Order! I have now had an opportunity to consider the various instructions of which notice was given yesterday.

I have to inform the House that I cannot accept the notices of instructions Nos. 1 to 4, standing in the names of the hon. members for Houghton, Berea, Bryanston and Pine-lands, as they seek to empower the Committee of the Whole House to effect amendments which are in conflict with the principles of the Bill as read a Second Time.

The implementation of the notice of instruction No. 5 standing in the name of the hon. member for Hillbrow will involve expenditure and accordingly requires a State President’s recommendation. I can therefore not accept this notice either.

The notices to which I have referred will accordingly be discharged from the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the House has made very good progress in dealing with the Order Paper, and also in response to representations received from all the Whips of parties in this House that with a view to the debate on Monday, we should give consideration to not sitting tomorrow, the matter has been considered and I now move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, during the Committee Stage I intimated that during the Third Reading stage I would return to certain personal remarks the hon. the Minister made about me. I should therefore like to take this opportunity to do so. I should also like hon. members to be clear in their minds as to exactly what I said. In my speech during the Second Reading stage I said that I regretted having to say so, but the image which the hon. the Minister, the department and the Administration Boards had among the Blacks was that they forced the Blacks to go to court for the paltriest concession. I went on to say that this was the department which was, in the first instance, supposed to serve not the interests of the Whites nor the interests of law and order but the interests of the Blacks. I added that without a shadow of a doubt the majority of the Blacks in our urban areas did not regard the department as their friend, and that was why the image that was being created in their minds was that every time they wanted to establish a right they first had to go to court so that the court could confirm that they did have that right. As examples of this I referred to the decisions in the Komani and Yapi cases. Further on in my speech I said the following (Hansard, 8 August 1983)—

I then went on to say—

Mr. Chairman, what I was in fact discussing was the image existing among Black people of the Administration Boards and of the department, and of the behaviour of the officials of the Administration Boards and of the department. That is what I was discussing. But how did the hon. the Minister interpret it? He levelled an accusation at me, inter alia, by saying that what I had said only served to cast suspicion on the department and its officials.

But I did not discuss the department and its officials at all. I discussed the image existing among Black people of the department and its officials. That is what I was talking about. I also discussed the image they had of the hon. the Minister himself.

However, in his reply the hon. the Minister addressed me in the following words (Hansard, 9 August)—

I did not denigrate people. The hon. the Minister said I denigrated them. He went on to say—

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I take the strongest exception to what the hon. the Minister said to me here. The hon. the Minister will still have to convince me that I abused the privilege of this House with a view to attacking people. What he said is not correct and for that reason I feel the hon. the Minister owes me an apology. If I had in fact disparaged specific people here, people who are not here to defend themselves, then the hon. the Minister’s statement would have been correct. However, I referred to an image existing among Black people of the department, the Administration Boards and the officials. Those officials and those institutions are represented here in this House by the hon. the Minister, and he can therefore defend them as much as he likes. However, he does not have the right to tell me that I abused my parliamentary privilege in order to attack people. That is not correct. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that this is not the kind of debate we should hold across the floor of this House. As a member of this Parliament I have every right to say that I am convinced that an image exists among people in connection with what any department of this Government does. I have every right to do so and it certainly does not cast a reflection on officials and individuals. If the hon. the Minister wanted to attack me he could simply have said: Look, your impression of the image is incorrect. It is not true that Blacks have that image of the Administration Boards and the department. The hon. the Minister could also have said: Look, I dispute your statement. However, he did not do so. He launched an attack on me and he accused me of abusing the rights of this Parliament and my position in this House. I did not expect this from the hon. the Minister. This is not the way in which we can hold a meaningful debate in this House. All I can tell the hon. the Minister is that if he feels my interpretation of the image that exists among Blacks in connection with the Administration Boards and the department is incorrect, then he has organizations at his disposal, the HSRC and other organizations that can carry out proper and objective research to ascertain whether I am correct when I say that this is the image that exists among those people.

Yesterday the hon. the Minister admitted I was right when he referred to the functions of Administration Boards and the matter of influx control. The hon. the Minister referred to those matters which made them unpopular. If the hon. the Minister himself says that these people are applying measures which make them unpopular among the Blacks then it goes without saying that the Blacks themselves will develop a specific image in connection with the Administration Boards and the department. Why he therefore attacked me is beyond my comprehension for he himself confirmed this when he discussed the unpopular measures the officials and the Administration Boards have to take. I repeat that I did not expect this of the hon. the Minister because he is well aware that I have the greatest appreciation for some of his officials. He is well aware that I am aware that there were some officials in the department who had not always co-operated with him. He has said so himself. I was not referring to any specific officials. I still have the greatest praise and appreciation for many of those officials. For his information, although I am sure he is aware of this, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I was even an official in that department for a while. I am therefore not referring to the department as a whole. In the course of my life I have met some of those officials and have come to know them as people who indeed made the greatest sacrifices and who did their work with dedication. I was discussing urban Blacks and the image that exists among them. I want to repeat that if the hon. the Minister feels my image is incorrect he has every right to say: Look, I undertake to investigate that statement.

I want to go a step further. I feel in all honesty that I am not making such a statement without having reasonable grounds for doing so. I am saying this in all honesty. I also want to say that if the hon. the Minister really doubts my words then I repeat that it is his duty to find out whether my view of the image that exists among urban Blacks is not perhaps correct. It is his duty to take steps to find out whether or not that image is correct. That is all I have to say to the hon. the Minister.

I now want to return to the Bill. We have already discussed the provisions of this Bill in detail both during the Second Reading debate and during the Committee Stage but there have been no material changes to reduce our resistance to the Bill. I do not want to repeat all the arguments again. There were two aspects of the debate in particular which disappointed me.

The one aspect was that, except in very general terms, the hon. the Minister gave no indication that the Government was really going to get to grips with the matter of the backlog as far as Black housing is concerned in a way which will make an impression on that backlog. Since we are now discussing the matter of the admission of the families of people who are now classified under section 10(1)(b)—this is what the hon. member for Houghton and I also said—whose fault is it that that backlog in Black housing developed in our urban areas?

I expected the hon. the Minister to take the opportunity to tell this House: Look, this is what we intend to do during the next four or five years as far as Black housing is concerned. Possibly there are plans, but then I want to ask the hon. the Minister to inform us of such plans. It is no use his simply saying that the Government will not allow people who do not have accommodation to enter the urban areas. That is not good enough. I have already told the hon. the Minister that we are aware of the existing growth in housing, but I expect the hon. the Minister as the Minister responsible for this department also to tell us what his plans are in connection with the provision of housing to Blacks in the urban areas in view of the growing problem confronting us.

The second point I wish to deal with and in connection with which I wish to express my disappointment is the handling of the Moutse case within the framework of the Bill under discussion. The hon. the Minister will not take it amiss of me if I say that the impression was created—I regret having to say this—is that if we had not extracted the information from the hon. the Minister, like trying to milk a dry cow, as to what the facts of the matter were, we would not have been told the facts. I regret having to say this, but this is the impression I got. [Interjections.] I am glad the hon. the Minister then gave us the facts, but a Bill has been introduced here. The hon. the Minister made his introductory speech. His Second Reading speech sounded innocent enough, but he remained silent on the really controversial aspects—I am now referring to Moutse. He also remained silent on the problems he had with the Government of Lebowa, on the agreement between Dr. Phatudi and the hon. the Prime Minister.

If you had read my first speech, you would have seen that I repeated what I had said there. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister is quite right, but he never got around to the real points in that introductory speech.

I am dealing with a cow that is incapable of giving milk.

Is the hon. the Minister now referring to the kwaNdebele homeland? If we are to have a useful debate in this House, if this side is expected to make a constructive contribution, it is the duty of the hon. the Minister who has to explain a Bill to this House to do so properly as regards all the controversial elements. I am very sorry that the hon. the Minister has not, in my honest opinion, done what I consider to be his normal parliamentary duty. [Interjections.] I am sorry that the hon. the Minister did not do so, because I think he tarnished his image as a result. One was initially tempted to think that the hon. the Minister lacked integrity. I use the words, initially tempted, for why did he not inform this House of the real issues which led to certain measures being incorporated in this Bill? I am referring to the measures affecting the Economic Development Corporation and the clauses pertaining to Moutse, Why did he not tell us this straight out? Why did he only give us the particulars later? The impression was created, in view of the Ingwavuma judgement as well, that it was an attempt to circumvent the Appeal Court’s judgement by passing a law in this parliament. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister did not give us the information in the first place.

