to a problem; it was simply a kind of barricade that you put up temporarily to stop something rather than something that cures the trouble behind the barricade, and the same thing applies to the financial situation. In this position, where the hon. member for Bellville does admit that he would like a certain amount of capital from abroad but at the same time belittles the advantage of outside capital as a curative measure, where the Government, while slowly coming round to an appreciation of the value of immigration where it imports skilled know-how, South Africa none the less have to face a situation where for various reasons—some of them either outside our control, and some inside our control—outside capital was never more necessary. This is a time when the Government has to deal with an increasing amount of what I will call, from a productive point of view, “dead work.” By that I mean expenditure that is not immediately productive, but has to be undertaken for long-term reasons, for example the Defence Vote that is obviously going to increase very considerably is hardly a productive line of expenditure though it may be a very necessary line of expenditure. The Minister is to proceed with his decentralization plan for border industries and that will mean, unless those industries automatically site themselves there for economic reasons, which is improbable, a certain amount of inducement of capital expenditure there. The Government is proceeding with its plans for the development of the reserves. In saying these things I am not against them per se; I am for the conquest of poverty wherever it may be found. What I am emphasizing is that the choice between capital and consumer goods is going to be weighted on the side of capital goods at a time when capital goods are going to be hard for us to find from the outside world. In other words, South Africa will have to save even more strenuously, in spite of its good record of saving in the past. The very measures that the Minister proposes with regard to import control may be a good stopgap but in effect they are an immediate lowering of the national income, like any other protective measure. These measures have two phases—that which tends to save foreign exchange and that which will act in effect as a protection to certain South African industries. And when you protect, though the long-term aim may be good, the immediate effect is a slight or greater diminution of the total national income, since you are diverting resources from activities where economics have determined that we are getting the best returns, to activities where in your interests you sacrifice a certain amount of economic principle.

There is another matter that I wish to deal with in the course of these remarks and it is this. During this year of succeeding psychological shock, what has been the reaction of the Government to those best qualified to speak in these matters? What has been the reaction of the Government to the leaders of commerce and industry? During the time that this Government has held office I think no group of men have tried harder to give this Government a chance than the leaders of commerce and industry During the early stages of this Government’s tenure of office, when misgivings were expressed by those who thought politically rather than economically, the leaders of commerce and industry said “give them a chance and so long as our world works smoothly, which is the essential world for the maintenance of South Africa, we are not going to protest until we see that what you predict is true”, That was the situation of commerce and industry for many years. Occasionally they offered mild criticism of this or that policy in the purely economic field when the Government was following a stop-gap policy, when it introduced a credit squeeze here and a measure of import control there. But after the events of last year, commerce was so concerned, not merely for its profits, as the hon. member for Jeppes has pointed out, but for the whole economic structure that they became more vocal in criticism than ever before. I do not say that those men hold the whole truth in their hands, but they do know something about the world in which they work, and it was inevitable in a country that is dominated by political rather than economic thought (because that is true of South Africa to-day) that some of their ideas which followed from economic considerations would come into conflict with the political ideas of the Government. And what is the answer? The hon. the Deputy Minister of Education, Arts and Science virtually told commerce and industry to keep their noses out of business which was not theirs. The Prime Minister said that commerce and industry can be disregarded, that they have become the mouthpiece of the Progressive Party.

Mr. SCHOONBEE:

Quite true.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

Sir, when agriculture speaks in this House, and it speaks very valuably in this House, and it speaks in a way that influences political decisions, do members on this side of the House get up and say to the leaders of agriculture “Keep your nose out of politics”?

Mr. B. COETZEE:

Yes, they said it to Moolman.

Dr. COERTZE:

But they do not talk politics.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

The hon. member say that they do not talk politics. The hon. member must permit me to differ from him on the definition of what is politics and what is not in an economic society. The leaders of commerce and industry followed a certain trend of economic thought and it led to certain conclusions which affected the political set-up, and if they point that out to the Government then it is talking politics.

I want to say to this Minister that I do not think he has ever taken the line that certain other Ministers have taken—neither he nor the Minister of Finance—but he and the Minister of Finance, in a country that is dominated by political ideas rather than a balance between political, economic, aesthetic and spiritual ideas, so to speak, have never taken this line, and are in a difficult position. They are the men who have to try to square the circle. They are the men who have to take the economic consequences of policies that interfere in the economic sphere, and in that regard both the Minister and the Minister of Finance have my sympathies. What they are doing in certain respects is to attempt to do the impossible. I said that I hoped that these measures taken would temporarily hold the situation and improve it, but if the Minister or anybody else in this House believes that measures such as raising the bank rate will really stop the drain on resources that is taking place, will really abolish the condition that exists in South Africa at the moment—and the core of that condition is that we still have a fine economic machine which is still working, the wheels of which are still turning; it is still a machine that will withstand tremendous shock, and I would say this that few economic machines in a country the size of ours would have withstood the shocks that we have had the last year without worse effects than we see present, but the difficulty at the moment is that the men who are to run that machine and expand its activity and build new machines, are beginning to come to a position where they are wondering whether they have the confidence to do that. I am speaking of the internal position now rather than the position of the external investor. When you get that situation, in the world situation that we have at the present time, you get a very serious state of affairs, because ultimately the thing on which credit rests, on which economics rests, is fundamentally a belief that expansion must take place and the thing is to get on the band wagon while it is taking place. The hon. member for Jeppes has spoken of stagnation. I think that word is too strong. We have not quite reached the position of stagnation because stagnation is the next step to deterioration. But I think the Minister will concede that we are in a position where the expansion is not taking place at the rate at which it should take place. Fundamentally there is only one thing that can improve the situation—and now I am going to talk politics because this is where politics bears on economics—and that is a belief that we can really create a stable Government here, a Government where the Minister of Defence will not have to be overworked passing Bills and organizing defence units …

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

I am not overworked.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

… a situation where we can send the Minister of Defence on a holiday and the chief of police can sit back and deal with problems less serious than those with which he has to deal at the present moment, and that is a stable Government which is based on the consent of the bulk of the people, a Government which has with it the goodwill not merely of those who control the visible power in the country but those who control the ultimate power, the men who do the dirty work in the country.

Dr. DE WET:

[Inaudible.]

Mr. WILLIAMS:

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) can also speak on economics and if he speaks on the same level that he speaks on external affairs, I think this House will be just as wise when he sits down as when he started. [Time limit.]

*Dr. COERTZE:

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) dragged in many things, and it is difficult to follow him in all his peregrinations. He blames himself for talking politics but then warns me that he is now going to talk politics, and then I hear nothing.

I would like to deal with something else, but before doing so I just want to ask the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs whether he will please give us information in regard to the tariff policy the Government intends following in respect of other countries who are still in the Commonwealth, in view of the fact that we are now or will shortly be out of the Commonwealth. He will remember that a little while ago he made a statement and told the exporters that the Government would compensate them for any losses they might suffer as the result of a change in the tariffs, and I still do not know how this thing works, but we as exporters will be glad to ascertain what the Government envisages in this regard.

Now I come back to the hon. member for Musgrave, who described the position here as being due to our inability to sell the Government’s policy abroad. Let me say this: It is not the inability to do so, but there is a great unwillingness on the part of the people who do the selling, apart from the Government, and that is one of the reasons why there is this lack of confidence. The analysis of the hon. member for Musgrave and that of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), in the Press, and of the Opposition in general is quite correct, namely that the position is due to a lack of confidence. That is so, and it is easy to state the position. But where the Opposition goes wrong is in its analysis of the reasons for that lack of confidence. He ascribes the lack of confidencee to what he calls the Government’s racial policy, and they blame everything on that policy, the Progressive Party as well as the official Opposition. They blame that policy for being the cause of the lack of confidence. We had the same sort of thing on the Prime Minister’s Vote and the Vote of the Minister of External Affairs, and now we have the same note here, just with other variations of it, like a bad musician. The basic note is that it is the Government’s racial policy which is the reason for the lack of confidence, but nothing is further from the truth than that. The truth is that the people in Europe—which I prefer to describe as the West—that Western Europe has no confidence in the West in Africa. That is the position, and everything that happens in Africa is ascribed to the inability of the West to maintain itself in Africa: The happenings in Algeria, the incidents during the past year in the Congo, in Northern Rhodesia, in Angola, in Southern Rhodesia, our leaving the Commonwealth, the various boycotts against the Union—all these things are ascribed to the inability of the White people to maintain themselves in Africa. That is the reason for the lack of confidence. In regard to this position, both the official Opposition and the Progressive Party are not free of guilt. Their role in this is not a minor one. Because what do they do? Every incident, every happening, every loud-mouthed speech of somebody who is still adolescent, of everybody who is drunk with his own importance which he suddenly gained because the world took notice of him, all these things are blazoned out and are used to cause a crisis in our country. That is done for one reason only, that they think that the Government will land in trouble and that there will then again be a position like the one we had when Tielman Roos re-entered politics. At that time the hon. member for Musgrave was still studying theology, he does not know about it, but he thinks that he will again have an opportunity such as the one there was in 1932 when a Coalition Government was formed. The whole object of the Opposition is to achieve that. Just the other day there were suggestions in quite influential circles in regard to a coalition. Why? I am not saying that the Progressive Party suggested it, but they hoped then to be able to fish in troubled waters, and the same applies to the official Opposition. But they do not realize that it is an unpatriotic deed to besmirch South Africa and to cause economic trouble. But they will even do what is unpatriotic in order to cause a crisis in the hope that they will then succeed by some means or other in obtaining a share in the Government, if they cannot take over the Government entirely. But the lessons to be learnt in the Union of South Africa at the moment and which they will learn to an increasing extent in the republic are not learnt by them, viz. that a party which concentrates on doing unpatriotic things is doomed. The results in Swellendam prove that, the result in Natal proved it, the results in Hospital perhaps prove it, the results in Bethal-Middelburg in the Transvaal prove it, and the results in South West prove that they are on the down-grade and will simply disappear as an important factor. But do not think that they learn anything from that. They learn nothing from it. They simply go out of their way to be even more unpatriotic. I would like to tell them: Seeing that we find ourselves in this economic position (which I do not want to describe as a crisis, because it is not), they can make a very large contribution if they would just learn something and try to view the problems of South Africa from the patriotic standpoint and to re-orientate themselves in this new period we are entering. If they sit down and ask themselves what they should do to ensure that South Africa enjoys the great prosperity to which it is entitled, they can make a contribution, but as I see it, the time will come when there will be only Nationalists in this House, unless the Opposition tries to play its role as an Opposition. It is necessary for parliamentary Government to have an Opposition which thinks constructively, but at the moment the Opposition is so negative and so unpatriotic that they do not even run the risk of forming the alternative Government. They are in the position of any group in Parliament which does not run the risk of being called upon to bear the responsibilities, and they are becoming more irresponsible by the day.

*The ACTING-CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member should come nearer to the Vote

*Dr. COERTZE:

Mr. Chairman, I abide by your ruling. I am stating the proposition that the lack of confidence which exists at the moment is not due to the reasons given all the time by the Opposition, but to other reasons of which we are the victims, and I want to accuse the Opposition of contributing to explaining these facts in such a way that it is to our detriment. [Time limit.]

Mr. PLEWMAN:

I don’t want to follow along the deviation from the Vote as the hon. member did who has just now resumed his seat, except to say to him that patriotism is not the closed preserve of the Nationalist Party. We certainly have proceeded quite a long way on the road to reality when the hon. member who has just sat down recognizes that our main economic problems are due to the lack of confidence that exists in the Western world.

But, Sir, when time ran out on me last evening, I had referred to a Press announcement made by the hon. the Prime Minister on 15 August 1960, about the introduction of certain penal legislation with retrospective effect during the current Session of Parliament. I described that announcement as a threat which was adversely affecting business commitments and trade relations in Africa, particularly in Ghana, by South African firms. I quoted a specific instance where this threat was having a deleterious effect on trade relations. I said that I knew of at least one international trading concern which had its headquarters for Africa in the Union which was being hampered in its trade associations. It is particularly being hampered in its trade associations since the South African personnel in its employment cannot be used to maintain its necessary trade contacts. This, I say, must be viewed as a serious matter. Threats of penal legislation is always a serious matter, but threats of penal legislation with restropective effect is a matter of very great public interest. I hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will tell this House and will tell the country what the present intentions of the Government are in regard to this matter. To leave the business world in the present state of uncertainty and to leave the employee and the private individuals in suspense in this way is nothing but real tyranny. As far as I can remember no announcement was made by the Leader of the House in the list that he gave this morning in regard to proposed legislation. As far as I can recollect this item was not mentioned. But that is purely a negative aspect of the matter and I think the hon. the Minister who is concerned primarily in the matters which I am discussing to-day, should take up a positive stand and should inform this House precisely whether it is intended to go on with this legislation or not. Sir, I am not asking for such legislation. I am trying to avoid it. But I am concerned about the matter because of the tyrannical abuse of executive power in regard to the matter and because of the stagnation which the hon. the member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronie) has referred to and which is only aggravated by an announcement of this nature. Now, Sir, last evening the hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak) became very sensitive and touchy because I had asked certain questions in regard to the three high-level trade missions which are abroad. Why he should have been so touchy about it is still a puzzle to me. I certainly hope that the hon. the Minister will deal with the matter in a more practical and objective way and will give us the information in the spirit in which the question was put to him.

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

I do not know why the hon. member is so concerned about Ghana. Does he now know that Ghana decided a long time ago to boycott us?

Mr. PLEWMAN:

I am concerned about South Africa.

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

No, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is not concerned about South Africa; he is concerned about a few people who do not know what patriotism is and who are prepared to make treacherous oaths in a foreign country. That is what he is concerned about. Does the hon. member not know that shortly after that incident Ghana announced that they were no longer going to enforce that oath at their airports? I am not saying whether legislation will or will not be introduced, but the fact remains that South Africans are landing on Ghanaian airports today without having to make a statement, and the hon. member should know that because this announcement was made months ago.

During this debate we have had two half-hour speeches, one by a United Party member, and one by a Progressive Party member, and both hon. members have admitted that South Africa is in a very strong economic position, and that fundamentally our economy is sound. The hon. member for Musgrave has gone so far as to say that there are few countries which could have withstood the shocks which South Africa has withstood and which she is still withstanding and still be in as good a position after those shocks as South Africa. I need therefore not tell the House that our country is economically sound. Even the Opposition admits that. But I now want to put a question to hon. members. They have raised a matter which basically has nothing to do with this debate, that is to say they have said that South Africa’s racial policy should be changed so that we can make more money and so that we can be more prosperous economically. This is what they are asking. We know what object the Progressive Party are aiming at; they will move towards the establishment of a non-White government in South Africa if they can get into power in this country. I now want to ask the United Party why they too are not honest and say that they have the same object? Because it is quite clear to me that here we have two parties who consider financial matters to be far more important than the preservation of White civilization here on the southern tip of Africa. If that is not so, I cannot see how they can adopt the standpoint which they are adopting.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) discussed this matter last night and his whole speech dealt with the problem of race relations and the fact that those relations must be changed. All the other points he made were merely mentioned incidentally. I now want to ask hon. members whether they can blame the people for rejecting all of them? They have lost one by-election after the other and on every occasion they have suffered a bigger defeat than before, and even when they have opposed one another, as happened at the Hospital by-election the day before yesterday, it was clear that even when they oppose one another at the polling booths, they cannot arouse any enthusiasm amongst their own supporters. It seems to me that this was a fight like that between the late Noah’s cats in the ark; it was more courting than fighting. I want to tell hon. members, and we have often said so in the past, that the National Party is determined to preserve White civilization in South Africa and £. s. d. will not cause us to deviate from our policy. Consequently when they discuss economic matters, they must accept that that part of our policy is not under discussion. That part of our policy is a matter which falls under other Departments and is part of the Government’s overall policy and as far as we are concerned is inviolate.

I am very pleased about the two announcements which the Ministers of Finance and Economic Affairs made yesterday. I have said before in this House, and I want to repeat it, that I think that our reserves are in a strong position. As far as I am concerned reserves totalling R160,000,000 are still sufficient to allow us a fairly wide margin in respect of our foreign trade. Even R100,000,000 is sufficient. My standpoint is: What is the point in having reserves if we do not use them? But nevertheless it is better to make timeous provision for keeping our reserves in a strong position and we therefore welcome the announcements which were made here yesterday. Seeing that the Government is taking timeous action, it is quite clear that the business community in South Africa will be in no doubt whether the Government is in earnest as regards protecting our foreign exchange position. I just want to say a few words more particularly about the one announcement which the Minister of Economic Affairs has made. The stricter import control which he has introduced has the laudable characteristic in particular that it is based on South Africa’s industrial development. We can develop to a far greater extent in South Africa in the industrial sphere than we have already done if we can only cultivate the attitude amongst the public that the South African product is just as good as the imported product, but that attitude is not found at all in certain quarters in South Africa. During the Buy South African Campaign one found on walking down Adderley Street that all the shop windows carried the advertisement: “Imported from Britain” or imported from some other country. That is the mentality which we still find in our business community and amongst many of our consumers, and we must try to eradicate that mentality.

As regards the announcement the hon. the Minister has made regarding motor vehicles, the House will remember that various hon. members have urged in this House on previous occasions that we should develop a motor industry in this country which will manufacture cars from the raw materials stage onwards. [Quorum.] But if this is to be done, we cannot have 70 different motor cars and 125 different types of tractors in South Africa. Then we must standardize and have a few types of each. Then we can build up a large industry which will produce both these types of vehicles, and we will probably be able to save, let us say, R150,000,000 in foreign exchange annually once this industry is established. But as regards the Minister’s announcement I am afraid of one thing, namely his statement that firms will be allotted import permits on the basis of the extent to which they use South African products. The more they use South African parts, the more they will be able to import. I am not certain whether that only relates to standardized products which are produced in this country for use in all models, or whether this relates to specialized products for use in respect of each different type of car. Because if it relates to specialized articles, to each type with its own parts, then there are 30 or 40 different types of these various spare parts and we shall be creating a vested interest so that we shall have to continue importing or producing this great variety of cars. This may frustrate the eventual establishment of a motor industry which will manufacture cars from the raw material stage onwards. The same applies to tractors. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to go into this matter and to tell us whether the intention is that these factories which produce parts in South Africa will only produce standardized articles which can be used on the various car models or whether they will produce different types for each model. [Time limit.]

*Prof. FOURIE:

It is significant that after the country received a fairly serious shock yesterday as a result of the announcement by the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, we have had to struggle this morning even to get a quorum together. It seems to me that these people of mine have now become so accustomed to shocks that they are absolutely shockproof and nothing can influence them any longer. There was a time when I also played some part in economic matters and I also studied some economics, and the type of arguments which we have heard here, particularly from the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze), surprises one, and the same applies to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever). As far as they are concerned, everything in the garden is lovely from the Government’s point of view. The scapegoat must always be sought and found elsewhere. I maintain that whatever the failings of the Opposition parties may be, this Government is guilty and must be held primarily responsible for what is happening in our country to-day, and I hope we shall hear less and less of these tactics of continually seeking to blame others, if there is to be any hope for the future of our nation. Other hon. members again have referred to the wonderful confidence which the public itself has expressed in the Government. At every succeeding election their majorities have become greater. As far as I am concerned, I want to say frankly that I find it disturbing that the people are still persisting in the road they are following, and I want to repeat that even if there should eventually only be Nationalists in this House, it would not be an indication of strength, but of the extreme danger facing the future of our country. The hon. member for Pretoria Central has said that the Government intends saving White civilization in South Africa, while the Opposition are only obsessed with financial matters. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has also said that repeatedly in the past. Sir, I believe that man does not live by bread alone, but I also know that if a nation is seeking destruction, then it should allow its bread to be destroyed. Here we are faced—and I hope the nation will realize it—with a dilemma at a time when it is absolutely essential, even for the implementation of the policy of this Government, that the economy should expand, that there should be new life and confidence, because without that development we can pronounce sentence of death over even the apartheid policy of the Government. If hon. members still want to implement that policy, it is essential that our economy should develop and that there should be stability and confidence in the country; hon. members simply cannot implement that policy if that confidence is exposed to more and more shocks. Let us have no illusions in that regard. The dilemma facing us is that we have a situation in this country where the non-White is so integrated into our economy that we cannot do without him. Whether we want to admit or not, that is the irrefutable fact. We find a tendency and a development to-day which is the cause of this lack of confidence, namely that the non-Whites, our workers, are becoming more and more dissatisfied and more and more unwilling to work, to make the greatest possible contribution to this economy on which all of us are dependent and on which any plans the Government may have for the future are dependent as well. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) is talking nonsense if he maintains that anyone on this side of the House is prepared as it were to betray the future of his own children by merely placing emphasis on the financial aspect, while the hon. member and his friends have been chosen by the Almighty to maintain White civilization in this country. Mr. Chairman, we cannot safeguard White civilization—call it what you will; I prefer to call it our Christian Western civilization—by repeatedly throwing overboard the standards and values on which that civilization is built. We cannot preserve that civilization in Southern Africa if we cannot extend that civilization to other races in this country as well. We could just as well try to reach for the moon—which has almost become a practical possibility to-day—as think that we can preserve Christian White civilization in Southern Africa if we do not also succeed in giving others a share in that civilization.

*The ACTING-CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member must now return to the Vote.

*Prof. FOURIE:

Mr. Chairman, I am discussing the economic aspect. If we cannot inspire the non-White workers of this country with a greater feeling of goodwill towards the Whites, if the co-operation which has developed in our economy over the past 300 years cannot continue to develop and improve, then the productive sources of our wealth will dry up, and that will also mean the eventual destruction of our civilization. It is our dilemma that in our daily actions, in our economy, we are trying to strive after what is a contradiction in terms. We want to have the co-operation of the non-Whites, but we do not want to concede to the non-Whites the principles which have brought the White man where he is. We want to restrict him to an ever-increasing extent …

*Mr. MARTINS:

That is not so.

*Prof. FOURIE:

… raids are being carried out daily. These things look all very well, but the fact that the Government regards it as necessary to treat the labour corns of this country in that way, is what I consider to be a symptom of the greatest crisis facing South Africa and do not let us deceive ourselves. If the Government cannot improve the relations between White and non-White, if we must do so to an ever-increasing extent by the use of the police, the defence force, Saracen tanks and machine guns, then the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Finance must realize that we are on the threshold of an era where raising the discount rate by ½ per cent, instead of having the effect they expect—I prophesy this—will have exactly the reverse effect. It will give the outside world and our country as well a further shock. It will have a depressing effect on our economy and not a stimulating effect. We shall have the same type of position as prevailed in America in 1929; namely that the higher the discount rate went, the greater the reverse effect which it had on the people who should be economically active. [Time limit.]

*Dr. W. L. D. M. VENTER:

The steps which were announced yesterday remind one involuntarily of the energetic action taken by the Government after 1948 when we were also faced with a tremendous economic problem. We are all familiar with the good results which the fearless steps taken by the Government had at the time. We prophesy that the same results will be achieved on this occasion.

*Mr. MOORE:

At that time devaluation was the result.

*Dr. W. L. D. M. VENTER:

If that hon. member will listen for a while, he will hear what else I have to say. When we examine the steps being taken to-day, the planning in the economic sphere, then one is struck by the fact that never before have plans for our South African economy been drawn up on so systematic a basis as to-day, when we have an economic advisory council and we have sent trade missions abroad, from which we expect a great deal. But then the least we can do in this country, if we cannot support them in the difficult task which rests on them, is to practise a little more self-control. When one finds a front bencher of the United Party saying—

A calm analysis of the position in South Africa made it difficult to avoid the conclusion that to implement its policy, the Government was almost preparing for civil war—which they could never win.

then one feels that such people are undermining the great and valuable work which is being done. The statement I have quoted was made by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) at a public meeting. Hon. members know him. He talks of a “calm analysis” and we know that he definitely does not have the ability or the temperament to make a “calm analysis” of such a complicated situation. When a person makes such statements, then he must be accused of one of two things: Of disloyalty to his country, or else he is suffering from a lack of cortical inhibition—and I think in his case he is suffering from both.

But I return to the planning of our economy, and I want to say that one of the things which strikes us particularly and which gratifies us is that we welcome the increasing attention which is being given to the desirability of the decentralization of industries. A characteristic of our industrial development over the past decade has in fact been this process of concentration. A survey has been carried out and it has become clear that during the period 1916 to 1952 the total number of workers in private industry increased greatly, but this was the position particularly in the southern Transvaal. During this period the number increased in the southern Transvaal from 28.2 per cent to 44.6 per cent, while in the western Cape, Port Elizabeth and Durban the numbers have fallen from 35.4 per cent to 32.4 per cent. Mr. Chairman, this is a dangerous tendency which must be countered. It is dangerous to have an increasing concentration of industries in one single area, such as the southern Transvaal. In its report No. 282 on manufacturing industry in the Union, the Board of Trade and Industries has also expressed its concern—

The board is concerned both from the economic and sociological points of view about the concentration of population in industries, particularly in the Rand area.

On the other hand there is also another important report which refers to the dangers inherent in the depopulation of the platteland, and when we link these two aspects, we say that something must be done to decentralize our industries rapidly so that these decentralized industries can become industrial contour walls which are erected to prevent the erosion of our population. When we ask how this is to be done, we know of course that we cannot expect the impossible. After all we cannot establish a factory in an area without taking into account the raw materials, the transport facilities, the available labour resources, power, labour, water and light, and the proximity of the markets which that specific industry serves. In South Africa with its peculiar problems a further factor has been introduced, namely the border areas of the natural homelands of the Bantu where we for understandable reasons want more industries to be established.

Mr. Chairman, the Northern Cape and particularly the Kimberley area fall within one of these areas which have been selected for this purpose. Fact Paper No. 35 of May 1957, which has been drawn up by experts, also shows that the Kimberley area complies with practically all the necessary requirements. It is for that reason that I want to take the opportunity this morning to urge upon the hon. the Minister once again that he should consider the possibility of erecting a steel factory in that area. Because this area has practically everything which is required for such a factory—it has the raw materials, and the main line which can serve the southern and northern areas as well as Rhodesia runs through it. In other words, South Africa’s main transport artery runs through it. In addition it is very near the Bantu reserves, according to map No. 6 of the Fact Paper. One of the important recommendations is that something should be done along those lines. But in addition we must also remember that there is increasing unemployment amongst the Bantu of that area, because the diggings are becoming exhausted and employment must be found for thousands of Natives. Power, water and light are available, and water is such an important factor. We cannot always depend on the Vaal Dam. Furthermore, there is the consideration of the proximity of the necessary markets.

Mr. Chairman, if provision must be made in that area for the requirements of the areas south of the line and even from Bloemfontein southwards, then I think that we shall have more than sufficient markets the requirements of which that area can meet. The one great defect is of course the lack of coal. But we must remember that new processes are being developed. There is the Krupp-Renn process in which coal is no longer such an important item. We urge that other more modern techniques which can be utilized and which will dispense with coal to an even greater extent should be investigated. We also want to point out that a sound platteland population is necessary for the development and preservation of a strong nation. It is the platteland which is the guardian of a nation’s cultural values. Even if we have to pay to transport the coal, then we say that the price will be worth while because the welfare of a nation is not only determined by economic factors, but also by social and other considerations. In addition there is the warning we have been given, namely that to an increasing extent we are exporting and losing our high-grade ores. I ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot at least investigate the question of whether the pre-refinement can be undertaken in that area. This will already help a great deal to solve the problems to which I have referred.

Mr. ROSS:

The last speaker has paid a lot of tributes to the Government’s plan for our future economic development. But he does not appear to have read the speeches of the heads of the Economic Advisory Council, who have explained at great length on occasion that without an expanding economy the border reserve plan is doomed to failure. And I assume that even that hon. member does not claim that at the moment our economy is expanding, particularly in view of the things that have happened since we came to attend this Session of Parliament. We started off in the Budget with increases in import duties. Yesterday we got a credit squeeze combined with the tightening up of import control. But I am perfectly sure that notwithstanding all the great plans of which the hon. member spoke, there are not many joyous hearts in the world of commerce to-day. These hearts are not joyous, and they are joining the world of industry in this feeling. And this is all brought about by the policies of this Government and nothing else.

Out of the White Paper in connection with the Budget statement I have taken the following figures: our imports from the United Kingdom dwindled from 1957 to 1960 by R43,500,000. From the United States they have dwindled by R5,500,000. Our imports from West Germany increased by R23,796,000 and our imports from Italy increased R9,000,000-odd. Our exports to the same countries show these figures: To the United Kingdom over that period our exports increased by R7,200,000; to the U.S.A, by R3,642,000. To Germany however they decreased by roughly R6,500,000 and to Italy they decreased by roughly R8,000,000. These figures show that while we were selling more to our old friends the United Kingdom and the United States of America in 1960 than we were in 1957, we are buying much less from them. We are buying R43,500,000 less in the case of the United Kingdom and R5,500,000 less in the case of the United States of America. Against this we are selling substantially less to West Germany and Italy; R6,500,000 and nearly R8,000,000 respectively while, as I said earlier on, we are buying very much more from each.

Now Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he proposes to do in regard to this matter, particularly in the case of West Germany. In 1953 West Germany bought from us approximately R38,000,000 worth of goods, and in 1960 goods to the value of approximately R34,000,000. That is a drop of R4,000,000. But going back to 1953—the figures for which I gave earlier—we purchased from West Germany approximately R40,000,000 worth of goods and in 1960 the figure was over R111,000,000. This means that while West Germany bought R4,000,000 worth less from us in 1960, we bought approximately R71,000,000 more from her in 1960 than we did in 1953. There must surely be something wrong here. I cannot imagine that imports are being made very much more easy from West Germany than from elsewhere—although, of course, that is possible. I want to repeat these figures: In 1960, according to the White Paper, we bought from West Germany goods to the value of R111,000,000 odd, and they bought from us goods to the value of R34,000,000-odd, a shortfall of over R77,000,000. Surely these figures give us the right to ask the hon. the Minister what he is doing about it or whether he can do anything about it. Surely he can press for greater purchases from West Germany, or is he precluded from doing so by G.A.T.T. or some other agreement? I would like to ask him why he has sat so complacently while West Germany is catching our markets and doing less and less for us in return? There must be some reason and I hope that he will give it to us.

This leads me to another point. This Government has sent trade commissions of able men to the four corners of the world. I want to ask the Minister this: If we cannot break into the West Germany market while we are supporting them to such a degree as we are at present, does he expect these missions to be successful elsewhere?

That brings us to a further point: This Government has left the Commonwealth and part of the United Kingdom market is in very grave jeopardy, Ghana, India, Nigeria and Malaya boycott South African goods. A previous speaker has dealt with those figures so I will not repeat them, but the fact remains that they have affected our exports. The whole of the African market is now lost to us except, of course, Southern Rhodesia, which will dwindle over the years. Yet this Government and this hon. Minister say that it does not matter and that they will find markets elsewhere. I want to know where those markets are. Let us go round the globe and look at the places these missions went to. Surely the United States and Canada are mainly self-sufficient? South America, which is largely undeveloped, trades traditionally with the U.S.A. and Europe. We might break in there, but it will be a long hard road. And what about Europe? I want to read to this Committee what Lord Home, the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said to the Institute for the Study of International Politics in Milan in Italy in February 1961. He said this—

Referring to problems created by the existence in Europe of two economic groups —the Six and the Seven—Lord Home said: “We shall persevere, together with our partner in the Seven, and in consultation with the Commonwealth, in trying to find a solution to these difficult matters. We hope that your Government and your partners in the Six will be prepared to tackle this problem in a similar spirit.”

That is Italy of course. He went on—

“Our partnership with the Commonwealth is one of the reasons why we cannot just step into the present organization of the Six unconditionally. We have to ensure conditions which would avoid serious damage to this Commonwealth partnership. Its political strength and sense of comparative stability which it gives to world society rests partly on the Commonwealth system of preferential trading. Nearly half of the world’s trade is conducted within the Commonwealth and no one would gain if its economic interdependence or its political cohesion should be destroyed.

And that protecting blanket we have, of course, chosen to throw into the gutter. This Government has left the Commonwealth. I do not want to deal with that disaster at length, but when we as an isolated country deal with the members of the Six and Seven, we will not be partners of the Commonwealth, and I would like the hon. the Minister to give us his views as to what chances we have of establishing markets there.

The figures I have given with regard to our trade in West Germany and Italy show the impossible situation into which this Government has led us. Of course, people will sell to us if our money is good—and our money is good, notwithstanding yesterday’s statements. Even this Government cannot ruin us at a moment’s notice, it will take a little longer. Of course they will sell to us if our money is good. But we have got to sell to them or our standard of living will go down and down, and everybody knows that, or ought to. I ask this hon. Minister, I think he owes it to us all to tell us what difficulties stand in the way of our selling more goods to West Germany. Why have we failed to extend our foothold there? Surely we have done enough for them? If we cannot extend our exports to them after all the money we spend buying from them, how are we going to break into markets elsewhere in Europe? This Government has certainly brought us to a sorry pass.

As far as our exports are concerned this now leaves the Far East, including Japan, China and Russia. If we cannot expand our export trade in Africa—and that has gone because of the policies of this Government—if we cannot expand in Europe no matter what we spend there, because of this Government having left the Commonwealth; if India, Malaya and the other non-White countries close their doors to us, what is left to us? Where can we sell? I admit that our exports to Japan have risen considerably recently, but from memory they have not reached the figures that they were in 1953. The Americas are not promising for us to sell goods to. What are we going to do? Are we going to trade only with Japan or are we going to concentrate all our efforts on Russia and China? Because they seem to be the only ones left. This position is impossible for industry, and I would ask the hon. the Minister please to give us in plain language the reason why he has found it so difficult to expand our exports to West Germany in view of the treatment they are getting from us in every direction. I should like to know whether he thinks these difficulties can be overcome, and if they can be overcome in West Germany, Italy and elsewhere, will he please tell us how he proposes to do it?

*The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

Mr. Chairman, I think that I should reply at this stage to certain of the questions and problems which have been raised. I shall start with the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) but I think the House will agree with me that it is not necessary for me to devote much time to what the hon. member said last night, in the first place because in his 30-minute speech he said absolutely nothing new. The statements he made were statements we have heard time and time again, namely the old complaint that the economy is absolutely sound and that the fault lies solely with the colour policy of the Government. I say that he has said nothing new, except for what we have already heard so often in this regard. In the second place the hon. member has offered no criticism of the economy of the country as such, and I want to thank him for the compliment he has paid to my Department by not offering one word of criticism of the economy as such during his whole speech, but only of the colour policy of the Government. Actually he should have made that speech on a motion of no confidence or during a debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote. But in the third place, the hon. member, as we have learned to know him, has put forward no proposals which are of a positive economic nature. As a leading economist on that side of the House, he had a golden opportunity to make certain positive economic proposals, and during this debate, just as in all the speeches he has made in the past, he has not succeeded in making one single positive economic suggestion. All he has said is that the Government should change its colour policy; for the rest he has not discussed economic matters. On occasion during this debate I wondered whether I should not rise and ask the Chairman whether we could not come back to Vote 40, namely Commerce and Industries.

I now just want to put this brief question to the hon. member: If we as the Government should abandon our colour policy, what colour policy does he then consider should be adopted in our country so that the economy can once again be placed on a sound basis? Certainly not their policy. As they admit, their policy is also a policy of discrimination. Their policy suffers from the disadvantage that the people of South Africa reject it, while our policy is accepted and is being accepted to an ever-increasing extent. Their policy suffers from the disadvantage that the people of South Africa and the world too reject it, because it is a policy of discrimination. If colour policy is to solve the economic problems of South Africa, if a change in our colour policy is the key to the solution of our economic problems, then it is not the policy of that side which will produce the solution, but the policy of the Afro-Asian States which is the only policy which would satisfy the world, and that is a policy of complete equality in South Africa. That policy is not only one of complete equality, but is also a policy which would eventually result in the White man of South Africa being expelled from South Africa, and what would then become of the economy of the country?

The hon. member has referred to our withdrawal from the Commonwealth. I agree with him entirely that the harm our leaving the Commonwealth has done to our economy has been more of a psychological nature, as the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) has said—it has had more of a psychological effect because of the hesitation and uncertainty which it has introduced into our economy and which I hope is of a temporary nature. The hon. member has discussed our colour policy, and I want to ask him what price he was prepared to pay in order to remain a member of the Commonwealth. And having asked this question I just want to read to him again what Mr. Macmillan said when discussing “the Commonwealth”—

It is an association of many races and peoples. It is dedicated to the ideal that all peoples of whatever race, colour or creed, should have full equality of opportunity in their own countries and in the world.

That is the policy of the Commonwealth which he wants to force upon us and I wonder whether the hon. member would have been prepared to pay that price?

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) has referred to an argument used by the business community, by commerce and industry, who have made certain statements recently as to how we should strengthen South Africa’s economy. I have also read of those statements. Commerce and industry have spoken, but the mandate in terms of which this Government is acting is one which has been given to it by the nation. The policy of hon. members opposite which those people advocate is a policy which has been put to the people for years past and which the people have consistently rejected. The hon. member for Jeppes now asks me whether I consider that these people want to destroy their business undertakings when they put forward such policies. But does the hon. member think that the people of South Africa want to destroy themselves? I am always prepared to listen to the representatives of commerce and industry. I have always done so in the past. I believe that the co-operation which exists between my Department and organized commerce and industry is very sound, and I hope that position will always remain unchanged. I am prepared to listen to the representatives of commerce and industry whenever they approach me in the interests of commerce and industry and of the economy of the country. But there are certain groups in commerce and industry which approach the Government with purely political policies which in many respects go far further than even the policy of the United Party, and then they must forgive me if I do not listen to those representations.

The hon. member for Jeppes has discussed foreign capital. I agree with him entirely that we should do everything in our power to attract foreign capital to this country, especially genuine investment capital, and especially capital which is accompanied by knowledge, and especially capital which will bring about the development of new industries in co-operation with South African investors. But the capital inflow has diminished in recent times and there are many other reasons besides those mentioned by the hon. member opposite. There is the question of the fear of Africa as a whole which has already been mentioned. There is the capital shortage which is being experienced throughout the world. There is the capital aid which has to be provided to the developing young countries, and which is absorbing a large proportion of the capital available in the world. There is the development of the Common Market, the European Free Trade Association, and it is especially the Common Market and the E.E.G. which are attracting vast sums of capital particularly from England and America and leaving less for us. There are also other factors which are harming us, such as rumours and stories which are being spread regarding our country, and I say they are deliberate and wilful stories aimed at harming the economy of South Africa. I refer the House to the report which appeared a few weeks ago in one of the British newspapers and which contained the untruth that we were considering withholding a portion of the dividends of foreign investors to finance the development of the Bantu homelands. I say that that was a report which was deliberately aimed at harming the economy of South Africa, and such reports are often published. I have even encountered rumours in Britain and on the Continent which originated from Britain regarding certain steps which the Government was supposed to be going to take in respect of our economy, rumours which did enormous harm abroad and which were absolutely unfounded. I say that there are organizations in certain countries which are deliberately fabricating al) sorts of rumours and which are publishing those rumours with the deliberate aim of harming South Africa’s economy. But we welcome foreign capital. I have always said so and I stand by that. When I was overseas recently part of my task was to try to persuade industrialists to invest here. But we must be realistic. We must not talk as though foreign capital is the “cure-all” or the remedy which will solve all our difficulties. I expect it, and I want it, but I am a realist enough to know that foreign capital will not solve all our difficulties.

*Mr. WATERSON:

No?

*The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

Is the hon member saying that it will solve all our difficulties? No? Then we understand one another.

I want to take this opportunity to say that there are certain types of foreign investments in South Africa which are not always to our advantage. I am referring to companies which come here with a limited amount of investment capital of their own, but which borrow the major portion of their funds in South Africa at a low rate of interest. They then earn tremendous profits on their own capital, and only pay 6 per cent or 7 per cent on the money which they borrow here. I am also referring to the type of company which comes to this country with a limited capital and which conversely borrow their funds abroad from their parent companies at a high interest rate. I am referring to companies which have been financed recently by their parent companies but which have recently been sending those funds to the countries in which their parent companies are situated and approaching our banks to meet their financial needs. Part of our capital outflow has not been represented by funk capital of people who are capitalizing their assets in South Africa, but a large part of our capital outflow has been caused by the fact that foreign companies are no longer advancing loans to their own subsidiary companies, and the subsidiaries have had to obtain their funds from the local banks. A vast proportion of our capital resources have left our country at this particular stage as a result of this process. I am also referring to companies which come to this country as international companies, buy up a mineral proposition and export certain of our minerals directly to their mother country at the cost of production alone. There is no local company which could pay certain taxes to us, but they take all those minerals and export them merely at the cost of production and leave the empty holes in the ground for us. My hon. friend has spoken about the refining of our minerals. I could devote a great deal of time to that aspect if I had the time and also to the difficulties involved, but one of the difficulties is that certain of our raw materials which certain companies are exploiting, are not available to us as South Africans. These are matters which we shall have to investigate.

I am also referring to foreign companies which have established themselves here or which are co-operating with South African interests, but which do not want South Africa to export. They restrict the exportation of products which we produce here and which we could send to other countries because they want their own parent companies in other countries to supply those exports. I am just mentioning one or two examples to show that we must be realistic in these matters. All foreign capital is not an unmixed blessing, and these are problems which we must face. Nevertheless we shall do everything in our power to attract the right type of foreign capital to this country, particularly that type of capital which is prepared to co-operate with our undertakings in the exploitation of our raw materials.