I just want to reaffirm that as far as this side of the House is concerned there are three fundamental points on which we differ with this part of the Government’s policy. I want to reiterate this. In the first place, we are not in favour of the creation of independent Black States. The hon. the Minister can become as lyrical as he likes about the Ndebele, their national aspirations and so on, but the creation of an independent kwaNdebele is not going to solve anything, in the same way that the creation of the other independent States did not solve anything. It did not lessen the intensity of our problem. The hon. the Minister can kick up as much fuss as he likes about the strong national pride the Ndebele are supposed to have and so on, but this is not going to contribute one iota towards solving our problems. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation can shake his head if he likes; he knows I am correct.

I cannot believe what I am hearing.

He cannot tell us that on the basis of the kwaNdebele matter we have, for example, to be satisfied with the whole question of the excision of Moutse From Lebowa or the purchase of land to bring about consolidation. What for? If we had accepted the normal situation as it was, all this would have been unnecessary.

Just look how happy they are in the Ciskei and the Transkei.

Yes, very happy! They have no problems!

They are shooting at each other.

Venda, Ciskei, Transkei—they are all wonderful! These are the ideal States we have helped to create here, with all the enthusiasm the hon. the Minister himself displayed.

The second principle I want to make clear is that we on this side of the House will not under any circumstances approve the enforced movement of people. We have stated that principle time and again.

The third principle I want to state is that we shall not under any circumstances defend or approve of people being placed against their will under the authority of a Government they do not want to be under.

But you want to do that to the Whites.

I feel those three principles are fundamental principles on this side of the House on which we are not prepared to compromise. For that reason the hon. the Minister can understand why we also opposing the Third Reading of this Bill.

There is a final matter I want to touch on. I am not anxious to interfere in the debate between the NP and the CP. In particular I am not interested in knowing who entered upon Dr. Verwoerd’s heritage. As far as I am concerned, they can both have it, along with the policy Dr. Verwoerd adopted and what he did to this country. If the NP say “We have entered upon Dr. Verwoerd’s heritage”, all I have to say is “Good luck to you”. If the CP say they have, well then good luck to them. As far as I am concerned, it is irrelevant, and I honestly want to say that I would not even be proud to accept as a heritage many of the things the late Dr. Verwoerd did in and to this country of ours. [Interjections.] I say this in all honesty. However, I shall not pursue the matter. I have said that I do not want to enter this debate. However, while listening to this debate there were two things which struck me. The first was that the Government had not yet decided which course it was following.

That is very true!

As for the CP, they do not even have a course to follow. However, I shall not pursue this matter. The Government is revealing an ambivalent attitude. One moment they are as liberal as it is possible to be, and the next they are more verkramp than the CP. As long as the NP and the Government do not know what they want to do and are thrown into confusion time and again by these friends of mine to my left, and as long as it appears time and again that what they are afraid of is the further strengthening of the right wing, the Government is going to become increasingly inefficient and will be less and less able to deal with the fundamental problems of our country.

My friends on my left can deny this and use fine-sounding words, but I have never before come across such a bunch of racists. I am saying this in all honesty. They use persuasive language and try to deny this, but the basis of their policy …

If you are calling me a racist, then you are a renegade.

I am not passing a personal remark about the hon. member for Langlaagte. The basis of their policy is naked racism. The CP are the children of the NP.

Of the NP, yes, but not the children of those people.

They are the creatures of the NP.

What was the entire debate on urbanization yesterday concerned with? It was, inter alia, concerned with one principal concept, namely the Black man’s land and the White man’s land. They referred to Black South Africa and White South Africa. According to this definition it is a disaster if there are Blacks in White South Africa. There may not be any form of concerted action in White South Africa. There has to be influx control and Blacks should not be allowed into the cities. This arises from an ideology which I believe is still subscribed to by a great many members of the NP.

85%.

I am now referring to the distinction we draw between Black South Africa and White South Africa. I have stated repeatedly that that concept is, historically speaking, completely unethical. There are no historic grounds for that concept. It was a creation to justify the apartheid policy of the NP. Now one can see what this gave rise to. Now one can see the excrescences, if I can use the word, to which this concept has given rise in terms of policy. Therein lies the fundamental error of reasoning which led to our being able to speak about Black South Africa and White South Africa. There is no such a thing. As long as the NP adheres to that ambivalent standpoint, namely that there is a Black South Africa and a White South Africa, it will not be able really to overcome the problems facing us.

We have heard about homelands for Coloureds. I just want to point out that the Black peoples existed long before the Whites arrived in South Africa. The Coloureds arrived with us in the sense—and I am now merely repeating what Dr. van der Ross said—that nine months after Jan van Riebeeck landed here, there were Coloureds in this country. Those Coloureds were offshoots of the Whites and, to a certain extent, sprang from the loins of the Whites.

Also from the loins of the Blacks and the Khoisan.

Yes, but I said many of them. How one can think of the Coloureds in the same way as one thinks of the Blacks is beyond my comprehension. And to speak about a Coloured homeland! I do not want to waste my time now. Until the NP Government has decided once and for all—and I am saying this in all earnestness—in which direction it wishes to move, it will simply provide further support for the propaganda of hon. members on my left.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Prof. Olivier made a few outrageous statements, the most flagrant being the fact that the CP had broken away from us because of our indifference. In no way do I want to be associated with that. [Interjections.] It is an outrageous statement that I do believe the hon. member meant in lighter vein. I should like to quote, to the hon. member Prof. Olivier, an extract reflecting what Don Quixote said—

It was with complete certainty and confidence that the hon. member paraded his “extravagancies” for us. I am, however, saying this in lighter vein.

We listened to a speech which, in actual fact, had very little to do with the Bill before us. It was with feeling that the hon. member stated the PFP’s complete opposition to the forced removal of people. I should like to know where in the Bill the hon. member sees anything relating to forced removal. I cannot see it mentioned anywhere in the Bill. I think this is a Bill which ought to have the blessing of that hon. member and his party, and also any right-minded hon. members of the CP. because it embodies aspects which are important for the future development of the Republic of South Africa.

I should like to refer to what the hon. member said in regard to the feeling, prevalent amongst the majority of Black people, that the administration boards and the department are no friends of theirs. The hon. member said that if that were the case, the hon. the Minister could go to the HSRC to have the matter investigated scientifically. The implication is, of course, that the hon. member knows of no scientific investigation which would serve to prove this. The hon. member then qualified what he had said. I can find no fault with that. He said that the image, as he saw it, which the Black people had of the administration Boards and the department, was that they were oppressors. I do not think that is correct. I do not agree with that. Possibly I do not move in the same circles as the hon. member. It depends, of course, on the circles in which one moves and who one talks to. I have already addressed regional gatherings of community councils where the utmost praise and gratitude was expressed for the developmental role played by the administration boards and the department. It therefore greatly depends on the circles in which one moves, how one views matters and one’s attitude when listening to discussions.

As far as the Bill itself is concerned I want to say, as I indicated during the discussion of the Second Reading, that it can be divided up into four parts. The first part deals with the housing requirements that have to be laid down for certain people who qualify for section 10(1)(b) rights after the commencement of this legislation. That is a very important aspect that must indeed be addressed. The second point I should like to come to in a moment is the Moutse question to which the hon. member Prof. Olivier referred. The third relevant aspect is the development component of this legislation dealing, as it does, with the creation and development of black local authorities, which is a tremendous step forward. Unfortunately the hon. member did not refer to that. For the future development of this country it is of the utmost importance to us to give high priority to the development of black local authorities and to put this in the correct perspective. This indicates very clearly and unequivocally that the constitutional development of the Black man is being placed in a different cadre by virture of the Black local authorities now being established. Then there is the development aspect of the Small Business Development Corporation, etc. The fourth aspect is the relations element involving sport and various other aspects.