I have been asked: What will happen to the preferences with Commonwealth countries? I should like to take this opportunity to make the following statement:

On 16 March I issued a statement which was intended to reassure exporters who were exporting to Commonwealth countries and who had doubts as to the tariff position in the immediate future following our announcement that we were leaving the Commonwealth, and I also gave them an unequivocal assurance that any increased tariffs which might be imposed on shipments from that day on until and including a date on which I would make a further statement, would be met by the Union Government.

This was a temporary measure during a period of uncertainty. That uncertainty has now been removed to a large extent and we know what the tariff position is as regards 98.4 per cent (1960 figures) of our export trade with members of the Commonwealth. The undertaking I gave on behalf of the Government has therefore served its purpose and must now lapse.

For the information of exporters in particular and the public in general, I want to explain briefly what the tariff position in respect of our exports to various Commonwealth countries is and will be after 31 May.

The customs duties on our exports to the United Kingdom will undergo no change as a result of the ending of our Commonwealth membership. The position is also covered by the British stand-still legislation. This legislation also covers the tariff position in respect of any British colonies. British Protectorates and British trust territories which are not covered by formal bilaterial agreements between the governing powers.

The position as regards the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland remains unchanged as a result of our agreement with the Federation.

The position as regards Australia remains unchanged as a result of our and their membership of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

The Canadian Government has formally informed the Union Government that trade relations between Canada and the Union will continue unchanged as far as they are concerned after 31 May.

The New Zealand Government on the other hand has informed us that the position as regards goods which are covered by our agreement will remain unchanged, while most favoured nation treatment will be afforded to all our other exports to New Zealand in view of the fact that we are both members of G.A.T.T. In 1960 these exports to New Zealand totalled R1.7 million.

The New Zealand Government has however agreed that the latter type of goods which are shipped from the Union (or railed for example for shipment from Lourenço Marques) will still be admitted at the present tariffs up to and including 31 May.

Our tariff position as regards Cyprus, Pakistan, Ceylon and Malaya where we enjoy preferences as a result of our membership of the Commonwealth remains unfinalized for the moment.

Our trade with Cyprus is insignificant—that with Ceylon and Pakistan is not inconsiderable but the balance is in their favour, that is to say they export more to us than they import from us. The Government will watch the actions of these States carefully but does not intend entering into specific negotiations with them in the near future.

Our position in Pakistan remains unchanged in view of the fact that we are both members of G.A.T.T.

Malaya, where we have enjoyed preferences, as well as Ghana and Nigeria where we enjoy no preferences and which are also members of the Commonwealth, have for a considerable period been enforcing an official boycott against the Union which was introduced while the Union was still a member of the Commonwealth. The expectation is that the position will remain unaltered after 31 May and the Government does not intend trying to persuade these states to adopt a different attitude.

As I have already said, we now have certainty as regards the tariff position of nearly 99 per cent (1960 pattern) of our trade with the countries which are still members of the Commonwealth. Our tariff position with other countries of the world will also not be affected by our becoming a republic.

I therefore want to make an earnest appeal to our exporters not to relax their efforts but to cultivate existing markets with renewed energy and to gain new markets. We can do so if we have the will to do so.

After this statement I want to discuss one or two questions which hon. members have put. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) has asked questions about import permits in respect of new motor cars. I just want to inform him briefly that no additional foreign exchange will be made available for any new cars. Even if certain companies are importing new models and new types of cars, they must take the exchange which they use for that purpose from the total allocation which they have been given. I just want to add that he is probably referring to certain Japanese cars, but the importation of Japanese cars has absolutely nothing to do with our trade missions. These cars were already being marketed two years ago, although on a small scale, and the foreign exchange which we have provided for the importation of those cars was provided in the light of commitments which were entered into more than two years ago. I also just want to add that over and above the formula which is being applied to the motor trade in general, we have in fact made certain allocations to certain young companies to enable them to operate economically. I shall always follow that policy. I shall not take such action that we may expose ourselves once again to the accusation that we are taking a certain year, let us say 1948, as a basis, as the Opposition often did, and basing all import permits on that year. There must always be scope for the young man and the young industry that show that they have the potential to develop if a small initial concession is made. I may say that the matter has been discussed with the motor trade and that they have accepted it in principle.

The hon. member has also asked me whether we shall tighten up the hire-purchase regulations. My reply is that we are not considering it at the moment. He has asked me about a tender by the Department of Transport for certain motor cars which was subject to the condition that imported tyres would be fitted. My Department is not aware of any such tender. We do know that certain cars have been imported and that the manufacturers’ instructions were to the effect that certain tyres should be fitted for safety reasons, tyres which are not obtainable locally. The tyres to which the hon. member has referred are probably tyres which are not obtainable locally.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) has questioned me about the trade missions. I am surprised that the hon. member takes such an interest in these trade missions, particularly after the unkind remarks which the hon. member made a few weeks ago about these trade missions. A few weeks ago during the Budget debate the hon. member went to far as to compare these trade missions unfavourably with the “King Kong” group which is now appearing in London, and he was not joking. He said: “I do not want to be facetious, I do not want to belittle their efforts. To the outsider of course it may well seem that in the present political climate just as ‘King Kong ’ has gone to London, so the three other live shows go east, west and north to put South Africa economically on the map. In that regard again, I do not want to be facetious.” In other words, he was in earnest; that was his considered opinion. He then said: “But my own impression is that ‘ King Kong ’ will show the best results.”

*HON. MEMBERS:

Shame!

*The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

At a time such as this, when we should all put our shoulders to the wheel in order to do our best for South Africa, when we are trying to take positive steps to promote South Africa’s economic development, then hon. members and particularly a respected member such as the hon. member, have risen and belittled not only our sincere attempts to promote South African exports, but he has belittled some of the most eminent men in South Africa by comparing them with “King Kong”, At a time when these people must negotiate abroad with governments and with the leading figures in commerce and industry abroad, on behalf of South Africa and not on behalf of a political party … The hon. member is laughing. He is probably once again making a joke about these trade missions. But at a time when our representatives have to negotiate abroad on matters affecting our country’s exports, he has come forward in our own country, as a leading figure in the United Party and without being repudiated has said that we have sent a “King Kong” mission abroad. But the hon. member has not put anything else forward. Just like other hon. members he has made no positive proposals. They do not offer any economic policy. My only reply is that the United Party’s economic policy is nothing but a “King Kong” policy. But despite this I shall give the hon. member and the House a few details regarding these tours. I cannot discuss all the aspects, but I may just say that the three trade missions are following their predetermined schedules. There is a long list of various countries. The one in America is at present in San Francisco. The one in the East is at present in Tokyo, and the one in Europe is in Switzerland at the moment. But they are following their schedules. I might just also inform the Committee that although we have not yet received formal and official reports from these missions, the reports which we have hitherto received in the form of letters from these missions are particularly favourable. In every country they have been received with the utmost hospitality in the highest industrial, commercial and governmental circles, and they have been able to inform us that they feel particularly gratified about the future possibilities as far as our exports and our trade are concerned. But commerce and industry must follow up these prospects themselves. Through these missions we shall establish the necessary contacts and we shall convey the necessary information to commerce and industry, but they will have to follow up these contacts themselves. Just this morning I received a letter from Dr. Holloway from which I want to read just one sentence—

Everywhere, in Italy, Switzerland, France, Portugal and Spain, we have received a most cordial welcome.

And we are receiving the same type of report from all these missions. In this regard you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, just to say a few words of deep sympathy regarding the death of Dr. du Toit who was the leader of our mission to the East. His death in the East while in the service of his country is deeply regretted by all of us. His services to the State and South Africa are greatly appreciated and we wish to convey our sympathy to his family.

I might just add that under these tragic circumstances our mission was afforded every kindness and all possible assistance in Bangkok, where the tragedy took place, by the authorities, from the Prime Minister downwards, for which we are very grateful.

The hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak) has asked about the E.E.G. That is a long story. He has asked whether there will be any further diminution of the preferences enjoyed by Commonwealth countries. We have already seen such a diminution as a result of the E.F.T.A. and we know that there may be a further diminution of these preferences if Britain should apply for and obtain membership of the European Economic Group. We know that Britain has been trying for a long time to join the E.E.G. either as a country or as part of the E.F.T.A. We know that these attempts have hitherto not met with much success. Britain finds it politically and economically important that she should not be excluded from this important market, although her exports mostly go to countries other than the area covered by the Six. There are other reasons why she would like to link up with the Six, but there are various difficulties in the way. The first difficulty is that the Six constitute more than a purely economic community. They also have specific political aims, such as economic unity and eventually ever-increasing political unity. They are not merely a tariff-forming group, but they want to achieve co-ordination in the policies of the various countries in various spheres such as transport, social life, wages, labour, etc., and Britain has always been against associating herself with this group which is aiming at economic unity, but which is also aiming at more than economic unity, that is to say at political unity as well; and not only Britain, but countries such as Austria, Switzerland and Sweden which are neutral countries are afraid to link themselves too closely with the E.E.G. because of its political significance. The second reason is the external tariff. The six countries are building up a common external tariff. The Efta countries, the seven countries, do not have a common tariff; each country has its own external tariffs. The difficulty in attempting to reconcile these two groups has always been how to reconcile the common external tariff of the Six with the differing tariffs of the Seven. A third difficulty has been the agricultural problem. Efta is an industrial agreement: it excludes agricultural products. The Six include agricultural products, although they have not yet found a solution for their agricultural problems. But there are two differing points of view in respect of agricultural policy within these groups which also make it difficult for them to work more closely together. The fourth problem has been the problem of Commonwealth preferences. It was felt in the E.E.G. countries that it was impossible to admit Britain to the E.E.G. while she still enjoyed her own preferences on the one hand and on the other hand was affording preferences to Commonwealth countries. The attempt foundered on these difficulties, and until recently a formula had not yet been found. But both sides are working hard on the matter, and it is my impression that a formula will be found. Recent reports indicate ever more strongly that a method will be found by which Britain will become more closely linked to the E.E.G. I feel that this in turn will be accompanied by a change in the preference position between Britain and the Commonwealth countries. There are clear indications that to enable Britain to enter the E.E.G., the preferential position of the Commonwealth countries will have to be diminished to a certain extent. I do not want to go into this question any further. I just want to say this: We are keeping a close watch on the position of the E.E.G. and its relations with Efta; we are keeping a very close watch on the effects which the changes in Europe in this regard may have on our economy. We have decided to appoint an economist to Brussels. As hon. members know, our ambassador is already accredited to the E.E.G. but we also want to appoint an economist whose main task will be to make a continuous study and to keep himself informed at all times of what is happening in the E.E.G. and then to report to us. The trade missions have also been entrusted with the task of negotiating with all the leading figures in commerce and industry and if necessary to approach Government bodies as well, which they have already done in many industries. Their task is to see which of the goods which South Africa has available and which such a country requires can be exported to that country and to find organizations which want to take such products from South Africa, but if restrictions are being placed on our trade through governmental action, they will also discuss the matter with such governments. In this regard they have an open mandate, and with this purpose in mind they are meeting all important bodies such as the chambers of commerce and the chambers of industry as well as governmental bodies in these countries. The estimated cost of these missions, for which we have obtained Treasury approval, is in the neighbourhood of R80,000 for the whole tour.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van der Heever) has asked what the position is as regards the establishment of a motor industry. I can tell him that we are giving very careful attention to the development of a South African motor industry of our own.

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) has raised certain matters, some of which I have already discussed. I also agree with him that these measures which we are taking are not permanent measures. We hope that they will be temporary measures. In the meantime we must continue with our policy of protection and with the development of our economy by every positive method, so that we can dispense with these measures as soon as possible. Many countries have been obliged to take these temporary measures. Many of these measures which were announced yesterday, for example, in the form of currency controls, have been adopted by countries such as America in recent times. The raising of the interest rates is a step which has been taken in all countries, and our discount rates is still one of the lowest in the world. Two years ago Britain’s was still 7 per cent. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) has referred to the case of Ghana. I just want to tell him that I cannot reply to that question. It is a matter which he can put this afternoon to the Minister of the Interior, that is to say the question of the legislation depriving persons who go to Ghana and who sign anti-apartheid declarations in that country of their citizenship.

The hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) has discussed the erection of a steel factory. He has already put his case to me often and well, and I congratulate him on the way in which he is serving his constituency in this regard, and I want to say at once that we shall certainly give serious consideration to these representations.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) has discussed our trade with West Germany in particular. He has said that our exports to Germany are not increasing rapidly enough for his liking, and he has asked what we are doing about it. I want to point out that the value of our exports to Western Germany totalled R28,000 in 1958, R32,000 in 1959 and R34,000 in 1960. There has therefore been an increase of nearly 20 per cent over this period. We shall do everything in our power —and we are also doing so by the expansion of our representation in these countries—to stimulate trade with the Six. We are strengthening our trade missions in Europe. But it is not the Government which is going to sell in those countries; it is the exporters who must sell there, and the exporters have hitherto always regarded London as their base. Most of them have concentrated on Britain and forgotten Europe—including France, Italy and Western Germany. I believe that if our exporters would also give some attention to the European continent, they would find a vast market which is still lying fallow as far as South Africa is concerned. I recently came across one case where a certain article was required in Germany and was ordered. The reply was that the articles had to be supplied from England, and that article was then sent from England. When they arrived in Germany—this was an edible commodity—they were in such bad condition that they had to be thrown away and the whole market was spoiled. But certain people believe that one should do all one’s business from Britain. We must persuade our businessmen, our industrialists, our exporters, to regard the Continent as the Continent; to suit their labels, their methods of marketing and their advertising to the needs of those countries. The hon. member referred the other day to a point which I also want to emphasize. Jams, canned fruits and canned vegetables, etc., are quite correctly marketed under English labels in Britain. That is quite correct, but then the same articles are sent from Britain to France and Germany under English labels, and our people have not yet had the imagination to market in French in France, in German in Germany and in Italian in Italy. There is much that can be done in this direction. For the Government’s part we shall do everything in our power to open markets in Western Europe for our industries; there are great potentialities; but our exporters must please make their contribution as well.

Mr. RAW:

I do not want to follow the Minister in the attitude he took at the beginning of his speech other than to refer to two points which I think require an answer. The first is that the Minister gave the House a statement in regard to the tariff position after 31 May, but all that he told the House was that in most instances temporary provision had been made while the issue was being considered by other countries. In no case did he give us any indication as to what the Government was doing towards a permanent settlement of the issue. We all know that the British government has passed the stand-still Act. What we are interested in is something beyond to-morrow. Throughout the statement the words “temporary” and “stand-still” and “in the meantime” appear. What South Africa is interested in is what is going to happen when these standstill agreements come to a conclusion and when we are faced with a permanent position.

I want to deal too with the Minister’s reference to the interference by spokesmen of commerce and industry in politics. The Minister seems to consider that as soon as anything to do with the non-Whites comes into the picture it immediately becomes politics. Does he regard things like job reservation as politics and no concern of commerce and industry? Does he regard the question of Native labour resources and control and direction as something which commerce and industry should keep out of because it is a political issue?

An HON. MEMBER:

And the question of influx control.

Mr. RAW:

The question of influx control, yes.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

They want the abolition of influx control.

Mr. RAW:

No responsible body has asked for the abolition of influx control.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

The Chambers of Industries did.

Mr. RAW:

That is not correct. That is the sort of politics that is being played here. No responsible body has asked for the abolition of influx control. There have been requests in regard to the administration of that policy. Sir, questions like the establishment of border industries, which is Government policy, immediately becomes politics irrespective of their effect on commerce and industry. This Minister seems to live in an ivory tower when it comes to the administration of his Department. He seems to regard the question of economics and the question of politics as being two completely divorced matters. The point that has been made time and again from this side of the House is that you cannot divorce the two issues; you cannot divorce the political policies of a country from the consequences which those policies have on the economics of that country. The Minister very proudly says that this policy has been accepted by the people and he goes on to say, “What else can we do? We are carrying out a mandate of the people.” What he is saying in fact is that the people of South Africa must now start to pay the price for the course which the Government is following, and he is not interested in what that price is going to be. He is not interested in the hardships which may flow from it. I want now to refer to the effect of his statement last night, the effect of import permits in the case of textile piece goods. I hope the Minister will give us some more information on this. I would like to know whether textiles for industrial purposes will be exempt —textiles required as raw materials. I would like to know whether he will give any special consideration to those firms whose entire business is dependent on the handling of textiles, for instance textile wholesalers whose whole existence depends on this particular trade.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has put up the defence here that the Chambers of Commerce and the Chambers of Industries allegedly do not take part in politics; he suggests that where they have made statements they have confined themselves purely to economic matters. For his information I just want to quote what was said by one of the chairmen of the Chambers of Commerce. I have here a report from Port Elizabeth that appeared in the Cape Argus. It reads—

Mr. Peter Mosenthal, President of the Port Elizabeth Chamber of Commerce, said this afternoon that the time had arrived when organized commerce must make its voice heard in the political arena.

And then the hon. member tells us that they only express opinions on economic matters. The fact remains that in recent times the Federated Chambers of Commerce in particular had done its utmost to bring political pressure to bear in South Africa and it has not succeeded. But I want to come back to this other story of the Opposition, of which the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) also makes so much use, and that is that money is flowing out of this country as a result of lack of confidence not only in this Government’s policy but as the result of lack of confidence in the whole economy of South Africa. This same story was used on a large scale in the by-election campaign in Swellendam, and none other than the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), whom I informed that I was going to raise this matter and who told me that he was not sure whether he could be here, used this same story during the by-election in Swellendam and stated that people had so little confidence in South Africa that they were sending money out of this country on a large scale. Amongst his audience there were people who knew that it was unlawful to send money out of the country, and they then asked him whether he knew of any people who had sent money out of the country and who they were, and his reply was that National Party Ministers were buying farms in Rhodesia. In other words, he wanted to create the impression that there was so little confidence in South Africa that even Ministers were sending their money out of the country, although he knows perfectly well that what he referred to there, is something that happened seven or eight years ago when certain Ministers or a certain Minister —I do not know who—bought certain land in Rhodesia. But his common sense should have told him that if one wants to send money out of South Africa, one would certainly not send it to Rhodesia. One would not jump from the frying pan into the fire. If one wished to send money out of the country one would send it a little farther afield than Rhodesia.

I want to say a few words in regard to this question of money being sent out of this country. Who are the people whose confidence in the economy of South Africa has been shocked? Who are the people who are selling their shares at the moment, as the result of which we have an unfavourable trade balance, as a result of which money is being sent out of this country? Is it the large financial institutions? Is it people who are acquainted with what is going on in South Africa? No, the only people who are selling their shares to-day, the only people who are trying to send money out of this country, are the small investors who have allowed themselves to be frightened—not those people who have any knowledge of the economy of this country. The large financial institutions still have the same confidence in South Africa, and they are still investing money in South Africa. May I just refer to the transaction which has just gone through, in which the United Dominion Corporation, which is an exclusively British financial institution, in co-operation with certain others, paid a fantastic price for the shares of Cuthberts. Is that a sign of a lack of confidence in South Africa? The question might well be asked why investors overseas are not buying shares here at the moment. Because there are bargains to be picked up to-day on the Stock Exchange in South Africa which are to be found nowhere else in the world. Let me mention just one example. To-day one can buy De Beers Deferred, which everybody admits is almost as safe as Barclays Bank or as the Bank of England, at a price which gives one almost 10 per cent on one’s money. The question is why overseas investors are not buying, and the reply to that question is perfectly clear. The overseas investor and the financial institutions are not buying because they have been led to believe that they will be able to get those shares even more cheaply later this month. Instead of trying to restore these people’s confidence, the English newspapers and prominent members of the United Party have led them to believe that we are going to have trouble during May, and that share prices are going to drop further as a result of that, and the only reason why people are not buying is because they expect that there might be unrest, disturbances and bloodshed, and that they will be able to buy those shares even more cheaply later. One expects every South African to try to remove that false impression and to tell those people that their investments here will be safe. But is that what the Opposition does? I want to refer now to one of the most shocking speeches that has probably ever been made by a politician in South Africa. I refer to a speech made by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) the other evening at Plumstead. In any other country he would certainly not have retained his freedom if he had made this type of speech, because what does he say?

*Dr. JONKER:

They would have thrown him in gaol.

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

He says—

The Government is preparing for civil war.

After all, he knows that that is not true. Then he goes on to say—

The Defence Force and the A.C.F. were being prepared to ensure that South African citizens were kept in a state of docile obedience to cruel and oppressive laws in the making of which they have no say.

Is he not ashamed of himself? Why does he not tell the truth to the world and say that one of our greatest problems is to keep the Bantu beyond our borders out of our country, because they are continually crossing our borders to be oppressed under these terrible so-called “oppressive laws” of this Government. Why does he tell people that we are preparing for civil war in South Africa and that we can only maintain our position here by the use of force?

*Dr. JONKER:

Incitement.

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

He goes on to say—

One can conclude only that the Government knows that its policies must result in violence, and it has no plan other than to keep violence in check with greater force.

I say that when the hon. member said these things he knew that they were untrue. He deliberately suppresses the facts which are favourable to South Africa, because he knows that the steps which have now been taken are not at all unusual steps. They are steps which are regularly taken in England and in America and in every democratic country in the world, but the hon. member pretends that these steps are being taken in preparation for civil war in South Africa. Who is going to buy shares here if there is going to be civil war in this month of May? No, rather wait until 31 May, because then you will be able to buy the shares even more cheaply.

*Dr. JONKER:

And that comes from a United Party front-bencher.

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

He goes on to say—

He would not be surprised if events in South West Africa sparked off by United Nations action next year or so, were the beginning of explosive happenings in South Africa that might well bring us down in ruins.

Who would buy shares under those circumstances? But then he goes even further and tells this untruth to explain why the position is so bad. He says—

This unbending race-arrogant Prime Minister has committed four blunders which might well set back the country’s history for a generation.
*Dr. JONKER:

In which funk-hole is he hiding now?

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

And the one “blunder” that the Prime Minister committed is the following—

He had, by practising the dogma of racial discrimination, isolated South Africa from the Western world.

I ask hon. members on that side: Do they agree with the “dogma of racial discrimination”? Do they want to abolish racial discrimination entirely? I put it to the hon. member for Durban (Point): Is that their policy? But they tell the rest of the world that the Government is preparing for civil war because the Government is practising a “dogma of racial discrimination”, while every member on that side subscribes to this “dogma of racial discrimination”. I say that this is one of the most shocking speeches that we have ever heard, and I can come to one conclusion only. If the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, does not repudiate this irresponsible nonsense immediately, then there can be one reason only, and that is that they would welcome it if there was bloodshed here in this month of May. [Time limit.]

Mr. RAW:

If any evidence were needed of the bankruptcy of this Government’s policy in regard to economics, it was the speech to which we have just listened from this new economist in the Government ranks, a speech dealing entirely with a political speech made on political issues outside of this House. We here at the moment are dealing with the policy of the Minister of Economic Affairs and I do not intend, and neither does this side of the House intend, to be side-tracked by that sort of red-herring. We will deal with that in its own good time. But, Mr. Chairman, it is significant of the way this Government is trying to evade cold, hard facts in our economic life that in reply to the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) the Minister of Economic Affairs made a political speech. He talked of saving the White “volk”. He did not answer the speech of the hon. member for Jeppes, and now we get the hon. member for Vereeniging making another political speech. As I said, I do not intend to be side-tracked.

Before business was interrupted, I was dealing with the question of the inter-relationship of politics and economic affairs, and the hon. member for Vereeniging quotes a speech by one individual as proof that the Chambers of Commerce are now taking part in politics. I say categorically that the official organization of the Chambers of Commerce and the Chambers of Industries of South Africa does not interfere with politics, apart from the degree to which it affects the economy of South Africa. The hon. member talks of confidence when this Minister’s Industrial Development Corporation is investing funds in a company which is spending that money outside our borders. Is that confidence? The I.D.C. bid for the Cuthbert shares about which the hon. member was talking. The Industrial Development Corporation was involved in that take-over bid, and it is spending money outside our borders and then he talks about confidence!

I want to come back to two matters, the first of which I was dealing with when we adjourned, and that is the question of import permits in respect of textile piece goods. I would ask the Minister again for a clear statement as to the policy that the Government intends to follow in regard to the application of the permit system, in particular towards users of textile piece goods as raw material in South African industries, wholesalers who are dependent on that business and the general trade. The restrictions will inevitably throw a greater load upon large-scale wholesale distributors and I would ask the hon. the Minister for a clear statement to allay the concern of commerce in this regard. The Minister said that most of the textile piece goods could be supplied in South Africa. He knows that that is not so. Calico, drills, denims, certain grades of poplin are in fairly adequate supply, but he knows that a very large proportion of the textile piece goods imported cannot be made in this country, and in order to clarify the position, I trust that the Minister will give us a statement.

Now I wish to deal with one of the industries in South Africa which shows a favourable balance of trade for South Africa. It is an industry in which the Minister is interested, the hotel industry, and I know that at the annual congress of the Federated Hotel Association the President, Mr. Hoffman, paid tribute to the interest of the Minister. This is an industry of some R120,000,000, covering 1,500 hotels in South Africa. I am particularly interested in it, because my constituency has the largest number of hotels of any constituency in South Africa, and it also has the best hotels of any constituency in South Africa. The hon. member need not argue about that, the number of visitors to the beaches of Durban will establish that fact. But the industry as a whole is going through difficult times. The Bureau of Statistics recently quoted figures to indicate that although there has been an increase in beds from 62,000 to 68,500, the occupancy of those beds has dropped by 1,200,000 between 1952 and 1959. The occupancy dropped from 12,800,000 to 11,600,000 and the occupancy rate dropped from 56 per cent to 46 per cent. Apart from that, despite an increase of 60 per cent in tariffs, the net earnings of hotels dropped by 33 per cent between 1952 and 1958; a one-third reduction in the net earnings and a drop in profit margin from 10.8 per cent to 6.19 per cent. This is a serious situation because South Africa enjoys about 185,000 overseas visitors bringing some R40, 000,000 per year into South Africa, and each one of those visitors has to go through the hotels of South Africa. There have been numerous investigations. There was the 1943 Higgerty Commission, the 1949 Cape Town University Investigation, there was a Bill in 1951 which was dropped, and there was the Liquor Commission of 1956, the legislation for which we are still awaiting. But the problem remains, and I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to fall in with the suggestion of the Federated Hotel Association. They are trying to help themselves, and they have made a suggestion that a statutory body should be established to deal with their problems, following perhaps a prior investigation into the whole industry, an industry in which there are many employees, and an industry which is providing a public service to South Africa. The importance of the industry is recognized by the hon. the Minister of Finance in taxation proposals which help new hotels, but the older hotels are still facing many problems, problems of police interference—that is one of the major problems which they have to face; I have not the time and this is not the occasion to deal with that, but it is one of the major issues which could be to a large extent eliminated by a statutory body which would have an inspectorate which could lay down standards, which could recommend to licensing boards, and which could generally have the authority to co-ordinate and plan the affairs of the industry. Mr. Chairman, the value to South Africa of assistance to this industry in the economic field, can be tremendous, because nothing can do more to restore confidence in South Africa, apart from the necessity of a change of Government, than people from overseas coming here and seeing things for themselves. It would be worth a hundred state information offices if we could bring people to South Africa. It would not then be the so-called English Press and the newspapers that were frightening them—they could come and see for themselves …

An HON. MEMBER:

What?

Mr. RAW:

Perhaps see for themselves conditions in South Africa and the fact that it is only this Government which is the trouble and not the whole of South Africa. If they could come here they would see that it is only the Government members who are at the root of all our troubles, and that in South Africa a vast proportion of the people think clearly and stably, are not obsessed with ideologies, and will, when we become the Government, be able to correct and put right the evil which is now taking place.

*Mr. MARTINS:

It is almost in despair that I rise—in despair because the hon. member opposite and the party opposite have lost all sense of values and all sense of responsibility towards South Africa.

*Dr. JONKER:

And of decency.

*Mr. MARTINS:

Yes, all sense of decency as well. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has made out a case and has pointed out that a United Party front-bencher whom the United Party often use as one of their main speakers on financial matters, their main Railway critic, is doing nothing but sabotage South Africa by the statements he has made. He is a man whose skin unfortunately for him is White, but whose heart is Black. Because what is he doing? Just listen. He has said—

The Defence Force and the A.C.F. were being prepared to ensure that South African citizens were kept in a state of docile obedience to cruel and oppressive laws, in the making of which they had no say.

The non-Whites have never found that they are subject to oppressive and cruel laws. This hon. member is planting that idea in their minds. By these means the United Party is instilling in the minds of the non-Whites the idea that they are being oppressed, that they are being treated cruelly. By these means the United Party with its Press is spreading reports that these people are collecting fuel so that they can commit arson. The non-Whites have not thought this up for themselves; it has been thought up by the agitators of the United Party which have a Press through which they can spread these stories. Do these people not realize that in what is in many instances their adolescent state, the non-Whites, when these ideas are thought up for them….

*The ACTING-CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must now discuss the Vote.

*Mr. MARTINS:

Mr. Chairman, hon. members say that the world has lost confidence in South Africa’s economy because the non-Whites are going to throw this country into chaos by means of arson, civil war, etc., and I place the responsibility for this position on the shoulders of the United Party and United Party speakers, and not an individual person, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) has said, but, inter alia, a front bencher of the United Party, their main critic, and their Press which is giving worldwide prominence to such statements. These allegations are being spread throughout the world. And then they come and still ask that the world should have confidence in South Africa! What has the United Party ever done to make the world realize that we are not in the Congo, and to make the world realize that we are an orderly state and that investments in this country are safe and not in any danger? No, they should examine their own consciences and then they will be filled with shame.

I am very glad that import control is to be introduced. I want to express the hope, and I want to emphasize this point, that this import control will be so strict that it will give impetus to our own industrial development. In the past when we had to resort to import control, that import control has given us a shoe industry which has gained world renown and we have built up a fine industry. We can do the same in the case of this import control. By means of this import control we can also give an impetus to the essential border industrial development. And while I am referring to border industrial development, I want to say that it is essential that we should undertake this development and that we should do so in the correct way, not like hon. members opposite. When there is a border industry being developed which happens to be under the control of a few Afrikaners, then a great fuss is made, as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) did quite recently, but now that some English-speaking people also have border industry interests, they are silent. Why do hon. members not put forward an honest policy and ensure that South Africa’s economy can develop along the right lines in this regard?

There is another point which I should like to make. When the hon. the Minister by means of a special decision made a concession to the sugar farmers in South Africa, many people accused him of having done so for political reasons and in order to benefit political interests. I have the report on the increased allowances here, and when I examine this report, I find that the people who have benefited most, are the following: Amantimkulu: 80,777 tons; Umfolosi: 60,000 tons, and when I take a few of the others, I find that Renishaw, Sezele and Umzimkulu, which form one group, have received nearly 15,000 tons, and the same applies to other groups which have no political connections and no political colour. But while I am mentioning this point, I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister does not consider that it has become essential that this whole matter should be investigated because there are so many anomalies in the determination of sugar quotas. I want to analyse these anomalies briefly. Dr. Rousseau, the former chairman of SASA, has stated that the Department of Lands asked for a quota of 1,000 tons of cane per person, and the industry refused. The industry refused in the case of Pongola and said that it was not an economic unit. And because the industry has refused, the central board eventually allocated 480 tons of sucrose, which is equivalent to 3,500 tons of cane. However, while one finds that, apart from Pongola, there are approximately another 200 farmers who are producing less than 3,000 tons and there is also a group of people at Pongola itself who are producing less than 2,000 tons, the quota is applied to all of them and these people are being prevented from developing to the economic margin of 3,000 or 3,500 tons of cane. The industry says: Yes, but this is the result of the equalization fund which pays the small producer a subsidy. But the small farmers also contribute to this equalization fund which was established as long ago as the 1940s. When we read Section 47 of the Act, we find that they contribute to the fund at the rate of 3s. 8d. per ton while the industry contributes £525,000 on the total annual yield. These funds are in turn paid out in terms of Schedules D and E and once again, in the case of these payments, we find that the industry regards 4,000 tons as the basis. A farmer who delivered less than 4,000 tons, received an additional 33d. in terms of Schedule D and another 33d. in terms of Schedule E, a total therefore of 5s. 6d. per ton. In other words, here the industry is once again laying down that that is an economic level, an economic unit. But as a result of the reductions being introduced, the Department is now reducing still further the economic unit which it has laid down itself, that is to say, it is introducing further reductions in respect of the group which produce 3,000 tons or less. That is why I ask, in view of the fact that the Department has laid down 3,500 tons or 4,000 tons of cane as the dividing line, whether it is not possible to have the position investigated so that this will also be the limit below which a quota should not be reduced. [Time limit.]

Mr. WILLIAMS:

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) will excuse me if I don’t follow him in regard to the special point he raised at the end of his speech. In so far as the beginning was concerned, the House may judge whether it was a constructive contribution to the problem of exchange adjustment. But I wish to come to certain of the remarks made by the hon. the Minister this morning. In the first place he referred to the death of Dr. Frans du Toit, and I am sure I speak on behalf of all members on this side of the House if I say that we associate ourselves with him in the regret that South Africa has lost a good servant. It will be a comfort to those of his family who remain behind and those closely associated with him that he died in harness and in the service of South Africa. Secondly, I would like to say that I am sure that the business community of South Africa will appreciate the fact that the Minister as soon as possible has tried to give clarity in regard to the preference position vis-à-vis other nations of the Commonwealth, and the fact that he has clarity in respect of 99 per cent—I think that was the figure he gave—of our exports is a matter for satisfaction. I agree with the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) that as soon as possible of course we would also like to know what the next step may be in that regard. But I think at this stage it is a little too early to ask for details in that regard.

I regretted in the Minister’s remarks that he implied that if any change in policy in this country were contemplated in regard to improving world relations in respect of their attitude to our race problems, there was no alternative between the policy of the Government and what the Afro-Asian nations wish. I suggest in saying that, he said something that he himself knows is an over-simplification. There is no question that if South Africa gave a definite indication that it was moving away from racial discrimination, were it only in the economic sphere, a very great change would take place in the feelings of the rest of the world towards us, and the overt declaration of feeling they could make towards us. But I wish to take up a remark of the hon. the Minister himself, although strictly it should come under the Vote of the Minister of Labour. The Minister said this: “The Union has a large labour potential.” This was in an interview he gave to the Transvaler in July last year. He said—

The Union has a large labour potential, which would be utilized to greater effect in future. In addition the country has an enviable record of labour peace and the number of man-hours lost as a result of strikes during the past ten years was relatively insignificant.

In regard to the question of labour peace, that is more appropriate under the Vote of the Minister of Labour. With regard to the question of a better utilization of our labour resources, I would like to say something to the hon. the Minister because he has accused this side of not making positive contributions in this debate. In regard to the question as to which industries under the new export control should be protected and encouraged and on which raw materials the emphasis should be laid, the Minister knows the difficulties as well as I do, and he has the Board of Trade and Industries to advise him; he will also get representations from every quarter from commerce and industry. All I would ask there is that he should apply very strict criteria, because he knows as well as I do that one of our great difficulties is that we are greatly dependent on the outside world for the raw materials of our industries and semi-processed material. There are a number of industries while they can produce for our needs, they can only produce a proportion of our needs and protection in those cases is difficult. But I leave that aside, because there are enough experts to deal with that matter in representations submitted to him in future. What I would like to say is that he should carefully consider, with his colleague, the Minister of Labour who I am happy to say is in the House, the question of what those words mean “the better utilization of our labour resources”, because it is becoming clear to all of us that in respect of the technical work of our country the White population is becoming too small to supply either the lower skilled labour and even some of the administrative workers without placing an almost unbearable burden on that section of the community. So from that economic angle there is a great case for giving greater opportunities than has been given in the past. The Minister says that the policy won’t be changed. In the light of that I am not advocating here, although I would like to advocate it, a gradual abolition of the colour bar. But I do beseech the hon. the Minister to give very careful consideration, with his colleague, to the modification of the present colour bar provisions in the laws of the Union of South Africa with a view to giving greater opportunities and to making better use of the labour resources that we have, because it is now no longer just a question of trying to protect one group against another, negative as that approach has been, but a question of getting enough ability to run the machine, which surely is important if our object is to expand and to raise the standard of living not only of the existing population but of the many mouths that are to come.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

What colour bar are you referring to?

Mr. WILLIAMS:

I am not talking about the statutory colour bar which only exists in the Mines and Works Legislation. What I am dealing with is that kind of colour discrimination which exists in respect of job reservation, which is a matter of trying to save one section at the expense of others. If it does not mean that, it does not mean anything at all, because you cannot possibly benefit all by trying to save this section or that section. The object of the Government should be to educate the whole labour force of the country, which I think is ripe for consideration at the present time, because the trade unions themselves are beginning to see the necessity of the education of the working people of South Africa as a whole. The labour organizations begin to see that these things can be modified safely without detriment to themselves, instead of emphasizing all the time that their only hope of safety and their future economic life lies on the basis of discrimination. That is the criticism I make of the Government in this sphere that it is always following that part of public opinion which is governed by a short-term fear, that the Government never endeavours to lead the people of South Africa away from conceptions which in the long run are damaging to the economy of South Africa. The case of the Government is that if you give an inch in that direction you end up in giving an ell and that it leads to the end of the technical control of the White man who at this present moment is the only group with sufficient technicians to run the country. But I want to say that in existing circumstances that concept has to be changed, not because the outside world is pressing upon us, not because we should bow to the Afro-Asian nations or because of what might be said at Prime Ministers’ Conferences but because the future of South Africa demands it. If the hon. gentlemen on that side of the House say there are things more important than economics I will agree with them, and one of the things more important is justice —but I mention that only in passing. I will admit that there are things more important than economics, but ultimately if you do not have a basis of economics on which to live then you cannot carry out any of the higher objectives that you have. And if the White man believes indefinitely in the economic sphere or any other sphere that he can save himself at the expense of others, then he is deluding himself. We either save all or we save none, and that should be sufficiently clear to hon. members in the situation in which South Africa finds itself to-day.

An HON. MEMBER:

That is what we want to do, save all.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

What I want is that the Government gradually—and I say the Government because they have the power in their hands and I know I cannot convince them however eloquent I might be—I want the Government to change their policies absolutely. But I appeal to them to show, both for the sake of the practical future of South Africa and for South Africa’s good name in the outside world, that they will begin to consider the merits of a man rather than the colour of a man’s skin as the opening for opportunity in our economic life.

I know that this is difficult. I know that there will be dangers in the way of it. But they will be nothing like the dangers that face it if we persist in this idea that we will continually fight, not for White civilization but for White privilege. [Time limit.]

*Mr. GREYLING:

I wish to talk about a few allies which commerce and industry and the workers have, and I do so because of a certain question which I want to put to the hon. the Minister. I want to talk about the Bureau of Standards which, in my opinion, plays a very big rôle in the country’s industrial life to-day. In these times of mass production, of surpluses and increasing competition there are two things which are of very great importance. The first is that quality should be produced, and secondly it should be produced at the right prices. Standardization is very essential because it is conducive to simplification in respect of production processes, and the simpler the production process is the cheaper the article concerned can be delivered to a competitive market. Standardization also results in essential characteristics on which the producer can then base his production processes. One has the effects of standardization in everyday life. The watch at which one looks, the lift in which one rides, the electricity which is switched on, all these are based on processes of standardization. The whole world has become conscious of standardization. The country’s entire economy already depends on the pillar of standardization. Trade missions go abroad with that in mind. They offer South Africa’s articles on the overseas market, and the body which guarantees it is the Bureau of Standards because their stamp on it is evidence of quality and durability. That makes it possible for us to find markets.

I must talk with the greatest praise about the Bureau of Standards which falls under the C.S.I.R. South Africa possesses one of the best standardization organizations in the world. The South African Bureau of Standards is one of the first in the world to have testing laboratories and they have already done valuable work. They have already advised the Government, the Provincial Administrations and the Tender Board of the Railways and have given advice as to what to buy and what is the best quality and by so doing they have saved the country a lot of money. At the moment they possess 37 of the finest laboratories in the world. Other world organizations, like the British Standardization Organization and those in Israel and India, copied the prescriptions and models which South Africa adopted. It has promoted South Africa’s trade tremendously. South Africa’s Bureau of Standards remains in continuous contact with those overseas through the International Organization of Standards. This process of standardization, the policy of standardizing in order to produce the best quality at the lowest price, has already meant much to South Africa on the world market. I think, for example, of South Africa’s fish industry, the canning industry in respect of fish, in respect of crayfish, in respect of meat. South Africa has conquered the world market with fish, she has taken first place on the British market with her canned fruits. She has stabilized her meat canning industry through the good work done by the Bureau of Standards, through their inspectorate and because South Africa remains in constant touch with the best processing methods based on the most modern scientific foundations.

Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible, on the same basis as that on which the Bureau of Standards operate, to gradually establish one or more agricultural testing stations in the country which could recommend the best quality and the best process through scientific tests so that farmers may purchase their implements and their traction power on the advice of those testing stations. It could be incorporated in one body or another but I am advocating the same principle. I can tell the hon. the Minister—and I know he is aware of it—that there are millions of pounds’ worth of implements lying under the trees and in the barns on the farms which the farmers bought when mechanization was started and which are to-day useless. Millions of pounds are wasted because of the lack of guidance in the purchasing of the expensive implements necessary for production. I regard this as one of the contributing factors to the increase in production costs of certain agricultural commodities. I advocate this principle. I have only the highest praise for the Bureau of Standards because they mean so much to us and their results have been so beneficial I advocate the same principle for agriculture. I think that the trade missions which have now gone overseas have a valuable ally in the Bureau of Standards which endorses the quality which they offer. It gives confidence. I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to think along these lines and at some stage or other also to give the agricultural producer similar advice and approval in respect of guaranteed quality so that when the farmers buy they can buy the right thing cheaply. It will be appreciated if the hon. the Minister would consider this favourably.