I now want to deal briefly with the first leg of the Moutse question. In that regard the hon. the Minister was taken to task for the fact that in regard to this House he had not laid his cards on the table when it came to the Moutse question. Let me say respectfully that that is incorrect. If the hon. member were to have a look at the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, he would notice that the hon. the Minister set out the whole matter. I think he did. If the hon. member has not yet obtained all the information by way of that Second Reading speech, and by way of what has become available to him since then, I cannot understand why. After the Second Reading speech had been delivered, as far back as 30 June, the hon. member could surely quite readily have seen how things stood. I therefore think it is a little unjust to take the hon. the Minister to task for something like that.

What we are dealing with here is, in fact, section 1(2) of the National States Constitution Act, Act No. 21 of 1971. That section states, briefly and succinctly, that the State President can establish certain legislative assemblies by proclamation. Subsection (2) states that after consultation by the Minister—hon. members must now listen very carefully; it is not in consultation, but after consultation—with the executive council of the area concerned, amendments can be brought about to the area covered by that legislative council. What do we have here? The requirement is “after consultation”. Here we are going much further than that. Shortly legislation is going to be placed on the Statute Book, and notwithstanding the fact that that legislation can be implemented immediately by virtue of the majority on this side of the House, the hon. the Minister went further than could have been expected in terms of section 1(2) of that Act. The hon. the Minister made provision for an amendment empowering the State president to put the Act into operation by way of proclamation. Why? Specifically because we are seeking further consultation on this very difficult question. We go further. This provision is actually a striking example of this Government’s desire, as far as everyone is concerned, for a fine, fair and adequate solution to the problem.

In certain respects the hon. member Prof. Olivier’s contribution in this regard was a very constructive one. The hon. member knows what he is talking about, and I say this with a great deal of respect. The hon. member referred to the Bantwani tribe. This is one of the large tribes in Moutse 3. If we take careful note of the ethnic ties of the people in Moutse, we find that approximately 24 000 belong to the Sotho groups whilst 10 000 belong to the Ndebele and other ethnic groups. As we know, Moutse consists of three portions. In Moutse 2 there is a small portion, 416 ha in extent, totally surrounded by kwaNdebele. The hon. member did not refer to this, but on the basis of this fact alone there is no way in which we can allow that portion to go to Lebowa. It is, after all, an island within kwaNdebele. A further problem is that in regard to services Moutse 1, 2 and 3 link up with kwaNdebele. Here I am thinking of water supplies, the road network and so on. We must be realistic. What we are faced with here is a situation that we must unravel. And how are we going to unravel this complex situation? There have been sundry investigations into this matter, and the Minister himself has done a great deal of work in this connection. We must also thank the Prime Minister for having agreed to familiarize himself with this problem and have a look at it himself. It is proof of the seriousness with which the Government regards this situation when even the Prime Minister involves himself in it. I therefore believe that we shall arrive at a viable solution, and as long as we view the situation realistically I believe that we shall be able to bring peace and prosperity to those people.

Mr. Speaker, I now briefly want to refer to the Rikhoto matter, a case we have already discussed in detail. It is, as has been said, an extremely complex matter in regard to which many moral questions present themselves. The PFP’s approach, as put forward by the hon. member for Houghton, is that this clause of the Bill, laying down certain requirements in regard to housing, should be deleted in toto. In other words, what they want is an unrestricted and uncontrolled influx of people to places where there is no accommodation. In what way is this a moral standpoint? What is the morality behind restricting the rights of the Black people already living there and creating conditions that could give rise to overpopulation? Sir, I think it is a very poor argument to advance. It is a superficial approach to the interests of the people already living there. Let me state here that there is no question of Black people’s families, the families of the Black breadwinners, not being able to visit them there. That is simply not true. In the first place, in terms of section 10(1), they can remain in the area for a period of 72 hours. In that sense it can therefore not be said that family members are being separated from one another. The CP’s approach, of course, is that families should never be brought in. They want those people to remain outside forever. What they envisage for the Black man here is the everlastingly unnatural situation in which he will find himself, regardless of the fact that he has perhaps been living and working in that specific area for 30 years. Not everyone remains in a specific place for exactly 10 years. There are even people who spend 30 years living and working at the same places. I would definitely not allege that this is largely in the interests of morality and of family life as such. So when we regard these two opposite poles, it appears that we really must be realistic about things, that we must adopt a course that will lead us to an understanding of certain matters.

In this regard I should like to refer to the court decision in the Rikhoto case. The first point I should like to put very clearly to hon. members of the CP is the following. Section 10 of the 1945 Act has not, in any way whatsoever, been amended by that court judgment. That is the first important point we must remember. The second important point is that no regulation has been amended or rejected. I should now like to explain to hon. members of the CP how this section of the Act has been interpreted since 1957. In 1957 Dr. Verwoerd was still on the scene. He had an exceptional knowledge of the contents of this section of the Act. He did not amend this section, although he was fully aware of its interpretation. Judge of Appeal Mr. Justice Schreiner refers in his judgment to an earlier judgment by Judge of Appeal Mr. Justice Toon van den Heever, which read as follows—

We therefore see that as far back as 1957 certain requirements were laid down in this regard. The requirements with which the relevant individuals had to comply in terms of section 10 were simply, in the words of Judge of Appeal Mr. Justice Toon van den Heever—

That is the very situation that still exists today. Of necessity the following question now arises. If that is indeed the situation—and it is in fact the situation—what does the CP advocate? What does the CP advocate in this connection? Do they, in the first instance, advocate that those rights that already exist should now be taken away? Is that what hon. members of the CP want? I should like to know from them if that is what they want. If they were to come into power—which will not, of course, happen—would they take these rights away from the Black people?

We accept the Bill now before the House.

Just listen to what that hon. member is saying, Mr. Speaker. He is simply not saying anything at all. He speaks, but he does not say anything at all. I want to know from the hon. member whether his party accepts this specific provision in the Bill.

We accept the Bill before the Select Committee.

To what Bill is the hon. member for Brakpan now referring?

I am speaking of the Bill in connection with the orderly settlement of Black people. [Interjections.]

Oh no, that is something quite different. I am not talking about that now. No one knows anything about that.

I know what is going on there.

I am now talking about the Laws on Co-operation and Development Amendment Bill. I want to know whether or not the hon. members of the CP would repeal the particular provision to which I referred a short while ago. Assuming, of course, that they do come into power one day, something that will never happen, in any event. What does the hon. member for Rissik have to say about this? I see him sitting there shaking his head.

Yes.

The hon. member says “yes”. He is therefore saying that the CP would repeal this provision. [Interjections.]

Do not trouble yourself about this, Rex. We shall put the whole matter right.

So the CP will put things right, Mr. Speaker. They do not want to tell us, however, how they are going to do it. What are they actually going to put right and how are they going to do it?

We shall be telling you how we are going to do it.

The hon. member for Barberton will be telling us how they are going to do it, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Ask Hennie van der Walt what you must do. [Interjections.]

If I understand them correctly, Mr. Speaker, the hon. members of the CP are prepared to take from the Black people those vested rights which they enjoy in terms of section 10. If I understand them correctly, they want to take those rights away from the Black people.

What rights have they had, in any event?

They have the right of permanent residence here in South Africa. That is the truth of it. The hon. member for Lichtenburg ought to know this better than I do.

That is not true. Contract workers do not have such rights.

Let us not argue about that now. I am just putting a question to hon. members of the CP.

Rex, it seems to me you are in difficulties now. [Interjections.]

Hon. members of the CP are prepared to take from the Black people those rights they obtained in terms of the judgment in the Rikhoto case. I accept the fact that that is the basis of their approach. If that is not the case, any speaker over there is free to stand up and tell us so. Let me put it this way: I do not think hon. members of the CP know what they are dealing with. If one simply wants to take away rights, one is adopting the same course as the AWB that does not want to give anyone any rights. If we were to do that, where would we end up? What does the hon. member Mr. Theunissen have to say about the rights being granted here in terms of section 10? Does he want to take them away? The hon. member does not say a word. He does not want to tell us. Let me tell you what the problem with hon. members of the CP is. They do not want to give the Black people—even those who have lived here for 30 years—any permanency of residence. [Interjections.] Here I am speaking of rights of residence. If they do not understand the position, those hon. members should read section 10. It is not a question of political rights, and those hon. members know that as well as I do.