*Dr. CRONJE:

I wish to associate myself with the sorrow and the condolence expressed by the hon. the Minister in connection with the tragic death of Mr. Frans du Toit. I have had the honour and privilege of knowing Mr. du Toit as a colleague and a friend during the past 25 years and I probably realize more than hon. members in this House do what a loss it was, not only to his family but also to South Africa, that a person like Mr. du Toit, when he was still at the height of his physical and mental powers, should pass away in such a tragic way in a far distant country.

I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister right at the start. He put a question to us which surprised me, namely whether we accept Mr. Macmillan’s statement of “equality of opportunity” for all human beings. I have always been under the impression that it was also the policy of the hon. members opposite. Does the hon. the Minister by that question mean that he does not accept it? Because I have always understood from the hon. the Prime Minister that the policy of the National Party was also “equality of opportunity”—equal opportunities for all human beings. It is, of course, true that the Government, through the mechanism with which it wants to achieve it, has a method which in my opinion is an escape mechanism. They say that all non-White persons will have equal opportunities, not now but at some time or other in the future and in one sphere or other where they would then have equal opportunities among each other. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is announcing to the world that he does not believe in the principle of “equality of opportunity”.

*The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Do you believe in it?

*Dr. CRONJE:

Of course we believe in it.

*The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Do you then believe in the abolition of the colour bar?

*Dr. CRONJE:

I will come to that now. The hon. the Minister must not run ahead of me. I must ask the hon. the Minister of Transport whether he does not believe in it.

*The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Not under the present conditions.

*Dr. CRONJE:

Then it is no wonder that we have landed in the mess in which we find ourselves in this world. In the rest of the world it is accepted in all civilized countries, both in the communist and in the Western civilizations, that all persons are entitled to equal opportunities and that every person is entitled to develop his abilities and character to the utmost of his ability. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has put the same question as the hon. the Minister of Transport has just done. He asked whether we now wanted to submit to the demands of the Afro-Asian states, because he says that is all that will satisfy the world, namely the principle of one man, one vote—of absolute equality. But this is not what Western civilization expects from us. They realize that when there are special circumstances in a country like South Africa one cannot immediately switch over to one man, one vote.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Where do you hear that?

*Dr. CRONJE:

That is simply not the demand which the West makes on us. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs referred to the speeches of the Prime Ministers in England and to that of Mr. Sandys. Permit me to read to him what the hon. the Prime Minister of England said. Mr. Macmillan said—

A year ago, in Cape Town, I tried to express—I hope courteously, but quite firmly —what was the British view, and I do not think many people in this House dissented from what I then said. All this accentuation and systemization of the policy of apartheid is something very new. I am not saying there was no discrimination in the days of the great South African leaders like Smuts and Botha, but these men had in their minds an inspired vision and had the intention and purpose of moving gradually towards it. I still believe that as the years go by this ideal will grow in strength in South Africa.

There we have leaders like Smuts and Botha who did not immediately agree to equality and the abolition of all discrimination, and their policy was accepted by the West. It is, of course, the propaganda which the National Party is continually making to win the electorate over to their side, namely that the alternative for apartheid is a policy of equality, which will naturally destroy civilization just as surely as apartheid will do it in the long run. I also want to refer to what Mr. Sandys said. He stated very clearly that the West did not expect equality immediately; they do not expect political equality immediately. He says this—

We must, of course, recognize that racial discrimination still exists in many countries of the world. Incidentally, these are not confined, as one might imagine by reading some newspapers, entirely to British Colonial territories. But South Africa’s policy is different, not only in degree but in kind. As the Leader of the Opposition said, there is a difference between precept and practice. Everywhere else outside of South Africa the governments are trying more or less successfully progressively to eliminate racial discrimination between their citizens. In South Africa, on the other hand, discrimination and segregation have been elevated to a principle; an objective of policy; something to be proud of; an inspiring ideal.
Anyone who attended the Prime Ministers’ Conference last week must have felt that on this subject Dr. Verwoerd was talking a totally different language from that of the rest of his colleagues. He is deliberately trying to swim against the whole current of world thought. He is trying to put history into reverse.

The previous speaker said how important standardization is in life. I want to suggest that standardization with the rest of the world is just as important as standardization in regard to industrial products and agricultural products. The speaker before him said that it was this side of the House that had lost its perspective. Who has lost perspective in South Africa? Is it not the hon. members opposite? They go against the entire line of thought of the world, not only that of the Western world but also that of the communist world which simply no longer believes in discrimination as such as a policy.

The hon. the Minister also asked me why I do not argue about economic facts and why I always confine myself to the question of the racial policy of the Government. That is because the Government’s racial policy in a system of private initiative, such as we have, is destroying all confidence in South Africa in the long run. It is no use politicians opposite having confidence and believing in South Africa. It is a question of the investors here and the investors overseas. There cannot be economic progress unless the investors can be made to believe that the policy of the country will in the long run preserve our civilization, the businesses and the economic system in which they share. Unless they have that assurance they will not invest. My whole point is that one must start at the beginning. If we want to regain the confidence of private initiative, we must in the first instance create confidence among the investors, overseas investors or our own investors. If the Government does not concern itself with the confidence of the investors, South Africa should have an entirely different economic system from that of private investment. Then the Government itself will have to take over the function of making investments. Is that what the hon. the Minister wants to enforce upon us?

The hon. the Minister has given us examples of overseas capital which has not always been to the welfare of the country. He said that there have been certain abuses, but then one cannot condemn overseas investors merely because there have been abuses.

*The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

I did not condemn it.

*Dr. CRONJE:

What did the hon. the Minister mean then by saying that foreign investments are not always good? With his policy the hon. the Minister can prevent those practices which he does not like. If there are abuses he can take steps to prevent it. The hon. the Minister mentioned the example of overseas investors who only take up a small share of their capital in South Africa and who then take the rest of the money and then send dividends overseas on a large scale. I agree that there have been singular cases of this nature in the past but in relation to the total overseas investments this is the exception. I want to go further and say that if those people really have confidence in the progress of South Africa they will not send all their dividends overseas but will invest here. The fact of the matter is that, economically speaking, South Africa is one of the best fields of investment in the world. It is only a matter of regaining confidence. It is merely a matter of restoring confidence and therefore we must start from the beginning. What is it that destroys the confidence of the investor in our country? It is the racial policy of the Government through which no overseas investor, and many local investors, can see civilization as we know it being maintained in the long run —in spite of all the claims of hon. members opposite. [Time limit.]

*Mr. M. DE LA R. VENTER:

I listened very attentively to the hon. member who has just sat down. He has repeated that the racial policy of the Government is destroying all confidence in South Africa. If the racial policy destroys all confidence then I wonder what will happen to the country one day when there is no racial policy. We have just seen the disastrous results in the Belgian Congo where the White man will eventually disappear. There is total chaos there. If we had no racial policy, if we did not have a policy to ensure the survival of the White man here, then the hon. member would be right. Then there would not be any confidence in South Africa. It is only if the survival of the White man is assured here that overseas investors will have confidence and will be prepared to invest here. If we did not want a racial policy then I am afraid that all would be lost. Only a racial policy such as exists at the moment can guarantee that position.

But, Mr. Chairman, I particularly rose as a result of what the hon. the Minister announced in connection with restrictions on the importation of motor cars. I agree wholeheartedly with him when he says that the motor trade, of which I have some knowledge, has been struggling in the past few years. The importation of new cars into the country has been allowed too freely and there are nearly 100,000 new motor cars in the showrooms to-day. Second-hand cars have completely overwhelmed the market. There is no price for second-hand cars to-day. I therefore welcome the fact that the hon. the Minister is imposing reasonably strict limitations on the importation of cars.

The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) spoke about Japanese cars. That is probably a solution. None of us would really welcome new makes at this stage. But there is a strong possibility that Japan may become a good buyer of South African wool and by introducing an exchange scheme it may just be possible to build up a good trade with Japan.

Then I come to the establishment of new factories. I wonder if it would be the right thing to allow too many small industries, especially in the motor industry. One may find that the established people may then not be able to perform their work as it should be done. Experience in all spheres of commerce and industry has shown that where there is no large established company or firm, that company can progress much further and produce much more cheaply than a series of small ones.

Another matter of importance in the motor trade is that the marketing of big and heavy cars is very difficult to-day. I think that the importation of smaller cars will have to be controlled a little more strictly and that a certain percentage of the currency allocated should be spent on big cars. It is not an article which is easily disposed of. Certain parts of the country are not suited to the small car and therefore the importation of big cars must be allowed to some extent. With these few words I wish to thank the hon. the Minister for these restrictions, especially with a view to the second-hand trade. Here in Cape Town there are hundreds of thousands of cars standing in large blocks and there is no market for them. A limitation on the importation of new cars will do much towards placing the garage owner and the motor dealer in a sound position again.

Mr. HOLLAND:

The hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter) expressed his pleasure at the steps taken by the hon. the Minister in regard to import control on motor-cars. He also expressed his pleasure at the import control on smaller cars. Sir, my mind goes back to an incident in Cape Town when I was about ten years old. I was one day in the company of two or three adults who were talking about the various makes of cars and where they were made, and I in my innocence asked which one was a South African car. And one of them turned to me and said, “No my boy, this is a little tin-pot country as far as the manufacture of cars is concerned”. That man is dead to-day and I have lived to see South African cars produced in this country. But there is a story I would like to tell this Committee as far as that is concerned, a story of three young South African men by the names of Meissner, Van Niekerk and de Wit.

These three South Africans took their degrees at the Universities of Cape Town and Stellenbosch and then went to Europe for further study. They worked there and came back convinced that South Africa could produce a motor-car. These three young men set to work, designed and actually manufactured a South African car. It was manufactured of South African raw material to the extent of 59y per cent. Well, Sir, the position is that what I did live to see was a report in our newspapers such as the following—

Race proves South African car in world class.

This was a report in the Star in 1959—

The South African-built car’s triumph was a dream fulfilled.

I may say, Sir, that this was after a race in Johannesburg in which 28 cars took part. This South African car is not a racing car, it is a sports car, but there were cars such as the Maserati, the M.G., the Porsche, Alfa-Romeo and Austin Healeys, and this South African car won the race. The comment on that was—

A lot of people were shaken when they saw it passing the Austin Healeys, the M.G. twin-cam, and the Climax-engined Fairthorpe.

One would think that after such an accomplishment on the part of these young South Africans there would be some form of assistance, some way in which they could turn to the authorities to assist them in getting further with their project. Because it stands to reason that it would take a great deal of initial capital to establish a factory where such a motor-car could be manufactured for marketing. But the position was that eventually after exploring all avenues they possibly could they had to turn to private investors. And as far as the private investors are concerned—and we know this from our own experience—the attitude was “manufacture the car, market it and show us your profits and we might be interested”. That unfortunately was the attitude they met everywhere, and by this time they had exhausted their initial capital, which was limited, and in the circumstances in which they found themselves they could not possible compete with combines like General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. The position was that on the parts they imported they had to pay the same import duties as any other big car builder like Ford, General Motors and Chrysler in their assembly plants here. But when this motor-car with 59½ per cent of South African material in it was completed, it was weighed and they had to pay the full excise duty on the weight of the car, just as the manufacturer who assembles his car in South Africa after importing all the parts.

It was found that as a result of red tape, as a result of the fact that no relief was granted from these taxes in their case, they were unable to continue, and it was a sad day when I read in the newspapers, “South African-built car goes to United Kingdom to-day”. This is actually a case where a South African in France bought one of these South African manufactured cars in the Union and had it shipped to him. The appearance of that car in Europe had further repercussions and the upshot was that investors in England had enough confidence in that motor-car to put up the money and a factory was opened for its manufacture in England. And one feels proud of the fact that when three of these cars earlier this year were put on the World Motor Show in New York, by Gallup poll on the Concourse d’Elegance, a Jaguar costing £3,200 came first, a Mercedes costing over £5,000 came third and the Dart built in South Africa and costing only £870 came second.

HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Mr. HOLLAND:

The result was that immediately, on the American market, an order was placed to the tune of R320,000 for these South African cars. The next order came from Germany, of all places, where you can say you find the epitome of sports cars, and that was an order for 160 cars. They were not able to comply with that order and asked that it be staggered over 12 months.

In the same newspaper where this was reported—“R320,000 order from United States for South African made cars”—in the column next to that there is a heading “Government to clamp down on petrol”. It says—

In an unexpected move the Government has clamped down on the type of fuel to be used in all Government vehicles as part of the campaign to cut running costs and to boost its “Buy South African” policy.

Here you have for the first time in the history of South Africa a motor-car which could be manufactured and sold in South Africa and also exported to the United States and Germany. But what do we find due to restrictions, due to red tape, due to lack of assistance; these young men had to go to England. The parent company is still in South Africa as a skeleton organization manufacturing a few cars just to keep going and so that they can abide by their loyalties to South Africa and market this car in the United States as a South African car built in England.

Capt. STRYDOM:

That is Irish.

Mr. HOLLAND:

That is true. It is a South African car built in England. But if they fold up here it becomes a totally British company and the name South Africa will be wiped off that motor-car.

There are plans being completed for the development of a family sports saloon. But I can tell you now, Mr. Chairman, in the interests of this House and in the interests of the country that if such enterprises do not receive the assistance of the Government of the day or of private capital in South Africa, from people who should have enough confidence in the country, then even that latter part will be lost to South Africa. And this new car that is being designed will be lost to South Africa and will be manufactured elsewhere.

Mr. Chairman, I have a personal interest in this matter in this sense, that I represent in this House the Coloured people, and it has been found time and again by the bigger factories such as Chrysler, Rootes at Blackheath near Cape Town, and others, that the Coloured people are the most effective labour force when it comes to motor-car building and assembly. Apart from the dollars that this would have earned us, apart from the employment it would afford, what would it not mean to the prestige of South Africa if we could have built those motor-cars here; cars that are actually being marketed on demand in the United States and Germany, of all places? This morning the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) talked about the trade balance as far as Germany was concerned. Here was an article that we could have exported to Germany and that could compete with Porsche in Germany, that could compete with Mercedes in Germany. And yet we have lost that opportunity.

I hope that this little story I was able to tell this Committee will be an inducement in the future for this Government to prevent such things from happening. I hope it will encourage enterprising young men with intelligence and ability to follow what these young men did, and to retain their brains and their workmanship and their products for South Africa and in the interests of South African prestige.

*The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

I am pleased to see that hon. members opposite are so enthusiastic about the building of our own South African motor-car and I hope they will appreciate the steps that I will have to take in future to encourage the building of such a car. The story which the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) has told us is very interesting and we are proud to know that two South Africans have built such a car but the story is not quite as simple as he put it. I can assure hon. members that my Department willingly granted them all the permits which they asked for. It is not the function of my Department to supply the capital for the erection of factories. Other concerns see to that. As far as the question of exemption from excise duty is concerned, the hon. member as a Member of Parliament ought to know that we have not got the power to give exemption from excise duty in such cases, and that it is not merely according to our own legislation that we cannot do so, but according to international agreements, and that according to G.A.T.T. regulations it is not possible where a duty has been imposed or where certain tariffs have been increased, to give exemption from excise duty.

*Mr. HOLLAND:

Not even in the case of the finished product?

*The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

No. I want to return to the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje). He rose again and he should rather not have done so because now he has not only put his one foot into it but both feet. The hon. member says that he believes in “equality of opportunity”. Is that the policy of his party?

*HON. MEMBERS:

Answer!

*The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

If the hon. member does not wish to reply to that question, I want to ask him whether he is in favour of it that the traditional colour bar should be abolished in the gold mining industry?

*HON. MEMBERS:

Answer!

*The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

Is the hon. member prepared to give “equal opportunities” to the Whites and the non-Whites in the gold mining industry?

*Dr. CRONJE:

Do you want to maintain it in perpetuity?

*The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

The hon. member has put one foot into it and he is unable to extricate either himself or his party and we must take it that they are in favour of the abolition of the colour bar in the mining industry and elsewhere.

The second point raised by the hon. member was that world opinion and Mr. Macmillan did not want equality immediately; all he wants is “the intention of moving to this end”. The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) said the same thing, but in his case you can understand it, Sir. He spoke about “moving away from racial discrimination”. The two are getting close together. The hon. member for Musgrave says, “We must be moving away from discrimination,” and the hon. member for Jeppes says …

*Dr. CRONJE:

Does the hon. the Minister agree with the statement made by the Prime Minister that the Nationalist Party did not stand for racial discrimination?

*The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

Thank you, I shall come to that. That is the point where the two meet. The hon. member for Musgrave says we should only show signs of “moving away from racial discrimination”, and the hon. member for Jeppes says we should only give an indication that we are “moving to the end of complete equality”. He says the world does not say we must do so immediately; we should merely indicate that we are willing to go in that direction, away from discrimination towards equality. Is that the policy of the United. Party to-day?

*Mr. RAW:

He did not say that.

*The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

Will the hon. member tell me what he did say?

*Dr. CRONJE:

I merely quoted what Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Sandys had said.

*An HON. MEMBER:

To which you subscribe.

*The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

The hon. member said we should accept world opinion; the world does not have confidence in our economy and the only way to gain the confidence of the world is to accept world opinion as far as our colour policy is concerned. I said that was complete equality and the hon. member said I was wrong, the world did not ask for complete equality immediately, but merely for “an intention of moving to that end”.

*Dr. CRONJE:

The hon. the Minister is putting words into my mouth. May I ask one question? If you really believe that apartheid can be carried out, why do you not accept it?

*The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

The National Party maintain that they are the party that will ultimately move in the direction of abolishing discrimination but not in the same area, the Whites in their area and the Blacks in theirs. You, however, want equality in the same area.

The hon. member for Jeppes made one very dangerous statement that I want to repudiate immediately. In answer to a question of mine, he said that I condemned foreign investment. I deny having said that. On two or three occasions during my speech I distinctly said that I welcomed foreign investment and that I would encourage it and that I have encouraged it because we needed it, but I said that we should be realistic and I pointed out that there were certain dangers attached to it and that we should not lose sight of those dangers. I want this to go on record because this is something that will be misrepresented overseas. I definitely deny having said it.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) raised the question of standardizing agricultural implements. I merely want to say that we have a very high regard for the Bureau of Standards and that we should all move in the direction of greater standardization and that specifications in respect of purchases overseas should be better compiled than they are to-day. We shall certainly think along the lines indicated by him and I think it will be a good thing if the agricultural unions jointly make such a suggestion to the Bureau of Standards. I may just say that the Bureau cannot put its mark on imported articles, but it may inspect imported articles at the request of the merchant or the consumer.

I want to say to the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) that question of sugar is a very comprehensive and difficult one but that we are giving it our serious attention. Then we have the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). I am very sorry for the hotel industry if they have to follow his recipe to solve their problems, because as I understand it that recipe says that United Party should sit in the government benches. In that case they will still have to wait a very long time. I want to tell him that we are very interested in the hotel industry. The hon. member can rest assured that he did not give those figures in vain. We are au fait with the position and the Department is genuinely interested in the industry. We regard it as an important industry, not only from the point of view of providing employment and an avenue for capital investment, but also from the point of view of the tourist industry. Our difficulty of course, is that most of the problems which beset the hotel industry fall completely outside my Department. They concern Bantu Administration, Labour, Justice and Finance, etc., but I can assure him that if I have the time I shall give my personal and serious attention to the industry and in co-operation with the other Departments I shall try to see how their problems can be solved.

The hon. member also asked me what the position was in connection with the textile industry and what the effect of the curtailment would be on the industry and on the trade. I can tell him this briefly. At the moment textiles appear on the free list. Textile piece-goods can be imported freely and without permits. What we are now doing is to place textile piece-goods on the list of goods for which a permit is required in order to import them. Raw material can only be imported on a permit. We are placing it on the same list as raw material for which a permit is required. But as in the case of raw materials we shall ensure that there is no shortage. Permits will be issued according to the availability of local materials, but we shall always guard against shortages, and textile goods that are not manufactured in this country in particular will be treated very generously on a quota basis.

Vote put and agreed to.

Precedence given to Vote No. 34 (Mines).

On Vote No. 34.—“Mines”, R7,256,000,

Mr. TUCKER:

Mr. Chairman, I believe that it will be necessary for arrangements to be made for more time to be made available for Votes such as this in future, because I believe that it is a very important matter in the economy of this country, and means must be found. It may be that it is due to the increase in the number of Ministers and that perhaps the over-all time for discussion in Committee should be increased, but I do think the matter should receive attention.

I wish to raise just two important points with the Minister. Firstly, I wish to discuss with him again the question of the areas which have developed and on which the growth of this country’s economy in the past has very largely depended. I refer to the areas where there was enormous mineral wealth and where the mines are now being worked out and coming to an end. My own constituency for many years produced a big proportion of the gold and was the district which produced the greatest amount of gold, and it was also a very big contributor in respect of uranium. Fortunately, it is not as badly placed as some other areas, but it is serious that one of the mines in the Springs area will close down within the foreseeable future, possibly within a year or two, and that there are other mines which are nearing the end of their lives. It became obvious to Springs long ago and to other towns on the East Rand that there was only one way of maintaining the prosperity of the communities which had been built up there, and that was through the development of industry, and certain of the towns took a lead, and in Germiston, Boksburg, Benoni and Springs great progress has been made and they have made an enormous contribution to the economy of this country through the development of industries of inestimable value to the country. It is obvious that the industries which are now established there and the areas available for industry are not what are required in order to maintain the prosperity of those towns as other mines become worked out. I would like to ask the Minister to look after the interests of those towns in relation to this matter. He as the Minister of Mines bears a very special responsibility. We know that the Government has announced a policy of development of other areas on the borders of the reserves, a policy of the decentralization of industry. I think that everyone will agree that the decentralization of industry on a sound economic basis is in the future interests of South Africa. There is no dispute about that. I believe that the Minister can do something for these areas and I beg him to do so.

What can be done is this. It is obvious that in order to establish industries it will be much easier in these times, when it is urgent to raise the income of the country, that a larger number of industries should not be driven away from these areas which have dying mines, but that there should be active Government encouragement to bring industry to these areas, and here the hon. the Minister can seek the co-operation of the Minister of Bantu Administration. Very often there is not enough ground available for big industries, but the important factor is this. Obviously it is much easier to encourage industries to come to areas where there is already adequate housing for the workers, because on balance it will save an expenditure of £4,000 per European employed in that industry. A heavy responsibility rests on the Minister to persuade his colleagues that there should be a policy of active encouragement by the Government for the establishment of further industries in these areas in order to ensure that they will remain prosperous as the mines fall away. The Minister, who knows the Rand, will know that this is not the case at present. If all the new industries are drawn off to other areas there will be additional cost. Obviously they can come into production very much earlier if they are in these established areas. I would draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that it is not only in respect of housing that industries can be established much more cheaply in these areas. It is obvious that the water supplies which are available will not be required in the years that lie ahead and therefore there is adequate water available already, and secondly at immense expenditure adequate electrical power has already been provided. The submission I make is this, that in the best interests of South Africa one of the priorities should be the maintenance of the economic health of these areas which have contributed so much to the well-being of this country, by ensuring that additional industries are drawn to those areas, which is not to the detriment of other areas. Obviously, if we can raise the general level of income and the standard of living in the country, it will have a material effect on spreading industries to other areas. But unlike starting in other areas from scratch and having to provide water, housing and electricity, these services are already there and consequently the industries should come into production much earlier. I hope the Minister will assure the House that this problem will have his sympathy and that of the Government, and I go so far as to express the hope that the Minister will give an assurance to the House on behalf of the Government that they will see to it that through Government policy nothing will be done which in any way interferes with the future economic health of these areas where the mines are slowly dying. I do not think it is necessary to carry that matter any further, but I would like to deal with one other matter.

I know there is a Bill before the House dealing with air pollution, but one of the most serious matters affecting the health of people on the Rand is the presence of dust. I am sure that the Minister is aware that the old cyanide dumps which are now drying up are pulverizing into a fine dust which is dangerous to health. I know that this matter has received the attention of his Department. I merely wish to pay a tribute to those who have been concerned. I know that the Government, the Chamber of Mines and particular mining groups have been concerned to seek ways of covering these old dumps and that great progress has been made. I hope the Minister will give the House the assurance that he will do everything possible to ensure that these old residues, from which the Government has had enormous revenue, will be covered up, because then we can maintain the health of the people, as well as the economic strength of these areas which must be maintained if we are to preserve the economic health of South Africa. It would be a very serious thing if through Government policy and the drawing away of industries, apart from preventing the establishment of new industries in this area, we found that there was a surplus of housing, and the situation has already arisen in certain areas where it is very difficult to find buyers for houses, simply because the population is being drawn away. The Government has a special responsibility to ensure that this does not happen. [Time limit.]

*Mr. P. W. DU PLESSIS:

I would be failing in my duty if I did not say that I am pleasantly surprised and grateful to the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) for his objective speech and for raising the important matter of low-grade gold mines. In the short time at my disposal I want to refer to a committee which was appointed by the Government in 1957 in an attempt to do everything possible for the so-called marginal mines.

That Committee found that of the 28 big gold mines on the Rand 14 fell under the so-called vulnerable marginal mines. Those 14 marginal mines produced no less than 11.5 per cent of the country’s gold in 1960. Those mines during the past year provided work for nearly 8,400 Whites and 73,000 non-Whites. The Committee’s further finding in 1957 was that these marginal mines which suffered most could probably be relieved of a certain amount of expenditure. The Committee submitted a comprehensive report and, to be brief, the relief measures that they investigated were divided as follows: (a) Railway transport costs, (b) the costs of Government training schools for mine workers, (c) hospital treatment for the Bantu, (d) pneumoconiosis levies, (e) sewage and sanitary fees, (g) municipal rates and taxes, (h) buying costs from the Reserve Bank, and (i) shipping costs on gold. After an intensive investigation the Committee decided that it was possible, as a result of favourite balances in the pneumoconiosis compensation fund, to give virtually total relief in respect of item (d) of about 13s. 7d. per ton of milled ore. Relief in respect of the other items was not found practicable, or was found to be too minute in effect to be of any practicable value. Now, in the critical period in which those mines find themselves to-day, I respectfully want to ask the hon. the Minister and the Government whether it is not possible again to institute an investigation or to grant further relief in regard to those other items—relief was given only in the case of item (d). I make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister because of the position in which the mines find themselves because of the fact that they still play an important rôle and because the possibility of an increase in the price of gold is not entirely excluded; and further because these marginal mines contributed 11.5 per cent towards South Africa’s record export of gold of £292,000,000 in 1959 and because mines mean so much to the country economically. As the representative of a constituency on the East Rand I am fully aware of and appreciate what the Government has already done for these mines, but since the livelihood of so many workers depends on those 14 mines, and particularly in view of the fact that many of the new mines on the Free State goldfields and on the Far East Rand have reached the stage of production where they will be making substantial contribution towards the treasury, I want to appeal to the Government and to the hon. the Minister to have the position of those marginal mines thoroughly investigated again. I ask this in particular because there are oudstryders in the mining industry—“old-timers” as we call them—who are of the opinion that there is enough gold left in those mines to justify their continued existence. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Government has instituted a comprehensive investigation in the past, in collaboration with the mines, to see what possibility there is of encouraging their production potential still further so as to ensure their continued existence.

*Mr. H. J. VAN WYK:

I wish to bring two matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister and I do so in the knowledge that our legislation in respect of compensation for industrial diseases is a model, a model which might well be used and copied by the world. But in saying that I do not want to imply that the legislation is perfect and it is in connection with the implementation of this Act that I wish to bring two matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The mineworker, as you know, is entitled to compensation after it has been determined by a physical and X-ray examination that he is suffering from miners’ phthisis or pneumoconiosis. Pneumoconiosis is a disease which in the first place affects the breathing organs, and the damage which it causes to the mineworker is that it ruins his heart-lung functions and thereby impairs his working ability. When a person is found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis then he is classified as follows: If he can still perform normal work then he is a first-stage sufferer; if he can do moderate work then he is a second-stage sufferer; if he can do light work then he is a third-stage sufferer; and if he cannot work any longer then he is a fourth-stage sufferer. This group classification reveals such a subjective approach that I cannot believe that it can be based on scientific foundations. My experience has often brought me in contact with mineworkers, two of whom would appear to be equally sick to the layman while the one is classified as a second-stage suffer and the other as a third-stage sufferer. Just recently I visited a third-stage sufferer in hospital in Virginia and two days before his death he reproachfully told me that a week earlier he was still classified as a third-stage sufferer. I wonder if a more scientific method cannot be found to determine to what extent the disease has impaired the mine workers’ working ability. To me it is such an abstract matter to determine to what extent a person’s working ability has been impaired. It contains an element of speculation or guess-work. I do not want to minimize the findings and the good intentions of the certification committee or paint it in a bad light but I am simply raising this matter to give the mineworkers the fullest satisfaction and to create a spirit of confidence and to remove every vestige of suspicion in their minds. I do not want to plead for the re-introduction of an Appeal Board for which provision was made in the Act prior to 1956. Many arguments can be advanced against it. We appreciate that one medical body cannot lightly veto the findings of another, especially if those findings, in my opinion, are based on estimates or guess-work. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to provide for the appointment of a committee to review cases where there is doubt or dissatisfaction—call it a committee of revision if you like—which can refer deserving cases back for re-examination and re-consideration. That should do away with the suspicion with which the findings of the certification committee are regarded at present and at the same time it can exercise effective control over the certification committee.

Just one more matter, and this concerns the pneumoconiosis compensation fund. The fund is made up of contributions originally made by the mineworker, the Chamber of Mines and the Government and it now stands at about R60,000,000. The interest on these funds plus the levies imposed on the mines from year to year provide the revenue from which the pneumoconiosis sufferer is compensated. Each mine’s levies are determined on a formula which I do not want to deal with now because it is a complicated matter, but what stimulates my interest is the fact that the actuarial estimate of the responsibility of the compensation fund showed inexplicable surpluses during the past two years, inexplicable if it is taken into consideration that the number of people certified did not decrease considerably and that the number of pensioners has remained fairly constant. The surpluses were such that it was laid down that the A-group mines should pay a current levy of R1,600,000 for the past year and in reality no levy was imposed on them the following year because the surplus was so great. This can only mean one of two things, namely that the working conditions in the mines have improved to such an extent that the incidence of pneumoconiosis has been reduced to a minimum; this contention, however, is disproved by the consistent number of pensioners still drawing pensions. Furthermore, the improvement in the working conditions and the preventive plans and methods could have brought about such a revolutionary saving in contributions over such a short period. I therefore ask whether the hon. the Minister will not consider the desirability of reviewing the position of the pneumoconiosis compensation fund and also the basis on which levies are determined.

Dr. FISHER:

Like the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) I must also express my disappointment that so little time is given to this Vote. I would remind the Committee that almost 750,000 people find employment in this industry and the revenue derived from mining is almost R2,000,000 per day. Whenever our economy is discussed, and whenever we speak about the solidarity of our economy, we always back that up by saying how wonderful our mines are, what wonderful production they give and what wonderful service they render this country. Yet when this Vote comes up for discussion we find a handful of members present and very few Ministers ever come in to listen, and the debate on the Vote is cut to a shocking degree. I hope that in future we will have much more time available to discuss the important matters that arise under this Vote.

It was my intention to go into the question of pneumoconiosis this afternoon in detail, but with the time at my disposal now I can only mention the points that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister.

When we speak about the mineworker and the welfare of the mineworker, his health, his wage structure and his pension schemes, the whole set-up depends on whether or not the pneumoconiosis bureau is going to do its job properly. I feel certain that as things are at the moment they are doing their very best for the mineworker, but is that good enough? I have seen and read most of the papers that were presented to the conference in 1959 on pneumoconiosis at the Witwatersrand University. I have studied them carefully and minutely and I have come to the conclusion that there is no basis whatever for the bureau to sub-divide their pneumoconiosis patients as they are doing to-day. To some extent I agree with the hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. J. van Wyk). Three years ago I mentioned this aspect of stages in this House, and I was rapped over the knuckles by the then Minister, Dr. van Rhyn. He thought I was sabotaging the medical profession because I criticized the findings of the bureau. I can tell this Committee that it is impossible to be accurate in the diagnosis of pneumoconiosis in any of its stages. We learned last year from some of the figures given by the hon. member for Springs that in 54 cases the diagnosis at the post-mortem differed from the diagnosis given by the bureau. Sir, we have to realize that the economy of the country depends on the mineworker to-day and I want him to get a fair deal. When that man comes up for examination at the bureau I want him to get the benefit of the doubt every time. If there is any doubt as to the stage in which he should be classified. I say to the Minister that he should use his influence and see that the miner is classified in a higher category. The miner must never be put in a lower category but always in a higher category. If there is any doubt as to whether he should be in the first stage or the second stage, I say that he should be classified in the second stage. If there is any doubt between the second and the third stages, I say he should be classified as a third stage sufferer. I say to the Minister that we must amalgamate the third and the fourth stages. Those two stages must be brought together. In other words, the same benefits which are given to the miner in the fourth stage should also be given to the miner in the third stage.

Mr. P. W. DU PLESSIS:

Do you as a medical man not think that the fourth stage should be abolished altogether?

Dr. FISHER:

I want to thank the hon. member for that question because that is really what I want. I want to abolish the fourth stage, but I want to do it in such a way that the fourth stage people will not lose anything by it and that the third stage people will benefit in exactly the same way as the fourth stage people are benefiting now. It is no good classifying people in the fourth stage on their death-bed, and that is virtually what is happening. We should abolish that complaint that is brought to us time and time again. How can we best do that? I say that the way to do that is by closer liaison between the medical practitioners who are looking after the mineworkers on their panels and the bureau. To-day there is no co-operation whatsoever. Last year I asked the Minister whether he would please see that the findings of the bureau are sent to the medical practitioners who look after the particular miner. He asked me then whether or not there was not some sort of code of secrecy in regard to the finding. I told him that everything that passed between the doctors would be treated as confidential. But why should the person who goes up for examination be told casually by the examining doctor: “Go and see your own doctor; I am not quite satisfied with your condition.” He does not tell the person who has been examined what is wrong; he leaves that person in doubt and that person remains in doubt until the doubt is clarified by the medical practitioner who looks after him normally. But with all the latest apparatus and with all the specialists available to determine the extent of damage in the lung, how is the medical practitioner on the panel going to do better than was done by the examiner at the bureau? In any case I would say to the Minister that all questions concerning the lungs or the heart should be discussed by the bureau together with the medical practitioner who looks after the miner normally. The hon, member for Welkom is not too sure whether or not an appeal board should be instituted. I say without any hesitation that an appeal board must be instituted. Why should the person who has been examined not have the right to be re-examined by an independent group of people? I have the utmost confidence in the medical profession. I believe that they will give of their best at all times, but normally when a doctor is in doubt about the condition of his patient he calls in a consultant. Why cannot the bureau have a separate board who will review the relatively few cases where miners appeal? It need not be done haphazardly. Let the person who wants to appeal go to his panel doctor first and ask for the panel doctor to arrange the appeal. If the panel doctor thinks it is worth while he will surely do so. I am sure that this close liaison between the bureau, the panel doctor and the mineworker is something that will help the mineworker. It will make the work of the bureau easier and the panel doctor will be relieved of a lot of anxiety. [Time limit.]

*Mr. P. J. COETZEE:

I am very pleased that there is such unanimity on both sides of the House in respect of the mineworker. I feel it my duty to make my contribution. In the first instance I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to one aspect. I fully agree with hon. members on both sides of the House that the fourth stage should be abolished for the simple reason that it comes into operation too late. The man and his family derive no benefit from it because he is already bedridden at that stage. I agree that the third and the fourth stages should be merged. I also want to ask that the first stage be abolished; that as soon as the man leaves the mine he should be classified as falling within the second stage and be paid a pension, for this simple reason that the gap between the first and the second stage is 10 to 15 years in some cases; in some cases it takes 10 to 15 years before he is certified as being second stage and if it is only the husband and his wife he receives a mere R30. It is expecting too much to expect a man to keep body and soul together on R30. Where the Minister is considering introducing legislation some time in the future I want to ask him to go into this question of merging the first and the second stages. I also want to draw the attention of the Minister to a matter that has been referred to by the hon. members for Springs (Mr. Tucker) and Brakpan (Mr. P. W. du Plessis) namely mine sand. Those of us who live at Johannesburg know what the conditions are in some of those suburbs. Those mine dumps can be covered with a thin layer of soil at a comparatively low cost and grass and trees can be planted there. You would be beautifying the city at the same time. I am surprised that when the mines were first developed it was not laid down by law that every mining group would be obliged to see to it that its mine dumps were beautified. That is important. Take places like Booysens and Overton in my constituency. When the north-eastern wind blows the sand lies two to three inches thick on the stoeps. That is not a healthy state of affairs for the children. Something must be done in this connection. We cannot skim over it lightly. It is a very serious matter and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to this matter.

I wholeheartily agree with the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) who asked for an appeal board. It is of the utmost importance that we have an appeal board. There is nobody to whom these people can appeal to-day. The family doctor may have told the mineworker two to three years ago that he was in a serious stage of pneumoconiosis but the bureau does not certify him. When the Pneumoconiosis Act came into operation we had hoped that the position would improve. It has improved to a great extent, but there are still defects, and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to this.

*Dr. W. L. D. M. VENTER:

In the short time at my disposal I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister the problem which exists to-day in connection with the diggers in the Northern Cape. Since the days when diamonds were discovered when there was a terrific rush of people most of whom were mere fortune hunters, the number of diggers who have made it their profession and who have concentrated on digging and who know no other profession, has steadily dwindled, particularly after the Government had decided not to issue any more new certificates. On 30 December 1960 there were 717 certificateholders left in the Northern Cape but not all of them are active diggers. Three hundred and fifty-one out of that number of 717 can be regarded as active diggers, people who work on the diggings from morning till night, who have to make their livelihood from digging and who know no other profession. I want to point out that this problem is of a transitory nature. The Diggers’ Board at Barkly West have determined that that number was decreasing constantly at the rate of approximately 30 to 40 per annum. There were 110 diggers which served as an excellent test check present at a diggers’ meeting that was held and we made a survey of the age of the diggers. The average age of the diggers is 57.37 years. Fourteen per cent of the diggers that are left fall into the age group of over 50 years; 14 per cent fall in the age group of over 65 years; 72 per cent of the 351 active diggers therefore fall in the age group of between 50 and 65 years, for whom provision should be made somehow or other, because the man falling in that age group cannot learn a new trade or follow a new profession.

I want to show what a deserving cause this is. Those diggers are not paupers. As a matter of fact, even when I became interested in their position and decided to plead their cause they told me I could do so on one condition that their misery was not hawked about; that the only thing they asked was that the Government should place them in a position to continue to practise their profession, because they are proud of the fact that they have made a positive contribution to the economy of the country. They have been the pioneers. The work they do has earned valued foreign exchange for the Government. They have to pay income tax; they have to pay super tax and they have to pay export duty which amounts to a substantial amount annually. But those people are in a very critical financial position. The Diggers’ Board has calculated that the average income of a digger during the past year was approximately R745, from which he had to pay his expenses. We realize that there is very little land; there is no more land available in the Northern Cape. What is the solution to this problem? In this regard I want to mention three things briefly to the Minister. In the first place the digger himself says: The Government is still in control of some land, land that has not been alienated from the Government; let the Government make that land available to us. And if the Government should perhaps say that they have not the necessary capital their reply is: That is our affair. We shall work that land; just give it to us. The second suggestion I have to offer is this: The hon. the Minister has announced the establishment of a kind of Government corporation that will develop the land in Namaqualand and I want to ask him whether it is not possible to enlist the services of those diggers who have made digging their profession and who have such a thorough knowledge of the work; can’t their energies and talents and experience be used? Then I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to make more use of the Diggers’ Board because they can give him the best advice. A solution has to be found for this problem of rehabilitating those diggers. Something has to be done somehow or other. We cannot leave those people in the lurch; we cannot allow them to starve to death.

Mr. ROSS:

I want to agree with everything that my colleague, the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) said in regard to pneumoconiosis, and I hope that the Minister having heard his views and the concurring views of hon. members on that side of the House, will agree that a case, a good case, has been made out for an investigation. I, however, want to talk about something else in regard to the mining industry. Yesterday’s statement by the Minister of Economic Affairs brings very grave fears to my mind in regard to a possible rise in the costs of the gold-mining industry. I do not have to give the Minister any estimate of the enormous tonnage of low-grade ore which is available for mining and the disastrous effect on the country’s economy that any further increase in costs will bring. This is common knowledge. But I want to keep on bringing home to him the fact that we must keep an eye on it all the time. I would suggest that he is now bearing possibly the greatest burden of responsibility in regard to the economy of the country in the whole Cabinet, and I want to impress on him again and again the value of the gold-mining industry to this country and ask him please to keep an eagle eye on the other Departments of the Government whose activities could very easily result in an increase of costs, with possibly disastrous effects for various mines and the losing of a large quantity of ore. For instance, there has been a tremendous amount of confusion of thought and words in relation to the establishment of border industries. I cannot expand on that now, but I do say it is essential for this Minister to retain a complete knowledge and a close relationship with the Departments dealing with this particular matter. This question of border industries has in it the seed of very great inflation possibly, if not handled in a proper economic manner. I have a fear, a very real fear, that this one matter alone will probably bring about some increase in mining costs over the next two or three years.

I think it is necessary to give some figures relating to the gold-mining industry and its importance to our economy as the great stabilizer that it is. Since 1946 the industry raised no less than £370,000,000 in new capital. More than half of this came from outside the Union. In 1959 it bought nearly £127,000,000 worth of South African stores and £14,000,000 worth from overseas. The amount that they bought overseas was only bought after very careful investigation indeed. The percentage bought overseas is small, and I am assured that none of those goods were purchased overseas unless they were either not made locally or not made in the sizes and types required in this country. Sir, I wonder whether people outside the Rand realize how some of our very great industries have been established primarily to meet the requirements of the gold-mining industry. Some of these industries have now arrived at the stage where they are actually exporting mining material. When I tell this Committee that the mining industry bought £1,250,000 worth of South African-made boots alone, then you can see of what great benefit it is to that particular industry. That was in 1959. I could go on giving details of the worth of the gold-mining industry to industry as a whole, but I think I have said enough to make the point.

Now as regards our external trade; in 1959 Union exports totalled £632,000,000. The mining industry, including uranium oxide accounted for £292,000,000 of this; diamonds and other minerals £73,000,000, a total of £365,000,000, against a total of £266,000,000—£96,000,000 manufactures and agricultural products, processed and otherwise, £151,000,000, which means that well over half of the foreign currency was earned by the mining industry. I have given these figures to show the importance of the gold-mining industry to this country’s economy and the importance of the Minister himself being in personal contact with the new Economic Advisory Committee so that he will have before his eyes all the time the possibility of danger to this industry. He, as I have said before, has a job that carries the greatest responsibility from the economic point of view in the Cabinet, and I hope he realizes and keeps on realizing that inflation of any sort would be deadly for the mining industry.

Now I want to deal with another point. There is no doubt that the policies of this Government are going to cause a decline in our exports of manufactured goods and agricultural products and that the result will be that the percentage of foreign currency produced by the gold-mining industry will increase in importance, and the importance of the industry to the country will increase proportionately. New mines are necessary. I would suggest that just as new industries receive encouragement, so should mines. Gold mines are of such importance to the whole economy that the taxation position should be reviewed. There can be no case whatever for a special rate of tax higher than that imposed on other companies. The rate of tax must obviously restrict the extension of mining operations, operations which are of such great importance. The hon. Minister is aware of the shortage of capital in this country. We have seen recently that needed capital could not be raised from shareholders of one company because the value of the shares had dropped on the market and that a very large sum which was required had to be supplied by the groups interested in the proposition. I am sure the Minister agrees with me that that is a very bad sign indeed. The product of the gold mines is saleable, it does not have to compete or fight for markets and should be encouraged in every way. Penal taxation certainly is not an encouragement. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to reason with his colleagues for fairer taxation in respect of the backbone of our country’s economy, and at least to bring it into line with the taxation on other industries. In conclusion I hope the Minister will assure this House that he is watching a possible increase in costs like a hawk and keeping in close contact with the advisory committee. We get sense from the spokesmen of the Economic Advisory Committee, much more common-sense than we get from Ministers who talk to us on these subjects, but I do hope that this particular Minister will see that his co-ordination and co-operation with the Advisory Committee gets closer and closer. It is most important. The gold-mining industry is not falling in value in relation to the total industry of this country, it is growing, its value is becoming higher and higher.

*Mr. GREYLING:

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to make a statement in connection with the pension scheme for mineworkers. Secondly I wish to refer to the fact that last year out of a total of 1,327 students at the Government school of mines 1,220 were recruited locally and 107 overseas. I know the hon. the Minister is strict about this and exercises control and that he only agrees to overseas recruitment when it is absolutely necessary. I am pleased to see that most of our young mineworkers come mainly from within our own ranks. I also want to ask the Minister to make a statement in connection with the abolition of the interim examination every six months which was in operation but which was recently abolished. When the Pneumoconiosis Act came into operation in 1956 there was an annual clinical and X-ray examination which was subsequently replaced by a six monthly X-ray examination. That has now been abolished and certain miners are concerned about it and they would like to have a reassuring statement from the Minister.

In conclusion I wish to make an appeal, in this year of 1961 when we are to celebrate the republic, to our mine managements, to the Chamber of Mines and to industry to make some gesture on their part during this year when so many appeals for unity have come from us. I want to ask them how it is possible that whereas most of the mineworkers and labourers in all spheres of mining are Afrikaans-speaking, such a small number of Afrikaans-speaking people are to be found in the higher posts in the mining industry. I want to appeal to them to make some gesture. We are not all stupid; we are not all incapable but it seems to me that the Afrikaans-speaking person is not considered. I can tell them that there is dissatisfaction within the ranks of the Afrikaans-speaking mineworkers. They have a golden opportunity in this year 1961 to make a gesture, so that there will be an increase in the percentage of Afrikaans-speaking people in the higher posts in the mining industry and the Afrikaans-speaking people will, as in the past, accept it in the right spirit, just as they have acted in the past towards their fellow-citizens.

*Dr. MEYER:

From the nature of things my main interest is the health and welfare of the mineworkers, and that being so I want to associate myself with the pleas that have been made for the abolition of the fourth stage of pneumoconiosis. I am also convinced that the mineworkers would welcome some kind of revision committee. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) quite rightly said that there was no basis on which this stage was determined. Although it is true to say that it is a difficult problem to classify illness, as the hon. member knows, surely something can be done. Illness cannot be measured by a ruler or weighed on a scale. Our only guide is the function of the particular organ affected and experience has shown that where an organ may be very slightly damaged it may affect the function of that organ much more in one case than in the case of somebody else where the organ has been damaged to a far greater extent. There are tests that can be applied as regards the functioning of the lung but even those tests do not give perfect results and because of that we have to rely on guesswork to a great extent, just as in the case of all other disabilities. We are inclined to say that a person is 50 per cent disabled when he has lost a leg, but neither that can be measured with a ruler, it remains guesswork. However, I agree with the hon. member and I have already asked the Department in correspondence that in view of the fact that there cannot be a mathematical basis, the mineworker should always have the benefit of the doubt and if at all possible he should rather be classified in a higher grade than in a lower grade.

Reference has been made to the mine dumps and dust. I am pleased to be able to say that in my area the mines have been conducting tests and it seems as though they will be able to solve that problem by planting grass, trees, etc. on the mine dumps. Before I sit down I wish to react to one point raised by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker). He pleaded with the Government for the establishment of industries in his areas in compensation of the mines that may possibly close down. I do not begrudge his area that but I want to state the opposite side as well by saying that I do not think the Government can force industries in that direction simply because houses are standing empty. A market is developing on the goldfield of the Free State and that market must also be supplied. Work must be provided for the labour there. At the moment there are approximately 60,000 Whites and 150,000 non-Whites in that area. Employment must be provided for their children. That is why I do not think it will be right on the part of the Government to encourage industries in that direction simply because the houses are standing empty while the necessary facilities such as power, water and labour are also available at the goldfields of the Free State. I think it will be in the interests of the country that industries are also established at that market.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

In the few minutes I have I would like to say a few words about the accident rate in coal mines. Following the Coalbrook disaster, I read in an article in Time that the South African fatality rate per 1,000 tons produced was 15 times that of the United States. A figure of that kind naturally produces a double impression, namely that our Department of Mines is not efficient and that we as a people tend to be callous about human life, whereas both suppositions are quite false. I understand that the Transvaal Chambers of Mines did take this matter up and demonstrated on the basis of the American calculation per 1,000 tons mined that our rate was more in the neighbourhood of 2y or 3 times of that in the United States, a very different thing from 15 times on their basis of calculation. Now on another basis of calculation, the one I am used to, and that is the accidents per 1,000 men employed, it is still far less. I might tell the hon. the Minister that for a short time in my life I was a miner and at that time the accident rate in England compared with America on the basis of per 1,000 men employed was three times the English rate in America. On the basis of 1,000 men employed our figures are actually lower than the American figures. I do know a little about this so far as Natal is concerned and I have seen very good safety records in respect of mines in the Transvaal, and what I wish to put to the hon. the Minister is that although you can never have too much improvement in safety precautions in this regard —and no doubt when the report becomes available there will be useful suggestions—but I am sure in other respects that report will indicate that on the whole the South African coal mine record has been good and that if there are still things to be done, leaving aside a disaster such as Coalbrook which is unique in our history, the South African accident rate does compare not unfavourably with that in other parts of the world. I am only concerned that reasonable publicity should be given to those figures, because after such an event and the appointment of such a commission of inquiry, there is a tendency for people to assume that things leave very much to be desired, whereas, I see the Minister agrees with me, by and large compared with other countries, our position is quite favourable. I am concerned that in some suitable publication whenever the opportunity offers, sufficient publicity should be given to the good side of our records.

*Dr. JURGENS:

I agree with what the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) has said when he referred to the nuisance of mine dust. A Select Committee has been appointed to go into the question of air pollution and we trust they will place legislation before this House that will assist us in overcoming this nuisance.

I should also like to know from the hon. the Minister what progress has been made in respect of the pension fund scheme for mineworkers. During the past three years we have been asking regularly about this and I trust it will now be possible for the hon. the Minister to announce that such a scheme will be introduced. I want to say something about the pensions that are paid to pneumoconiosis sufferers. Every year during the past few years the Government has increased the oudstryders’ pensions and the old age pensions. This year the disability benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act have been increased to bring them in conformity with the increased cost of living. Is it not possible to increase the pensions that are paid to pneumoconiosis sufferers as well so that they too will conform to the increased cost of living? We should like to know whether it is not possible to bring relief to those people.

I want to say something about two other types of pneumoconiosis sufferers. The first type is the pneumoconiosis sufferer who suffers from the second stage and who has additional ailments which render him incapable of doing any work. I want to refer to one case as an example, the details of which I have submitted to the hon. the Deputy Minister. In this particular case the man suffers from pneumoconiosis in the second stage and in addition to that he suffers from emphysema and asthma. The man attends the Johannesburg chest clinic three times a week for treatment and they cannot do anything to improve his condition. The functioning of his lungs is very poor, he cannot do any work and he and his wife and a few minor children have to live on the meagre pension which he receives as a second-stage pneumoconiosis sufferer. I feel that something should be done to assist this type of pneumoconiosis sufferer, because his position is really critical. There is another group of pneumoconiosis sufferer which I think should be assisted and they are the fourth stage sufferers. He is usually the person who can just about stumble along and who cannot do anything for himself. There is a scheme in existence under which these people receive £10 to pay for somebody to look after them if they are bedridden and it is left to the doctor of such a person to issue a certificate whether the man is bedridden or not. The certificate is worded in such a way that it is really only the person who is dying that can be certified as being bedridden. I feel that this attendant allowance should be paid to every fourth grade pneumoconiosis sufferer because all of them require somebody to attend to their needs and that he should not necessarily be bedridden before he receives this allowance. Even if he gets out of bed and sits in a chair it does not follow that he can look after himself, but when he is able to sit in a chair he is not bedridden and then he cannot get the allowance. I think it should be made compulsory that this £10 attendant’s fee should be paid to every pneumoconiosis sufferer who has been declared to be a fourth stage suffer.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

After a strenuous week during which much energy has been expended, I should like to say something under the item “Atomic energy” in the few minutes at my disposal, because I think the intention is to close the debate. I want to ask the Minister whether at the atomic research station at Pelindaba, which is situated along the banks of the Crocodile River in which the Hartebeespoort Dam is constructed, they follow the method of diluting the radioactive effluent in the stream. Secondly, is there any international standard according to which the effluent has to be treated and is that treatment 100 per cent effective? I also want to ask the Minister whether there is a process whereby in the case of harmful radio-active materials the materials can be successfully separated from the harmless materials in that effluent so that only the effluent with harmless elements enters the dam. Are there processes whereby such separation can be done 100 per cent effectively and are such processes economical? Then I want to ask the Minister whether the Department of Health has been consulted about the method of dilution in the stream in the case of the Crocodile River? Furthermore is it the intention to develop the atomic research reactor to its utmost capacity or is the intention to expand it in future by installing further units? How many units similar to those to be installed will be possible in future? I also want to ask the Minister whether there was any consultation with the Department of Irrigation and whether steps have been taken in terms of the Irrigation Act of 1956 to prevent the pollution of the water as much as possible and to purify it. I want to ask the hon. the Minister this personal question: Can the Minister give me the assurance that with the erection of the atomic reactor the necessary precautionary measures have been taken so that I will be in a position to say to the public that as far as their health is concerned, the Minister of Mines has given me an assurance that they are 100 per cent safe.

*The MINISTER OF MINES:

It is only a Chief Whip who can ask so many questions and I shall have to commence by answering his many questions because otherwise an atomic explosion might perhaps take place here. But before doing so, I want to associate myself with those hon. members who expressed their disappointment at the fact that year after year the Mines Vote is neglected. I think the time has arrived when the Whips who arrange these matters, and particularly the Whips opposite, should give this Vote a chance too, because it will be much more in the best interests of the country than many of the other speeches made in this House. I want to agree with those hon. members that this is one of the most important assets South Africa has, its mineral and metal resources, and we devote far too little time to this important subject.

I want to commence with the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) by telling him that we are moving in a very scientific sphere when we discuss atomic energy, and as generally happens in matters of this kind we are to a large extent dependent on the scientists when we have to take final decisions. I can only say that we have a scientific statement and we must subject ourselves to it and accept it as being in the best interests of the country. But on the other hand, we have taken note of the difficulties and particularly the fear in the minds of the community of Brits in connection with the erection of the atomic reactor there. The people fear that it will be dangerous and perhaps even jeopardize their lives. There are international standards for the building of such reactors and the disposal of waste products, and our own scientists not only adhered to these international standards but even went further and applied them in such a way as not only to take into consideration the margins of safety but even a higher standard than that. I am informed that there are really two types of isotopes. The one is a long-life isotope and the other a short-life isotope. The danger lies in the accumulation in water, to fish and plants and animals, and only the long-life isotope can accumulate, and that type is not released in water. This dangerous type of isotope is diluted and evaporates and the rest of it is buried. The Atomic Board spent much money on sending our experts overseas a few years ago, particularly to study the dangers of radiation and pollution and to make a study of the standards applied in other countries, and to make these standards even stricter here than is regarded as being safe overseas, because we still have the space. It has been decided to instruct this expert who has now returned to the country to go around to instruct the public, particularly of Brits, in regard to the matter and to convince them that there is nothing to fear, because if I try to convince them it will not be of much use; they will just say: What does this man know about it? He must convince them that the Atomic Board knows very well what it puts into the dam and that in any case continuous tests will be made in regard to the air, the soil and the water, and also the animals and plant life. Those are the instructions I gave. Then I just want to say further that a Committee of Control has been constituted to keep continuous supervision, and this Committee will consist of representatives of the Departments of Health, Agricultural Technical Services, Water Affairs, the Atomic Board and also the S.A. Bureau of Standards, and it will impose detailed conditions for the disposal of waste, and if necessary it will amend these conditions in the light of further information derived from the research programme of the Atomic Board. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that there is really nothing to fear.

Whilst dealing with radiation—the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) referred to the fact that whereas previously there was a six-monthly examination of mineworkers, it has now again been changed to an annual examination. The reason for that is very simple. It is due to the danger of being over-exposed to radiation, which can take place very easily, and again our technical people are investigating the matter. Not only is a miner often subjected to X-rays for the purposes of being examined for pneumoconiosis, but often he also has other complaints and additional X-rays are taken. The delegates to the Pneumoconiosis Conference in February 1959, expressed concern. The medical adviser of the Minister, Prof. Oosthuizen, who of course is not only the outstanding radiologist in our country but is even recognized as such in the world, has associated himself with this, and this change was made for the sake of the safety of the mineworkers themselves.

Quite a number of questions were asked in regard to the pension scheme for miners. Last year it was announced that we intended establishing a statutory pension scheme for miners. I had draft legislation drawn up and also said that I hoped to be able to introduce it during this Session. The question asked is therefore a fair one. After the Bill was drafted which fitted in a pension scheme with the 1956 legislation, this draft Bill was sent to all interested parties, to the organizations of mine owners and to the trade unions, in November 1960. The result was that we received a tremendous stream of protest not only, as one would have expected, from the mine-owners’ organizations but also from the trade unions. The trade unions of the miners objected to this scheme. In this scheme three bodies are concerned, viz. the Government, the employers and the employees, and hon. members will understand that it is impossible, or at least undesirable, to force through legislation against the will and the wishes of one or two of the interested parties. This opposition was so serious that urgent representations were made to me not to continue with it. I did so and stated that I would send it to them for their further consideration. The question is: What now? Of course this House will want to know. For many years it was correctly said here—the hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) also mentioned it—and for many years it was pleaded from all sides that a decent pension should be provided for the mineworkers who devoted their lives to the service, and particularly to those who perhaps had to leave the mines at an early age due to ill-health. As a Government we did our share. Appreciable costs were incurred; people were sent abroad; we instituted investigations and to the best of our ability drew up a draft for their approval. The mining groups then asked for the opportunity to consider the matter, viz. to what extent the existing pension schemes could be approved. As hon. members know, most mining groups have such schemes. The funds, however, are far too small to comply with the wishes or even with the needs of the workers. I told them: I give you that opportunity; consult with each other. If they succeed it will not be necessary to establish any statutory pension fund. However, if they do not succeed in improving the funds, I shall be compelled seriously to consider the establishment of a statutory pension fund.

Quite a number of hon. members—the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker), Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee), Geduld and others—spoke about the combating of dust. I just want to say that I am gratified and pleasantly surprised at what the Chamber of Mines has already done in this short time. I asked what costs they had incurred in doing certain work on these old mine dumps. I received a telex message from them. Hon. members know that they were busy with experiments and that they regarded these experiments as being so successful that the idea was that they could carry out a fairly big planting programme and hoped to plant 2,000 acres during the next planting season. In regard to the work they have done so far, they say—

Experiments have been financed suddenly by the gold-mining industry.

I asked who had provided the money—

A great deal of the work has been done by individual groups and mines, and it is not possible to give the costs they are incurring. The estimated cost of the work undertaken by the Chamber’s mobile planting units for this year is R36,000.

I mention it because this is quite rightly their responsibility. They took the riches from the earth and they must help to pay for the health. That is how we felt. But I want to say that the relevant managerial committee of the Chamber of Mines, under the chairmanship of an official of the Chamber, really in this brief period since this matter was raised has proved that they are past the experimental stage and that their work has been very successful. If I had time I would have told hon. members what mine dumps have already been planted, and it is astonishing to see how the grass is growing. I saw with my own eyes how the grass grows on these mine dumps. I hope that the Select Committee which deals with the Air Pollution Bill will give a further spurt to this, but it seems to me that if they delay their report a little too long, all the mine dumps will have been planted, the grass will have grown and the dust problem will have been solved. I hope that that will be the case.

*Mr. TUCKER:

What about the old mine dumps?

*The MINISTER OF MINES:

They are busy on the old mine dumps. The area where they now work is from Johannesburg towards the East Rand. It is hoped that this will not only be experiments, but that this work will be done also on the West Rand. It is interesting that in regard to the old mine dumps they packed the slimes with coarse dust to prevent erosion and to combat the formation of this fine dust, and in the meantime they continued planting grass. This is really a sound bit of work which is being done.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. P. W. du Plessis) spoke about the marginal mines. He gave the correct figures of the colonies which could be affected according to the then committee, viz. the saving in pennies per ton milled. The total of the 1957 committee’s findings was 27.3 d. per ton if certain things could be done. The largest part of this is 13.7d. for pneumoconiosis compensation. That benefited the mines as the result of another point in regard to which the hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. J. van Wyk) complained, viz. that the actuarial calculations for the fund were in his opinion wrong, and that it was too high, taking into consideration the repayments which had to be made. In any case, that gave the marginal mines a breathing-space, so much so that it lengthened their lives appreciably. I want to emphasize what was said by the hon. member for Brakpan, that if we consider that in 1960 these so-called marginal mines still produced 11.5 per cent of our total gold production, it seems in any case as if these mines have not come anywhere near the end of their lives yet. But I want to admit that there are difficulties. The hon. member for Springs also pointed to these difficulties. He pointed out that these mines are closing down. My difficulty is how to solve the problem of the hon. member for Brakpan, viz. how I can assist. The only large amount which remains over is for railage, viz. 7.3d. If he can persuade my colleague the Minister of Transport to charge a little less, or to charge nothing at all, he will have done the East Rand a great service. I do not think I will manage it. My difficulty is how to assist him. The hon. member for Springs suggested that the best advice would probably be that the Government should do more in the way of encouraging industrial development there. He mentioned various ways in which it could be done. However, this is a heavy burden which is being laid on my shoulders as Minister of Mines, when I am concerned with the matter only indirectly. I would be willing to make available all the proclaimed land which is no longer required for mining for the purposes of industrial development, and we as a Department of Mines, when land is no longer required, like to deproclaim it and to make it available for further industrial development. But the development of industries is in the first place a matter for the local authorities. The local authority should do its utmost to get people interested, to make available the necessary land to provide the facilities and in that way to encourage industrial development.

*Mr. TUCKER:

Will the hon. the Minister make representations to the Department of Bantu Administration in this regard, because that is where the trouble lies?

*The MINISTER OF MINES:

Together with the representatives of Krugersdorp—because I come from Krugersdorp—I made representations to the Department of Bantu Administration and the Department of Economic Affairs to allow more workers in the Krugersdorp area for industrial development. I am therefore one of those who does that—as long as the planning fits in. The planning must fit in. There must be enough housing; additional labour should not just be imported haphazardly. The type of industry to be developed must be such that it does not place an unnecessary burden on housing and other services again. If a good case is made out it will be treated sympathetically. I will go along with the hon. member for Springs if he has a good case, but I first want to see his case. The hon. member for Welkom was not satisfied with the pneumoconiosis classification. In this regard there are quite a number of hon. members, including the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher), the hon. member for Langlaagte and the hon. member for Geduld. A Bill has already been drafted and which, as I have said, was initially combined with a pension scheme, and it contains essential amendments to the Pneumoconiosis Act of 1956. We have always said that this is the best Act, and I still say that it is the best Act in any country, when it is compared with similar legislation in other countries, but that does not mean that it cannot be improved. The doctors are improving every day and the Act must also improve. It does not mean to say that once having provided for four stages that is gospel and it can never be changed to two or three stages. But it is not our work in this House to say how many stages there should be. It is not our task simply to have the final word in regard to such a scientific and academic problem. We drafted a Bill which also envisaged a reduction in the number of stages. But I do not want to anticipate this Bill, because after receiving the request that the pension scheme should be postponed I gave instructions to my Department that it was absolutely essential for us to amend the Pneumoconiosis Act. They immediately tackled the matter and the first draft amendment is ready and it has been sent to all the interested parties with the request to them to devote their attention to it as soon as possible and to let us have their comment. Unfortunately I think that in view of the heavy programme we have it will not be possible to put that Bill on the Statute Book this Session.

*An HON. MEMBER:

That is a pity.

*The MINISTER OF MINES:

The hon. member will get a fright if he sees the Bill and then I think we will quarrel. Then the one will say it must be like this and the other that it must be like that. We must simply allow ourselves to be guided in regard to these highly technical matters by people who know more about them than we do. Therefore I merely want to say that the Bill will come and all the hon. members who spoke about pneumoconiosis, about the wrong diagnoses, etc., and even about the certifying committee to which there were objections, must just wait for the Bill. Some hon. members objected to the certifying committee. Some said: Appoint the Appeal Board again; it is not wrong to appeal against the opinions of the medical men. It is the idea to appoint a committee of three specialists with the Pneumoconiosis Bureau; that the certifying committee will be retained; that if there is any objection, this panel of three specialists will investigate the objection; if they do not agree with the certifying committee they will send it back to the committee. If the committee still insists that they were correct, that committee is called together, with the three specialists, and the medical adviser, who is at present Professor Oosthuizen, will act as chairman, so that they can then resolve the matter. I think we all feel that we do not want to embarrass the medical profession by making it subject to an ordinary appeal such as we have in the administration of justice. That is an idea. I mention it for what it is worth, because it is felt that any person who is not certified by the certifying committee and who feels that he should really have been certified, will then feel that he has received justice. As a medical man, the hon. member for Rosettenville is quite correct when he says that there have already been wrong diagnoses in the past. But the cemetery is full of cases where medical men made wrong diagnoses. That happens everywhere. But we want to help because it is a dangerous disease. We want to do our best to help in this Bill. Nobody is trying to evade his responsibility, neither the Government nor the employers. We want to give the miner what he deserves.

The hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. Venter) made a plea for the diggers at Barkly West. I have visited those diggings myself and met the diggers. I just want to say that they are people of high quality, hard-working and honest, as the hon. member described them. The trouble is that they are professional diggers and that diamondiferous ground is becoming scarce. I did not hear about the Western Transvaal this time, but we know that there the position is precisely the same. Of course it is not really the Government’s duty to see that professional diggers are given ground or to solve their problems by purchasing land. The Government cannot, e.g., buy land as a speculation. A man will not sell his land if he knows there are diamonds. The State will have to buy the land and then prospect it. After prospecting and having bought the land at a high price, particularly if it is learnt that the State wants to buy something …

*Mr. WENTZEL:

Will the hon. the Minister give us information in regard to the statement made last year that prospecting syndicates will be formed with financial support—how far that matter has progressed?

*The MINISTER OF MINES:

I will come to that, and this is also the subject of the question asked by the hon. member for Kimberley (South). The diggers have a good case. There is nothing wrong with it. The only trouble is that the Government cannot buy land as a speculation. As a State we dare not do so. There is unalienated Crown land in Namaqualand and the House knows what happened in that regard. I made no fewer than two statements and it is public knowledge. Companies were formed by the thousands. Tens of thousands of people saw these riches in their imagination. It was an impossible task to allot what did not even really exist yet, but which grew in the imagination of the people to bags full of diamonds! Therefore the Government eventually decided that a sort of State-controlled corporation would be established. I called together all the experts of the various departments—my own Department, Commerce and Industry, Finance, etc.—as a committee, and I hope that within a week they will be able to submit to me a draft of how this State-controlled corporation will be constituted. The draft they submit to me will be submitted by me to practical diggers to see whether it is practicable. If there are vacancies we will give those people an opportunity. At this moment, however, it is absolutely impossible for me to say what this State-controlled corporation will look like.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have now replied to the various points to the best of my ability. The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams), I am sure, does not need a reply. I am glad he raised the point. I can only tell him that this article which appeared was attacked not only by the Chamber of Mines but also by my Department. We wrote to the publishers and challenged them to substantiate the allegations with facts or else to withdraw their article, after the facts were sent to them, but hitherto they have not done so. It was a very unsavoury matter.

Vote put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.

The House adjourned at 5.21 p.m.

MONDAY, 8 MAY 1961 Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 2.20 p.m. PERSONAL EXPLANATION *The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House, I would like to make a personal explanation.

In the debate on Vote No. 41, Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones, on 2 May 1961, I said that one of the Natal daily newspapers prominently published the allegation that the S.A.B.C. had kept silent about the so-called National Convention in Natal. On this point in the debate I mistakenly referred to the Natal Mercury, whereas, in fact, I meant the Natal Witness.

I do not want a paper to be blamed which was not at fault, and I, therefore, want to express my regret for having, by a slip of the tongue, referred to the Natal Mercury.

DIPLOMATIC MISSION IN UNITED KINGDOM SERVICE BILL

First Order read: Second Reading,—Diplomatic Mission in United Kingdom Service Bill.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Hon. members will recall that last year this Bill was introduced into this House, but it was one of those that fell by the wayside! It is now being introduced again. The necessity for this Bill arises primarily from the accepted policy of consolidating and translating into Afrikaans all pre-1925 Union legislation.

When the High Commissioner’s Act, 1911, came up for consideration in pursuance of that policy, it was realized that the need for the perpetuation of its provisions has, to a large extent, fallen away, due to the fact that the Act principally consists of provisions relating to the appointment, remuneration, tenure of office, etc., of the High Commissioner and the staff for his office, the necessity for which provisions has lapsed owing to the introduction, subsequent to the enactment of this particular Act, of comprehensive legislation dealing with the Public Service of the Union, culminating in the Public Service Act of 1957. There is, however, now a further necessity for the repeal of the Act occasioned by virtue of the fact that the Union will no longer be a member of the Commonwealth of Nations after 31 May next, after which date the designation of the Union’s heads of missions in Commonwealth countries will have to be changed.

Except for those provisions relating to locally recruited staff (that is, staff recruited in the United Kingdom), the staff provisions of the High Commissioner’s Act have thus become redundant. For example, although the Union has heads of missions accredited to various other countries besides the United Kingdom, no special legislation governs these appointments, nor is any necessary, because they are all made in terms of the Public Service Act. The same applies to all appointments of other staff to posts in the offices of our other overseas missions. In fact, with the present exception of the London mission, all appointments to the Union’s diplomatic missions abroad, including appointments to heads of missions, are made in terms of Public Service Act.

Although this is so, the High Commissioner’s Act cannot be scrapped entirely, because, unlike the Union’s other missions abroad, there is a large body of locally recruited staff employed in London which has acquired certain vested rights in regard to pensions and other matters. This local staff consists of some 225 persons employed mainly in the administrative, accounting and stores and shipping branches of the London office; others again are employed to meet the clerical requirements in London of the Railway Administration and of various State Departments such as External Affairs, Defence, Commerce and Industries, Customs, etc. Irrespective of the Department or administration on whose behalf they are employed, the salaries of the locally recruited staff are all borne by the Treasury, and they have always been appointed under the direction of the Minister of Finance. Although the existing Act does not require this, the conditions of service of the locally recruited staff are determined after consultation with the Public Service Commission. As far as the locally recruited staff are concerned, therefore, it is necessary to preserve the status quo, which is the principal object of this Bill. As I have mentioned, the need for the re-enactment of a number of provisions of the existing Act falls away.

These provisions are, firstly, Sections 1, 2, 3, 3 bis and 4, which deal with the following matters relating to the High Commissioner himself—

Section 1: Appointment and functions;

Section 2: Tenure of office;

Section 3: Salary and allowances;

Section 3 bis: Excludes from the operation of Sections 2 and 3 an officer of the Public Service who is appointed to the post;

Section 4: Holder of office is not to engage in any other employment.

Now these are all matters which can conveniently be dealt with in terms of the Public Service Act and are, in fact, so dealt with when all other appointments to posts of heads of missions are made. When the High Commissioner’s Act is repealed, therefore, all that will be necessary will be for the Public Service Commission to create, in terms of the Public Service Act, a post of head of mission in the United Kingdom on the fixed establishment of the Public Service. Thereafter, the filling of the post will be done in accordance with the normal Public Service routine in these matters, whether the appointee is a public servant or a person from outside appointed on contract.

Of course, the repeal of Sections 1 to 4 of the existing Act will not in any way affect the conditions of appointment of the present head of the London mission, who was appointed on contract. His position is fully safeguarded by the provisions of Section 12 (2) of the Interpretation Act, 1957. A further provision of the existing law which need not be reenacted is sub-section (1) of Section 5. This sub-section deals with the appointment to the London office of permanent public servants; that is, persons from the Union Public Service, and provides that the Governor-General may make such appointments. Here again, the existing provision is archaic, having regard to the fact that all the posts which these people occupy are posts on the fixed establishment of the Public Service and, therefore, fall to be dealt with by the Public Service Commission in the normal way. Here again it must be remembered that this provision was inserted at a time when there was no Union Act specifically governing the Public Service, and has outlived its usefulness.

The remaining provisions of the existing Act are sub-section (2) of Section 5 and Section 6. Section 6 is merely a matter of defining certain expressions which occur in pre-Union legislation, like “Agents-General” and so forth, and is being retained as Clause 2 of the Bill. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 deals with the appointment of locally recruited staff, a matter which I have already expounded. This is being re-enacted as Clause 1 of the Bill, which provides that I, as Minister of Finance, shall be responsible for all such appointments, subject to the laws governing the Public Service, and may delegate my powers in this connection. Here I may say that there is no intention to deviate from the present practice whereby the actual day-to-day appointments are made under delegated authority by either the head of mission himself or his chief administrative officer. Furthermore, the practice will be continued, as in the past, of determining the service conditions of the general body of locally recruited staff in consultation with the Public Service Commission. These service conditions are, generally speaking, those applicable to the Union Public Service, but adapted to take into account local practice.

I come now to Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill, the objects of which are to perpetuate certain rights in regard to retirement and benefits which are enjoyed by the locally recruited staff in London. Here I should explain that in 1936 it was decided to grant the locally recruited staff the option of becoming members of the Union Pension Fund. At the same time, membership of the fund was made compulsory for all future recruits who satisfied the prescribed conditions for membership. Clause 4 again, which is purely consequential, deals with the position of those locally recruited persons who, in 1936, decided not to excise the option of becoming members of the Pension Fund. In their case, it was provided that the age of retirement applicable to members of the fund would apply to them also, and that, upon retirement, they would be entitled to a gratuity. The relative provisions are now contained in Section 61 (4) of the Government Service Pension Act, 1955, and to protect the rights of those individuals, that section must be amended to incorporate a reference to this Bill, which is the sole object of Clause 4.

Clause 5 deals with the laws repealed, and Clause 6 gives the short title, and provides that this measure shall come into operation on a date to be fixed. The latter provision is merely to ensure that the administrative details arising from the Bill are worked out before the new measure becomes law.

Mr. WATERSON:

This Bill has been before the House for well over a year, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out. When it was originally introduced it was designed—again as the hon. the Minister has pointed out —primarily to safeguard and regularize the position of the 200-odd locally recruited staff in South Africa House, and we had no objection to it. The hon. the Minister has pointed out that events since then have made it necessary to repeal the Act, principally because there will be no High Commissioner in future. That, of course, is unanswerable. But it does lead to various other questions which I do not, however, propose to deal with this afternoon. I simply want to say that, in terms of this Bill as we have had it before us for the last 18 months, we have no objection to it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON SUBJECT OF UNION EDUCATION ADVISORY COUNCIL BILL

Mr. SPEAKER announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committee on the subject of the Union Education Advisory Council Bill, viz.: Messrs. Butcher, Eaton, Dr. Jonker, Mr. Mostert, Dr. C. P. Mulder, Messrs. Plewman, D. J. Potgieter, Dr. Steenkamp, Dr. J. H. Steyn, Mr. H. J. van Wyk and Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter.

GENERAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL

Second Order read: Second reading,—General Law Amendment Bill.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, we deem it necessary to pass this partly temporary measure in order to cope with possible disturbances of law and order. The Government, as always, is going ahead calmly but with determination to ensure and to maintain law and order in South Africa. There is no reason whatsoever, therefore, to be alarmed. But we must consider the fact that we are living in a new era, an era in which many Western countries find that former measures are no longer effective in maintaining law and order. This Bill must be seen against that background. I shall return to that aspect at a later stage.

Generally, the whole world is going through a turbulent period. It is not necessary for me to emphasize that. There are few countries to-day that do not experience unrest or where unrest does not threaten in some form or other. In Africa, even close to our borders, disturbances and violence are definitely assuming widespread proportions. The Black man in Africa has set himself a gaol, with outside assistance he wants to push the White man back, and drive him out step by step. He makes no secret about it. Unfortunately there are White people in Africa who are pleased at this drastic turn of events. Against that, fortunately, there is a large majority of Whites who will fight this tendency right to the bitter end with all the power at their command. Those who believe, therefore, that South Africa, unlike other countries, will be free of unrest and violence if it only had a Government which would be willing to accede to the demands of the Black man step by step, and who hope that in that case the White man will be able to remain here, live in an imaginary world; they live in a land of make-believe. Mr. Speaker, we in South Africa should not deceive ourselves. It is the objective of communist-controlled subversive Bantu and other elements in Africa ultimately to gain control of the Government.

Whereas the continued maintenance of law and order is the motto of the Government, all subversive elements, every one of them, are being watched strictly, particularly in these days. Consequently, Ministers of Justice have, from time to time in the past, placed General Law Amendment Bills before this House. Usually such legislation covers a wide field which leads to the amendment of various Acts. The measure before us to-day differs from previous measures of a like nature, in that it envisages the amendment of only three Acts and in that contains only nine clauses.

As the Long Title indicates the Arms and Ammunitions Act of 1937 is being amended. That Act provides that anybody who wishes to import or export a weapon or ammunition into or out of South Africa, has to obtain a permit from a magistrate. This also applies to arms and ammunition merchants, except that in the case of cartridges for shotguns and rimfire cartridges of a .22 calibre and less they need not have import or export permits. It has once again become necessary to exercise stricter control over the importation and exportation of all types of ammunition. That is why the exemption which traders have hitherto enjoyed is now withdrawn in this Bill. New regulations which envisage stricted control have already been drafted and will shortly come into operation.

To come to another matter, as hon. members know, there was a general registration of all firearms in 1937. Since then many of the weapons which were registered at that time and thereafter, have been lost or disposed of in some way or other. It is essential, in the interests of public safety, for the Government to know how many weapons there are in the hands of members of the public. That is why this Bill provides for the renewal of licences, which will, however, only take place from a date deemed necessary by the Government and within such a period as may be determined by proclamation.

The Bill also envisages an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act of 1955 which deals with the granting of bail. The granting of bail lies in the discretion of the courts. When application for bail is made the Attorney-General or his representative has the right to object to the granting of such an application. But he has to submit his reasons for his objection to the court. That does not mean that the court will refuse the application. The court’s attitude, as far as bail is concerned, is that the only thing the accused has to do is to show that circumstances are not such that he is likely to leave the country or interfere in some other way with the administration of justice. In Prentice Hall (H/196) we find the judgment of Judge Henochsberg in the case of Rex v. Limbada and Others, 1955 (2). The judgment reads—

The accused swearing on oath that he had no intention of absconding or doing anything that would interfere with the administration of justice, there is no apparent reason why he would not appear to stand the trial, the court was prepared to accept his statement and bail was granted.

But, apart from the function of the court to administer the law justly, the freedom of the individual has to be protected as well. In the case of Lobel and Another v. Classen, N.O., 1956 (1) S.A. (page 532), we have the judgment of Judge Ramsbottom. The details of the case are immaterial. Application for bail was made and I want to refer to the finding. The finding was—

The Crown ought not to be allowed to detain people for long periods while investigations are continuing.

That is the attitude of the courts. We live in a time, however, when it often happens that people are arrested for having acted in a manner which was dangerous to or which could have endangered the safety of the public or the maintenance of public safety. To-day such people are entitled to be released on bail shortly after their arrest—at the most 48 hours —unless the Crown can prove that the accused is likely to abscond or that he will interfere with the administration of justice. The fact that his detention is in the interests of public safety is insufficient reason to refuse bail according to court findings. We have the judgment in the case of Rex v. Shaw of 1922, T.P.D. (page 203). That judgment was given by Judge-President Wessels and Judge Mason. The Judges came to a unanimous finding and I want to quote the crux of it—

The Court held that the magistrate was not entitled to refuse bail on the ground that the detention of the accused would be in the interests of public safety.

These findings clearly indicate that the courts should be placed under restraint. In other words, such a person can be arrested for having committed a crime that has endangered the safety of the public or of the Government and the maintenance of public order; he may be released on bail shortly afterwards and immediately continue with his activities or leave the country. That is why we are now amending the Criminal Procedure Act and giving the Attorney-General the right, where he thinks it is in the interests of public safety and in the interests of the maintenance of public order, to issue an order that such a person should not be released on bail or released otherwise within 12 days of his arrest. If such an order is issued the courts will not have the right to release such a person.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

And if such a person is acquitted?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

This deals only with the question of bail. If the court discharges him immediately that is a totally different matter.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The Bill is not clear on this point.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

It is very clear. The Attorney-General or his representative requests that bail be refused and on the strength of the evidence adduced by the accused it is either refused or granted. The Attorney-General may, however, withdraw his order at any time before the expiration of the 12-day period. In that case the ordinary legal provisions as to release apply. If this provision is passed it will lapse on 1 July 1962 and the Senate and the House of Assembly may thereafter extend it from time to time.

Not only is it unrealistic in times of great unrest to expect the police and the Attorney General to formulate and to submit the charges to the court within 48 hours in the case of every person that is arrested in the interests of the public safety and order, but it is also disquieting in these days.

I now want to deal with trial by jury. As the position is at the moment the Minister of Justice may, in terms of Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act, order a person who is charged in a Supreme Court with certain crimes to be tried by a Judge without a jury, in spite of the fact that such a person has elected to be tried by a jury. These crimes include the following: (a) contravention of certain of the provisions of the Riotous Assemblies Act, 1956; (b) contravention of the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, 1948; (c) certain contraventions under the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950; (d) contraventions connected with illicit trade in precious metals or precious stones and supplying liquor to Bantu or Coloured persons; (e) contraventions connected with insolvency; (f) contraventions where certain facts have to be considered by experts in order to understand them properly; (g) offences committed against non-Whites where the accused is a White person, and vice versa. What we have in mind now is that where a person is charged with murder or arson or attempted murder or arson, the Minister may order a trial without a jury. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend going into the merits and demerits of trial by jury to-day. This matter has often been discussed in this House and in the Other Place in the past. As you know, there are often cases where a large number of persons are charged, cases which are very complicated particularly to the layman. We had an example of that in the Bergville murder trial which took place a year ago and the Sukukuniland murder trial of about two years ago. In those cases the accused elected not to be tried by jury, but they might just as well have elected to be tried by jury. Trials of this nature last a long time from the nature of things. It is undesirable to take private people away from their normal life to serve as members of a jury for long periods. As a result of the riots in Pondoland a number of serious cases are still awaiting trial. The charges are murder and arson and in some cases 30 and more people are being charged. It does not follow automatically, of course, that if the contemplated amendment is accepted every case of murder or arson will be tried without a jury in future. On the contrary the Minister considers every case on its merits in the light of a detailed and reasoned report by the Attorney-General concerned.