The strangeness of the CP’s argument is very easy to explain. Dr. Verwoerd was aware of the 1957 judgment. He did not change it. He accepted it. What has now happened in the Rikhoto judgment is merely a confirmation of this. Those hon. members, however, are opposed to everything. The NP, on the other hand, feels honour-bound to keep its word. We believe that our word is our bond. If those hon. members do not see this, I can well understand why. The fact of the matter is that we are going to keep our word. We have an Act on the Statute Book that grants certain rights. This House of Assembly decided on those rights and this House of Assembly is going to keep its word. Those hon. members of the CP are not prepared to keep that promise. They say as much.

Here we are dealing with a very simple matter. There have been contract workers who have, in certain circumstances, consistently been able to qualify in terms of the provisions of section 10. There were no houses built for them and they lived in single quarters. Suddenly a great need for housing arose, specifically at this time, and now we are saddled with this problem. We cannot do what the PFP wants. We cannot simply allow them to come in, because that would mean the end of law and order. Nor can we do what the CP wants, because that is immoral. What we must now try to do, therefore, is solve this problem realistically. [Interjections.] There is a very great similarity between a tortoise and an ostrich. The one hides its head in the sand and the other draws it into its shell, but in both cases one can hardly see their heads. Those hon. members are prepared either to hide their heads in the sand or to draw their heads into their shells; they do not want to know anything about the realities of the matter. All the people living in this country, including the Black people, must know that this Government will protect their rights. We shall maintain law and order and take realistic steps to protect the rights of the Whites in this connection, too. That is how simple it is. I also want to say that mistakes can very easily be made in connection with section 10, and it would also be very easy to introduce amendments. If rights are to be taken away, as those hon. members of the CP maintain, it would simply mean that the Afrikaner did not want to keep his word.

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member for Pretoria West wish to imply that according to the proposal in clause 4 no existing rights are being taken away from the Black people in terms of the existing legislation?

Yes, that is what I am saying, because if one were to read this very carefully, one would see that it applies to people who qualify after the Bill has become law. So in no way does this detract from the existing position. [Interjections.] If the hon. member wants to argue about that, I shall gladly listen to what he has to say.

The fact of the matter is that what we are faced with here is absolute opportunism which, considering the hon. member for Barberton’s question, does not accord with the realities of South Africa. We cannot wish away Soweto, nor Atteridgeville and other places; we must solve the problems realistically, in accordance with the possibilities and the demands of the times, and that is what we are doing.

Is it viable?

Of course it is viable. It is completely viable; there is no problem there. We shall work at it and we shall manage it. In the process we shall also be safeguarding the future of the Whites.

In discussing the establishment of Black local authorities, let me say that this aspect must not be allowed to pass unnoticed. It is a very important aspect, a corner-stone of NP policy, because we believe that Black people must have a say in their own affairs at local Government level where there should be more rights available to them than those of a normal White local authority. We do not begrudge them that. I think the time has come for the Blacks to realize, too, what we are really giving them. What we are asking them to do is to start working on their own future too. What we are telling them is that they must use what we are giving them for the benefit of their own people, because the fact of the matter is that the constitutional development of the Black man, as has clearly emerged here once again, lies in a different sphere to that of the Whites.

I briefly want to refer to the sports issue which the Bill is concerned with. Yesterday there was a great deal of discussion about this, but if one looks at what is going on here, one sees that it is a simple matter, because since it has automatically been possible for Black people to spend 72 hours in certain prescribed areas without a permit, in the case of sports meetings this is now being extended by perhaps a day or two.

What about cricket?

I focused on that yesterday.

If one looks at what is being done here, one sees that we are busy eliminating unnecessary, hurtful discrimination. Those hon. members voted for that, did they not? Are they not also opposed to unnecessary hurtful discrimination? The problem with those hon. members, however, is that they cannot identify unnecessary, hurtful discrimination when they see it. That is the problem. Those hon. members pay lip-service to the expression “unnecessary, hurtful discrimination”, but they do not recognize it. Look, if one is allowed to attend a cricket match, but is denied the right to attend for one extra day, that is unnecessary, hurtful discrimination.

Minor apartheid. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare refer to the hon. member for Rissik as a “houtie”?

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

Sir, a “houtie” is nothing extraordinary. I was not even referring to him. [Interjections.]

Order! Has it any bearing on the word “houtkop” which was used earlier on in the House and in regard to which I have given a ruling?

“Houtkop”? Sir, that is for you to decide.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw it.

Sir, I withdraw it.

Sir, let me just say that help is sometimes forthcoming from strange quarters on that side.

I want to conclude by saying that although the Bill before us is a very short one, it contains one of the most important clauses that we could possibly have before us. Let me tell those members of the public who have voted, and still are going to vote, for the NP that this is a Bill which is going to bring about law and order in South Africa and a sense of satisfaction, a law aimed at placing South Africa on the path of development. That is why it has our whole-hearted support.

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria West actually epitomizes the reason for the frustration which the hon. member Prof. Olivier feels with regard to the NP. I shall come back to this later.

I first want to say a few things to the hon. member for Pretoria West. The hon. the Minister said yesterday that if the Appeal Court judgment had been different and if it had not ruled in favour of Rikhoto, he would have accepted that judgment as well. The hon. the Minister and the governing party pretend to be terribly moral in accepting the one ruling, but they would have been quite immoral if they had accepted the other one. In the same breath, however, he says that if the judgment had gone against this one, the other judgment would have been moral and this one immoral. The governing party is the only one which can understand this kind of logic.

No one can understand your kind of logic.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the two of us have not finished with one another. [Interjections.]

I have by no means finished with you either.

The hon. member for Pretoria West referred very sanctimoniously to the rights of the Blacks, which we allegedly wanted to take away. I now want to ask him a question. Blacks used to have White representatives in this House and they were deprived of that right by the NP. Was this not immoral?

No, not at all. [Interjections.]

Here we have an astonishing kind of logic with regard to morality. The hon. member says that the CP is immoral because we do not want the Blacks to retain or to be given certain rights, he says we are immoral. However, the NP deprived certain Blacks of a right which they used to have, namely the right to be represented by Whites in this House. Now I am asking whether this was immoral.

No.

The hon. member says “no”.

I still do not understand it. Repeat it a third time.

I have to repeat it a third time for certain hon. members, but that hon. member is one of the intelligent members. I need not repeat it for his benefit.

I want to tell the hon. member Prof. Olivier that I always enjoy his speeches. There are many things on which I agree with him and other things on which we disagree in principle. I can understand the hon. member’s frustration with the NP better than that of any other hon. member of the PFP. It is an outcome of the history of the hon. member’s own political thinking, because he began in the fifties, where many of the hon. members now sitting on the Government side find themselves at this stage. The hon. member’s frustration with regard to the governing party is perhaps the same as my own problem with them, namely that 85% of the members of the governing party are conformists. Those 85% are people who basically think the way the CP does. 10% of them are actually PFP members. The hon. member Prof. Olivier has problems with the governing party because those 10% who are actually PFP members are not joining them. The other 5% belong to the extreme left wing. Neither of us wants that 5%. [Interjections.]

I want to devote some attention to the hon. member Prof. Olivier. Within two or three years, debates will be conducted in this House only between those two parties that really have a right of existence in South Africa, namely the CP and the PFP. [Interjections.] The hon. member said that he did not know what the NP was trying to achieve. Earlier on, the hon. member for Lichtenburg asked the hon. the Prime Minister what the NP was trying to achieve. The hon. the Prime Minister replied that he was trying to achieve good relations. My question to the PFP and to the leader of the PFP with regard to these matters is what they are trying to achieve in South Africa. I think it is time the PFP gave us a reply to that question.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier said that he had three basic objections to this Bill. The first was that the PFP was opposed in principle to the creation of independent homelands. In this connection I want to put two questions to the hon. member: Would the PFP, if they came into power, grant independence to the Ndebele people if they requested it? The hon. member can reply to this later. The second question is whether it is the PFP’s standpoint that countries such as Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana should never have obtained independence. Was it an immoral act on the part of the British Government to grant independence to these three countries, which are recognized all over the world today?