The third Act which is being amended by this Bill is the Riotous Assemblies Act of 1956. It is a punishable offence under the Act to attend a public meeting that has been banned and to address such meeting, or to hold a meeting that has been banned. It is also an offence to-day to print and distribute notices convening a meeting or to publicize it after such a meeting has been banned. It is found in practice that although such public meetings are banned in terms of the law, some agitators encourage people to attend such meetings or even threaten them to attend them. After such a meeting has been banned, there are some who go out of their way to advertise it or to give publicity to it in some other way. We think it is in the interests of public safety and the maintenance of public order that actions such as those are curbed, and that is what this amendment aims at. To-day the maximum sentence that can be imposed in respect of the actions to which I have just referred, is very small. It is three months’ imprisonment for the first offence and in the case of a second offence the maximum penalty is six months. We contemplate increasing this period to 12 months for the first offence and to two years for the second offence, without the option of a fine. As the position is to-day it is only a policy officer with the rank of inspector or captain or higher who has the right to order people attending a banned meeting to disband but in practice it is not always possible to have an officer of that rank present at such meetings, and the rank is now being altered to that of head constable and higher. Anybody who fails to leave a meeting that has been banned or a riotous assembly when he has been ordered to do so, is guilty of an offence. The prescribed maximum penalty is R50 or three months’ imprisonment to-day. It is not necessary for me to say that this penalty is wholly inadequate. It is now being increased to R400 or one year.

In conclusion, we intend amending the Riotous Assemblies Act the object being to take effective steps against people who intimidate others. Intimidation has assumed ghastly proportions in South Africa. In 1953 Parliament increased the penalty for intimidation to a fine of £500 or five years’ imprisonment or ten lashes plus the five years. Section 10 of the Act, however, prohibits intimidation or interference with persons, their family or dependants only in so far as it concerns performance of duty. Last year when we had the trouble here, there was intimidation in various forms. It was not confined to performance of duty. Even people who wanted to make legitimate purchases on the market or in the shops were told or made to understand that their homes would be burnt down or their throats cut. Intimidation has become a ghastly practice in South Africa. The Government has decided to take firm action against this sort of action in our well-ordered society. I trust that the courts will not be afraid to impose these higher penalties for intimidation. The law-abiding citizen must feel that the laws of the land protect him at all times and that the person who indulges in intimidation will be heavily punished. That is why the provisions of the existing section are being extended so as to include not only intimidation where duties are performed in the course of employment but intimidation where a lawful action is performed. Furthermore the onus is now being placed on the accused to prove that he was justified in doing what he did and that his action was unconnected with similar action on the part of other persons to attain a specific objective. I said at the outset of my speech that I would return to the broad background against which this proposed measure should be seen.

The police already know sufficiently about the pattern which the inciters follow over the whole country so as to sow unrest, with the result that nothing will be left to chance. You can often tell by the leaves in which direction the wind is blowing. I do not wish to detain the House very long but I do wish to draw the attention of hon. members to certain things that these people say just to give an indication of what is happening.

Last month a fairly big meeting of 400 Bantu women was held in Durban on the occasion of Africa Day. One woman speaker said—

When we have our country back we will rule accordingly. Sons and daughters of South Africa, tell your friends that there is trouble coming.

Another speaker said—

This is our country. These people came here with the Bible and robbed us of our country.

On 25 and 26 March a conference was held at Pietermaritzburg called the All-In African Conference. They appointed a National Action Committee. I wish to deal with two aspects. I think it is necessary that the verbatim resolutions passed at Pietermaritzburg go on record. The Press merely published certain extracts, but it is just as well that we know what they resolved and to know what the National Action Committee which was appointed on that day, have done since. I just want to read the resolution—

Resolutions passed at the All-In African Conference held at Pietermaritzburg on 25-26 March, 1961: A grave situation confronts the people of South Africa. The Nationalist Government, after holding a fraudulent referendum among only one-fifth of the population, has decided to proclaim a White Republic on 31 May, and the all-White Parliament is presently discussing a constitution for it. It is clear that to the great disadvantage of the majority of our people such a republic will continue even more intensively the policies of racial repression, political persecution and exploitation and the terrorization of the non-White people which have already earned for South Africa the righteous condemnation of the entire world.
In this situation it is imperative that all the African people of this country, irrespective of their political, religious and other affiliations, should unite to speak and act with one single voice.
For this purpose we have gathered here at this solemn All-In African Conference, and on behalf of the entire African nation and with a due sense of the historic responsibility which rests on us we declare: That no constitution or form of government decided without the participation of the African people who form an absolute majority of the population, can enjoy moral validity or merit support either within South Africa or beyond its borders.
We demand that a National Convention of elected representatives of all adult men and women on an equal basis, irrespective of race, colour, creed or other limitation, be called by the Union Government not later than 31 May 1961. That the Convention shall have sovereign powers to determine, in any way, the majority of the representatives decide, a new non-racial democratic constitution for South Africa.
We resolve that if the minority Government ignore this demand of the representatives of the united will of the African people, (a) we undertake to stage countrywide demonstrations on the eve of the proclamation of the republic in protest against this undemocratic act; (b) we call on all Africans not to co-operate or collaborate in any way with the proposed South African Republic or any other form of Government which rests on force to perpetuate the tyranny of a minority; and to organize and to unite in town and country to carry out consistent actions to oppose oppression and win freedom; (c) we call on the Indian and Coloured communities and on all democratic Europeans to join forces with us in opposition to a régime which is bringing disaster to South Africa and for a society in which all can enjoy freedom and security; (d) we call on democratic people the world over to refrain from any cooperation or dealing with the South African Government to impose economic sanctions and other sanctions against this Government whose continued disregard of all human rights and freedoms constitutes a threat to the world peace.
We further decide that in order to implement the above decisions, Conference: (a) elects a National Action Council; and (b) instructs all delegates to return to their respective areas and form local action committees.

These resolutions which I have read out were roneoed in the form of pamphlets and they are being widely distributed throughout South Africa to-day. A few weeks ago that National Action Council met in Johannesburg and decided to hold country-wide demonstrations if the Government should refuse to call a multi-racial National Convention before 31 May. We know the pattern of those demonstrations in South Africa, and we know how easily they can lead to violence.

At a meeting on the Parade here in Cape Town a few weeks ago, a meeting which was attended by some 3,000 people of all races, one of the speakers appealed to the Coloured people to tighten their belts and to lay in supplies of food so that they will be prepared to join the Bantu in the nation-wide demonstrations that will take place in May. Another important speaker said—

The day the ships cannot be unloaded, the day electricity cannot be switched on, the day the buses are stranded on the pavement, then surely they will take notice. Time is running short.

We have information, however, that the final instructions in connection with the demonstrations to which I have referred will only be issued towards the end of May, during the last week prior to our becoming a republic. The organizers which include two members of the Executive Committee of the banned A.N.C., who are travelling round the country to-day hope that by doing that they will prevent the Government from taking precautionary measures timeously and that they will catch the police off-guard. A roneoed pamphlet in Xhosa is being distributed from East London warning the Bantu to be on their guard seeing that great things are fast developing. During the night of 24 April roneoed pamphlets were widely distributed throughout the Peninsula with the heading “Prepare for May”. Two nights later numerous pamphlets were distributed which inter alia announced the Pietermaritzburg resolution under the heading “Reject Verwoerd’s Republic. Prepare for action at the end of May”. Although the National Action Council keep their plans as secretive as possible and although they even talk about “peaceful and discipline demonstrations” towards the end of May, we have information that Bantu have been told to lay in supplies of food and to prepare themselves for nationwide strikes that must last for three days, from Monday, 29 May to Wednesday, 31 May. The object seems to be that the stay-at-home campaign should be conducted so effectively that it will paralyse the whole country. Pamphlets which were confiscated in Durban before they were distributed read—

The most powerful weapon of the oppressed people of South Africa has always been their labour power. They may well be called upon to withdraw their labour power for a specified period. We know this is a bold and radical course upon which we have embarked, but there is no turning back.

According to information that we have obtained from the inner circles of the organization, we must not for one moment think that they will not resort to violence.

I am about to sit down, Sir, but there is another significant pamphlet—“Guides to Organizers” of the African National African Council and this was drafted by a prominent Bantu leader. It is at the moment being distributed throughout South Africa. It says, inter alia, what the organizers have to do—

Explain the campaign and, above all, talk general strike on 29, 30 and 31 May. Make special plans to get the leaflets to factories, to mineworkers, to farm compounds, and see that selected individuals at a meeting take individual responsibility for each special operation. Plan meetings or interviews with special groups of people, e.g. with schoolteachers, prominent students and parents. Organizers must discuss special plans to persuade students and teachers to stay away on the general strike day; also with chiefs and headmen; also with churchmen to preach special sermons on Sunday, 28 May, and to arrange special gatherings of their congregation during normal working hours on the general strike days, and to make someone at the meeting responsible for convening each of the special groups. Plan interviews with shopkeepers to persuade them to close their shops on the general strike days, and make someone responsible for this. Plan special meetings of women activists and campaign among young people, farm workers, industrial workers, etc.

I do not wish to bore the House. I have merely pointed out certain aspects of the background against this partly temporary measure that we have introduced must be seen, a measure that will be more effective than the existing measures to maintain law and order. I thought that this House and the public were entitled to have a few details which are probably not generally known. We do not wish to create the impression, however, that we are expecting a state of emergency. Existing legislation and the legislation proposed to-day will in all probability be adequate to enable us to maintain law and order; prevention is better than cure also in this case.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Hear, hear! That is the only wise thing you have said.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Judging from that interjection it seems that we can even depend on the co-operation of the Progressive Party if we continue to prevent instead of curing. Law-abiding non-Whites and other law-abiding citizens need have no fears. They know that the White man in South Africa treats them better than they are being treated in any other country in Africa. The police will protect them. The world knows that the Government of South Africa will not lightly allow the law and order for which our country is well known, to be disturbed. Those who incite, resort to violence and intimidate and those who assist them in any way whatsoever, through their organizations or activities, all those who wish to endanger the safety of the public in South Africa or who wish to disturb the public peace, all those who wish to attempt to paralyse the Republic of South Africa at its very birth by unlawful actions, must take notice timeously that their actions against the ordered society of this country will not go unpunished.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

One has listened with great interest to the hon. the Minister of Justice giving the reasons for the legislation which he has introduced this afternoon. What I found the greatest difficulty in correlating are the state of affairs which he paints and the steps he asks for in the legislation now before us. He is in no way second to his predecessor who told us the same hair-raising stories about poisoned wells and things of that kind, as excuses for the legislation he introduced in this House from time to time. One would have thought that a Government which had made these amendments to the Riotous Assemblies Act which this Government introduced, and to the Suppression of Communism Act and the General Law Amendment Act of 1953 and the Public Safety Act of 1953 and which had the experience which this Government had last year, would have felt that it had sufficient power to deal with the situation with which it believes it is faced at present. Everyone in this House wants to see law and order maintained and wants to see a situation in South Africa in which it will be unnecessary to have legislation of this sort. The fundamental reason for the difficulties with which we are faced are the policies of this Government during the period they have been in power. Would there have been any necessity for legislation of this kind had there been a thoroughly satisfied and well-looked after Bantu population, both in the urban areas and in the reserves; would there have been any necessity for this sort of legislation had the law-abiding African been properly protected by the bobby on the beat which we have pleaded for for so long in this House? What possible chance would the agitator have had amongst the African population if there had been sensible, properly thought out policies applied to the Natives in the reserves during the past 13 years? But what have we had? A series of patchwork and a Government hopelessly incapable of dealing with the situation, a Government which is filled with fear from morning to night and is simply going ahead with one stop-gap after another to try to cope with the situation with which it is faced.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

What about Swellendam?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I am sure that hon. member is one of those who went and preached fear and told the people down there how frightened they should be because the Government could not cope. I do not believe anybody could cope with the mess they have made. Of what possible use is this legislation to cope with the situation with which the Minister fears he may be faced on 31 May? This is legislation of a kind which gives inordinate powers to the Executive, interferes with the freedom of the subject, prevents the ordinary individual getting the protection of the courts, and in no way deals with the problems with which we are faced. Well, let us deal with this legislation and see what it is meant to cope with. First of all, there is the second clause which deals with the question of the registration of firearms. I do not think anyone has much objection to that. Then I would like to deal with Clause 5 which provides that in certain additional cases, murder and arson—most serious cases—the Minister can direct that they be dealt with by a Judge without a jury, at his discretion. One must, of course, bear in mind that under later legislation a Judge can in fact sit alone in dealing with cases of that kind, because the proviso to Section 109 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1955 has been done away with and that provided that in cases where the Minister has exercised his discretion and ordered trial by a Judge without a jury, the Judge must have two assessors. That has been done away with and the Minister can now direct that this matter be tried otherwise than by a jury and the Judge can sit alone in these two most important cases. The Minister will know, of course, that the Bar councils of South Africa have protested against any further limitations on trials by jury, and I think I am right in saying—I stand to be corrected—that the Advisory Committee was divided 50-50 on this question. And yet in these two most important types of cases the hon. the Minister lays down that he is to have the discretion to decide whether the accused may ask for a jury or not. Why? As long as we have known our law, there has been the right of the accused to choose to be tried by his peers; he has the right to ask for a jury. It has been limited in certain cases where it was feared that the jury might be influenced. Now we find ourselves in the position that the Minister may direct that in certain cases there will be no jury and that the Judge has the right to try the accused on his own. Sir, I cannot support legislation of that kind. I cannot understand what it has to do with the situation which the Minister envisages may be developing in South Africa.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I have explained what is happening in Pondoland.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Why is the hon. gentleman afraid of a jury?

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Are the facts against you?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

If he can make out a good case why is he afraid of a jury? You see, Sir, under the cloak of a situation which he sees developing, the hon. the Minister is trying to frighten this House into virtually doing away with jury trials in this country. I say that there is no cause for it and this side of the House certainly cannot support it, and I believe there will be very few lawyers on that side of the House who, when they search their hearts, will be prepared to support this legislation.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

What is the good of a jury in any case?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Sir, what sort of a lawyer is that? Surely the one thing with which the ordinary citizen of South Africa has always been able to comfort himself, is the knowledge that if he were in real difficulty, then whether he had acted as a reasonable man or not would be judged by his peers, by people who had his own fears, his own doubts and his knowledge of the situation.

Then let us come back to Clause 4. Clause 4 provides that in certain circumstances the Attorney-General, if he considers it necessary in the interests of the safety of the public or the maintenance of public order, can issue an order that such person shall not be released on bail or otherwise before the expiration of a period of 12 days after the date of his arrest. “Shall not be released on bail or otherwise.” I put it to the Minister when he was talking: What happens if he is tried and acquitted in that period? The hon. gentleman said that the law was plain. Well, here is the law—

Whenever any person has been arrested on a charge of having committed any offence, the Attorney-General may, if he considers it necessary in the interests of the safety of the public or the maintenance of public order, issue an order that such person shall not be released on bail or otherwise before the expiration of a period of 12 days after the date of his arrest.

Why the “or otherwise”? The “or otherwise” is purely here in case the man is acquitted. Before he is finally acquitted or sentenced he can only be released on bail. The Minister knows it. Why then “or otherwise”? Is he taking power here to detain a man for 12 days after he has been acquitted, and why is he interfering with the discretion of the courts in respect of this matter? Why should he be doing so?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

There may be an application to lengthen the period for the non-granting of bail.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I am sorry; I cannot follow that.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

We are asking for 12 days now. After 12 days we may approach the court again to ask for an extension.

An HON. MEMBER:

On what grounds?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

That is another story.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I think the hon. the Minister has either said too much or too little now. He says that after 12 days he may again approach the court for a further extension. Am I to understand from that that after the accused has been held for 12 days the Attorney-General can again give a direction and that the accused can then be detained for a further 12 days?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I said that the Attorney-General can apply. That is in the court’s discretion.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Very well, let us deal first with the first 12 days. In the first 12 days the Minister says the court can only refuse bail if there is reasonable ground for believing that the accused may flee justice, or secondly that the accused may interfere with Crown witnesses. He says that he wants power where he believes that it is in the interests of the safety of the public or the maintenance of public order. Well, if it is in the interests of the safety of the public or the maintenance of public order, he knows very well that he can declare a state of emergency under sub-section (c) of Section 2 of the Public Safety Act of 1953. But if he wants this power, why does he not give it to the court? Why must it be handed to the Attorney-General? You see, then it would place the Attorney-General in this position that he would have to show the court that it was in the interests of public safety or the maintenance of public order, but here he has to show nobody; he issues an order. What worries me is this: We know very well that under recent legislation the Attorney-General has to take instructions from the Minister. There is a recent piece of legislation which lays down that every Attorney-General—

… shall exercise his authority and perform his functions under this Act or under any other law subject to the control and directions of the Minister who may reverse any decision arrived at by an Attorney-General and may himself in general or in any specific matter exercise any part of such authority and perform any such function.

In other words, Sir, we are in the position that what the Minister is doing is that he is not just asking authority for an Attorney-General who he may say is an unprejudiced official connected with the Department of Justice, but he is asking that power for himself, Sir. He is asking that power for himself to direct when an accused will be allowed bail or not. I feel that is something which this side of the House cannot support because we feel that if a situation arises in which powers of that sort should be used, it is the duty of the Minister to declare a state of emergency and tell the country that he can no longer maintain law and order without special powers, and in a state of emergency he would have those powers. But it seems that what he is asking for now is to take powers of summary detention without declaring a state of emergency, and I believe that to take powers of that kind would be entirely unwarranted, except in a state of emergency. If there is an emergency the Government should declare a state of emergency and take the consequences, and if there were a state of emergency, then the powers for which the Minister is asking at this moment are entirely unnecessary unless the hon. the Minister is trying to create a dictatorial state of affairs which is quite foreign to this country.

What is the position with which we are faced now? In effect it is an abuse of the process of arrest, because once a man has been arrested he must be brought before the court within 48 hours and faced with a substantive charge, and the court then decides in its discretion whether he should be granted bail or not, and if the charge is serious enough then the Attorney-General has very good grounds for opposing the granting of bail. But, Sir, where are we now? Here we find that the Minister can direct that in certain circumstances bail must not be granted; that the Attorney-General can so direct, on facts not known to the court or to the public, and the man can be locked up for 12 days without any chance of getting bail. Sir, if I read this clause correctly, he may be detained for that period even if he is acquitted. I think the Minister must give us some reason for taking a step of that sort. Normally speaking, the Attorney-General opposes bail only in certain exceptional circumstances, and so far the Minister has only given us one or two cases in which people have estreated bail and indicated that that was one of his reasons for this clause. Surely if there is an emergency he can hold those people. What we are in fact being asked to approve is that an Attorney-General, directed by the Minister who may take fright as easily as the hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter) is going to detain any accused for 12 days no matter what the position is. Sir, what are the principles? The principles involved are firstly that the accused is in effect denied the rights of the Habeas Corpus Act which applies to him in normal times. He is deprived of the protection of the courts from the actions of the executive.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

In principle to-day he has not got that right.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Then why does the Minister want these additional powers?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

You are quarrelling with the principle.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Let us deal with the principle. There are certain circumstances in which the court can say that it refuses bail. If there is an emergency and the Minister declares it then he can use emergency powers. But here the Minister is wanting to use emergency powers without declaring an emergency, in cases which he will specify from time to time. The right to bail has been something which has been granted to every accused, save in exceptional circumstances, since the time of Magna Charta, and here we have this Minister, frightened by rumours of what is going to happen on 31 May, taking steps of this kind. I cannot help feeling that the steps which this hon. Minister is taking, must be a source of tremendous satisfaction to those non-Europeans who were involved in the Pietermaritzburg conference. They have only got to start threatening something of this kind and this Minister takes fright and rushes to put legislation before Parliament. Sir, that is bad enough …

Mr. FRONEMAN:

You are always being ridiculous.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I know there are some hon. gentlemen who do not understand what is going on. Sir. I would beseech you to treat them a little kindly. We always get those remarks from them. But now let us deal with the position in respect of the amendment of Section 10 of the Riotous Assemblies Act. Now we are faced with something that is a little different because the effect of that Act will be felt when one is dealing with the question of bail. Section 10 is now to read as follows—

Any person who in order to compel any other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which that other person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, or on account of that other person having abstained from doing or having done such an act …

And then certain provisions are set out of which (b) is—

… remains at or near the premises where that other person resides or works or is seeking work or happens to be, or any approach or place adjacent to those premises or persistently follows him about from place to place … shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that he has a lawful reason so to act or that his action was not connected with any similar action by any other persons to achieve a particular purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder just what that means. It means that if a person wishes to compel any other person to abstain from doing something which he has a right to do or doing something he has a right to do, or to have an influence on him because he has not done something which he has a right to do, remains at or near the premises where that other person resides or works or is seeking to work or happens to be, then he shall be guilty of an offence. The original section had to do only with the position when this action was taken in respect of the employment of the individual concerned. Now the Minister has widened it so that any act, regardless of whether it is in respect of employment or not, falls under the purview of this clause. What does that mean? It means that if a group of students from the University of Stellenbosch or Cape Town demonstrates against any law …

*Mr. G. F. H. BEKKER:

You are talking nonsense.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

My old friend has woken up at last. Let us give him something a little nearer home. Let us suppose that his Cradock branch of the Black Sash holds a protest meeting. I believe that they have caused him a lot of trouble here. I quite understand his feeling so strongly on the subject. Supposing they were to have a demonstration in protest against any law; then, unless they can prove to the court that they had a lawful reason for holding such a meeting, they are guilty of an offence. In other words, a presumption of law is created that if such a meeting is held then an offence is committed, and such presumption continues until the opposite is proved, that is to say, until that presumption is rebutted by the evidence of the accused. Well, you cannot prove until you have been before the court and, therefore, they are in this position that only a court can hear evidence and determine whether or not such evidence as is adduced is sufficient and satisfactory to rebut the presumption of guilt. That means that if they have a demonstration or a protest meeting of any kind, it is presumed that they have committed an offence; they are arrested and the Minister has the right to direct that they will not be granted bail for 12 days. They can all sit in gaol then for 12 days as a summary lesson by the Minister for their daring to protest against any of the laws of the country.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Is that not a bit far-fetched?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

It is not farfetched at all. I only wish it were far-fetched, but that is what this law lays down.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

You are entirely wrong.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The Minister says I am entirely wrong. He will have his opportunity of proving that, but I can only say that on the facts before me at present, I would give judgment against him and mulct him in costs as well, because so far he has produced no reason and the law itself shows no reason why that should not be the position. It might be argued that the reason for the demonstration is quite lawful, but until the accused are brought before the court, until they have had an opportunity of showing the court that the reason for the demonstration is perfectly lawful or that the action was not connected with any similar action by any other persons to achieve a particular purpose, they are guilty of an offence; they can be arrested and the Minister will have the right to say that, because of the state of the country at that time, because it is in the interests of public safety or the maintenance of public order, he is going to detain them for 12 days. No, Sir, this is legislation which in my opinion is entirely unnecessary, legislation which in no way meets the problems with which South Africa is faced at the present time. The problem with which we are faced is a lot of frustrated, unhappy people who have no hope for the future because of the policies of this Government. Sir, we have the Natives permanently settled in the urban areas deprived of their political rights and told that one day they are going to get the vote in a Bantustan yet to be created by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I hope the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will not carry that too far.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

No, I won’t carry that too far. I want to say that there are a number of frustrated and unhappy people because of the policies which this Government is applying, and to try to deal with that problem in this way is once again merely trying to close the stable door after the horse is gone. The Minister talks about prevention rather than cure. Mr. Speaker, he is long past the stage of prevention. This sort of action is merely a cure for evils which he and his Government have created and for that reason this side of the House cannot support this Bill and I, therefore, move as an amendment—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House declines to pass the second reading of the General Law Amendment Bill, because it places arbitrary power in the hands of the Executive, unduly invades the liberties of the subject, removes from the individual the protection of the courts, and fails to provide any solution to the problems it is designed to meet”.
An HON. MEMBER:

That will cost you another 1,000 votes.

Mr. RAW:

That is all you think of.

Mr. EATON:

I second the amendment.

*Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ (Jnr.):

The hon. Leader of the Opposition started by saying that this Bill has become necessary through circumstances caused by the way in which this Government has acted during the past 12-13 years since it came into power. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition makes such allegations one becomes dejected to think that in times like these the hon. the Leader of the Opposition seeks excuses like these with which to oppose essential legislation, knowing that the hon. the Minister of Justice has just made a statement as a result of circumstances in the country which have necessitated the placing of this kind of legislation on the Statute Book. I say that the hon. the Minister of Justice made a statement here which clearly indicates that the persons for whom this legislation and these measures have become necessary are not satisfied with anything else but absolutely equal administration and equal rights for Whites and non-Whites in this country. This is the position in which we find ourselves. Movements which advocate this kind of agitation have been established; therefore this kind of legislation and these strict measures are necessary, and then a responsible Leader of the Opposition comes along with these excuses as to why he and his supporters are opposed to this Bill. It drives one to despair. What is more, throughout the world there are to-day disorder and circumstances much worse than that in South Africa, in countries and parts of the world where there is not a Nationalist Government which can be blamed for what is taking place, countries where strict measures must also be taken, measures which are far stricter than those envisaged in this Bill, measures which would probably not have been necessary if the governments of those countries took measures of this nature in good time. The world is seething with examples of this and therefore I am so disappointed that this should be the attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I wish to give my whole-hearted support to this Bill because as the hon. the Minister has just said, and as I have just shown, the whole world is in a turmoil to-day. We are living in difficult times, times in which throughout the world one must be able to hold one’s own in order to maintain law and order, and because we are living in such difficult times and are experiencing such circumstances I wish to support the first part of the Bill in particular. I am glad that the hon. the Minister is now also providing in this Bill that one must have an import permit for shotgun ammunition below a certain size because in these times in which we live an irresponsible person can cause tremendous harm with a shotgun.

*Maj. VAN DER BYL:

You must have a licence for any shotgun.

*Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ (Jnr.):

No, I am sorry, have hon. members opposite never heard about a 410 shotgun for which a licence for ammunition was never required? Mr. Speaker, those are the people who are opposing this legislation; that is their knowledge of the subject. I am glad that this measure is being placed on the Statute Book. I am also grateful for the provision being made for firearms to be registered anew so that people who have legitimately lost their licences need no longer fear bringing in their firearms for new licences.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

And they can now obtain it free of charge.

Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ (Jnr.):

They can obtain it gratis. I think it is a very good thing that every person who obtained a firearm at one time or another without having a licence will now have the opportunity of obtaining a licence for it, whether he lost it originally or not—also gratis. I think it is very essential in these times that firearms should be registered and that there should be no fear of being penalized for possessing an unlicensed firearm. I think it is very good indeed because in these times it is necessary that there should be a check on every weapon in the country; it should be known where every weapon is, and the opportunity must now be given to people who are not unjustifiably in possession of weapons to be permitted to retain them with a licence. When I say “unjustifiably” then I do not refer to people who do not really have to have a licence and who have not got it; I am referring to people who are entitled to a licence but who have not got it for some reason or another. I say it is good that such people may now obtain licences in order that there will be a check on all the weapons.

I now want to pass on to the next part of the Bill. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the hon. the Minister was now coming along with this drastic measure “because he is frightened by rumours of what might happen”. Mr. Speaker, if a Minister of Justice and a government get to know that this kind of meeting is being held, that this kind of campaign is being waged, that statements such as the hon. the Minister of Justice read out here to-day are being made and they do not take the necessary measures to prevent trouble then such a Minister of Justice is not only unworthy of his portfolio but should be hanged. Here the hon. the Minister of Justice introduces a measure to overcome this sort of thing and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that the hon. the Minister allows himself to be frightened by rumours in circulation. In all my life I have never heard a more irresponsible recommendation being made to an hon. Minister of Justice than that made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon.

The second principle contained in this Bill is the principle that the Attorney-General can issue an order that no bail shall be granted for a period of 12 days. It is not really a new principle because an arrested person has in any case to be brought before a court within 48 hours. There are therefore in any case 48 hours in which a person can be arrested and detained without being given the opportunity of appearing before a court or being released on bail. All that is really being done here is that the 48 hours is being extended to 12 days. I think it is a very good thing. I really cannot believe that we have so little faith in each other in this country. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is fully aware of what the the purpose of these 12 days is, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also knows that one cannot always announce publicly the reasons why certain steps are being taken. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows full well why this legislation is necessary, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also knows just as well that these measures will not be abused and that the measures are being proposed in order to be able to take immediate action in certain specific circumstances. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows this and therefore I say that I regret that he has adopted this attitude. We must have more confidence in each other in this country. In these difficult times which we are experiencing we should have more confidence in each other than this. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that by declaring a state of emergency the hon. the Minister could do all the things he wants to do through the medium of this Bill. But one cannot continually declare a state of emergency in the country. It is precisely because the Government does not wish to declare a state of emergency and because it wants to combat the position before it reaches a stage where a state of emergency must be declared that the hon. the Minister is introducing this measure. Many things can of course be done when a state of emergency is declared. But where does it get one if a state of emergency has continually to be declared? What is more, if a government in these times and in the circumstances in respect of the category of people for whom this measure is being passed, has reason to think that it is suddenly necessary to arrest someone on very strong suspicion of crime and the Government cannot bring the necessary proof before the court within 48 hours, and the court has not got the proof, then that person must be released within 48 hours, whereas if the police could provide the proof in time even the court would not have released that accused or even have granted bail. The period must be extended to 12 days so that the Government, or the state or the police will in these difficult circumstances have the opportunity of gathering the necessary evidence. But if they cannot gather the necessary evidence and therefore cannot lay it before the court then the person is released after 48 hours and he can do incalculable harm before the Government can provide the necessary evidence. Therefore I am wholly in favour of this step. This clause says very clearly that these measures which are now being taken will not be placed on the Statute Book for all time. This clause will only be of force until 1 June 1962. The measure can be extended by a resolution of the Senate and the House of Assembly but not for a period exceeding 12 months. In other words, the opportunity will always be there to call the hon. the Minister to responsibility in these the highest councils of the country should he abuse these powers.

There seems to be some misunderstanding in connection with Clause 5, which extends the principle whereby the hon. the Minister can prohibit certain cases from being heard by juries. I think the Bill is very clear. This is a proviso which empowers the hon. the Minister, in the cases he mentioned, to extend the prohibition on trial by jury. But it does not mean that the trial by a jury in such cases is being excluded altogether. It is by no means automatic. All the Bill provides for is that the hon. the Minister can, in such a case, prohibit the case from being heard by a jury, i.e. by a judge and a jury. The hon. the Minister explained why it is necessary. The hon. the Minister quoted Pondoland as an example. In other words, the hon. the Minister requires this power to be able to prohibit specific cases from being heard by a jury when he thinks that it is not in the interests of the administration of justice. No automatic prohibition is attached to this. The hon. the Minister must exercise the prohibition in every specific case, and all that this clause means is that the hon. the Minister will now also have the power to do so in these cases if it is necessary.

I now come to the increase in penalties under Clauses 6 and 7. Here I also want to give my wholehearted support to the hon. the Minister. Riotous assemblies have often been the cause of blood flowing unnecessarily, not only here, but everywhere. Therefore it is necessary to have particularly strict measures for riotous assemblies, not only to have very strict measures, but also to have the power to impose penalties which will serve as a deterrent. It is no use prohibiting a certain deed or action, especially deeds or actions as serious as holding riotous assemblies, if the necessary sanction cannot be applied to it. There must be a penalty which will act as a deterrent to committing such a crime. For that reason I agree that these penalties should be increased.

In regard to Clause 8, there have been examples in the recent past of how law-abiding and innocent citizens have been intimidated and how agitators and intimidators have made the position virtually impossible for people who wished to maintain the law. Last year, in connection with Sharpeville, Langa and Nyanga, it was seen what could be done by intimidators, and when that intimidation took place everyone felt that something should be done about it. Even the hon. Opposition shouted about it, and said that those poor people were not being protected against intimidation. But now that the hon. the Minister feels that those people should be protected, and he introduces a measure, it is also not good. It must now be decided once and for all whether to allow the intimidators to make life bitter for innocent law-abiding citizens and to make it impossible for them to maintain the law, or whether to create the powers to protect those poor, innocent people. I think any right-minded person will realize it and agree that it is necessary to take the powers to protect those innocent people, and that is what the hon. the Minister wants to do with this measure. I therefore agree wholeheartedly that powers be taken to protect the innocent people who want to maintain the law. It is not only in connection with the performance of work that people were molested in the past, but to maintain law and order it sometimes requires other actions than simply taking steps in connection with work. In other words, the people are not intimidated only in connection with their work, they are also intimidated in connection with other deeds they would want to perform in order to maintain law and order and, therefore, it is good that the law is being amended as it is by the hon. the Minister through the deletion of those few words.

What is more, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now comes along and states, for example, that students may also be arrested as a result of this measure when they want to organize a protest meeting against some matter or another. But the Bill is very clear. This measure is in connection with intimidation. I say that no person, whether he is White or non-White, or a student or not a student, but who wants to intimidate another person to break the law, deserves any sympathy. Any intimidator, whether he is White or non-White, whether he is a student or not, or whether he or she is a member of the Black Sash or not, can easily be included under this measure, and no right-minded person will object to it.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

The hon. member who has just sat down added nothing new, but he rather piously indicated, in his own words, that we cannot go on having a state of emergency all the time. I ask him therefore: Is that the reason for this panic legislation? Because my hon. Leader has indicated that the effect of this legislation is that the individual can be arrested and detained over a long period without trial, just as if a state of emergency had been declared. It seems, therefore, that in spite of not wanting to declare a state of emergency all the time, legislation is now being provided which will create that position de facto if not de jure.

But, Sir, the courts of law have suffered rather badly at the hands of this Government over the past decade, either by way of restricting their discretionary powers, particularly in the matter of imposing punishments, or by way of their prerogative powers being usurped by the executive, or by the legislature.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

The old, old story!

Mr. PLEWMAN:

I am coming to the old story, because the most flagrant instance of usurping the prerogative powers of the courts was, of course, the passing of the High Court of Parliament Act, 1952. I hope the hon. member now enjoys the old story, because that was the most flagrant case we have had. I call it the ill-fated High Court of Parliament Act, which has now come finally to an end by being included in the repealed Schedule of the South African Republic Constitution Act. All I can say is that is not a case to which the old Latin tag de mortuis nil nisi bonum can be applied. I mention that Act because this Bill is an equally clear example of the prerogative powers being usurped, this time by the executive and not by the legislature.

The hon. the Minister has admitted that in our judicial system it has always been the peculiar right, or the prerogative of the courts to determine whether a person under arrest for a criminal offence, who is still unconvicted, shall be released from custody on bail or not. And it is for the courts to declare, after hearing the views of the prisoner, as well as of the prosecutor, what the nature of that security should be for release pending trial. Not only have the courts exercised that power justly and well in the past, but it is a fundamental principle of our system of justice that every man is innocent until he has been found guilty by a court, and that punishment follows upon conviction and does not precede it.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

Trite law.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

I am glad the hon. member calls it trite law, because he is going to see a change in the law if this Bill goes through. Clause 4 of this Bill is designed to bring an end to that trite law; it is designed to bring an end to that salutary legal practice and that essential principle of justice. The Attorney-General, who is a part of the Executive Government and who, as my hon. Leader has pointed out, is under the direction of the Minister himself, is now to be empowered to usurp the functions of the court and himself to determine that a person under arrest on a criminal charge shall not be allowed bail. One’s whole sense of justice revolts against such an arrangement. Instead of the Attorney-General the agent of truth, as he should be, whose duty it is to assist the court to do justice, he as the prosecutor being the procurator viritatis, and to settle the refusal of bail.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Does the period change a principle? The 48 hours are now extended to ten days.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

He has never had the power to refuse bail even for 48 hours.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Of course he can apply after 48 hours.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

He can apply immediately. The hon. Minister is wrong about the period, just as he is wrong about the principle.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The prosecution has 48 hours.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

The prosecution has 48 hours to formulate a charge, not to detain a person without bail. As soon as the charge is formulated, whether it be within 48 hours or within one hour, he can apply to a court for bail.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Immediately after the arrest he can apply.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

Yes, but whether it be within one hour of arrest or 48 hours after arrest, here, as I say, the gravamen of my criticism is that the Attorney-General is now to assume the role of a Judge and settle the refusal of bail, which is really a judicial decision. And worse still, he does so without hearing the other side. Sir, it is quite obvious that the Attorney-General will have to rely on_ ex parte statements when he makes his decision. The danger therefore is that instead of being the procurator viritatis, he now becomes obliged to make arbitrary decisions against the accused person, and he may well be seen in the eyes of that person as the persecutor rather than the prosecutor. I think it is a tragic situation that our system of justice should be reduced to a situation where that is possible to happen. Now it is perfectly true that the Attorney-General’s so-called judgment lasts for no longer than 12 days, and it is also true that the clause as a whole may cease to be law some 12 or 13 months after this Bill has become law, but all that of course is beside the point. A wrong that is done under circumstances such as these can never be corrected. Any wrong suffered under these circumstances can never be put right, and I hope no one will try to argue that an arbitrary decision is a fair substitute for a judicial decision. I say this clause is thoroughly bad and should never be given the force of law. It is in fact a form of despotism. And there is of course no need for such a law, because if the prosecution can make out a good case for the refusal of bail, the courts can be relied upon to judge accordingly. The hon. the Minister makes a case in quoting a decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division that the question whether the public safety is involved is not a ground for refusing bail. As my Leader has indicated, if there is justification for making a change in that direction, why not change the law in that way and leave the decision to the discretion of the court. I say leave it to the court to decide on the facts whether or not the public safety is endangered. Leave it to the courts to decide after hearing both sides. Do not deal with it in this arbitrary fashion where the Attorney-General, either under direction from the Minister or not, has simply got to make a judicial decision on ex parte statements.

I think Clause 4 can best be described as an unwarranted invasion by the Executive into the sphere of the courts. It will have the effect of course of the accused first suffering imprisonment and punishment and then being tried. That is quite a reversal of any principle of justice we have thus far known, and it does mean that in these circumstances we are no better than any dictatorial state which tries to administer justice in circumstances such as is proposed here.

Just as no good was done by substituting Parliament for the courts in the High Court of Parliament Act, so no good can be done by substituting a prosecutor for a Judge or a magistrate in terms of the present Bill.

But the Bill is objectionable in other directions as well. It also restricts the right of the accused person to a trial by a jury, and it gives the Minister arbitrary powers to direct that in a case of murder the trial shall be by a Judge without a jury. The hon. member for Smithfield rather indicated that there is really nothing wrong about it because the Minister will select the cases. But the principle is wrong. Why should there be a selection of cases? The Crown as such, or the State as such to-day has large powers as regards special courts that can be created. But one of the principles of our law has been that the accused should be given the right to determine whether he wishes to be tried by a jury or not. That was indeed written into our law not long ago, and that is now to be negatived. The hon. the Minister has really given us no reasons, except the one that mass trials might arise. Otherwise he has given us no reasons for extending this provision to the case of murder or arson.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I dealt with a number of cases where the Minister can extend that provision.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

I know the law provides for that already, in specific cases. Why widen it? Why widen it in the case of two common law offences, in the case of murder and arson. I say why again give the Executive this arbitrary power. All this strengthening of the hands of those who are charged with the duty of bringing people to justice, is really making a mockery of the Rule of Law. We in this country have always prided ourselves on the observance of the Rule of the Law.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

What is the Rule of the Law?

Mr. PLEWMAN:

I could give the hon. the Minister a definition, but I assume that the hon. gentleman as the Minister of Justice would know what that is, and I will not belittle him by giving a definition. But I do repeat, as I said at the outset, that the courts have suffered badly at the hands of this Government over the past decade.

Clause 8 which has about it an air of innocence if you look at it and see how short it is, has very dangerous implications in it as my hon. Leader has indicated. It is likely to place very serious restrictions on what up to the present has been an inalienable right of the citizen, namely the right to demonstrate and to protest his dislike of government by lawful means. There is extreme danger that the case that the hon. Leader of the Opposition made out can be brought within the terms of the law as it is now to be amended. It is no good us talking about being concerned only with intimidation of persons, because the very clause amends the section which relates to a person who—

(b) remains at or near the premises where that other person resides or works or is seeking work or happens to be …

That is Section 10 of the Riotous Assemblies Act of 1956, and that can cover a vast number of what I call inalienable rights of citizens to demonstrate their dislike of government by lawful means. The point has already been made, and I do not want to enlarge on it, that Section 10 of the Riotous Assemblies Act was originally designed to deal with offences relating to employment only. Although the words “in respect of employment” are now to be deleted, the heading of the chapter still reads “Offences in relation to employment”, and the marginal note of Section 10 will still read “prohibition of intimidation or annoyance of persons, their relatives or dependants in relation to their employment”. Sir, this is just making nonsense of legislation to bring about what seems to be a harmless amendment, or as I put it, an amendment with an innocent air about it, whereas it can have very serious consequences.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Contempt of Parliament.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

I think it is contempt of Parliament. Because by the removal of those four words “in respect of employment”, the whole ambit of this legislation is now being changed and being enlarged and widened to include what otherwise would be legitimate demonstrations by bodies such as have been mentioned—student organizations or bodies concerned with the moral aspects of the matter, such as the Black Sash movement. But the clause also shifts the onus of proof and places upon the accused the obligation to prove that he had lawful reasons for doing what he did do. In other words, once the prosecutor has established a set of facts covered by the section as it is worded, the accused is then deemed to be guilty, unless he can prove that he is innocent. That again is a complete reversal of our system of justice as it has always been known to us.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The facts are within his knowledge, mostly alone.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

That applies in every criminal case. It applies in the case of theft. From the hon. the Minister’s remarks, are we to expect the law to be changed in every such case now? You see, the operative words of Section 10 are the last ones, “shall be guilty of an offence”. Those are the operative words here, and as soon as you have established certain facts then the accused is deemed to be guilty of that offence unless he can establish that he is innocent. And I find it very alarming that the hon. the Minister, in replying to that, should simply use the argument that the person accused is aware of the facts. It seems to me that that foreshadows a similar type of amendment in regard to our whole criminal procedure.

Mr. Speaker, the whole of Clause 8 can best be described as a determination by this Government to enforce order regardless of even the elementary concepts of justice.

I come then to Clause 2 which deals with the re-licensing of firearms. Sir, whatever the merits may be of having re-registration of firearms, this clause is going to place a very grave burden (a) on the public and (b) on the magisterial staff. I believe that whatever the merits may be that burden, both on the public and on the staff, may well outweigh all the merits. Already the magisterial staff is overburdened with work. In a recent debate I quoted to this hon. Minister the report of the Chairman of the Public Services Commission giving recent very alarming evidence about that state of affairs. It is evident, therefore, that if this scheme of registration of firearms is to be proceeded with, it inevitably will mean that some other essential work will have to be left undone.

It is very easy for the hon. the Minister to get legislation of this nature placed on the Statute Book, but it is very far from easy for that legislation to be implemented by the staff after it has appeared on the Statute Book. All I can say is that if the need for re-registration arises because the present registration is in a state of chaos, then it seems to me that the hon. the Minister should give us some sort of guarantee that when re-registration takes place we will not again get into the same state of chaos.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Very few quarrelled with it in 1937.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

I am not quarrelling with the re-registration. I say that whatever the merits of re-registration may be, you are going to impose an almost impossible task on the magisterial staffs. The present registration has been carried on over the period since 1937, but the re-registration is all going to take place in a brief period of, possibly, a few months. And the burden that is going to be placed on the staff is such that it may well outweigh the benefits that are going to derive from it.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Four to six months may be a reasonable period.

Mr. PLEWMAN:

Even to cram into four to six months what has been done over 24 years is, I say, a task which can be well described as being by no means easy.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

What is the alternative that you suggest?

Mr. PLEWMAN:

I did not draft the legislation, Sir. All I am doing is to try and point out that whatever the merits of re-registration of firearms may be—and I personally cannot see very great merit in re-registering what is already registered—they may well be outweighed by the additional burden placed on the staff. I am simply suggesting that the hon. the Minister should give consideration to the matter because we might well be placing on the Statute Book some provision which, from a practical point of view, cannot be carried out. I therefore think that the hon. the Minister should satisfy us that the system will not fail even before it has been completed.

I support the amendment moved by my hon. Leader, and I say that this legislation is unnecessary, that the powers which have been vested in the Government to date are more than adequate, and that the Courts should be trusted to carry out their duties as they have done so admirably in the past.

*Dr. COERTZE:

I want to join issue immediately with the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) on his interpretation of Section 10 of the Riotous Assemblies Act, or rather Clause 8 of this Bill under discussion. The hon. member is obviously living in a fool’s paradise and is unaware of the problem which faces us in this modern era. The Act of 1956, which originated in a totally different era, namely 1914, dealt with other problems. At that time there was terrorism only in respect of employment. This pattern of terrorism has developed, however, and terrorism is to-day being used as a weapon outside the field of employment. What happened in Algeria? Precisely the same thing that was prohibited in this country in 1957. But then it went further. For example, they simply told the people in Algeria: If you do not plant this hand grenade here or there, this or that will happen to your animals, this or that will happen to your families. There were all sorts of threats and the legislators omitted to take the measures that they should have taken and that is why the position in Algeria has developed into what it is to-day. Does the hon. member want us to do the same thing and wait until members of his own family are raped or murdered, until the people in the area which he represents are attacked? I ask this question: Must we wait till that happens? We say it is much better to take steps timeously than to take them too late. The jackal says it is a good thing to run away but then you should start running timeously. That also applies in this case: You must take steps timeously.

The hon. member also had a great deal to say about people who find themselves involved in one or other demonstration where one or other of the acts prohibited under Section 10 (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Riotous Assemblies Act are committed. He complained and said that in the case of those people the onus now rests on them to prove that they were there legally. Is that such a catastrophe, Sir? He says “It is wrong in principle”. Let us accept that it is wrong in principle, then I say this: There may be a time in the history of any nation where, for the sake of its own safety and for the sake of its continued existence, it is compelled, as I shall show in a minute, to sacrifice individual liberty. The little that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) had to say about the Attorneys-General and their function under the proposed legislation, was rather far-fetched. He said the Attorney-General was nothing else than an instrument in the hands of the Minister of Justice. The Attorneys-General are honourable men; they perform an honourable function; they are responsible men. But if the Attorneys-General think …

*An HON. MEMBER:

And the Judges?

*Dr. COERTZE:

I am coming to the question of public safety. I say that if the Attorney-General thinks that it is in the interests of public safety or in the interests of the maintenance of public order to detain anybody for a longer period, does the hon. member think that he will do so arbitrarily? Does he think the Attorney-General will not consider the circumstances in giving a decision for the sake of public safety; or does he wish to see order disintegrating and chaos taking its place?

Another point raised by both the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was that if a change were to be made the change should be made in respect of the grounds on which bail was granted. I do not think the hon. Leader is serious. It is very undesirable in the case of crimes of this nature where the very being of the state is concerned—the safety of the public, law and order and public order—to make everything on which your suspicions are founded public in court. By doing that you will thwart your very aim namely to catch the guilty person.

If hon. members looked at the grounds for bail that we have to-day, they will find that both those grounds have a bearing only on the individual. They have no bearing on other people who may be involved and it is not an individual but a number of individuals who are concerned when it comes to the question of disturbing public order or endangering the safety of the State. Do hon. members want the police to make all the evidence they have collected public in court so that other people can make a getaway or take steps so that the guilty persons will not be traced? Hon. members must tell this side of the House whether they are prepared to allow law and order to be maintained or not. That is what we want to know.

Mr. Speaker, I think the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is nothing less than scandalous. This motion that he has introduced is most unpatriotic, to put it euphemistically. If we study it properly we find that it contains material that will make headline news in the Leftist Press in London. They will say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition maintains that there is a number of unfortunate people in this country who are being thwarted in their aims, people who have no hope whatsoever and that our courts are being muzzled. I say it is a scandal and the nation will call him to book. We shall see to that.

I want to ask him this. He said that there was no necessity for this legislation. What proof must we bring to satisfy him? If his hay-stacks are burnt down will that be sufficient proof to him; will it be sufficient proof for him if the people in his immediate locality are attacked? Surely we know that the whole country, practically the whole of Africa is in a state of ferment for various reasons. It is common knowledge that the whole object of the communists was, after Lumumba had been conveniently installed in the Republic of the Congo, to pick a quarrel with Portugal about the border between the Congo and Angola.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Do you suggest that this Government should stop that?

*Dr. COERTZE:

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) need not think that by interrupting he will put me off. I was in Belgium last year in July and the right-wing people over there told me that they thought that was the intention. They themselves did not believe it. But what is happening in Angola to-day is part of the pattern that was designed the previous year already. The happenings in Angola should be an indicator to us. We stand to lose everything by violence. We stand to lose everything if we show signs that we are unable to maintain law and order And then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Johannesburg (North) —the only two members opposite who have spoken on this Bill so far—suggest that we should take action under the Riotous Assemblies Act. In other words, they suggest that we should declare a state of emergency at any time, at any place, no matter how insignificant a little place it may be. If we do that we shall be disgracing ourselves. It is not always necessary to declare a national state of emergency. If you can maintain law and order by detaining somebody for 11 days, that may put an end to the disturbance. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) says that this is a kind of interim measure. Let that be the case. It is much better to introduce interim legislation than to use a sledge hammer to kill a fly. This comparison only compares the state of emergency with a sledge hammer and not the people with a fly. It is really ridiculous on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Johannesburg (North) to suggest that when circumstances do not demand it, a state of emergency should be declared in the country.

It is a well-known fact that the difficulty in maintaining law and order is that you always clash with rights; it is always the right of the individual that is affected as against the right of the community when the community lays down certain patent conditions for social order. We have paid a great deal of attention to that in the past. In the past we have always gone against the interests of the individual when we thought it was necessary to do so in the interests of the community. There is a multitude of exceptions to the rule on our Statute Book whereby somebody can be placed under arrest on the strength of a warrant of arrest and brought to court immediately. I want to give one example of the first case. As long ago as 1883 there were cases here in the Cape Province where persons who were not even officers of the peace had the power of arrest without a warrant. That may seem peculiar to us to-day but that was important to the people in those days. For example cemetery officials who worked in cemeteries had the right summarily to arrest persons who desecrated graves or who committed other offences in the cemetery. That is another case where the freedom of the individual comes into conflict with the demands of the community. I have forgotten what the considerations were. There is another example. [Interjections.] I am merely giving these examples to show that where society believes that it is necessary to interfere with the rights of the individual, it has never hesitated to do so. I have mentioned the examples of 1883. I want to give another one. This may sound peculiar to us to-day. We have the 1914 legislation in respect of the ill-treatment of animals. Anybody, he may not necessarily be a peace officer, who sees anybody ill-treating an animal has the right to arrest that person immediately without a warrant of arrest. I only refer to this in passing, I am not discussing the question of whether or not he should have a warrant of arrest. I am only drawing attention to the examples that we have to show that it often happens that the rights of the individual are interfered with when there is good reason to do so. The examples that I have given date back 40 and 50 years ago. Another example can be found in the National Parks Act. In terms of that Act certain people who are not peace officers, have the right to make arrests even outside the game reserve. We have the position under the Forest and Veld Protection Act. Under that Act people have the right to interfere with the rights of others in a most unusual manner.

What are we doing here? We give a responsible officer the right to detain somebody when he thinks it is in the interests of public safety and the maintenance of public order to do so. We are doing it in this way because we do not think it is wise in that specific case to make all the secret information public and thus thwart your whole object.

Mr. Speaker, we are taking these steps in view of what is happening to-day. The things that have happened indicate that the pattern in respect of crimes against the public safety has changed completely. I pleaded on a previous occasion that this House should revise the position in respect of crimes against public safety. I said that the crimes as listed to-day no longer covered the position. We only have the old-fashioned crimes of high treason, sedition and public violence. 150 years ago the Dutch said that high treason was no longer high and that it was not even treason any more. They created a new crime and they called it state danger. When we study the agreements that are concluded under the auspices of UNO to combat international terrorism we find that the one country prohibits a long list of offences in order to safeguard the interests of another country. And here we have this unpatriotic Opposition who, when we prohibit certain acts that are committed in this country against the country, accuse us of violating everything that is holy and decent.

I should like a reply to this question from the entire Opposition as we see them there. I notice the hon. member for Salt River is preparing himself to take part in the debate. I want to ask him whether the Opposition object to it that the public, they themselves, their own people, their families and the property should be protected. And if they agree with that then I want to know whether they have any objection to it that that safety should be protected in this way. And if they object to that what is the alternative; how should it be done? We know to-day that with the powers at our disposal we are unable to do so unless we declare a state of emergency, which we think will be unwise for various reasons.

I want to return to Clause 4bis. This clause is really the super-structure to Section 27 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The Opposition’s complaint is really that the person is not notified within 48 hours with what crime he is charged, in other words, as soon as possible. Numerous judgments have been given throughout the world which more or less indicate what is meant by the words “as soon as possible he must be brought before the court “as soon as possible” and he can be detained on the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by the court. Our own law says a period of 48 hours is long enough. In America, England and Australia there have been decisions to the effect that “as soon as possible” means “as soon as possible in prevailing circumstances”. That is very important—“prevailing circumstances”. Hon. members may perhaps think that the circumstances are of such a nature that it should be done much sooner. It is their privilege to hold that view because they do not carry the responsibility. The responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Minister, on the Attorney-General, and on the police in the first instance. When the law says that a period of 12 days is long enough it does so with a view to the changed circumstances. Hon. members should not try to create the impression that this will be the general rule, as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) tried to do. It is only in respect of those cases where somebody is arrested for having committed a crime, and in that case the Attorney-General may deem it necessary in the interests of public safety and public order—only in that respect; not in respect of any other matter; not in respect of fraud; not in respect of assault, the safety of the whole state must be involved. I can give hon. members numerous decisions which clearly indicate that “as soon as possible” means “as soon as it is reasonably practicable in all the circumstances”. That is the criterion.

Mr. Speaker, in returning to the Bill itself in greater detail I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to Clause 6 (c) which says “that any person who advertises or in any other manner makes known such a prohibited meeting”. The word “advertises” has a meaning of its own. I am not very happy about this wording. I wonder whether the words “or in any manner make known the proposed assembly” will not cover a wider field than the wording “advertise or in any other manner make known”. The legal profession has its own way of interpreting things but I am not convinced in my own mind that as this particular section is worded, the words “or any other manner” are not connected with advertising. I may be wrong. I hope I am wrong. However, if I am right, I think it would be wise to make the prohibition apply to “make known in any manner”. That will be wider. I will tell you, Sir, why I say that. I have nothing against the newspapers. They have to reflect daily occurrences. But by simply publishing it as a news item newspapers may make the fact so well known that the meeting will take place, as happened in the case of the passive resistance movement in the ’fifties. It was on the strength of the daily announcements in the newspapers that that movement gained its own momentum. As soon as the daily Press realized that they were getting into danger, that their editors were in danger of being beaten up if they continued to give such great publicity to the matter, the whole thing collapsed due to inadequate publicity. As far as Clause 7 is concerned, I notice that the fine is being increased to £200. I am sure the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) will be unhappy if we make it R400. I do not want to know why it is £200. I have merely mentioned these few things. We may perhaps return to this at the Committee Stage.

Then I want to deal with Clause 5 which deals with trial by jury. There is one thing that we must never forget and that is that everybody in this country is not so enamoured of trial by trial as we think they are, and a great deal can be said for both points of view. We heard a few minutes ago that the Law Revision Commission made a 50-50 recommendation in this connection, for and against. What is the position to-day? The position to-day is that the Minister may order a case to be tried without a jury and what reason does the Minister advance? The reason is that he cannot find people to act as a jury; they are not prepared to withdraw from their ordinary occupations and to serve on a jury perhaps for months in the case of big mass trials at the remuneration paid to members of the jury to-day. Is that not a feasible reason? And when an accused, knowing that the trial will last such a long time, insists on a jury, he is abusing the law. What objection have hon. members of the Opposition to this? There are cases where the advocate for the defence has said that he would summon 400 witnesses and actually did so; he was prepared to let the case drag on as long as the Rosenberg case dragged on in America. Well, if people have such a lot to say they are welcome to say it, but then they must not expect the Minister of Justice to accommodate them and to allow them to abuse the law and to perpetrate the very injustice which we are trying to prevent. That is a feasible excuse and what objection do hon. members have to that? It is a reasonable demand. This is something which is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice and if the Minister of Justice does not react to it, he is not worth his salt. Mr. Speaker, what we have had here to-day was similar to what we have had in the past. The Opposition is quite incapable of gauging the problems which beset this country. All they are capable of is to accuse us and to say that the position that we have in this country is due to the policy of this side of the House. That is all they can do. It has never entered their minds to suggest an alternative course. I am still waiting for an alternative course that will prove that they are better than we are.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I think I could describe the Bill now before the House as providing for more force, tougher penalties and further infringements of the rights of the individual. If I wanted a short title for the Bill, I would call it the Temporary Detention Bill, the Twelve-Day Detention Bill.

The Minister of Justice, in introducing the Bill, said it was a temporary measure. He certainly painted a sombre picture in recommending its terms to this House, and some of the speakers opposite have maintained that picture of gloom and despondency. The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze), whom I would liken to a South African Senator MacCarthy, spoke about “vaderlandsliefde”. He has suggested that if we oppose this Bill we are guilty of un-South African activities. Well, this is all in keeping with this witch-hunt which is going on at present. The hon. member for Standerton said we are living in a different period and under different circumstances from those which prevailed when the Riotous Assemblies Act was originally introduced. That is true. But he went on to pose a remarkable question. He asked members of this House: Do you want to wait until your family have been raped? Apparently this is now the current idiom to replace the previous classic question posed by Nationalists at the hustings: Do you want your daughter to marry a Kaffir? I want to ask the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister, who happens to be here now, whether he approves of that question: Do you want your family to be raped? I would have liked to ask the Minister of Finance if he were here to-day whether he approves of that question. I can hardly think that such a question, coming from a pillar of the Nationalist Party, is likely to send down the bank rate in South Africa, or to bring further immigrants into the country. We hear talk about the English-language Press doing harm to South Africa, but a question of that sort is unworthy of any hon. member of this House. It is based on bigotry and racial prejudice calculated to stir up emotions in regard to this Bill. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché, Jnr.), who supported the Minister, said: We Nationalists know why this is necessary, and we in the Nationalist Party cannot give all the reasons.

Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ (Jnr.):

On a point of explanation, I did not say that. I said we all know, and not only the Nationalists.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I accept that. The hon. member says we all know why this Bill is necessary. To some extent that is correct, but I would say this. I do not accept that this legislation is necessary. But I do know why there is this fear which compels the Government to introduce this Bill, and that is a different matter. The hon. member for Smithfield said that powers are needed to avoid proclaiming a state of emergency because we cannot have a permanent state of emergency in South Africa. In answer to that, I would say that this Bill, if passed, is another cogent sign of the fact that, under the policies of the present Government, under the granite rock policy of apartheid of the Prime Minister, we are in a permanent state of unproclaimed emergency. The Minister himself has admitted that. He painted what I have described as a gloomy picture. He said with unconvincing optimism that it was a temporary Bill; that the Government intended to maintain law and order; that we live in a new period when old methods of preserving law and order were no longer efficacious; and that those who believe that South Africa would be free from disturbances if only the Government would accede, step by step, to the demands of Black nationalism were living in a dream world. But who on this side has suggested that we should concede to every demand of militant Black nationalism or any other type of nationalism? I should have thought that the Whites in this country are in an especially strong position by reason of the fact that the White population here, relative to the Blacks, is numerically stronger than in any other State on the African continent. Why does the Minister talk in those terms of making concessions, of surrendering and of conceding to every extravagant demand? It is quite obvious that this Government, having decided to go into a laager and to maintain its inflexible race policies, is now attempting to bring down every South African with it in that laager.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I hope the hon. member will not attempt to cover too wide a field.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

But this is the basis of the Bill. With respect, the Minister has told us that this country is being menaced by possible insurrection, and I am compelled to refer to these matters if I want to deal with the subject realistically.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I request the hon. member not to cover too wide a field.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I will do my best to cover the scope of this Bill and the evils which the Bill is intended to meet. On his own admission, the Minister has conceded that this is a tough measure, a strong-arm Bill. I want to deal with its background. I would say that the Bill now before us is part of the pattern of legislation dealing with our criminal law. It is a peculiar pattern and, in my opinion, a very menacing pattern. It started way back in 1952 when our Judges were deprived of their discretion and it was made compulsory to give lashes in respect of certain crimes.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

Did you take that from the leader in the Argus?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

The hon. member who interrupted is peculiarly susceptible to lashes because of his experience of the Ossewa Brandwag during the war.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I must appeal to the hon. member not to cover too wide a field. He is going back to 1952 now.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I am dealing with our criminal legislation. I want to draw deductions from it because this Bill now before us, with its toughness and increased penalties and its interference with the liberty of the subject, is intended to be a deterrent to criminals. And I am pointing to the fact that this Government embarked upon a pattern of legislation the distinguishing feature of which was toughness and increased penalties in order to wipe out crime, and I am suggesting that that has failed in respect of the whipping legislation. I am suggesting that this House should remember that, when it is being asked to concur in even tougher legislation relating to possible disturbances amongst our people. We had that whipping legislation in 1952. Then we had the Public Safety Act in 1953.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

Did you not support that?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Yes, but I did not support what was done by regulations last year under that Act when over 12,000 persons, many of whom were women, were detained without trial for long periods. During that period under the Public Safety Act, and under the regulations promulgated after the declaration of a state of emergency, the police virtually became a law unto themselves.

In the same year, in 1953, we had the Criminal Law Amendment Act giving further wide powers to the Government to maintain law and order. We had this constant process, this consistent pattern. In the years that followed the powers of the police to search without warrant were extended, in 1955. The field of justifiable homicide was widened. In 1958 police powers were again increased. There was greater exemption from liability for acts done without warrant. In 1956—I come now to an Act particularly mentioned in this Bill—we had a new, consolidated and streamlined edition of the Riotous Assemblies Act with further prohibitions and penalties. Then, under Section 15 of that Act, there was a fine of £50 or six months. That was under the original Act. But last year the penalty increased to £500 and five years’ imprisonment, plus ten strokes. Gradually you had this persistent addition of new crimes and increased penalties in order to deal either with what I might call normal crime, or with crime connected with activities amongst those sections of the public which were frustrated by the Government’s policy. There was the Bill to prohibit the granting of interdicts by the established courts in respect of certain bannings of individuals. And last year we had the Banning Bill, the Prohibition of Unlawful Organizations Act, which enable the Minister of Justice, by a stroke of the pen, to ban the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. Against that background we now come to the present Bill. Let me for a moment examine one or two of the provisions of this Bill.

Clause 2 provides for the calling up of licensed firearms and for the licensing of arms for which no licence is held. It also deals with certain other ancillary matters arising out of this. I do not intend to refer to the specific provisions of the clause. If I have any comment to make upon them I will reserve that for the Committee Stage. I would say that this clause by itself, or these provisions by themselves, are not obnoxious. After all, rifles have been called up before in this country. The Minister reminded us this afternoon that there was a registration of weapons in 1937. It was an interesting little throw-back in our history which was disclosed in that statement. We know that rifles were called up in 1939 or 1940. I do not know whether every hon. member opposite was entirely enthusiastic about handing over rifles, but I know we had some difficulty in getting in all the rifles.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I am discussing the question of calling up rifles.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must obey my ruling.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

What is your ruling, Sir?

Mr. SPEAKER:

That the hon. member should not cover too wide a field, and I hope he will obey my ruling.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

May I not quote precedents for calling up rifles? I say there are precedents, and for that reason I have no objection to this clause. But I am perfectly permitted to point out that there was a calling up of rifles in this country. That is why this provision may have been put into the Bill. I would say that if this clause stood alone in the Bill there would not be much material for comment. But the clause does not stand alone.

I come now to Clause 4, which was dealt with very ably by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman). It deals with the question of bail, and I have only this to add to what has been said, that I regard it as a grave infringement of the right of habeas corpus. In terms of this proposed provision—and I am not going into the details of the cases quoted by the Minister—the simple fact emerges that if this provision becomes incorporated in our law, citizens of this country can be incarcerated for 12 days without bail. That is why I say that I characterize this measure as the Twelve-Day, Temporary Detention Bill. I ask the Minister: Why this provision? At present the discretion rests with the courts. The Minister says that the courts are limited in their jurisdiction because of certain decisions he quoted. He quoted the decisions of Judges Wessels and Mason in 1922, and the judgment of Judge Ramsbottom, who uttered the dictum that the Crown ought not to be allowed to detain persons for long periods while investigations were proceeding. I think that is a very salutary principle in a civilized state. Then he quoted what was said by Wessels and Mason, JJ. that the Crown was not entitled to detain an accused in the interest of public safety. That was their interpretation of the law. The Leader of the Opposition very cogently put the question to the Minister why, if he feels that persons should not be permitted to be released on bail if such release might endanger the public safety, does he not empower the courts to make such decisions? Why put it in the hands of what is in effect an administrative official who is subject to the orders of the Minister of Justice himself?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The Minister never interferes.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

No, but we know only too well that the Minister’s influence can influence a weak Attorney-General. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs does not interfere with the S.A.B.C. either.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! What has that to do with the Bill?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I am giving an analogy in order to make my point. You must allow me, Sir, in order to develop my argument, to give a parallel case. It was the Minister of Justice who interrupted to say that he does not interfere with the Attorney-General, and I pointed out that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs says that he does not interfere with the S.A.B.C. But we know very well what happens in the S.A.B.C.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

Mr. LAWRENCE:

The Minister has made out no case whatever for this provision. But I want to put this question to him: Why should the Attorney-General, an administrative official, be given these Draconian powers? On whose advice will he act? The clause says that the Attorney-General may, if he considers it necessary in the interest of the safety of the public or the maintenance of public order, issue an order that such person shall not be released on bail. He must issue an ad hoc order in respect of every person arrested. Now we know from experience, and from what we read in the newspapers, that the Security Branch is very active. During these “routine” raids citizens are woken up in the early hours of the morning all over the country. Where is the Attorney-General? I assume he is sleeping peacefully then. At what stage is the Attorney-General informed that a particular person has been arrested, and of the reasons why he should not be granted bail? How is this going to work? On whose advice will he act, and when will he act? Will he act on the advice of the Minister of Justice? The Minister denies any interference with him. Is he going to act on the advice of the Security Branch, and if not, is he going to act without any papers before him? Is he going to do a sort of mesmeric act and just decide out of the air that a particular accused should not be allowed out on bail? I put that specifically.

Then I come to the extraordinary nature of Clause 4 (5) and (6). Sub-sec. (5) says that subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (6), the provisions of this section shall lapse on 1 June 1962. Why on that date? Then it goes on to say that the operation of the provisions of this section may from time to time be extended by joint resolution of the Senate and the House of Assembly for a period not exceeding 12 months at a time. That is the sort of provision that the Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister to introduce into the Banning Bill last year, a provision which would ensure that you could not extend a banning or an infringement of personal rights before first coming to this House. I ask the Minister why he limits the present provision to 1 June 1962, and why has he incorporated in this Bill a provision which says that this prerogative given to the Attorney-General can only be extended by resolution of the Senate and the House of Assembly?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I do not follow. Do you want it to be extended further?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

No, I ask the Minister why he takes these powers only until 1 June 1962, and why is he saying that the operation of this clause, which gives this special prerogative to the Attorney-General, shall not be extended beyond 1 June 1962, without a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, when he was not prepared to do that in the case of the Banning Bill?

I then come to Clause 5, which enables the Attorney-General to order a non-jury trial in certain cases. I am not very perturbed about this matter. We have already made quite a number of infringements into the system of trial by jury. It seems to me that the proper administration of justice, if you are going to eliminate a jury, depends on the calibre of our Judges, on their experience and their legal acumen, and that stands very high at present. That is why I would like to ask the Minister, particularly in relation to this clause, whether he intends to appoint magistrates to the Supreme Court bench. I think that is pertinent, because if the Minister is going to do away with the right of trial by jury in the cases mentioned he should let the House and the country know whether he proposes to maintain the very high standard of the Supreme Court Bench.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I have already replied that there was no intention to deviate from the customary procedure.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Well, Sir, I did not know that. I understood that the Minister was thinking differently. But if he tells me that he proposes to make his appointments to the Supreme Court Bench from members of the Bar, I am very happy indeed. I think that is a wise decision. The Minister purposely said he would not go into the merits of the jury system. When he said that I was reminded of some of his youthful exploits on the platteland at circuit courts, where I am not sure whether justice was done but the hon. gentleman was able to mesmerize a jury pretty well …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! How is that relevant?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

It is very relevant to the question of the Minister abolishing juries. I am just suggesting that it is probably those nostalgic memories of the past which may have induced the Minister to do away with gullible juries. Then I come to Clauses 6, 7 and 8. Their effect is to create new offences and impose higher penalties. I am not going into the details. The Minister gave us details of the new offences, but let us consider some of the new penalties. Let me, perhaps, consider just one of the new offences. In terms of Clause 6 (c), where a meeting has been properly banned and thereafter anyone “advertises or in any other way makes known the proposed assembly”, such person shall be guilty of an offence. Has the Minister considered the meaning of the words “advertises or in any other way makes known the proposed assembly”. What is the position if a newspaper bona fide reports the fact that a particular meeting due to take place at, say, the Grand Parade Cape Town, has been banned? Is that advertising the meeting? Does that fall within the mischief of this clause. I ask that because it seems to me that this offence, phrased as it is at the present time, is ambiguous, and I feel that because of the additional penalty stipulated the law should be made abundantly clear. What are the new penalties? We find that the penalties for publishing or advertising meetings or presiding at meetings after such meetings have been banned, have been increased from three months’ imprisonment on the first offence to imprisonment for one year, and that on a second offence, the sentence has been increased from six months’ to two years’ imprisonment. We find, under Clause 7, that whereas formerly the penalties were a fine of £25 or three months’ imprisonment, the fine is now £200 or a period of imprisonment not exceeding one year. These are viciously high penalties, and I ask the Minister whether he considers that these penalties are going to meet the evil against which he is aiming.

So much for the provisions of this Bill. The effect, very shortly, of the provisions of this Bill is to create new offences and higher penalties and to infringe the liberty of the subject. I want now to view this Bill against the background of 13 years of Nationalist legislation and the situation in which we find ourselves to-day. I am not really so much concerned with the details as with the effects of this Bill, not so much with the intricacies as to whether the fine is £25 or a higher amount; I am concerned with the fact that this Bill represents an attempt at greater toughness, at greater strong-arm methods, at greater force, in an attempt on the part of the Government to compel persons whose political views differ from theirs to come to heel.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

You know that that is not true.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

The hon. gentleman says that I know that that is not true. Let me say what I have to say and the hon. gentleman can then answer. He will have an adequate opportunity of dealing with this matter, which is a serious matter. I regard this Bill as a very serious symbol of the deterioration of government in this country. I regard this Bill as a very serious symbol of the way in which we are slipping down the totalitarian path in South Africa. During the past 13 years we have seen increased restrictions on personal liberties and more and more oppressive legislative enactments. But I would say that oppressive and strong-arm methods have neither decreased normal crime—normal crime as opposed to what the Minister might call subversive activities—nor have they led to peaceful, happy and contented conditions amongst our non-European people. These oppressive, restrictive, strong-armed measures have not decreased …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member is reflecting now on legislation passed by this House.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Well, I do so, Sir, legitimately, if I may say so.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member not only cannot do it but he must withdraw it.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I cannot withdraw the Acts. May I say that these strong-arm measures have not decreased the frustration amongst our non-Whites. On the contrary there is the evidence before us. After 13 years of Nationalist Government what do we find? We find that our Defence Force has now been transformed into an auxiliary of the Police Force. I would say that this Bill is a symbol of more force, more routine police raids and tougher penalties, and a further infringement of personal liberties. But above all, it is another outward, visible sign of a consistent deterioration in government and of the Government’s inability to govern. Sir, there were some in this House who were prepared to support the powers given by the Banning Bill last year on the understanding that constructive attempts would be made by the Government to alleviate strained race relations. In order to make my point I am going to quote what was said then, but before doing so I propose to move the following further amendment—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House declines to pass the second reading of the General Law Amendment Bill because—

  1. (1) it proposes the extension of dictatorial powers in order to enforce policies which have failed and cannot succeed;
  2. (2) it is in conflict with the principle of personal liberty and the Rule of Law; and
  3. (3) the Government has consistently failed to consult with representative leaders of the non-European population in order to avoid the aggravation of racial tensions which create dangerous situations, leading to the introduction of this legislation”.

I should first like to know your ruling, Sir, whether this amendment is in order.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member for Salt River was good enough to furnish me with a copy of his amendment, and I have consequently had an opportunity of considering it. Paragraphs (1) and (2) are similar in substance to the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Paragraph (3) in my opinion, is not relevant to the principles of the Bill and therefore I regret I cannot accept his amendment.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I abide by your ruling, Sir, and therefore I move the following alternative amendment—

To omit “now” and to add at the end “this day six months”.

I was about to say that last year there were those who were prepared to give support to the Government on the understanding that constructive attempts would be made by the Government to alleviate the strained racial situation.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to move two amendments.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

But you have ruled the one out of order.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Yes, the hon. member must make sure that his amendment is in order before he moves it.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

With the greatest respect, Sir, I did not take my amendment up to the Table. I asked whether you would be prepared to approve of that amendment. You ruled against it in your wisdom; I accept that and I now move an alternative amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I am sorry, I cannot allow the hon. member to move an alternative amendment as he has already spoken to the question before the House.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Well, the matter is of somewhat technical interest, because I would have been formally seconded, and no doubt one of my colleagues will move that amendment in due course, and then I will be able to second it. I want to deal with this matter of the greater and greater assumption of power. Last year in this House on 29 March the Leader of the Opposition said this to the Minister of Justice during the debate on the Banning Bill, and I want to suggest that the Minister of Justice has failed to respond. The Leader of the Opposition said—

I want to say to him that in present circumstances we are prepared to be very generous to this Government and to give it almost any powers it wants to assist in the maintenance of law and order, and for that reason we shall support the second reading of this Bill because we are now in this position that the power which the Minister has will come before this House for review after 12 months, and we shall be able then to decide whether the Minister has acted rightly or wrongly. But I want to warn him that we shall scrutinize very closely any action he takes under this Bill, and we shall require very fine justification for any steps that he finds it necessary to take.

The hon. the Minister has come before the House this Session and he has simply, with a rubber stamp, extended that Act. He has treated the Opposition with contempt. We in this corner of the House voted against the Bill; we were not prepared to take any of those assurances. I want to quote one other statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The talkative member over there, the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), said by way of interjection, “Tell us why you support this Bill?”; and then the Leader of the Opposition, Sir de Villiers Graff, said—

The hon. member wants to know why I support this Bill. I support this Bill because as a result of the policies of this Government you have a situation of emergency in South Africa. I want to go further and say that in such a state I am prepared to assist the Government to the maximum of my ability, especially when I am entitled to review their actions each year in Parliament. Sir, I go further than that. I believe it is the duty of any responsible Opposition to assist in the maintenance of law and order, but once law and order has been restored then I am in a position to tell this Government what I think of it and to criticize the manner in which it exercised the power which was given to it.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

After I laid it on the Table, there was ample time to discuss it under my Vote.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

What has the hon. the Minister done? He has merely laid a proclamation on the Table automatically, which by a rubber stamp extends the provisions of the Banning Proclamation. Sir, some of us opposed the Banning Bill, but there were those who supported it. They said they were prepared to help this Government. But they did so on the basis that the Government would come forward with some constructive suggestion to get in touch with the non-Europeans and to prevent a repetition of what happened last year. Why has there been no consultation with the African, Coloured and Asian leaders? Sir, I say to the Minister: Consult with the people; get down to a firm and tenable basis. Is that not really what the Pietermaritzburg conference asked for? Not one of us wants riots and insurrection. Sir, we cannot go on for ever governing by force. Let us beware of too much power in anybody’s hands. The greater the power the greater the danger of abuse, the more dangerous the abuse. I want to conclude now with the very wise words which Burke used in his speech on conciliation with America in 1775. He said this—

The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again. And a nation is not governed which is perpetually to be conquered.

I say that to the Minister and to the Prime Minister and to the Government. This nation is not governed if it has perpetually to be conquered; if those who disagree with the sentiments and the political views of this Government perpetually have to be conquered and put down by saracens, rifles and other stern measures. Let the Minister learn that before it is too late. That is why we shall have nothing to do with this Bill. [Time limit.]

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

I would very much like to reply to the speech of the last speaker, but his speech was really like the sermon of an elder which one reads in the Kerkbode. It so happens that I have already read most of his speeches, not in the Kerkbode but in the Press.

There are really three principles concerned in this Bill. The first is the re-registration of firearms by amending the Act of 1937; secondly, the prohibition on the grant of bail for 12 days after arrest by an amendment of the Act of 1955, and thirdly, the extension of the provisions of the Riotous Assemblies Act by certain amendments of that Act. This Bill stands in the sign of the times in which we live, when everywhere in the whole of Africa and also in South Africa there are disturbances, and where incidents take place which are dangerous and which may become even more dangerous. The Bill must be viewed against that background. All three of these principles relate only to the conditions under which we live to-day. This is not the ordinary General Law Amendment Bill; it is a Bill which should be seen against the background of the conditions in which we live to-day. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) complained that this was another of the Bills which fit in with the so-called “pattern of legislation” of the last 13 years. I want to put this question to the hon. member for Salt River: Who is guilty of the fact that such a pattern of legislation has developed in the country in the past 13 years? I want to blame the Opposition for that pattern of legislation. I take, e.g., this pamphlet sent to members of this House by the South African Congress of Democrats, which every one of us found in his letter-box this morning, the pamphlet read out to us by the hon. the Minister. This pamphlet speaks the language of the Opposition. Just listen to this—

The Government, after holding a fraudulent referendum among only one-fifth of the population …

Did we not hear that from platform to platform last year from members of the Opposition during the referendum campaign?

*An HON. MEMBER:

And still do now.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

In this House we still hear those same words, quoted literally just as members of the Opposition use them on public platforms, and also in this House. But this pamphlet goes further and says this—

The policies of racial oppression, political persecution and exploitation and terrorization of the non-White people, which have already earned South Africa the righteous condemnation of the entire world.

If one refers to the amendment moved by the Progressives to the Referendum Bill, one will find those sentences in it. The pamphlet says, further—

We undertake to stage country-wide demonstrations on the eve of the proclamation of the republic in protest against this undemocratic action.

The hon. member for Salt River was one of those who in the republican debate said that that Bill was an “undemocratic act”; those were the words he used. The pamphlet further refers to “the force to perpetuate the tyranny of the minority”. Even this morning we still read in the Cape Times about “the tyranny of a minority”, as they describe this Government, and that is really what the speech of the hon. member for Salt River amounted to this afternoon, because he spoke of a dictatorial state. Sir, this pamphlet is issued by the South African Congress of Democrats. They are the people who ask that before 31 May there should be “consultation with the people”, and that was the peroration held by the hon. member for Salt River this afternoon, that we should consult with the people, meaning the non-Whites of South Africa. This “pattern of legislation” we have is due to the fact that we have an Opposition which does not compose legislation on the proper basis, viz. to ensure that law and order are maintained in the country. No, what they do is to stigmatize every measure passed here by using bad names, as the hon. member for Salt River did again this afternoon. He commenced his speech by saying: “This Bill is the Twelve-Day Detention Bill.” He gives the Bill a bad name right from the start. To-morrow or the day after when this Bill is on the Statute Book and non-Whites are being arrested in terms of this measure, they will say: “Mr. Harry Lawrence set us the example by calling it a Twelve-Day Detention Bill.” What respect can these people have for the legislation of this country? What respect can they have for law and order if law and order are not even respected in this House by the hon. member for Salt River?

We listened this afternoon to the Leader of the Opposition, and I now want to say that under the cloak of all kinds of legal arguments and legal hair-splitting the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to gamble with the safety of the Whites in South Africa. He called that opposition, but I do not call it opposition. I say he is playing into the hands of those who want to achieve the doom of the Whites in the country, and then he calls it opposition. Behind these nice, legal arguments he advances he wants to disguise his real motives, his real object, and that is what the whole of the Opposition does. They disguise their real object. Their real object is not to base their opposition on legal arguments, but to incite lawlessness outside this House.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

*HON. MEMBERS:

Nonsense!

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked: Why cannot the accused be tried by a jury? This Bill provides for only two cases, viz. murder and arson. He was very clearly told why these two crimes are being added to those mentioned in the schedule, because those are the two crimes which are now repeatedly being committed in Pondoland, murder and arson. Huts were burnt and chiefs were murdered. That was the pattern of the crimes committed there. That is the pattern of the crimes committed everywhere where the communists infiltrate. That is why they are placed under this schedule, but he wants these cases to be tried by a jury. Is the jury system still practical in South Africa? If one takes into consideration that jurymen must be people who are on the Voters’ Roll, it is obvious that they must be Whites. In the first place, that will just serve as a stick in the hands of the communists to tell the non-Whites: It is your White oppressors who try you and send you to prison. Therefore it is no longer practical to have a jury in such cases. But in any case, what is the object of having a jury in this country? Every one of us who practises law and who knows something about the practice both in the lower and in the higher courts knows that the jury system has no more use in South Africa. Most of the cases in South Africa are being heard without a jury.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that matter now. The jury system as such is not under discussion now.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition further stated—

Under the cloak of the stress of circumstances he is doing away with the jury.

May I say that this is a grave distortion of the actual provisions of this Bill, because the Bill provides that the abolition of the jury system in respect of these two crimes only will apply for 12 months. He also knows why it should be left to the Attorney-General to decide that bail should not be granted. This Bill, as I have said, stands in the sign of the times, and the sign of the times is that we find ourselves in an emergency. We are practically in a permanent state of emergency right throughout the Commonwealth of Africa.

*Mr. LAWRENCE:

Oh!

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

Or does the hon. member not know that? There is a state of emergency right throughout the continent of Africa. It is a state of cold war. Perhaps the hon. member does not know that there is a cold war in the world; perhaps he does not know that the communists are fighting that cold war day after day and that they are very energetic also in South Africa to-day, in the Transkei, in our large cities, and even here in Cape Town. They are fighting the cold war here. We therefore have practically a permanent state of emergency on the continent of Africa.

But this Bill is not justified for that reason only, by arresting a person and locking him up for 12 days we can cope with a dangerous situation without declaring a state of emergency. By proclaiming a state of emergency you announce to the whole world that there is an emergency in the country, and that not only affects the maintenance of law and order but also the economy of the country. By refusing bail to a person for 12 days one can immediately deal with trouble which can expand later, and without proclaiming a state of emergency with its concomitant harmful consequences to the economy of the country.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) asks why we place the right to refuse bail in the hands of the Attorney-General and not in the hands of the courts. He says: “It is a peculiar power of the court; it is a prerogative of the court,” and that this Bill “is usurping the functions of the court”. He asks why the Bill cannot provide that the court will also be able to refuse bail if public safety is endangered, but he would be the first person to object to such a provision because he will say that that also usurps the prerogative of the courts; that we are depriving the courts of certain rights by providing that where public safety is endangered they must refuse bail and that bail should not be granted in those circumstances.