The second problem which the hon. member had was that he was opposed to the compulsory removal of people. The third reason which the hon. member gave for being opposed to the legislation was that a group of people, the people of Moutse, were being placed under the political control of another group of people against their will. The majority of Whites in our country say that they do not wish to be subjected to Black majority rule. Why then does the hon. member refuse to accommodate the Whites in South Africa who do not want this?

We do not believe in Black majority rule either.

If the hon. member says that he is not in favour of Black majority rule, if he sees South Africa as a unitary State, with all the voters on a common voters’ roll—15 million in all, of whom 10 million would be people of colour and 5 million would be Whites—is it not logical, according to the rules of arithmetic, that the majority of people who would vote for a Government would be people of colour?

It does not seem to me that you have read our policy.

I have read his party’s policy, but if I have misinterpreted it, I shall go and read it again.

I now wish to come back to the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria West. He seems to have left the Chamber. I think the hon. member has a good reason for not being here. The hon. member says it is morally right for a contract worker to be present in the White area for 9 years and 11 months without having any rights. However, if he has been in the White area for 10 years, it is immoral for him not to have any rights. The NP must explain this kind of logic to us.

I come now to the hon. the Minister. During the Second Reading debate we set out very clearly the reasons why we could not vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. We singled out the specific clauses to which we objected. I told the hon. the Minister that this legislation belonged to the class of legislation which the NP was submitting to us as a means of dealing with the problems arising from the population structure of South Africa. I also said that the CP had no confidence in the NP as regards the measures taken by it to ensure the survival either of the Whites or of the other population groups in this country. That is our basic standpoint. In addition, I said that the hon. the Minister was unable and unwilling to put an effective stop to the influx of Blacks to White areas and to place the Whites in a position where they would not be crowded out by a majority of Blacks. That was our argument. The hon. the Minister’s reply to that was a tirade against me and my colleagues. I am unmoved by all the terminology used by the hon. the Minister and by all those things which he ascribed to us. The hon. the Minister of Law and Order rightly said earlier on that in this kind of game “cowboys don’t cry”. I am willing to take the punishment that is meted out to me and I think the hon. the Minister should do the same. I just want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that we should both stick to the facts of history with regard to our disagreements. We should adhere to the correct interpretation of events.

The hon. the Minister spoke of a dagger which I had been holding in my hand for many years and then he said in the same breath that I had started to change two years ago. On the one hand, he says that I have known him since 1952 and that I have been holding a dagger in my hand since then, and on the other hand, he says that I have only been changing over the past two years. The hon. the Minister should rise and tell us to how many hon. members of the CP he has offered the position of Commissioner-General over the past few years. He really should rise and tell us.

Why don’t you tell us?

The hon. the Minister should just listen. If he wants to ask a question, he may do so. However, I just want to say that the hon. the Minister and various hon. members on that side of the House are continually suggesting that the CP is a party which wishes to bring about conflict in this country.

[Inaudible.]

I shall come to the hon. member for Innesdal presently. Until then he should be quiet. Even in talking about the PFP, which is much more liberal in its views, it has been our standpoint in the CP that we should be careful, in referring to Whites who wish to make use of democracy and who are represented here as a party, not simply to portray them as people who want conflict and bloodshed in South Africa. I believe that this is one of the most irresponsible statements which could be made by the hon. the Minister and some of his hon. colleagues. It will cost him dearly. Standing here today, I have no doubt in my mind that the CP will soon govern this country. [Interjections.] Hon. members may laugh about it, but at least it is not as impossible as it is unlikely.

The hon. the Minister kept referring in his speech to the fact that I and other hon. members of the CP had slandered him and the hon. the Prime Minister. We must put a stop to these things. The hon. the Minister should consult Hansard to see how many times the Speaker has had to call the CP to order for making slanderous statements. The second point I want to put to the hon. the Minister is that if we have slandered him outside this House, the laws of this country enable him to take us to court and to bring an action against us. If the hon. the Minister has those proofs, he should do so tomorrow. He should not postpone it until the day after. He should do so tomorrow, because Parliament is not sitting tomorrow. If the hon. the Minister fails to do so, he should apologize in this House.

You owe me an apology.

During the Second Reading debate on this Bill, things were said that were published in the Press during the days that followed, improper and objectionable things about the CP. Sir, you allowed those things to be said in this House, and I want to request you today to allow me to deal with them as spokesman for the CP.

Order! The hon. member said a short while ago that we should put a stop to this kind of thing. I think it is a very good idea that we should put a stop to this kind of exchange which is taking place in this House at the moment. I allow hon. members to digress considerably at the Third Reading, but hon. members must not forget that we are, after all, dealing with a specific Bill. I therefore request the hon. member to come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I gladly abide by your ruling, but I also wish to point out to you that the CP was attacked during the Second Reading on the basis of certain standpoints adopted by us. I therefore want to request you to allow me to reply during the Third Reading debate to the accusations made against us at the Second Reading.

Order! May I remind the hon. member of the fact that at the Second Reading I also allowed him to digress very far from the subject, so much so that I even had to ask him to confine himself to the Bill. I therefore afforded the hon. member sufficient opportunity at the Second Reading to defend himself and his party.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this? I participated in the debate very early on in the Second Reading debate. The speakers who spoke after me attacked me and my leader and we have not yet had an opportunity to reply to those attacks. There has not been any opportunity for us to reply to them. As the first speaker of this party during the Third Reading debate, I kindly request you to allow me to furnish a concise reply to the points that have been made against us, especially those raised by the hon. member for Innesdal.

I want us to be quite clear about the matter. I am quite prepared to allow healthy debating in this hon. House on what we have before us and what we must decide about as the highest Assembly in this country. However, I want to make it quite clear once again to the hon. member for Rissik—and this applies to all hon. members in this House, including Ministers and Deputy Ministers—that in my opinion, we have reached a stage where we must avoid addressing remarks to other hon. members which do not become us as hon. members. The day I became Speaker, I told hon. members that we should remember that we are “hon. members” of this House. I therefore request hon. members to conduct themselves like hon. members. I want to make it quite clear that although I wish to promote healthy debating and although I enjoy witticisms, we should refrain from making personal attacks. It does not become us as hon. members to make personal attacks on one another. Let us confine ourselves to what is before us, in the interests of this country and of its inhabitants. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I shall abide by your ruling. At the Second Reading I referred to the fact that kwaNdebele had been consolidated and that the CP welcomed this. I believe that the principles which were laid down at the Second Reading and which are now being discussed at the Third Reading are important. It is important that the territory of the Ndebele has been consolidated. I made the statement during the Second Reading debate that the late Dr. Verwoerd was responsible for kindling the spark of nationalism among the Ndebele of kwaNdebele, which has since become a very strong flame burning in South Africa today. In response to that it was said that my facts were not quite correct because the development with regard to the Ndebele had taken place after Dr. Verwoerd’s death in 1966. Sir, that is not quite correct. In the ’fifties, he was a powerful figure among the Blacks as Minister of Native Affairs, and as such he exercised a strong influence. I have with me the publication Woord en Daad, in which a short article appeared on the Ndebele of the Transvaal. Under the heading “Nasionale Herlewing” it says—

The point I want to make in quoting this is that the emphasis placed on the idea of nationhood by Dr. Verwoerd, first as Minister of Native Affairs and later as Prime Minister, evoked a response from the Ndebele in particular. Every Black people in South Africa has a strong sense of nationhood. Whether or not they subscribe to the policy of separation, they ail have a strong national awareness. But this process of growth came about among the Ndebele in particular as a result of the actions of Dr. Verwoerd.

In conclusion, I just want to say that the CP, like any Opposition party, desires to take over the Government of the country. If this were to happen, we would be faced with certain laws, certain promises made by previous Governments. In taking over responsibility for the government of the country, we shall naturally honour those laws and agreements, but only in so far as they do not contradict the principles of our policy. If the NP makes promises today to the Coloured people, for example, which are in conflict with the policy of the CP, then we say to the Coloured people that those promises were made under the policy of a group of leaders with whom we disagree and that for this reason we shall not be able to keep those promises. When we come into power, therefore, we shall examine every measure passed by the Parliament of South Africa over the years, and where there is legislation which is repugnant to the CP’s ideals for South Africa, we shall naturally adapt that legislation to suit our purposes. Finally, and with this I wish to conclude, I want to point out that in emphasizing the need for the Whites to survive, the CP places equal emphasis on the rights and characteristics of the other groups. In fact, we believe that the policy and principles of the CP are the only policy and principles which will allow the other peoples in South Africa to exercise the maximum degree of self-determination.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech made by the hon. member for Rissik considerably. I found his questions to the PFP on the right of self-determination of the Whites under a Black majority government very interesting. Sir, I note that the hon. member for Waterberg is leaving the Chamber. I should be pleased if he would do me the honour of remaining seated, since I want to refer to him during the course of my speech. I want to tell the hon. member that I really appreciate his courtesy in being prepared to resume his seat.

The hon. member for Rissik made an interesting statement at the end of his speech, and that is not the only point I want to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Waterberg. He said that if the Government gave undertakings to the Coloureds and the Indians with which the CP did not agree, they, i.e. the CP, would not honour those undertakings. In 1981 the NP made a promise to the Coloureds and the Asians, by way of a manifesto, of a joint say in matters of common interest. We cannot deny that.

The term “joint say” did not appear in it.

A joint say, co-responsibility—call it what you will. That promise was ratified by the signature of the hon. member for Waterberg, and consequently those hon. members cannot turn their backs on it.

Man, that was when provision had been made for three separate Parliaments.

Furthermore, the hon. member for Rissik came up with a few daydreams today. Not only is the policy of the CP a daydream; so is the statement that they are going to take over the reins of government in South Africa. The hon. member for Rissik said that this Bill fell into the category of legislation that sought to regulate ethnic issues in South Africa. That is correct.

Come to the hon. member for Waterberg now.

I shall come to him. During the Second Reading and the Committee Stage the Government was accused of heading for integration with this Bill. Allow me to make this very clear: The policy of the NP is the policy of separate development, and we shall implement it to the maximum extent, in so far as the realities of South Africa permit.

Clause 5 of the Bill grants Black people certain rights, for example, to attend certain sports functions, as well as the social functions connected with them. The question I want to ask today is: What do we understand by integration? When is a policy or a practice headed for integration? I know one thing, and that is that integration has become a swear-word in Afrikaner politics, in NP politics, and we as conservative Afrikaners must use such swear-words sparingly. At the recent CP congress, which, incidentally, was attended by considerably fewer people than last year, a number of decisions were taken which were supposed to confirm their standpoint against integration. One of the decisions was that the party was opposed to a Coloured making announcements on television. Members of the congress said that they did not want to see the face of a Coloured on television.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In view of your ruling a while ago, may the hon. member say that kind of thing?

The hon. member is still getting to the point. I shall keep an eye on him and stop him if necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about integration. This is supposedly the principle we are assailing—according to those hon. members. This is the principle we say we are not assailing. My whole speech revolves around the concept of integration. The issue in clause 5 of the present Bill is very clearly the movement, not only of Black people, but of Whites as well, to certain sports functions in Black urban areas, as well as the attendance of social functions connected with them. Now the question is whether or not this is integration. This is the matter I should like to discuss. I also want to discuss integration in general, since I believe that it is only when we consider the whole question of integration in broad terms—that is my humble submission—that we shall be able to judge this Bill better.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort said that it was the policy of his party—that is according to a report in Die Burger, I therefore assume that it was reported correctly—that under a CP government sport would be normalized to what it was before the NP altered it. Was the hon. member reported correctly?

Yes, that is correct.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort has confirmed that he was reported correctly. There are therefore number of things we must all understand very clearly and correctly, Mr. Speaker.

Can you and I appear together on television, Louis? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should now like to put the following question to the hon. member for Waterberg … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Waterberg is leaving now, and that when I am putting a question to him. I am placing it on record, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Waterberg is leaving the Chamber while I am putting a question to him. [Interjections.] I shall therefore put the question to all hon. members of the CP jointly. Are they opposed to a Maori being in an All Black team?

What has that got to do with this Bill? [Interjections.]

That is precisely what clause 5 of this Bill is about.

Surely it is not a Bill about the orderly movement of Maoris. [Interjections.]

Another question I want to ask hon. members of the CP is: Generally speaking, in the view of hon. members of the CP, can a Springbok team from South Africa play against mixed rugby teams or not? I should like them to reply to that, Mr. Speaker. I am addressing this question to the hon. member for Rissik directly, and I challenge him to answer me on that score. Can a Springbok team from South Africa go and play against a mixed rugby team overseas? We are dealing with the concept of integration here. The next important question is whether such a match can be televised here. Can it be televised so that Whites can watch it as well? Those are the questions I want to put to hon. members of the CP, Mr. Speaker. Those are the questions to which we should like answers from them. [Interjections.] We are all aware that the hon. member for Brakpan said that Cupido and Tobias should play for the S.A. Federation team. If we were to say that they should, in fact, play for the S.A. Federation team, I should like to know—in view of the standpoint of the CP on integration—whether or not they would approve of such a match being televised. What is also important is whether it should be televised in colour, or whether it should only be in black and white. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the issue here is the essence of our politics; the essence of the relations issue in this country—the question of integration. This brings me to the next question I want to put to hon. members of the CP. In the view of hon. members of the CP, when is it permissible for an hon. member of this House to attend a meeting, appear with people of colour on the platform and address the audience? Is something like that integration, or not? I am putting this question to the hon. member for Rissik.

Order! The hon. member must not exploit that point any further. He has digressed from the Bill completely.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you briefly on that score?

The hon. member may address me on that.

Mr. Speaker, the essence of politics in South Africa today is the relations issue, and there are certain philosophies that either apply or do not apply in the relations issue. Every piece of legislation promulgated in South Africa is formulated on the strength of a basic philosophy. The accusation being levelled at the NP is that the legislation we are discussing now is formulated on the strength of a philosophy of integration. This is being done specifically because in terms of clause 5 of the present Bill. Whites and Coloureds are being permitted to attend sports functions together, without any legal restrictions, even in Black urban areas. In addition to this—as is stated in the proposed new section 43, which stands to be included in the principal Act in terms of clause 5—they are also being permitted to attend social gatherings, which are connected with the sports functions concerned, together. My respectful submission to you revolves around the whole social problem of integration or non-integration, of separation and sound or unsound relations, and I feel that it is fitting that we gain clarity for ourselves in this Parliament on what integration really means, when it is integration and when not. It is in that light that I want to make my speech. I do not want to make any personal attacks of any nature on any other hon. member. It is in that light that I should like to discuss the philosophies I have mentioned, and ask you for your ruling in that regard.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central rose to speak at 15h40 and it is now 15h50. During those 10 minutes he has only discussed the question of integration. I want to point out to the hon. member that we are, in fact, discussing legislation. If he were to look at the Order Paper, he would see that we are discussing the Third Reading of the Laws on Co-operation and Development Amendment Bill, and I am not going to permit the hon. member to digress so far from the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I should be pleased to abide by your ruling. I wanted to say more about integration, but I shall do so on another occasion.

Allow me, in conclusion, to say just this. In this legislation, an arrangement is made the purpose of which is to confirm and extend sound relations between Whites and Blacks. This arrangement is not aimed at causing friction between Whites and people of colour. We believe that the proper implementation of this legislation will prevent such friction and not further it. It is my submission to this House that if this legislation becomes law and is implemented, it will contribute to an orderly arrangement between the Whites and people of colour in South Africa and that the position of the Whites will in no way be endangered by this.