But there is another very sound reason. When we are dealing with the public safety it is obvious that the Attorney-General will have certain information about the crime concerned which he does not want to divulge at that particular moment. The hon. member for Salt River ought to know that very well because during the war he was Minister of Justice and he put many people behind barbed wire because he had certain information …

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member is going too far again. He is now paving the way for a very long discussion.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I am illustrating …

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I have stopped the hon. member for Salt River also, and now the hon. member mentions similar examples to which hon. members on my left will want to reply, and what happens then?

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

With all respect to your ruling, may I just say that your ruling simply makes it impossible to illustrate any matter by quoting examples from the past.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member must give other examples.

*Mr. FRONEMAN:

In this particular case the Attorney-General will have to divulge information which he should not divulge in the interests of law and order and the safety of the State. If one leaves it to the courts to refuse bail on the grounds of public safety, then the Attorney-General must divulge what information he has which makes him come to the conclusion that public safety will be endangered. Then he divulges his whole case and information which should not be divulged in the interests of public safety. That is why it is essential to draft the Bill in this way.

I now come to the last portion of this Bill, the scope of the Riotous Assemblies Act. The first amendment really deals with intimidation. Now the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) says that we are making this Bill ridiculous because the chapter containing that section says that it refers only to intimidation in connection with labour and that the marginal note next to the section concerned has the same tendency, and by deleting these words it no longer refers in any way to labour, and consequently the whole of the legislation becomes ridiculous. But surely that is no argument. This is a matter which can be remedied when the Act is promulgated. It is a matter which can be remedied by the Clerk of this House when the legislation is passed. The marginal note can be corrected. That is no objection to be advanced against the Bill in the second reading when the principle of the Bill should be discussed. It is just a nonsensical argument which should not be used in this House. Then the hon. member has serious objections to the onus of proof now being shifted by this Bill. Sir, we are tired of hearing from the Opposition in this House all the time in connection with almost every Bill, where the onus is placed on the accused, that we are derogating from the rights of the individual. There are numerous examples in our legislation since 1910 of the onus being placed on the accused. It is nothing new at all. But the members of this Opposition always appear to be behind the times. They have suddenly discovered that there is such a thing as placing the onus on the accused, and now they say that this makes tremendous inroads in our Common Law.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill stands in the sign of the times. It has become necessary under the circumstances, circumstances which have not been created by this Government but which were created particularly by the Opposition, by the United Party and the Progressive Party. They have sown the dragon’s teeth and this Bill is the fruit of it.

Mr. HUGHES:

We have become so used to Bills of this nature being introduced by this Government over the last 13 years, we have become so used to a succession of Bills which restrict the freedom of the subject and interfere with the rights of approach to the courts for rulings in respect of vital rights hitherto enjoyed, that we are apt to take these Bills now as a matter of course, as a matter of routine. In fact, Sir, the country has become so used to it that Nationalist members opposite do not realize any longer that there is anything wrong with it. They do not realize what is happening. Listening to a speech such as we have had from the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) who is a lawyer, makes one realize just how bad it has become. This is simply one more inroad into our accepted rules, one little further step, and it does not stand out as objectionable as it should. This Bill before us merely carries on the process of subjecting the public to the custom of accepting restrictions with every session of Parliament. Why for instance were these penalties which are now increased in this Bill not increased in 1956 when the Riotous Assemblies Act was amended?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Would you then have had no objections?

Mr. HUGHES:

Of course we would have objected. But why were they not increased then? This hon. Minister is no tougher than the previous Minister of Justice. The previous Minister amended the Act then, he told us what was good for us, he addressed us over the years in as gloomy and sombre a manner as this hon. Minister has done this afternoon, we were warned by him of the frightful prospects in store for us in this country, and in respect of every Bill which the previous Minister introduced we were told that that was the answer to our problems and the only way in which he could maintain law and order. We thought the Anti-Communist Bill had all the answers to the Minister’s problems, and we remember what he warned us of then.

Sir, we cannot agree to the passage of this Bill, because we do not feel that these hard measures will ease the dangers which the Minister sees before us. The hon. member for Heilbron delivered a speech which was a shocking one from a lawyer, and even the hon. the Minister must have said: “Save me from my friend.” The hon. member for Heilbron made an attack on the hon. member for Salt River, because the hon. member for Salt River had called this Bill by a “bad” name, and he said that when the Bill becomes an Act, the Africans will always call it by that “bad” name. Sir, we think, and the hon. member for Salt River thinks that the measure is a bad measure. Must we then refrain from saying what we think for fear of the fact that the Africans will say the same about it? Sir, if we thought it was wrong to hold the referendum as we did, if we thought that the method of holding the referendum was wrong because all the people who were entitled to the vote were not given the vote in the referendum and the people who were entitled to be consulted in regard to the referendum were not consulted on the establishment of a republic, were we to keep quiet and hide the truth, as the hon. member for Heilbron apparently wants us to do merely because the people who were not consulted would complain that they were not consulted?

An HON. MEMBER:

Who are these people?

Mr. HUGHES:

The Africans. The hon. member for Heilbron dealt with them; he quoted from a pamphlet. It comes back to the same complaint against this side the whole time that we must not criticize, because if we do people will believe what we say and they will use what we say against the Government.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

Since when is abuse argument?

Mr. HUGHES:

We have never abused our rights in this House, Sir. The hon. member dealt with the question of trial by jury. To show how irrelevant his argument was, in dealing with Clause 5 (the jury clause), he said that there was nothing wrong with Clause 5, that there was nothing wrong in taking away the right of trial by jury. He went on to attack trial by jury until Mr. Speaker had to pull him up. And in the same breath the hon. member then asked why we objected to this amendment as it would only be effective for one year. Sir, if trial by jury is so bad as he attempted to convey to this House, one would have thought that he would have asked the Minister to extend it for all time and not just for a year. But he gets up and attacks trial by jury and then he says that we should not object because after all it is only for one year.

Listening to the speech of the hon. member for Smithfield, what amazed me was that he said that the right of bail could already be refused for 48 hours, and the Minister asked, if the principle was right to deny bail for 48 hours, what was wrong with denying it for 12 days? Sir, if the hon. the Minister wants to argue that way, you might as well say that on the same principle it can be denied for 20 years.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Yes, but then criticize the time and not the principle.

Mr. HUGHES:

We do criticize the time as well. Sir, 48 hours is a reasonable time in which to expect the accused to be brought to court and to be charged. The time of 48 hours was fixed because it was reasonable. But the 48 hours has got nothing to do with bail. The accused can apply for bail before the 48 hours are up, and I think the hon. member for Smithfield missed the point too. Why was the period of 12 days fixed? The hon. member for Smithfield says that it is all right and that 12 days is only a little longer than 48 hours. But why 12 days, why not a week, why not a fortnight?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

We can always accept an amendment making it 14 days.

Mr. HUGHES:

No, I am asking the hon. the Minister to justify this period of 12 days. He must have had a reason to pick on 12 days, and we have had no explanation from him or the other hon. members who have so far spoken as to why this particular period was chosen. The hon. member for Smithfield said that this was less harsh than applying a state of emergency. He said that we could not continually declare a state of emergency throughout the year. But this Bill of course now has the effect of declaring a state of emergency for 12 months, because the Minister takes steps under this Bill to enable him to do what virtually amounts to applying a state of emergency. In order to protect safety, he is now taking powers in this Bill which will last for 12 months, and I say that he in effect is taking powers which formerly he could only have in a state of emergency. In dealing with this question of bail, the Minister says that he has to pass this clause because the courts won’t refuse bail merely on the grounds of public safety. But if that is what the Minister is getting at, if that is all the Minister wants to achieve, why does he not say so in this Bill, why not introduce that as a reason for the court to refuse bail, instead of coming with this wide provision allowing the Attorney-General and the Minister to prevent anybody from getting bail for a period of 12 days? This is far too wide. The hon. Minister has not justified the wide terms of this measure. It is useless to tell us that the Attorney-General is an independent official and that he will not act unless he thinks it is right to do so. But the hon. the Minister knows that he has the power to overrule the Attorney-General and to tell the Attorney-General what to do. The Minister will be getting the information from his security officers, from his Police Force, probably more information than the Attorney-General will have. The Minister will be in close touch with the police at all times, and will know what they are doing. I say that it is most likely that the hon. the Minister in the circumstances will use his influence with the Attorney-General in cases of this nature.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Not this Minister.

Mr. HUGHES:

Knowing the hon. Minister’s past in another Department, I am afraid I am not prepared to accept his word so easily in this matter that he is not going to interfere with the Attorney-General. As the hon. member for Salt River asked earlier, when is the Attorney-General going to exercise this power? If somebody is arrested and he is let out on bail after 12 hours and the Attorney-General only then receives information, or gets all the facts before him, will it merely mean that the accused will be arrested again and that the Attorney-General will then keep him in gaol 12 days, and after that perhaps for another 12 days? The hon. the Minister did say that the Attorney-General can apply for an extension at the end of 12 days, for an extension of the period. Did the hon. the Minister mean that the Attorney-General could have him arrested again and that he could proceed in this manner by arresting a man, keeping him in gaol for 12 days, releasing him (because the charge is not ready) and then arresting him again? We know that under the state of emergency people were kept in gaol for weeks and months without any charge being preferred against them at all, simply because charges could not be framed: because it was difficult to frame any charge, and they eventually were released without meeting any charge. Here a man can be kept in gaol for 12 days, be released and then arrested again and kept in gaol again.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

What about the 48 hours? It can also happen there, I presume?

Mr. HUGHES:

The hon. member has not read the Bill. It is not a question of a charge here. He can be kept in gaol for 12 days, but I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether this is correct: Can he be released after 12 days and then be arrested again and kept in gaol for 12 days again? The Attorney-General, and the Minister, and the House must remember that the Attorney-General only gets one side of the picture. He will get some information from a security officer or from a prosecutor. He will accept that statement and the accused will have no chance of denying the allegations made there. We know that it frequently happens that the Attorney-General objects to bail and he gives as a reason that he is afraid that the accused may interfere with witnesses, or that he may attack some of the witnesses and that he may interfere with the course of justice in some way, and the accused is then given the right to rebut the evidence, and the magistrate or the Judge after hearing the accused often refuses bail, but just as often allows bail if he is not satisfied with the information given by the prosecutor and after he has heard the rebutting evidence of the accused. But in this Bill there is no chance of rebutting the accusations, and as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out the Black Sash, for instance, could be arrested for demonstrating, in terms of this new Clause 8. The hon. the Minister says that that is far-fetched, but we are dealing with far-fetched Ministers and in far-fetched times and the mere fact is that the Minister has the power to apply the law. It might be done. We are suspicious. The fact is that these women would not be able to protest; they would sit in gaol for 12 days before they would be able to do anything about it, and then they might be let out without a charge being preferred against them. These things worry us and worry the public. If the Minister wants the powers that he says he needs, he should bring in another Bill altogether. It is not necessary to make the provisions nearly as far-reaching as he is doing in this Bill. He can practically do anything he likes now in terms of this Bill.

The hon. Minister says that the Bill as it stands restricts intimidators from stopping workers going to work. But that provision is in the present law. This clause now alters Section 10 of the Riotous Assemblies Act, and it empowers the Minister to do practically anything he likes. He and his Department can stop anybody from any type of demonstration at all. When the Bill was introduced in 1956 there was a special reason for it and the chapter was headed and the clause read that it was to deal with intimidators stopping other persons from going to work. The whole object of that section is now being defeated. By taking out a few words, the Minister is now applying a section which would never have been passed in 1956; even the Nationalist Party Government would not have accepted it in 1956. He now merely takes out a few words, and then says it is only a small amendment and it does not look so bad.

The Minister says that he is prepared to consider amendments in the Committee Stage. But we have dealt with the Minister in respect of other measures and in his address to-day we got a purely political speech warning us of what dangers we could expect, and I tell you this Minister will not be prepared to accept any material alterations to this Bill in the Committee Stage. The line he took in introducing this Bill showed us what he intends to do. He has warned us of dangers lying ahead. The Minister intends applying the hard hand and he wants hard laws to enable him to apply that hand. We cannot support this measure.

*Mr. J. A. F. NEL:

It is a pity that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) made the speech he has, because I cannot describe it as anything but a method of assisting the agitators. Like other hon. members, he has said that the Attorney-General will now be able to do certain things. In the first place this was not a very original idea because we now have the same position as applies to-day in Southern Rhodesia. In Southern Rhodesia the law provides—

Provided that the High Court shall not admit an appellant to bail if the Attorney-General certifies that it is likely that public security will be prejudiced if the appellant were admitted to bail.

In our case a period of 12 days is laid down, but in the Rhodesian Act no limitation is provided.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Are you now in favour of “partnership”?

*Mr. J. A. F. NEL:

Whether it is done under partnership or apartheid, the position remains the same. In Rhodesia provision is not even made for a period of 12 days, but bail can be refused for an unlimited period. But now the National Party Government is doing a terrible thing! Hon. members have also used the argument “Yes, but the Attorney-General is a person who will be biased and the Minister has influence over the Attorney-General”. What did Mr. Knight, the Minister of Justice in Southern Rhodesia, say—

The hon. member raised the position of the Attorney-General vis-à-vis the Executive. The position of the Attorney-General vis-à-vis the Executive is that he is a contractor. He gives his opinion as his opinion and cannot be directed as to what he is to say or do. He is completely independent, as one would expect in the case of a professional man, and particularly in the case of an Attorney-General.

But hon. members have now cast a slur on the Attorney-General in the five divisions of the Union. Hon. members opposite have cast suspicion on the Attorneys-General of the Free State, the Eastern Cape, the Transvaal, the Western Province, Natal and Windhoek. They have placed them all under suspicion and I ask whether this is the way to ensure that the judicial system here in South Africa is respected? I do not think that one hon. member will have the courage to make his allegation as regards the various Attorneys-General outside this House. If they should do so, I think that the Attorneys-General would be entitled to institute libel actions against the various hon. members. Doubt has been cast on the character of the Attorneys-General.

*Dr. STEENKAMP:

That is nonsense!

*Mr. J. A. F. NEL:

No, hon. members have implied that they are in effect the “stooges” of the Minister, that they will not do their duty, that they will do things merely to please the Minister. Is this the way to uphold the highest authority in the land?

*Mr. TUCKER:

Who said so?

*Mr. J. A. F. NEL:

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) and others.

*Mr. LAWRENCE:

I deny that emphatically.

*Mr. J. A. F. NEL:

The hon. member for Salt River has said that he will not be able to adopt an independent position vis-à-vis the Minister. Will the hon. member rise and deny it?

*Mr. LAWRENCE:

I say that I deny that.

*Mr. J. A. F. NEL:

The hon. member will not rise and deny it directly. I shall take this point further. As I have said, Southern Rhodesia has adopted similar legislation, and this is what their Minister has said—

Experience of the working of these three Acts in practice has shown that for various reasons the existing law is inadequate to deal effectively with many of the activities of known subversive elements in this Colony.
In introducing this Bill, it is in the firm conviction that every member of this House will agree that every government must be empowered by adequate legislation to be in a position to maintain law and order in this Colony.

In Southern Rhodesia it is a good thing, but when it is done here in South Africa it is of the devil. There are other provisions in the Rhodesian legislation which are in effect the same as the provisions of this Bill. If a person convenes a meeting in Southern Rhodesia without a permit or even takes part in a procession, the penalty is a maximum of one year’s imprisonment. This Bill contains practically the same provision. But in Rhodesia it is quite correct. Their legislation goes further and gives an ordinary constable the right to break up a meeting if there are more than three persons attending the meeting. But in their case it is all quite in order, but when this Government takes similar action, it is terrible because this is after all a Minister of the National Party! Mr. Pitman, the son of the former Judge-President of the Eastern Province —he is not a Nationalist because I know him well; he was with me at Rhodes—said in the Rhodesian Parliament—

I cannot see how the Government can operate its emergency powers if it has at all times to take into account every kind of private right or law in attempting to meet the emergency with which it is confronted.

That is what has been said there, but in this country the impression is being created that this Minister and this Government want to establish a dictatorship. Hon. members knew that such an Act had been adopted in Rhodesia, because it was in fact the Star which published an article dealing with it and gave the details, and hon. members after all read that newspaper. When this legislation was introduced in Rhodesia last year, the Star said: “This Rhodesia-ban Bill is tougher than ours.”

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

*Mr. J. A. F. NEL:

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended I had indicated that these powers which were being given to the Attorney-General were not excessive and that even more far-reaching powers already applied in Rhodesia. I just want to quote the reason why these powers have been granted in Rhodesia from the speech of the Minister who introduced the Bill. He said—

Provision has also been introduced in the Bill which will require a court to refuse bail to an accused person if the Attorney-General certifies that this will be prejudicial to public security.

He then went on, and I am quoting this with reference to the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members opposite, namely that the law is being changed. The Rhodesian Minister went on to say—

In regard to that, I would point out that at the present moment experience has shown where bail has been granted under the rule which normally obtain nowadays, that if a person—if there is no reason to suspect that he will interfere or tamper with witnesses, if there is no reason to suspect that he will not turn up to his trial, bail is in fact allowed. But experience has shown in recent months that in many instances people who in these circumstances obtain bail, no sooner obtain bail than they are out again addressing public meetings and stirring up trouble, and the Government feels it is undesirable in these circumstances, if it is in the interests of public security, that bail should be allowed in that type of case.

That is absolutely the same position as applies in our case to-day. I may be interpreting this Clause 4 completely incorrectly, but the accused still has the right to go to the court if he can tell the court: “I am doing nothing which is detrimental to the safety of the public; I am doing nothing which is in conflict with the maintenance of public order.” He can tell the court that he has not done those things. In other words, under those circumstances he can still be released on bail.

I now turn to the intimidation which has taken place and in respect of which hon. members have also objected. They cannot deny that in the past there has been intimidation and that it will occur again in the future. I have here the report by Judge Wessels on the Sharpeville inquiry. On page 26 he says—

The evidence showed that certain of the persons who assisted in arranging the processions, used violence and threats of violence to force the inhabitants of Bopholong to join the processions.

He repeats this on page 61—

However, the evidence convinces me that violence and threats of violence nevertheless took place during the night. There is not the slightest doubt in that regard.

He then goes on to say on page 65—

Nevertheless, in my opinion, the evidence shows beyond all doubt that numerous cases of intimidation and assault took place.

That is what happened and it is for that reason that the hon. the Minister has now introduced this amendment aimed at eliminating this type of thing. The hon. members for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) and Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) are unfortunately not here. I still think that the latter should apologize for the insult which he has levelled at the Attorneys-General of South Africa. I still stand by that point, and I think that as a former Minister of Justice he should do so. Hon. members opposite were fully aware of the fact that similar legislation and even more drastic legislation than this Bill was adopted in Southern Rhodesia in November of last year. As I have said, the Star stated: “Rhodesia’s banning Bill tougher than ours.” The newspaper went on to say—

Law and Order Maintenance Bill tabled in the Southern Rhodesian Parliament yesterday afternoon, particularly in regard to the Press, goes further than any comparable legislation in the Union in some respects.

Hon. members opposite are now speaking as though they have never heard of the fact that this type of legislation already exists. But this is not only the position in Rhodesia. There are other parts of the democratic world, of the Western world, where members of the legal profession are becoming concerned—persons such as the hon. member for Transkeian Territories and the hon. member for Salt River as well as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) who has also had a legal training—about these conditions with which we are faced to-day. In this regard I want to refer more specifically to an American journal which is as leftist inclined as can be, from which I want to quote the following extract dealing with court decisions which have been given on similar legislation. It begins as follows—

Under the doctrine of judicial review the U.S. Supreme Court has the last word on basic U.S. law — and no good lawyer would have it otherwise. Likewise, good U.S. lawyers believe that they have a professional responsibility to judge the kind of law laid down by the court, and to make recommendations for statutes that would improve the legal fabric of the U.S.
Last week the American Bar Association’s 264-member House of Delegates reviewing the procession of Supreme Court decisions in internal security cases, sharply recommended that Congress plug the serious loop-holes opened by the court’s ruling and re-definitions.

And that is what this legislation now before us is doing. They are asking for exactly the same legislation as the hon. the Minister has now introduced. The article then went still further—

But pointedly enough, the delegates proceeded to ask Congress to: Affirm that the state can use its police powers to prevent “sedition” against the Federal Government, thus erasing the 1956 opinion written by Chief Justice Earl Warren that freed Pennsylvania’s top communist, Steve Nelson, from prosecution under a state anti-sedition Act.

Absolutely the same! They are concerned about the position there and they ask for legislation similar to that being introduced here to-day—

Spell out “thoroughly, carefully and precisely” the authority of the House Un-American Activities Committee.

This is the committee to which the hon. member for Salt River has referred to-day. This is the committee of which Mr. Nixon was chairman at one time—

… to avoid duplication of the court opinion that reversed the contempt of Congress conviction of labour organizer John Watkins.

This is happening in a democratic country—

Amend the Smith Act so as to counteract the Supreme Court’s narrow interpretation of the words “organize” and “advocate” that upset the basis of the Federal Government’s prosecution of active communists …” So that this nation need not be forced to delay the invoking of the judicial process and for such time as the damage has already been wrought”.

That is what is felt even in America. They say that they cannot wait until the damage has already been wrought. These 264 members of the Bar Association went to their legislature and asked that these matters should be put right before the damage was already wrought.

Hon. members have referred to the “rule of law”. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has spoken about the “rule of law” and the hon. the Minister of Justice interrupted him and asked him what he meant by that. What “rule of law” are hon. members referring to? In this regard I want to read to the House from the latest edition of “The Law and Constitutions” by Jennings, in which he makes this interesting remark—

The truth is that the rule of law is apt to be a rather unruly horse.

I think the hon. member should know that himself. What is the “rule of law”? He says—

If it is only a synonym for law and order it is characteristic of all civilized states;

South Africa is after all a civilized state—

and such order may be based on principles which no democrat would welcome and may be used, as recent examples have shown, to justify the conquest of one state by another. If it is not, it is apt to express the political views of the theorist, and not to be an analysis of the practice of government. If analysis is attempted it is found that the idea includes notions which are essentially imprecise.

That is why the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) could not answer the hon. the Minister—“because it includes motions which are essentially imprecise”. The hon. member is now laughing at his argument.

Mr. Speaker, I now come to my penultimate point. It is easy for hon. members to argue in this House that no violance will be used. But I have here Judge Diemont’s report on the Langa inquiry in respect of which the same allegations were made: How do we know that violence will be used? Hon. members have asked: Why are you already introducing legislation of this nature; you do not know whether violence will be used? On page 27 of his report Judge Diemont says—

Although the Congress leaders preached non-violence in their addresses before the campaign opened, they cannot be absolved from all responsibility for the violence that flared up on the evening of 21 March. In the Roman Dutch Law, and indeed in most systems of law, a man is held liable for the reasonable and probable consequences of his acts. It is not an unreasonable proposition that a man who creates a dangerous situation cannot be heard to say that he intended no harm, if harm results.

Hon. members now say that we should wait until violence has taken place, because various leaders have said that no violence will be used, as happened for example in the case in Durban which the hon. the Minister has mentioned. Here we have the Judge’s finding. But we now find that hon. members opposite no longer trust the Attorneys-General, and apparently they no longer trust the Judges of our country. The Judge then goes to say—

Some of the speeches made, which I shall refer to at a later stage, were of an inflammatory nature.

This is the type of thing which is now being defended. I regret very much that the hon. member is not here to-night, but it is this type of speech which is being defended by none other than the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell). In discussing this instance which the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Froneman) have quoted, the hon. member for Wynberg has said—

But they have not. They have had a Congress at Maritzburg and, I understand, have asked for a conference of all people of South Africa to draft a multi-racial constitution. Has he received this request? What is the answer to it? It seems to me to be a peaceful and constitutional request.

It is to deal with this type of thing that this legislation has been introduced. I just want to ask hon. members whether the following is a “peaceful and constitutional request”, namely No. 2 on this page—

We call on all Africans not to co-operate or collaborate in any way with the proposed South African Republic or any form of government which rests on force to perpetuate the tyranny of a minority, and to organize and unite in town and country and carry out constant actions to oppose oppression and win freedom.

This is a “peaceful and constitutional request”. Mr. Speaker, that is my final point. I just want to tell the House that it is quite clear that it is unfortunate that this debate has taken place to-day—it is very unfortunate because this debate has in fact given ammunition to the agitators who want to take action on 31 May.

Dr. DE BEER:

I think as good a point as any to begin an examination of this Bill at this time is the period a year ago when another restrictive measure of considerable importance was introduced into and passed through this House, the Unlawful Organizations Act. And it was interesting that on both sides of the House at that time consideration was given to the question of making that legislation operative only for a year. Why does one do that? Why does one, in introducing any Act into any Parliament, suggest that that Act or part of that Act should be operative only for a year and subject, after that, to review and reenactment by Parliament if necessary? Clearly one would not do this if one felt the measure was intrinsically a good one, intrinsically a desirable measure in a normal democratic country. So that, in the first place, one only proposes a temporary operation of any restrictive measure when one is admitting, at the same time, that it is an undesirable measure and something that ought to be got rid of.

There is a second factor, Sir. Even when one recognizes the undesirable nature of the measure one is introducing, one still does not make it temporary unless there is some genuine hope, some apparent reason to believe that within the period to which one restricts the action of the measure, things might get better, things might improve. It might in some way become less necessary to have this undesirable piece of restrictive legislation. And I think that in the minds of hon. members on the Government side, and hon. members on this side of the House, who at that time, under those conditions, saw fit to offer support for that Bill—in their minds there must have been a hope that somehow the situation in South Africa would improve; that tensions would get less; that dangers would diminish within the period 12 months from that time. It would have been unrealistic beyond one’s wildest imagination to have thought that anything could happen to improve the situation between last year and now, unless the Government, with the power to control the country, had, during that time, taken some action to improve race relations; had taken some sort of action to minimize bitterness, frustration and hostility in South Africa; some sort of action that might have made legislation of that kind unnecessary after a year. The fact that now the Government comes to Parliament asking for powers that extend further, and extend beyond the powers that were given in the Unlawful Organizations Act, is the measure of the utter failure of the Government during the last 12 months. Things have not become better; they have become worse. Those wide powers which were given a year ago have proved to be inadequate. To-night it is necessary for this Government to come and to ask for powers that are not included in that measure nor, indeed, in any other one of the series of measures to which the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) referred this afternoon, and which give the Government special powers to deal with internal tensions.

Mr. Speaker, the chapter of catastrophes has gone on unbroken since last year. Tensions have built up. South Africa, externally, has suffered rejections, has experienced greater hostility, until one is tempted to cry: “How long, oh Lord, how long?”—how long until the Government will come to realize that it is only by governing the country in a different way that they can prevent the multiplication of tensions and the heaping of one situation upon another which calls for one Draconian piece of legislation upon another.

The taking of greater powers …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! I hope the hon. member is not reflecting on the legislation passed by this hon. House.

Dr. DE BEER:

Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to refer to the legislation at present before the House.

Mr. SPEAKER:

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

Dr. DE BEER:

Very well, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. I beg your pardon, Sir, I only intended to refer to this piece of legislation.

There are thousands of years of history, thousands of years of the stories of nations where there have been tensions, where one group of human beings has been set against another; where one group has had it in its power and has sought to keep it in its power to dominate another group. There is hardly one of these stories that does not tell of greater powers taken by that Government. And there is hardly one of these stories that does not tell of the ultimate catastrophic failure of government by the simple measure of taking greater and greater power.

In this debate to-day, Mr. Speaker, hon. members on the Government side of the House —some of them at any rate—have made no secret of the fact that they consider the measure now before the House to be a strong measure. Indeed, I think from the speech of the hon. the Minister, and most particularly from the fact that he said he hoped that the passing of this legislation will be purely temporary—most particularly because the hon. the Minister said this, I believe it is admitted from the Government side that they would rather not do the things which are being done in this legislation. I must say that an exception to that rule is the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel), who has just sat down and who seems to delight in doing it, and who seems to consider that this was the best possible kind of legislation for anyone to have. But the hon. the Minister, I think, very fairly and very rightly made it clear that he would wish that it were not necessary for him to introduce legislation of this sort. Now if that is so, then one must presume—and one is happy to presume that the hon. the Minister speaking, I think, for the Government, would rather have government by consent than government by force; that they would rather have a situation in which the normal processes of law would be sufficient to control internal disturbances and any internal crime. They would rather have a situation in which it was necessary to restrict bail, unnecessary to step up penalties and unnecessary to create new offences under the Riotous Assemblies Act. And, as I say, I believe—and I am glad to believe—that the hon. the Minister regrets the necessity of introducing this legislation. But I say again that the very fact that it is introduced a year after another such piece of legislation was introduced in this House, is evidence that, given present Government policies in present South African circumstances, it is impossible to avoid introducing into this House this kind of legislation which the hon. the Minister dislikes and which we, on this side of the House, dislike even more.

Sir, this legislation is introduced against the background to which I have referred; the background of the chapter of catastrophes that has been our national history over the last year or two.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I hope the hon. member will leave the background now and come back to the Bill.

Dr. DE BEER:

This legislation is introduced in order to strengthen Government power, in order to make it easier for the Government to act against people who have not been proved guilty; against people to whom a court would presumably not refuse bail; to act against people for actions which hitherto have not been considered as or held to be crimes. And one speaker from the Government benches after another has told us that this is a sign of the times; that this sort of legislation is necessary in South Africa to-day; that this sort of legislation is necessary because of the circumstances —if I may discuss the circumstances, Sir—in which the country finds itself. The essential character of the circumstances in which we find ourselves, the essential character of the situation which hon. members on the Government side advance as justification for legislation of this sort, is that the Government is acting in South Africa with the consent of only a relatively few of the South African people. It is not governing by consent; it is governing by domination.

I do not want to discuss this in any sentimental way. I want to discuss why this creates the necessity for legislation which even the hon. the Minister who introduces it finds unpalatable.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! I think I have allowed the hon. member a lot of scope now to state the background. He must now come back to the provisions of the Bill.

Dr. DE BEER:

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I am doing my very best to abide by your ruling, but would you let me have a ruling on this: Is it competent or is it not competent for hon. members on that side of the House to argue that this Bill is necessary because of contemporary history in South Africa and Africa as a whole, and is it then permissible for me to argue that in terms of that history there is something much better than this Bill that can be done?

Mr. SPEAKER:

The points that have been raised by one side have been replied to by the other.

Dr. DE BEER:

Is it then your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that the offence that I am committing is the offence of repetition or the offence of irrelevancy?

Mr. SPEAKER:

Both.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

On a point or order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you whether you now propose to curtail this discussion?

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! That is not a point of order. What is the hon. member’s point of order?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I wish to know whether the hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer) is permitted to reply to the hon. the Minister of Justice who introduced this Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order!

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Mr. Speaker, you must allow me to put my point of order.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! Will the hon. member resume his seat?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Will you not allow me, Mr. Speaker …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! Will the hon. member resume his seat?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Yes, I shall.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member for Maitland may proceed.

Dr. DE BEER:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister, when he introduced this Bill told us a good deal of what has been taking place in the country. He quoted to us speeches that had been made by African organizations, by people who are seeking to organize strikes and disturbances at the end of this month. And he told us that it was against the background of that sort of situation that it was necessary to introduce this legislation. Now, Sir, I am going to suggest, and I am suggesting that the passage of this kind of legislation is most unlikely to put a stop to these evils which the hon. the Minister adduces as the reason for its introduction. In any country in the world there are certain facts of power which do not necessarily accord with the facts expressed at the ballot. In any country those who form an essential part of its economy, those who form an essential part of the body of the State, even if they do not form a part of the electorate have, in fact, certain power to influence the course of events within that state. And my argument is that government will succeed only if it is actually or approximately in line with those facts of power. It is my contention that this legislation of a sort which is admitted to be undesirable, becomes essential when government is based upon a line which is out of tune with the real facts of power in a country. And this, I believe, is the situation that is arising here. And there are two ways in which it can be put right: One I believe permanent, and one I believe temporary and fatal in its consequences

The one way of putting this right is to adjust the line of government to the point where at least a sufficient number of people will consent and will obey the law willingly …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! That is not relevant now.

Dr. DE BEER:

Very well, Sir. I will go on to the next point which you will perhaps allow as relevant, and that is the other thing than can be done in a situation like this, which is to try and increase the power in the hands of government to compel and to coerce. And this is a measure designed to put power into the hands of government to compel and coerce. For so long as it remains unnecessary to compel and coerce unwilling citizens it is possible to govern with harmony and it is possible to govern with personal liberty. As soon as that is not possible then one must govern by increasing … [Interjections.]

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! I appeal to hon. members to give the hon. member for Maitland an opportunity to make his speech. It is difficult for me to follow the hon. member in what he is saying if I have to listen to all the other hon. members of this House.

Dr. DE BEER:

Thank you. Mr. Speaker. I was just saying that if one can govern by consent then one can govern with harmony and liberty. And a measure like this, which admittedly restricts liberties, becomes necessary because the Government is out of tune with consent, because it is not obtaining the willing response of the people whom it seeks to govern.

The rule of law has been discussed by, amongst others, the hon. gentleman who resumed his seat just before I got up. I would not wish to query, speaking as a layman, the validity of the observation of Sir Ivor Jennings which he quotes, that the concept of the rule of law has become somewhat ill-defined in the hands of the many people who have interpreted it. And what I quote now I quote not because I regard it as a definitive edition of the rule of law, but because I regard it as a first class statement of that for which every nation should aim in the administration of justice. The general principle is stated as follows—

Men should not be deprived of their personal liberty, or otherwise punished, or have their rights curtailed, except for breaches of the general law promulgated in advance, such breaches being proved after a fairly conducted trial in the ordinary courts.

This authority goes on to discuss the importance of this personal liberty in relation to all other freedoms within a State, and to point out that freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of association; any of these becomes impossible to exercise once personal liberty has been taken away …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! When is the hon. member going to deal with this Bill?

Dr. DE BEER:

Mr. Speaker, if hon. members will direct their attention to Clause 4 of the Bill they will see that Clause 4 makes it possible for it to be decreed in the case of any person arrested on any offence, that he should not be released, either on bail or otherwise for 12 days. Surely that is a curtailment of personal liberty, which is contained in the Bill? And I would submit with very great respect that that entitles us to discuss the question of personal liberty. Clause 4 of the Bill you will find, Sir, deals with the question of bail and restricts the circumstances under which a person can be allowed to go free and under which personal liberty can be allowed.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I shall be glad if hon. members will give the hon. member a chance to speak.

Dr. DE BEER:

I would point out that the ideal, and even short of the ideal, of any government which could be called good and satisfactory is government in which that liberty can be permitted, because where it is not a legacy of bitterness and hostility must be left behind which in turn must lead to more disturbance and insurrection and to more Government force being used, and increases in penalties such as we find in Clauses 7, 8 and 9. The taking of greater power leads to the building up of ever greater strains and stresses. It is precisely because of the sort of argument I have heard to-day in speeches from hon. members opposite that citizens of South Africa in many quarters are beginning to feel a sense of desperation and hopelessness and the feeling that it is too late. Hon. members opposite have told us to-day that it is in their view quite impossible to think of coming to any sort of accommodation with the non-Whites or with their leaders, and that there can be no other method than this, but they themselves admit that this method is undesirable. I have argued that it is a method which can only lead to further and further steps in the same direction. It is this that leads to the kind of Götterdämmerung mentality where we do not know whether there is a future or whether we can survive, but we will go down fighting. I believe that we cannot and must not accept that Götterdämmerung mentality, that bunker mentality. I believe that government by consent and without measures like this, government by the ordinary process of law, is worth striving for.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill now or I must ask him to resume his seat.

Dr. DE BEER:

I was about to deal with an argument the Minister raised in his speech and which as far as I know has not yet been dealt with from this side. The hon. the Minister said that prevention was better than cure and the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) interjected … [Interjection.] The hon. the Minister went on to argue that this Bill with the provisions it contains was a measure of prevention rather than cure. I think it is of the utmost importance that we should take this argument and ask the Minister whether it is really preventive. I know what the Minister means. He means that if you lock a man up before he commits an offence, you have prevented him from committing that offence. That is true.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

And to prevent others from committing that offence.

Dr. DE BEER:

The Minister now suggests that by locking up one man you might prevent others from committing that offence.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

That is intimidation.

Dr. DE BEER:

I want to ask the Minister to consider whether in this sort of situation it is not true that often by locking up a person before he has committed an offence you raise the level of frustration and hostility-amongst others to the point where they who might not have committed the offence now commit it. I do not dismiss the Minister’s argument, but I think this other aspect must be taken into account.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

But your case is quite wrong. Nobody says he must be locked up before he has committed an offence.

Dr. DE BEER:

I am sorry, but the word “prevention” led me to suggest that I do not know what the Minister is preventing by locking up a man if he has already done wrong. Then it is not prevention, but the Minister says this is prevention and not cure, so presumably this measure must be used in order to stop people from doing something they might otherwise do. But particularly with reference to Clause 4, I want to ask the Minister to consider seriously whether the opposite is not the effect of this sort of provision. I do not know whether there is any connection between the routine raids carried out in the Cape and other parts of the country and the fact that as reported in the Press this morning a meeting of Moslems, Cape Malays, yesterday took an extremely drastic resolution. I think the Minister knows what sort of people the Malays are, and I think he is probably as surprised and distressed as I am to see them adopting that attitude. I cannot prove this, but I can only suggest that there may be a connection between what I know to be a sudden flaring up of hostility on the part of that community and the routine raids carried out a short time ago. The only limited sense in which a measure like this can be called prevention is that it is prevention at the very last moment before the offence is committed or the catastrophe takes place, but surely if we want to discuss prevention and cure we must go back to the removal of the basic causes, to the prevention of the disease in the society of which this is only the symptom. We must go back to the grievances which led to the hostility and the frustration, which led to actions of the kind we are trying to stop. Again, if I may refer to what I said in the beginning of my speech, the very fact that we had a measure a year ago which it was hoped would be temporary, and now we have another temporary measure should make it clear to us that along this road we will not find what we look for. The hon. member for Smithfield, in justification of this measure, advanced what is perfectly true, viz. the fact that every African leader of confidence anywhere on the African Continent insists upon the grant to him and to his people of the one-man-one-vote policy. The hon. member for Smithfield argued that it was for that reason not possible to seek a solution by negotiation, but that the solution should be sought by taking greater powers. But what else has been offered? What attempts have been made to negotiate? What sort of reports can the Government bring to us in regard to attempts to obtain the co-operation rather than the coercion of the non-Whites? Again I do not say this in any sentimental way but out of a desire I share with the Minister not to have to do this sort of thing and not to introduce such legislation. Surely if people are led to believe, rightly or wrongly, that there is no hope for them by negotiation, then they are more and more likely to turn to measures of this sort. If some fair and reasonable offer were to be made, it might become unnecessary I put it no higher than that—to introduce legislation of this kind, and even if it does not become unnecessary there might be a better justification at least to offer for legislation of this kind than there is now. But no attempt is made. What we have had was more raids at midnight, more powers to arrest and to hold, more stringent penalties in terms of various Acts and a sense that we are participating in a movement towards a clash because we are not prepared to consider any alternative other than a clash. This is the effect of a law of this kind introduced at this time, at any rate on me as a listener. Hon. members over there simply can consider nothing simply than the strengthening of measures which they know perfectly well will bring counter-hostility, if not to-morrow then in due course. [Interjections.] When a measure of this kind is introduced against this sort of background, it gives one a feeling of moving towards a catastrophe, and it does not make one believe that it can do anything in the long run, or even in the short run, to alleviate the troubles from which we suffer. For that reason, I move—

To omit “now” and to add at the end “this day six months”.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I second.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member has already spoken to the Question before the House and I cannot allow the hon. member to second the amendment.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

No, Sir, I submit that under Rule 62 I am entitled to address you on this amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member will be entitled to address the House subsequently on the amendment itself, but his remarks must be confined strictly to the terms of the amendment. Who seconds this amendment?

Mr. WILLIAMS:

I second it.

*Mr. MULLER:

I shall try and confine myself to the subject now under discussion to a greater extent than the hon. member who has just sat down, the hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer). I wish to refer briefly to his analysis of “prevention is better than cure”. I see that phrase used by the hon. the Minister in an entirely different light from that of the hon. member for Maitland. I see it in the light that there must be laws for bringing to book those people who are to-day agitators and inciters and who are intent on causing trouble, not in order to better them but to prevent them from continuing their malicious activities and from inciting others and causing trouble. But I want to say to the hon. member that they are using the floor of this House to a great extent for encouraging those people in their wrongdoing. Everything that has been said here to-day and this evening, particularly from the ranks of the Progressives, is actually in defence of and encouragement to those people who want to cause disorder. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) corroborated the allegations made in the pamphlet distributed among us and which the hon. the Minister read out, and not only the allegations made in it but also the threats. We are aware that this legislation is not meant for normal circumstances. If times were normal this legislation would most probably not have been necessary. It is for that reason that I regret that the only criticism raised by that side of the House, by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Salt River, and also by others, is that the legislation is necessary because of circumstances brought about by the Government. If legislation is to be considered, the necessity or the desirability thereof, it does not help asking what the reasons are which gave rise to the existing conditions. Because this is the only criticism expressed against the legislation it can be accepted that the legislation is necessary. The arguments advanced here are not so much against the principle of the Bill but is interwoven throughout with what the causes are for this legislation. I gained the impression that hon. members opposite are testing the desirability for the legislation by the deeds of the Government over the past 13 years, and I have come to the conclusion that those hon. members’ primary consideration is not the safety of the country or the welfare of the Whites but that it is motivated by their political hatred of the National Party.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must not sketch too wide a background.

*Mr. MULLER:

I shall try to obey you, Sir. The hon. member for Maitland devoted 80 per cent of his speech to this aspect. I do not intend devoting so much of my speech to it. I wish to discuss a few principles of the legislation, but I hope that you will permit me to discuss the background and also the atmosphere in which this legislation is being introduced.

We are aware that legislation is to a great extent aimed at determining the individual’s rights and duties, and also to restrict the individual to a great extent. Statutory legislation is a living adaptation, something which must be adapted to the circumstances of the time. In like manner it has become necessary for us, when the time necessitates it, to introduce legislation of this nature. The times in which we are living to-day are not the times of ten years ago, nor the circumstances of 20 years ago, and much less the times of 30 years ago. Hon. members opposite can easily talk about government of fear” but I ask of them that we, as responsible people, should realize the seriousness of the position and not rise here and wave our arms and accuse the Government of being scared. We are concerned about conditions in the world, and even more concerned about conditions in Africa, and we are particularly concerned about conditions in South Africa. Hon. members opposite must not tell me that they are not also concerned about it. I am convinced that they are. Therefore. I feel that we must review the present position soberly and put our house in order. It is no use saying this one or that one is responsible for the circumstances. The circumstances are there and we must combat them to the best of our ability. We realize that in this country we get threats such as those contained in this pamphlet, but we are also aware that it is not only in South Africa but in at least the whole of Africa that these circumstances prevail. There is a double-column article on the front page of to-night’s newspaper that 200 people, with pistols in their pockets, gathered in Nakura, in Kenya, yesterday to discuss the safety of the country. It is the same position in which South Africa finds herself, if not worse. We are in the same position as the rest of the Whites in Africa, in relation to the large numbers of Bantu. I want to plead that we consider this legislation soberly.

I wish to deal briefly with two principles of this legislation. The one is contained in Clause 4, in terms of which the Attorney-General may, when he deems it to be in the interest of the security of the public or the maintenance of public order, detain a person for a total of 12 days without allowing bail. I think there are obvious reasons for this, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the fact that it should rather be left to the court, and he asked why it could not be left to the court. Mr. Speaker, it is so obvious to me, and I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me, that if this is done it will defeat the whole object of the clause, namely, that, when one has to go to the court to determine what the bail should be and whether the person may be released on bail, then the court should at least be placed in a position to know what the person has done and then the actions and deeds of such a person are made public, and that is precisely what it is aimed at preventing. I, therefore, feel it will defeat the whole object of the clause if this is done.

Mention has been made of sub-clauses (5) and (6). The hon. member for Salt River put a whole series of questions to the hon. the Minister as to why this proviso should be effective for one year only. But in the same breath the hon. member says: We asked for this before in other legislation and you would not grant it. This again shows how inconsistent the Opposition is. They ask for it in certain circumstances, and when they get it in other circumstances they do not want it.

Now I wish to express a few opinions in connection with Clause 5. It deals with the jury system. In Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Act there is provision for various circumstances where the hon. the Minister may order that an accused person shall not be tried by a jury. All that is being done now is that two offences are being added, murder and arson. I do not regard this addition as being very serious. The hon. the Minister has in any case explained the circumstances and I do not want to elaborate on it but I want to say that in my opinion the jury system is useless. All hon. members who are lawyers will agree with me. We all believe that a judgment should be given on legal considerations and not on sentiment, and it so often happens in the case of a trial by jury that a sentimental argument is advanced to the jury which has not got a legal background.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! the hon. member must not discuss the jury system as such. It is irrelevant.

*Mr. MULLER:

The particular clause clearly provides that where in the case of these offences it was previously compulsory to give the offender the option of asking for a jury, the hon. the Minister may now determine that in certain circumstances—this does not mean to say he must do so—the offender can be denied that right. It is for that reason that I feel, with respect, that I am within the limits of my right to make this analysis.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Yes, the hon. member may discuss that aspect but not the jury system in general.

*Mr. MULLER:

I say it is not such a big inroad in any case, because I feel that the jury system is not so exalted. We heard from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that inroads are again being made on the rights of people because these offenders will no longer have the right to ask for a jury. I feel it is desirable and good and I want to go so far as to say that in all circumstances the courts should be based on legal men and legal judgments and not on sentiment or on a combination of laymen. The allegation has been made that this legislation is motivated by fear on the part of the Government and that it reveals weakness. I want to allege that this legislation is a clear indication of strength because it combats the circumstances which we foresee and because the Government has the courage to tackle it and to set it right before matters get too bad. The hon. the Minister said “prevention is better than cure”. I want to go further and ask that those people who are known to be agitators and inciters and who are the cause of these difficulties—we know how susceptable the people in this country are to incitement—be brought to book in good time. Only recently under the Justice Vote much was heard about the long treason trial, but if those people were not engaged in their trial then South Africa would have had more trouble long ago, because those people are the inciters. We know them Not only did we have them in this House but also in the Provincial Council where they incited feelings between White and non-White. I want to express my gratitude for this legislation which shows strength on the part of the Government because through this the Government is combating the trouble and wants to extinguish in advance the fire which it knows will come about.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

Mr. Speaker, there is no reasonable person in South Africa whose heart does not want to see law and order maintained and who is not prepared to help the Government of the day to see that that is done. But every well-informed person also realizes that if the overwhelming majority of the population of a country legitimately feels aggrieved and sincerely feels that it is being oppressed and humiliated, and as the result of that it revolts, no Government can for long handle the position with force and oppressive legislation. The mighty Britain has had experience of that in India, Ghana and Cyprus, just to mention a few of the most recent examples. By means of increasingly stricter laws and military force, and with the help of the police, it tried to apply a policy of banning, severer penalties and fuller prisons. Nehru spent 12 years of his life in prison; Nkrumah was behind bars for a long time, and Makarios was banned and locked up. To-day Nehru is the Prime Minister of India, Nkrumah is President of Ghana, and Makarios is President of Cyprus. The Hollanders had the same experience in Indonesia with Soekarno, and the French tried to follow the same policy in Algeria. They also wanted to govern a dissatisfied population by means of force; and now finally the strong man of France, President de Gaulle, has been compelled to come to terms politically with those who were dissatisfied. The point I want to make is this, that it has been proved time and again that a policy of violence, of “vasvat”, as the hon. the Minister calls it, has precisely the opposite effect from what it is intended to have.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

The Minister correctly stated that one cannot deal with this Bill in any other way than against the background of prevailing circumstances in the country.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

The hon. member should not deviate too far.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

I would like to reply to the Minister. The Minister had much to say about the possibilities of having unrest and violence in the country.

Mr. HUGHES:

On a point of order, the Minister in his second reading speech quoted from pamphlets and speeches made by Natives to show why this legislation was necessary. He told us what they intended doing. Now the hon. member wants to tell the Minister how he can counteract it. I submit that he is merely following the same line as the Minister.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

I would like to obey your ruling, Sir, and I will not cover a wider field than the Minister did.

*Dr. DE WET:

What seat is the United Party going to give you?

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

It is often necessary to take strict action, and I am not opposed in principle to a strict measure, but strictness, if it is necessary, can only succeed if it is accompanied by a policy which gives as much satisfaction as possible to as many members of the population as possible. And because the Government in this respect falls hopelessly short it has become impossible for the Opposition to support legislation of this nature any longer. For the last few years the Government came to this House year after year with requests for greater powers. Year after year they introduced new “vasvat” legislation. And in that process the freedoms of the citizen and the authority of the courts have been curtailed step by step and, as opposed to that, the powers of the Government and the authority of the police were extended step by step.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

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

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

Last year when the Government introduced the Unlawful Organizations Act …

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! That is not under discussion now.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

On a point of order, there have been repeated attempts to curtail the debate on this Bill and I think the hon. member is quite entitled to give the historical background of the Bill.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

The hon. member may continue.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

Sir, I can assure you that I will remain within the scope of what the Minister himself said in his introductory speech. I will not go beyond that.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss last year’s legislation.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

I am not discussing that….

Mr. LAWRENCE:

With respect, why not?

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member may continue.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

Last year the hon. the Minister asked for powers to deal with riots. I then warned him that unless the Government could bring about greater satisfaction in the sphere of policy and administration he would again have to ask for even more drastic powers in a year’s time, and that is precisely what is happening now. In spite of the powers granted to the Minister last year, the position in South Africa has not improved. Has anything been solved? Have we got more order? No, the Minister finds it necessary to come to Parliament and to say that the probabilities of disorder are greater than ever before. He must again ask for further powers. Indeed, the position has deteriorated to such an extent that the Government again has to introduce a panic Bill in which it takes further powers; and the result will just be more court cases, harsher action, more severe penalties and even fuller prisons, without there being the hope that it will solve a single problem. In the circumstances I have no alternative but to vote against this Bill. I shall vote against this Bill, and if I could have done so I would have done it with both hands.

*Dr. DE WET:

You will also ask for protection with both hands.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Mr. Speaker, will you not maintain order in this House?

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) ask whether you cannot keep order in this House?

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! Did the hon. member for Salt River say that?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I asked whether you would keep order in the House.

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member said that you could not keep order.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I did not say that.

Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

You did.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! If an hon. member says that he did not say it, then another hon. member must accept his word. The hon. member may continue.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

I feel compelled to vote against the Bill in the first place because I believe that the Government already has more than sufficient powers to cope with the position in the country. The Minister admitted it in his speech this afternoon in almost so many words. If he cannot handle the position with the powers he already has, one can come to only one conclusion, and that is that the Government is not able to prevent these troubles or to solve the problems of the country properly.

The second reason why I cannot vote for this Bill is that the Government has consistently shown that it has abused the drastic powers which were entrusted to it in good faith by Parliament. As one example, I want to mention the Suppression of Communism Act. I gave that Bill my wholehearted support because it was necessary. I still think it is necessary and I am still 100 per cent in favour of that Act, but what one must deplore is that lately this Act is being used by the Government in order to get rid of political opponents who have never been communists and who advocate precisely the opposite of Communism. That happens in regard to the implementation of other Acts also, and I think it has now become the duty of the Opposition to put its foot down and to refuse to grant the present Government any further powers which it can use to break down the form of the democracy on which our system of government in South Africa rests. The Opposition dare not accept co-responsibility for the erosion which democracy in South Africa is suffering under the present Government.

The third reason why I am opposed to the Bill—and this is really my main reason—is because this Bill does not really penetrate to the root of the evil which the Minister painted in his speech this afternoon. It neither prevents nor cures. We always had inciters, agitators and Native activists in this country. It is nothing new. Agitators in South Africa are as old as this Parliament itself. We even had an active Communist Party in South Africa for years, but in all that time they never succeeded in uniting the mass behind them. In fact, there has never been a strike or a riot in South Africa because of the franchise. They have always gone on strike or rioted about economic matters or irritating measures. In particular, those agitators never succeeded in getting the Coloureds solidly behind them. In spite of the agitators, the mass of Natives in South Africa has always been peaceful, and the Coloured community even more so. And to-day? Today the picture is different.

The Minister is quite correct when he says that the position is serious. The masses are being increasingly united behind the extremists, and increasingly the demands of the masses for economic improvements are changing into demands for political power. Nobody prevented this less and stimulated it more than this very Government, with all the unnecessarily irritating measures for which it was responsible in recent years. The Government has consistently refused to realize the danger. The Minister referred this afternoon to a meeting which was held on the Parade. He indicated what the Coloureds had said there. I take it he is aware of the mass meeting of Malays held in Cape Town last night. The Malays have always been fairly well disposed towards the Government. What happened at their meeting and what was decided there is, however, an indication of how the wind is blowing in South Africa at present. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Will he deny that the fact that the Coloureds are to-day co-operating with the Natives in opposition to the Government is the direct result of the Government itself and the measures passed by it? Will he deny that the real reason for it is not the demand for one man, one vote, but the inhuman application of the Group Areas Act and of job reservation?

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

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

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

This Bill solves nothing. It creates false confidence on the part of the public, and the chances are that it will rather worsen than improve the position. Unless the Government is prepared to let strictness—which may sometimes be necessary —go hand in hand with a policy which gives greater satisfaction, it will be quite impossible for me to support fruitless legislation such as this.

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

It has been pleasant to listen to-night to the leader of a future party discussing a Bill to-night and talking such nonsense. We have listened to the Progressives whom I have considered to be good debaters. One hon. member has asked: “How can the rule of law be an unruly horse if the law is an ass?” Then one of them said: “The law is a mule.” With the apologies to Disraeli I just want to say “But the Progressives are the mules of politics, obstinate animals that produce nothing”.

I now want to come back to the Bill. When one analyses it, Clause 1 is quite simple. In the first place the Minister says that he is going to withdraw the exemption in respect of permits for shotguns and .22 cartridges. That is to say, whereas these shotguns and .22 and shotgun cartridges could in the past circulate freely amongst all sections of the community—Natives, Indians and other non-Whites as well as certain irresponsible Whites—that will no longer be the position in future. The Minister is now restricting it. The Opposition says that this is a weakness in the legislation. In the first place, where is their moral obligation to the people of South Africa? Where is their ordinary common sense as normal citizens of the country? They are the people who plead for justice and for the protection of our own South African nation, English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking, as well as the non-White population. They want this position to continue whereby anyone can freely acquire shotguns and .22 cartridges and do what he likes with them so that smuggling can continue unhindered. That is the first point. I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition did not study the Bill before speaking. Hon. members have spoken in generalities, they have spoken …

*An HON. MEMBER:

What are you doing?

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

I am discussing the Bill. They have spoken about democracy and the various types of government which they want and “the right to rule by consent” and so on. It makes one wonder when they oppose democratic legislation such as this, whether the stage has not been reached where democracy is completely bankrupt in this country. Has democracy not been completely lost in this country? Has democracy not degenerated completely and should we not think of something quite different?

I now come to Clause 2 of the Bill. This deals with the general registration of all firearms. In 1937 general registration was asked for and the United Party placed the necessary legislation on the Statute Book. At that time it was a 100 per cent registration. No one complained about it, not even the then Opposition, but to-day it is wrong. To-day we should not know how many guns and how much ammunition there is in the country. We should not carry out a census of these firearms; we should not be able to ascertain where those fire-arms are. Hon. members say that an Act which makes such a provision is a bad Act. It should surely be clear to a school child that if one knows where the firearm is, then one knows in whose hands it is; and if that fire-arm is not in good hands, then one takes it; then one restricts the right to possess that fire-arm. If it is not a licensed fire-arm and it is in the possession of someone to whom it does not belong, then one takes that weapon away. If anyone who does not have the right to do so, possesses a firearm, then one surely knows that he is a wrong-doer or he is a person who does not have the right to possess that weapon, and one takes action against him. Then we will know that all the fire-arms in the country are in the hands of people who will be entitled to possess fire-arms. Why are the Opposition opposing this legislation? They do not want us to ascertain where those fire-arms are. They do not want us to ascertain in whose possession those fire-arms are. [Interjections.] Hon. members can now speak in a different vein, but they have moved an amendment which is hostile to the whole Bill; and consequently we must infer that they are opposed to this clause as well. They want to reject the whole Bill. As a result we can only come to one conclusion, namely that they want to leave these weapons in the hands of people who should not have those weapons. I think it is time the people of South Africa knew that. When one supports a Bill then one should say: I support these provisions or I do not support those provisions. One does not move an amendment which could result in the whole Bill being rejected because then one has ulterior motives. I accuse hon. members to-night of not wanting us to have the right to carry out a census of all the arms in the country; they do not want anyone to know where those arms are. They want guns to be allowed to circulate freely in the country so that there can be an unrestricted smuggling trade. They want these fire-arms to move from one person to another—from White to non-White—without anyone knowing about it, because if we cannot undertake this census, we shall not know where those fire-arms are. They can argue as they like, but they have said to-night that they oppose the Bill. They have moved two amendments and neither of these amendments is aimed at any particular clause, but are both aimed at rejecting the Bill as a whole.

*Mr. TUCKER:

The amendments have nothing to do with fire-arms.

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

Read the amendment. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said that all the words after “that” should be omitted, and where does the “that” appear? It appears before the Bill as a whole. With all due respect to the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) I want to point out that his leader has said: Reject the whole Bill. An hon. member of the Progressive Party has moved that the Bill should be read this day six months. That means that the Bill should not be read at all. Mr. Speaker, the implication is simply that they do not want the census to be carried out, because they do not want this Bill to pass. If they were in favour of a census they would after all have said: We shall allow these two clauses to pass but not the others. After all, one does not do something by implication. One says that one agrees with this provision or one does not agree with that provision, but one cannot oppose a provision by implication. Mr. Speaker, that is how we have come to know them. This is how they manoeuvre. They want to give the people the impression that they support this clause, but nevertheless they move amendments which would wreck the whole Bill. They are doing so by underhand methods.

I want to go further. Nor do they want those people who have weapons illegally in their possession to be unduly severely punished. No, the penalties are too high. They have had a great deal to say to-night and they have said that the penalties are too severe. We must not punish these people. But what happened in previous years? During the war years when our people did not want to hand over their weapons because they wanted to keep them so that they could defend themselves, then it was a different matter. To-day these same people who introduced those laws are advocating the very reverse. This is illogical. With all due respect to Disraeli, I say once again: The Progressive is the mule of politics, an obstinate animal that produces nothing.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

And you are the donkey of the National Party.

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

I may be the donkey, but I am still carrying my own weight.

Clause 4 deals with the question of bail. Let us now review the position. If difficulties arise and the police or the Defence Force arrest four or five hundred agitators and imprison them, then they cannot after all obtain all the necessary information within 48 hours and draw up the charge sheets in respect of all those people. They must have time to do so because in the meantime the agitation continues. I hold it very much against the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) that he has adopted the attitude he has. I want the country to know this. He is a responsible member who has been a Minister of Justice, although I no longer think he is so responsible to-day. I hold it very much against him that he opposes this provision and says that it is discriminatory and I don’t know what else. What will happen in such a position? There is trouble; one does not have time to try these people immediately but one only has 48 hours. If one has 12 days, it is far better.

Mr. R. A. F. SWART:

Why 12 days, why not 11?

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

What is the difference? [Interjections.] That hon. member who is a member of the Side Bar surely knows as well as I that it is impossible to collect all one’s evidence within 48 hours and to prepare one’s case if 50 or 60 people have been arrested. The police cannot do it. Many of these cases have to be postponed for days and weeks on end. When there are widespread disturbances in the country, hundreds of people are arrested and it is impossible to try all of them within 48 hours. One has to have time. The police and the Defence Force are engaged on quelling the riots which are taking place and which we assume may take place …

*Mr. LAWRENCE:

So!

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

They may take place. But the hon. member no longer believes anything. He only believes in the Ossewabrandwag because …

*Mr. LAWRENCE:

What do you know about the Ossewabrandwag?

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member for Salt River …

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Do you want to say something to me, Mr. Speaker?

*HON. MEMBERS:

Order, order!

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I am just listening to this boring hon. member, Sir.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order!

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

Allow me to say this, Mr. Speaker. During the war the hon. member for Salt River sat here; he was too afraid to go and fight and I had to go and fight for him.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Where did you fight?

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member for Salt River, I am addressing him. The hon. member for Salt River continues to disregard the authority of the Chair.

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member has interrupted me to such an extent that I cannot continue. I shall come back to the question of bail. If disturbances should take place …

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Are you a member of the Broederbond?

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member for Salt River must withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

You are a member of the Broederbond and now I shall leave the House.

Mr. Lawrence thereupon withdrew.

*Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Salt River entitled to make such a remark?

*Mr. H. H. SMIT:

On a point of order. While the hon. member for Salt River was leaving the House, he said: “You are a member of the Broederbond.” That is a reflection on the Chair.

Mr. RUSSELL:

Is the Broederbond then so bad?

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

You know what he meant.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member for Edenvale (Mr. G. H. van Wyk) may proceed.

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

In terms of Clause 4 the Attorney-General—and I believe that he will not do so in every case—can refuse bail and where it is essential that he should do so, he will make use of this power. I have given the example of disturbances. We hope that there will not be any disturbances. But assuming that there are disturbances, then people will have to be arrested and if they cannot be tried within 48 hours, they have to be released on bail. The result is that these people will go free and they will cause the same difficulties as before. Then they will be re-arrested and this will result in such confusion that one will not know where one is. As I have already said, it places the judiciary, the police and all the officials in an impossible position. We know what happens in those cases where a person is arrested over the week-end and he cannot be tried. Then he must be released on bail. Eventually he appears before the court and it takes days and weeks before the matter can be investigated. In the case of ordinary offences such a person does not go out on bail and then commit the same offence. However, in the case of this type of offence, such a person if released on bail will commit exactly the same offence. He will once again endanger the security of the country and he will continue to incite other people. I am very sorry that a member like the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) is opposing the legislation. I really think the hon. member has not done his homework because if he had done his homework and if his conscience was clean, he would not have opposed this Bill. Furthermore, he has only adopted this attitude in order to establish his little party which was stillborn because all its roots have already died.

The hon. the Minister has referred to the case of Rex v. Shaw in 1920 (T.P.D.). The Minister has mentioned three cases, but this one in particular, in which after the prosecutor had urged that the person concerned should not be released on bail because his actions had endangered the safety of the public, the Judge found that he could allow bail although the man’s actions had endangered the safety of the public. For that reason it is essential that he should adopt this clause, because the courts will find—there is no precedent and legislation is required—that they cannot detain a man if his actions have endangered the safety of the public of the country and that he must therefore be released on bail.

I now come to Clause 6. Take the case of Luthuli and other agitators. They have been banned and they may not appear at meetings. They sit at home but they write pamphlets and they record speeches and these records are played at meetings. The result is that the propaganda continues. This is another provision which hon. members are opposing. They want such a person to have freedom of movement and freedom of speech. We know after all that although such persons cannot move freely, they are continuing with their propaganda, as I have already said, by means of pamphlets and recorded speeches. These activities are being restricted, but why are they opposed to this provision?

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

Which clause is that?

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

Clause 6. They are now fighting for the freedom of the agitator, so that he can continue to do just what he likes.

Clause 7 deals with penalties. Hon. members are now complaining and they are saying that a penalty of R200 is too high and that one year’s imprisonment is excessive. I am sorry that we have not made the penalty higher and the period of imprisonment a little longer. Only when a man has been effectively punished will he realize that he has done wrong. They claim that the National Party is trying to pass discriminatory legislation and that we want to intimidate people, but that is not the position. The National Party is trying to work with the Native, the Coloured and all sections of the White population and wants to allow them as much freedom as possible. However, when a person acts wrongly, he must be restricted and he must be severely punished. If one does not chastise one’s child properly, he will not grow up a good child. If one does not effectively punish a disobedient person who is living with one in the same country, then he will not become a law-abiding citizen. The position is that they do not want us to punish such people. We must let these people go unscathed so that they can move freely and do what they like. This brings me to the final clause, namely Clause 8. In the past, when a person intimidated another person, he was guilty of an offence under the Riotous Assemblies Act. We now have the case where one person says to another: “If you do not see to it that that person does not go to work, I shall cut your throat.” He could not be found guilty under any Act; that intimidation could continue. We are now trying to provide protection to people who are being victimized by agitators. We are trying to restrict the activities of the latter. Why are hon. members opposing this provision? Do they support those people or do they not? They cannot tell us that they are opposed to the National Party. These matters are of national importance and the White people of South Africa will call them to account. I am convinced that not one of them sitting here to-night can state with a clear conscience that he opposes this legislation …

*Dr. DE BEER:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to refer to hon. members on this side of the House as “them” (hulle)?

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

I mean “hon. members”. Sir, I did not mean to be disrespectful. It was merely a slip of the tongue. I want to say once again that if hon. members want to clear their consciences they will support this Bill. Hon. members know that everywhere in the country, in the Transvaal, the Free State, South West, the Cape and Natal, the people know that the National Party stands for the safeguarding of the White man as well as of the non-White of this country. They can put forward their various arguments, as the hon. member for Salt River has done—I am sorry he has been ordered out—they can make submissions and they can vilify, but they will pay the price and none other than the people of South Africa will make them pay that price.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

The hon. member for Edenvale (Mr. G. H. van Wyk) said that we oppose the clause in regard to fire-arms. He is under a misapprehension and I do not intend to deal with that point.

As far as the question of bail is concerned, I intend to deal with that point in some detail in the course of my speech.

Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to the increased powers taken in this Bill, as has already been indicated. We believe that these extra powers will not help to stop the deterioration which has been going on in the situation in South Africa. The powers which the hon. the Minister and his colleagues have taken in previous years have not helped to stop that deterioration, and nor will this. What is needed is not more powers but some attempt to cure the root causes of to-day’s troubles.

Coming to the clauses of the Bill, I want to deal first of all with the bail clause, Clause 4 of the Bill. I think it is agreed on all sides that it is undesirable that a person should be detained before trial unless there are cogent reasons for it. Until now bail has been refused for only two reasons, firstly, if the judicial officer felt that the accused might abscond and not stand his trial, and secondly, if there was a danger that he might interfere with witnesses. Now it is proposed to change the system in two ways; firstly, it is intended to make the safety of the public and the maintenance of public order a ground for refusing bail, and secondly, the hon. the Minister proposes to give the Attorney-General in each province the decision to decide whether bail should be refused or not, at any rate, for a period of 12 days. As regards the first, namely making the public safety a reason for refusing bail to an individual, the fact that this power is asked for is an indication that we have reached a very serious state of affairs, that is if people who are arrested on a charge and who obtain bail are prepared to go out immediately and commit the same offence. Because that is what the hon. the Minister is afraid of. It suggests a state of frustration with the law which is very serious indeed. Secondly, as to whether the decision to refuse bail should lie with the Attorney-General …

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I said that this is still a step this side declaring a period of emergency.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

Yes, that is so, but clearly the declaration of a state of emergency is something we object to violently as well.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

You know that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that I should rather declare a state of emergency.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

That is not our concern. We are clearly opposed to the declaration of a state of emergency. We hope that it won’t become necessary. Quite irrespective of that, we feel that this kind of power is undesirable. As regards the second question as to whether the decision to refuse bail should lie with the Attorney-General or not, I submit that the hon. the Minister has not made out a case for leaving this decision with the Attorney-General. The system of leaving the curtailment of a right such as personal liberty to an official is undesirable. There has been some argument as to what is meant by Rule of Law, but clearly this kind of provision which gives an official of the Government the right to curtail liberty without taking the matter to the courts is a curtailment of the Rule of Law. It is quite clear that the Rule of Law as originally posed by Dicey has not been maintained, but what we do attempt to maintain—and that applies to every civilized country—is the system of the Rule of Law as far as it can be maintained. It is clear that certain decisions must be taken by administrative tribunals, decisions which originally were left entirely to the courts and which, where it is possible, should still be left to the courts. I think what is important to-day is that while we must admit that the Rule of Law as originally evisaged is not being maintained, nevertheless we should maintain it as far as possible. This provision which gives the Attorney-General the decision whether to refuse bail or not is a further inroad on that principle. It is undesirable for a number of reasons. For one, the accused person has no opportunity of being heard. It is an infringement therefore of the principle of audi alteram partem. Up till now the prosecutor has had to adduce reasons to the magistrate why bail should be refused and the accused person has been entitled to be represented by counsel, or by a legal representative, and to contradict those reasons and to give evidence. It is a valuable right to be represented in this kind of inquiry by a legal representative. Now the decision is to be taken behind doors and the person taking the decision does not have to give reasons of any kind. Moreover he is a person who is directly concerned in the case. He is one of the parties to every criminal case. So that not only does he not have to give reasons, but he cannot give the matter that objective approach which is fundamental in any judicial inquiry. There is a further point which I wish to raise in connection with this clause. I want to ask the hon. the Minister about the use of the words “or otherwise” in this clause. Sub-section (1) of the proposed Section 108bis gives the Attorney-General the right to refuse bail and to order that the person shall not be released on bail or otherwise before the expiration of a certain period. I should like the hon. the Minister in his reply to deal a little more thoroughly with the meaning of the words “or otherwise”,

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I shall do so.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

The question I want to put to him is this: Does the hon. the Minister mean that the accused person need not be released even though he is not brought before a judicial officer at all? Need he not be charged within the period of 12 days? You see, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister spoke of the difficulty of bringing charges against people, and he also spoke of the period of 48 hours. That period of 48 hours is used in the present Act in relation to persons who are arrested without a warrant.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

It simply means that a person can be released on his own cognizance.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

On his own cognizance. Why did the hon. the Minister speak then of the difficulty of charging people immediately? I cannot see where that point is relevant to Clause 4. Yet in speaking about Clause 4, the hon. the Minister referred to the difficulty of charging people.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

That is not the case we are concerned with here. I said that it was difficult to obtain the information. So it takes a long time.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

Yes, but how does that affect the question of bail? Why is it necessary to refuse bail merely because it may take some time to charge a person?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Very elementary, my dear Watson.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

Perhaps the hon. the Minister will deal with it a little bit more fully in his reply, because the whole essence of this provision is that the Attorney-General may, if he considers it necessary in the interests of the safety of the public, refuse bail. How does that concern the difficulty of framing a charge? I cannot see that the two things are related at all. I still ask the hon. the Minister whether this particular power will be used to detain people for 12 days without bringing a charge.

Getting on to the clause relating to the jury, Clause 5 of the Bill, I think the hon. the Minister has made one point which merits consideration, and that is that if there are going to be long and complicated murder trials, which involve a large number of accused, it may be that the system of trial by Judge and assessors is a more convenient method of trial than trial by Judge with jury. Nevertheless there are two aspects which worry me. In this Bill the cases of murder and arson are now included in the type of case which the hon. the Minister may order to be heard by a Judge without a jury, and there is provision in another section of the Act which states that it is no longer necessary to have assessors sitting with the Judge. To me it seems most undesirable that in serious cases such as murder cases a Judge should be able to sit on his own. I know it is not frequently done, although it has been done—I have experienced it myself. But particularly in the kind of serious case the hon. the Minister has in mind, it is most undesirable that a Judge should sit without assessors. We should be very much happier if there were some safeguard in the Bill which prevented that happening.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

To-day the accused has the right to appear before a Judge without assessors. They often exercise this right.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

Nevertheless they have the right to demand a jury.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Or the contrary. They can appear before a Judge without a jury.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

Yes, but at present the accused has the right to demand a jury, and the hon. the Minister is taking away that right. What is more …

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

For a specific period for a specific purpose.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

The limited period does not appear to be of very great importance in this respect—in fact I don’t think that in this case the period is limited. Whereas the operation of Clause 4 is limited, the operation of Clause 5 is not limited in point of time. Therefore this is not just for a specific time. This is a permanent provision of our law. But as to the specific purpose, there too I assume —because this was the reason given by the hon. the Minister—that it is for the kind of trial that has been going on in Pondoland and in Sekeukuniland where a large number of accused are involved.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

That is correct. I explained why.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

If that is the purpose for which the hon. the Minister wants this power, we would be much happier to see some safeguard in the Bill which requires a Judge to sit with assessors and not alone in serious cases of murder and arson. That is the one aspect about which I am disturbed.

The second point is this: I am prepared to support a further limited inroad on the right of accused persons to choose juries only while we have Judges of the standard which we have to-day. Originally the jury system was a safeguard of freedom in days when Judges were under the control of a monarch or government. That is not so to-day, but nevertheless it is essential if we are to do away with juries that we should have Judges who are independent and of high standard. During this week I put a question on the Order Paper which the hon. the Minister answered, in which I asked whether he was considering the appointment of Judges from the ranks of magistrates. The answer which the hon. the Minister gave was not a denial. He said that each case would be considered on its merits. When the hon. member for Salt River raised this question again this afternoon, the hon. the Minister appeared to indicate that he was not considering the appointment of magistrates.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I clearly said that I was carrying out the existing practice.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

Which is not to appoint Judges from the ranks of magistrates. I should like to clear up this point, because it is a point which is disturbing the minds of many people.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I said that in the past Judges have not always been appointed from the Bar.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

It is correct that there have been exceptions where people have been appointed to the Bench from outside.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

That is why I said that I was carrying out the existing practice.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

The point I want to make is more specific than that. Recently, as was indicated in the reply that the hon. the Minister gave to my question on Tuesday, a senior magistrate of Johannesburg was made a silk and the question has arisen as to whether the hon. the Minister is considering the appointment of Judges from the ranks of the magistrates.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I dealt with all that under my Vote. Are we going to repeat this all over again?

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

Apparently we did not get a straight answer from the hon. the Minister, with all respect. The hon. the Minister does not appear to be prepared to give an unequivocal assurance that he is not considering the appointment of Judges from the ranks of magistrates. Under those circumstances I wish to say that we are disturbed about the inroads upon the right to trial by jury. If we were to be assured of Judges of a high standard, who are independent, then I think the inroad on the right of an accused person to choose jury trial would be less serious, but unless the hon. the Minister can assure us that we shall have independent Judges of the same standard as we have today, then we are disturbed about any further inroad on the right of choice of a jury trial.

Coming to the amendments to the Riotous Assemblies Act, there are important extensions of that Act contained in the amending Bill. I want to refer firstly to Clause 7 of the Bill which relates to meetings which are prohibited in terms of the Riotous Assemblies Act. The position at present is that whenever a public gathering, the assembly of which has been prohibited under Section 2, has assembled in a public place, or alternatively where people have assembled quite lawfully but the meeting has become disorderly and an intention is shown of killing or seriously injuring people or doing serious damage to property, then, as the law at present is, a police officer of the rank of inspector or captain or higher may call upon the persons assembled to disperse. Now the proposal is that it shall not be necessary to have a police officer of the rank of inspector or captain but that a head constable may assume this duty, and also if within the time in which he orders the dispersal of the gathering, people do not disperse, then again where previously it was within the power of a captain or inspector to order the use of force to disperse the gathering, now a head constable may assume that duty. We regard it as undesirable that this very responsible decision should be placed in the hands of a head constable. Here too I do not think that the hon. the Minister has made out a case for allowing a head constable to take over these powers.

Mr. PELSER:

Why not?

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

Because it is a most important power to order the dispersal of persons and if the persons do not disperse within a short time, to order the use of force, if necessary even the use of firearms. The dispersal of a gathering which may be excited is a most responsible job. The inquiries into the events of Sharpeville and Langa last year, have shown how tricky the situation can be, how cool a judgment is necessary to deal with such a situation, and the evidence which was led in those two inquiries, shows that even senior officers may not handle the situation as we would like. Now it is intended to give this power to a more junior officer of the police and we regard it as undesirable. By contrast the march to Cape Town which culminated in the gathering of people outside the police station at Caledon Square was extremely well handled, but it was handled so well only because of the ability and cool judgment of the officer in charge. We feel that it is undesirable that a head constable should be given these powers and this responsibility. In Clause 6 of the Bill, also dealing with the Riotous Assemblies Act, there is a further extension of the Act. At present the prohibition contained in Section 2 of the Riotous Assemblies Act gives a magistrate the power to prohibit public gatherings in public places and sub-section (4) of the section says that “any person who, after the prohibition in terms of this section, of the assembly of a public gathering and in contravention thereof, convenes, presides at or addresses; or prints, publishes, distributes; or, in any manner whatever, circulates a notice convening a public gathering”… shall be guilty of an offence. Up to now the offence has only been committed by persons who took an active part in the organization of the meeting, either by presiding at the meeting or by circulating notices of the meeting. Now the section is to go very much further. It will now include persons who in any way make known the meeting, or in any way encourage people to go to the meeting, and again the penalties for an offence under the section are drastically increased. Also in relation to the other amending clause of this Bill, Clause 8, which amends Section 10 of the Riotous Assemblies Act, there is a further extension of the Riotous Assemblies Act which again attempts to plug a loophole in the existing Act and again increases the penalties for offences under it. We believe that this continual extension of the Act which already curtails freedoms and liberties, and which gives further powers to the Government, is undesirable. If it were shown by the Government that such provisions in any way helped to improve the present position, we should hesitate to oppose it, but the fact is that year after year we get further powers without in any way stopping the deterioration of the present position. That is why we on these benches will oppose this Bill as we have opposed other similar Bills in the past. We believe that it is now urgently necessary to eliminate the root causes of the trouble in South Africa. Merely to go on increasing the powers of the Government is not going to stop the rot. Therefore we shall oppose this Bill.

Mr. TUCKER:

I would like to say that I hope that it won’t be very long before the day comes that instead of opposing legislation which is reducing the area of freedom, I will have the pleasure of supporting legislation which enlarges the area of freedom in South Africa. Sir, I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe that it is a cause for deep regret that he should have found it necessary to come with this legislation at this late stage, and apparently legislation which is designed to deal with happenings which he fears might take place in the immediate future, and I would like to say to him that I believe that the worst time to have legislation before this honourable House is at such a time. I believe that if legislation is necessary, it is the duty of the Government to bring that legislation at a time when the circumstances are such that we can debate it calmly and quietly on the merits of the legislation, and we don’t have, Sir, the attitude which we have seen during this debate. I am glad the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) is here because various of his interjections showed quite clearly the spirit in which some of hon. members on the other side are considering the legislation which is before this House. The hon. member for example during this debate in my hearing (I doubt very much whether it reached to you, Sir) made such remarks as “Dit is ’n wet vir skurke”.

Mr. G. F. H. BEKKER:

Yes.

Mr. TUCKER:

That is not the sort of spirit in which we should deal with legislation which comes before this honourable House. That is not the only sort of interjection the hon. member made. When another hon. member on this side of the House was speaking, he said “Dit is net vir skelms, man!”, and then the worst interjection that was made by the hon. member and one of which I hope he is thoroughly ashamed was “Ons het net te doen met kaffers”. I do submit that interruptions of that sort show how necessary it is that the Government when legislation is necessary, should bring that legislation before this House at the right time and not in the atmosphere that we have had from some hon. members opposite during this debate. Sir, I wish to deal briefly with the provisions of Clause 2. The hon. member for Edenvale suggested that that provision is opposed. Sir, the amendment which was moved by my honourable Leader shows quite clearly that that is not one of the provisions on account of which this Bill is being opposed at the present time. I would like to say to the hon. the Minister in regard to that provision that I hope he will be prepared to give this House the assurance in his reply to the second reading debate that it is intended that all of the sub-paragraphs of the proposed new 4bis contained in Clause 2 of the Bill, that is paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) will be the subject of one regulation, in other words that the regulation will deal comprehensively with this matter as is the case in this Bill. I have not fully considered the matter, but it does appear to me that it would be possible to issue regulations which deal only with some of these matters, and I don’t think that that would be the right way to deal with the matter. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us the assurance that any regulation which it is proposed to issue in terms of that section will be comprehensive and it will all be part of the same proclamation and brought into force at the same time.

I wish to deal further with Clause 4 of the Bill, the powers of the Attorney-General to prohibit release on bail or otherwise, and I wish to submit to this House and to the hon. the Minister that he was wrong when he dealt with this matter, that his view of the meaning of sub-section (1) was not correct. The hon. the Minister interjected while the point was being raised by the hon. member for East London (North) that the words “or otherwise” dealt with the case where a person was released on his own cognizances. I accept from the hon. the Minister that that is his intention, and if that is his intention, then I hope he will be prepared, if this Bill passes the second reading (I hope he will withdraw it in view of the case put up against it) to accept an amendment in Committee which will make it clear that that is the meaning of “or otherwise”. On the plain meaning of the clause and of the words “or otherwise” it is quite obvious that under the provisions of this clause it would be competent to keep a person incarcerated even if he had been found not guilty by the court before the 12 days had expired. That is clearly within the plain meaning of the clause, and I raise the matter now that the hon. the Minister may give the matter some consideration, and I hope that in reply to the second reading he will be prepared to give the assurance that he will see that this particular provision is amended in the Committee Stage in order to exclude the interpretation which I have mentioned and which clearly is a possible interpretation of the clause under consideration.

The hon. the Minister has said that this is temporary legislation. In other words, the provisions of sub-section (4) are to be on the Statute Book only until 1 June 1962 and that they may be extended by the House by a resolution from time to time. I hope that the Minister by that means that it is not intended to renew this. But of course the fact is that it can be extended from time to time, and the fact that this radical power is being taken is something which obviously we must all regret, and I hope that even now the hon. the Minister will be prepared in regard to this provision to make it of an even more temporary nature. Sir, it is a grave inroad on the rights of the individual for this power to grant bail to be taken away. I think it is one of the fundamental provisions of our law and certainly the fundamental conception underlying our law that a man is innocent until he has been proved guilty before the courts of the land. It is in those circumstances that in all seriousness I put it to the hon. the Minister that this provision is a most undesirable one and that I don’t believe the hon. the Minister or any of his many colleagues who have entered this debate gave one single valid reason why this particular power should be placed in the hands of the Attorney-General. But I go further: The point is made that this in effect places powers in the hands of the Minister and I wish to submit that in fact is the case. Although Clause 4 which refers to the proposed sub-section 108bis refers to the powers of the Attorney-General, it is a provision included in our Criminal Procedure Act of 1955, once this Bill is passed into law, and I would like to refer the hon the Minister to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act which show quite clearly that the Attorneys-General fulfil their functions not only subject to appeal to the hon. the Minister, but under the direction of the Minister.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

That goes back much further, to 1927. I do not deny that.

Mr. TUCKER:

I am glad that the hon. the Minister does not deny that, because the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) did maintain that the Minister has not the right to intervene in these matters.

At 10.25 p.m., the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned until 9 May.

The House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.