Mr. Speaker, the debate on the Third Reading of this Bill has thus far dealt mainly with its contentious aspects and various political philosophies. I should like to mention two points that need to be touched on in reviewing this legislation. I want in the first instance to refer to clause 1 and 3 that deal with the rights of the Small Business Development Corporation in the Black areas, and non-scheduled areas which are owned by Blacks, and I wish to discuss this point against the background of my party’s view concerning access to the total economy, the common economy that is so often mentioned by hon. members of the NP themselves. This common economy is something that is vital to us all and it is absolutely vital that the benefits of and access to that system are in fact available to all. In this regard we feel that it is a matter of extreme urgency that another leg be given to the White expertise and capital that will be used in the Black areas in terms of the provisions, before us. We feel strongly that this should be extended to clearly defining the central business districts in the White areas and giving the Black entrepreneur, the Black participant in the free enterprise system, access to those areas as well. In reality, the commercial and industrial centres of South Africa, where it all happens, are at present in those areas. With planned regional development and the extension of the system into the independent States this base will broaden. The present situation is a one-way traffic situation where Whites are going into Black areas while the converse does not apply. The very heart of the free enterprise system, the very sphere in which people can learn the expertise and learn the reality of competition, of proper investment exists in the White parts of industry and commerce and therefore in the central business districts. We in this party should like to emphasize once again that it is of the utmost importance for the process of upliftment that participation in the common economy must be afforded to all. Then we shall be able to spread our value system to the benefit of all and then that expertise can be taken back into the Black areas where it will also be made more available to the Black entrepreneur. They must be able to trade in the central business districts, it is a matter of great urgency.

I did say in the Second Reading debate that the Bill is all about rights concerning business, sorghum beer, sport and local authority government. It also concerns the land rights of certain people. There are two clauses relating to sorghum beer and in respect of this aspect I should like to raise one or two points in this debate because quite obviously in the direction in which we are moving with Community Councils and the Black local authorities, sorghum beer has a great bearing on their financial viability. At present it is true to say that the Administration Boards derive a tremendous amount of their income—I do not have the actual percentages, but I imagine it is a very high percentage of their income—from this activity or enterprise.

I would say that it is logical that in the situation in which we are moving with the Black local authorities, Black communities should run their own affairs. In doing this, they too will be faced with the situation where their main source or one of their main sources of income will be sorghum beer.

The first clause in the Bill which deals with sorghum beer extends the rights of dealers into areas falling within the areas of jurisdiction of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas. There appears to be a situation here where they may only sell and supply packaged sorghum beer provided it is acquired from a local authority, the Corporation of Economic Development or a development corporation. This appears to us to be going very much in a monopolistic direction. I am sure that the hon. the Minister is quite aware that in Bophuthatswana this industry already has a large percentage of private enterprise involved in it, and yet they are already in the restricted situation where they may not operate outside their own borders. We would think there should be a quid pro quo in the situation in the sense that if one is extending it into those peri-urban areas, then quite obviously on the other side of the scale people engaged in the free enterprise section which deals with sorghum beer should have access to a portion of that industry by being involved with the Community Councils.

This leads me to the other clause in the Bill which deals with sorghum beer because that relates to the use of a portion of the Sorghum Beer Industry Development Fund. The new provisions allow the use of this money to move into the field of the instruction and training of persons involved in the manufacture or supply of sorghum beer or the promotion of any matter concerning the manufacture and marketing of sorghum beer. This makes one think that the intention is to train people in the Black communities to be able to handle this industry themselves. If that is the case, then I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate the direction in which he intends moving. Will those Community Councils or Black local authorities be free to invite free enterprise to participate in that industry? Does one see by such invitation and by such participation a more open field for competition in respect of this? Will the Community Councils and the Black local authorities be allowed to make proper use of the free enterprise system in respect of raising revenue? There is an aspect worth noting in connection with sorghum beer. It is a traditional drink, but it is no longer made according to the original recipe. The maize content is far higher and there are some rumours going around concerning the fact that as it is controlled by the Administration Boards people are not quite certain what is put into it. Some delicate aspects come into the reason for their thinking this. The matter is certainly not as simple as it looks in this piece of legislation. Since this is so important from a financial point of view for the Black Community Councils, we should like the hon. the Minister to indicate whether in fact the intention in providing these funds for training people and promoting the product is to hand it over to the Black Community Councils as a source of revenue for them and whether they will have a free hand in the way in which they deal with private enterprise in respect of it.

I think that the question of sport has been well debated. Certainly, we have devoted an awful lot of time to debating it and to putting right what over the years has been wrongly put into legislation by the NP in respect of sport. They made a terrible mess of sport in this country and now we are trying to put it right and this has resulted in enormous political problems. I think that the name of Basil D’Oliveira will haunt the NP for years and years to come. They have really produced a rod with which to beat themselves and with which the country as a whole has been well and truly beaten internationally. Anything which goes towards improving that situation, any relaxations and any efforts to return to normality this party will of course welcome.

The final point of any importance is of course the question concerning kwaNdebele and Lebowa. This is something on which the hon. member Prof. Olivier spent a lot of time. We on these benches have indicated that, in view of the hon. the Minister’s clear exposition of the agreement between the hon. the Prime Minister of this country and the Chief Minister of Lebowa, this legislation should go forward. It has been agreed that the necessary amendments should be made conditional on investigation and further negotiation on the matter. We find ourselves in the position that we can accept that. In order to regulate what has already gone before, since it was excised by proclamation, matters which have bedevilled the situation such as representation in the Legislative Assembly, the question of the Economic Development Corporation and other things resulting from the proclamation are now being put right. I must say that the reality of the situation, as far as developing national States and then independent States is concerned, is that we believe that the NP has compounded the problems that existed in the country by moving into the sphere of granting States independence. Much of this is water under the bridge and I am sure that the hon. the Minister will reply that in fact in each case those national States asked for their independence. That is the argument used by the NP in this respect. They say they asked for independence and that as a result South Africa had no alternative but to grant it. Our standpoint is, however, a little different from that of the official Opposition who see the matter somewhat simplistically. The problem is a very complicated one. It goes far back in history. Regardless of who was responsible, we were saddled with the situation where—in many cases for good reasons—areas were reserved for Black people. Had it not been done—I think the hon. member Prof. Olivier will agree with me—by now, as a result of the avarice, the greed and the far better economic trading ability of Whites, the Black man in South Africa would have owned nothing. Had it not been reserved he would have had nothing. The situation now is that we have certain Black areas. The question is what management style do we have to use to make the best use of them. Whether it is the official Opposition, the NP or ourselves, there is no way in which one can apply a common system to all those areas overnight. The question of land reform is absolutely paramount in order to get proper use of that land. Everybody accepts it. However, how to bring it about, is another question altogether. I would say that if the official Opposition were ever to find themselves in a situation where their system of geographic States is implemented, they would have to deal with ethnic States. None of those areas would willingly give up any land which belonged to them. Certainly all of them would accept additional land but none of them would give up what has already been allocated to them on what is primarily an ethnic basis. No party in this House can in fact enforce another value system on the people within those States. One can encourage them towards land reform and one can hope that in time land reform will be brought about in such a way that it will be to the benefit of those people and that they will have access to the common economy, but there is no way that the PFP can in fact enforce the freehold tenure system overnight because then exactly the same thing will happen. By virtue of the far greater competitive and financial muscle and ability of the Whites, those people will be left without anything whatsoever and without having had the opportunity to achieve a quid pro quo in the common economy. It is going to take time to create a situation where we can introduce land reform where there will be private ownership so that we can merge the two value systems if and when they are ready to do so.

We on these benches believe that it is vitally important that one accommodates both value systems. When we talk about accommodating both value systems, we mean that those people within those areas must have the security of not having to compete with the greater power of White finance which will rob them of what little they have. At the same time, however, they must have access to the common economy in such a way that the distribution of the total effort of the country is available to them to assist them to build themselves up. We can only see that coming about as a result of a far more formal arrangement between the Republic of South Africa and those independent and national States so that the confederation of States which the NP talks about becomes a mechanism which, when they debate matters concerning the common economy, gives them hope that their concerns and their priorities and their access to the total wealth of the confederation will, in fact, be available to them and that it is not just simply a loose arrangement whereby they can try to sort out their problems. The problem-solving area has to be structured in such a way that they go there representing their people and in the knowledge that they will have a sympathetic ear and a financially beneficial deal from all the other States.

One can cite many cases where this will be possible. We can take an improvised independent State like Ciskei and compare its position with that of a State like Bophuthatswana with its mineral wealth. There is certainly a disparity there as to the distribution of the better things in South Africa. There are other Black States that may or may not become independent and that equally do not have access to the same wealth as some of the others or will end up that way. We believe the objections of the official Opposition to this particular legislation, while a justifiable philosophy from their point of view, have been sufficiently satisfied by the assurance that the hon. the Prime Minister of this country has entered into an agreement with the Chief Minister of Lebowa. At the same time we hope sincerely—we will continue to strive for it—that the confederation will become a far more formal structure in which access to the total economy will become a reality. It should be linked to a common nationality or common citizenship which will give them that right whilst retaining the right to their land which otherwise they would lose if it was just opened up, as would happen in terms of the policy of the official Opposition. I conclude with that review of the legislation. This party will be supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I agree to a large extent with ordinary common sense which was apparent from a large part of the speech made by the hon. member for King William’s Town. However, I do not want to elaborate on that now.

I shall not be foolish enough to request the permission of the Chair to reply to the non-speech made by the hon. member for Pretoria Central, because I know in advance that I shall not be allowed to reply to a speech which should never have been made.

I should like, at the beginning of my speech, to enter into a debate with my good friend, the hon. member for Pretoria West. It has now become a habit in this House—we have experienced it again during this debate—to accuse hon. members of the CP of being a bunch of racists, of not wanting the Blacks to be given anything and, in fact, of wanting to deprive them of all they have, including their rights. It has been strenuously argued that it is our standpoint, as typical racists, that we want to deprive the unfortunate Blacks of established rights, such as those which have now been confirmed by the Appeal Court. The lily-white NP, the personification of White integrity, which insists that the White man’s word must be kept, would never deprive a Black man of any right!

What are we dealing with in this Bill? I am referring in particular to clause 4. The existing Act, to which an addition is now being made, expressly provides that when a contract worker has obtained the right to permanent residence in an urban area after having worked there for an uninterrupted period of 10 years—this was the position in the Rikhoto case—not only he is entitled to be there, but also his wife, his unmarried daughter and his son under the age of 18 years. All of them have acquired that right together with him. Whether or not that unmarried daughter lives there, she has acquired that right if her father has acquired the right, by virtue of 10 years’ uninterrupted service, to be present there. Then his wife and children have also acquired that right. In terms of the Act, as interpreted by the Appeal Court, this is an established right which those Black people have acquired. What are we doing now? We are now introducing specific legislation. The court provided that certain Black people had those rights, although it did not pronounce upon the position of the wife, children and family. The court dealt only with the man himself in its judgment. In terms of section 10(1)(c), however, the dependants of that worker acquired certain rights. Now we are introducing the new clause. In terms of section 10(1)(c), the wife, unmarried daughter and son under the age of 18 years have the right to be there if they are there legally and if they are living with the man. Now we are taking that right away. We are not changing it; we are taking it away. We are telling the wife of that worker who has that right at the moment, although she is not living there, to go there before the provisions of this legislation come into operation, because the moment the provisions of this legislation come into operation, she will no longer automatically have that right.

Racists!

Conditions are now being laid down regarding the circumstances under which that wife, daughter or son may regain that right. The requirement is being laid down, for example, that there must be suitable accommodation. I understand why the hon. the Minister is introducing this amendment, but then the NP really must not pretend to be little White angels and accuse other people of taking away the rights of innocent Blacks, while the NP itself is doing exactly the same in terms of the measure which is before the House. I think we are now getting tired of this kind of non-argument.

It is simply an orderly arrangement.

I shall not enter into an argument about the matter with Dr. Vilonel at this stage. My experience is that most medical practitioners are not good lawyers.

What are we concerned with, in this Bill as well? I see in this morning’s Citizen—Mr. Speaker, you must allow me just to refer to this—that I am reported to have said that the CP accepts the Appeal Court judgment in the Rikhoto case. But that is not what I said. I said that we respected the right of the Appeal Court to interpret the laws of this country.

You simply expressed yourself badly.

The hon. member can go and read my Hansard. It does not mean that we acquiesce in it. It is our standpoint that the generally accepted interpretation of that section, as implemented in practice by the hon. the Minister, his officials, the department and the Administration Board, should be restored by means of legislation. That is our standpoint. If the hon. the Minister has been under the impression all these years, and if he has been convinced, as a man of high moral standards, that that interpretation is the desirable one for the situation in which we find ourselves, and, moreover, has said that if the Appeal Court had confirmed that interpretation, he would have accepted it as being morally justified, it is our standpoint that there should be a return to that state of affairs. It is not a question of begrudging the Black people their rights. However, it has been our standpoint all these years that Blacks should be settled as far as possible in their own fatherlands, and it has also been our standpoint over the years—and I challenge any of the hon. members opposite to prove that I have ever held a different view—that we want to bring about a situation where the Whites will be in the majority in White South Africa. This remains our standpoint to this day, but alas, it is no longer the standpoint of the governing party. They have thrown in the towel. They have now become the “realistic” party.

Order! Let us be realistic. The time for the debate has expired.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 69.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Barberton has really not given a correct version of the facts in the standpoint which he has just stated here. Before acquainting the hon. member with the facts, Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out first what has just happened here. The accusation is being made that a certain party in this House has a racist attitude. That accusation did not come from this side of the House in the first place. It came from the other side of the House.

Just listen to that! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the point I want to make, of course. [Interjections.] I just want to point out that in this debate … [Interjections.] The one who in the first place, in this debate … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I do not know why those hon. members are getting so agitated. All I am saying is that it has been stated in this debate by the hon. member Prof. Olivier that hon. members of the CP are racists. I have not even said yet whether or not I agree with that. All I am saying is that it was an hon. member of the PFP who set the ball rolling. It did not come from this side of the House. Of course, the mere fact that hon. members of the CP seem to be so sensitive on this point proves how true it is when hon. members on this side of the House, and hon. members opposite, of course, allege that they are racists.

What is a racist? You tell us what a racist is. [Interjections.]

However, there is one aspect which I want to point out very specifically, and that is …

First tell us what a racist is, Piet.

Very well, but hon. members of the CP are racists, after all.

But now you have said so yourself.

But it is true, after all. [Interjections.] Allow me to point out, however, what the hon. member for Barberton was actually doing. What was the hon. member actually doing? In an attempt to evade the charge brought against him and his party by hon. members of the PFP, as well as hon. members on this side of the House, the hon. member for Barberton is now trying—and he is basing it on totally invalid arguments—to accuse the NP of racism. This is what he has just tried to do. Yesterday that hon. member did exactly the opposite with regard to the Rikhoto matter. The whole argument of the hon. member for Pretoria West, as well as the argument of the hon. member for Pretoria Central, dealt with this very matter, namely that the CP was accusing the NP of being integrationist. [Interjections.] This just goes to prove how the hon. members of the CP are guided by expediency. This is also the essence of the charge I brought against that party here yesterday. It has been proved throughout this debate that when it suits them, they try to represent the NP as a bunch of integrationists, or worse. When it suits them in a different context, they try to give the NP a racist label. In doing all this, they have only one end in view.

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

No, the hon. member may ask his question later. I am now developing my argument, and my time is limited. Hon. members of the CP are doing all this with only one end in view, and that is to escape from the trap into which they have walked. They are trying to escape from the fact that they are the true racists in this country, and that their policy provides a model for conflict. They are now trying to get away from that. [Interjections.] They can laugh as much as they like, but I put it to them that the country will increasingly laugh at them, because they have no case whatsoever, and because they grasp at every argument they can get hold of, no matter which way it works, solely in order to achieve their own ends. What the hon. member for Lichtenburg said to me across the floor of this House a short while ago confirms my statement. Hon. members of the CP have only one end in view, and that is to get rid of their frustrations in their attempt to take over the Government of this country. That is what it is ail about. [Interjections.] My charge against them is that they never ask the one important question. When it comes to the Rikhoto matter, and when it comes to the other matters which are dealt with in this Bill, as well as all the other delicate matters which we are discussing here, they do not even notice the fact that they do not ask the most important question. That question is, of course, what is in the interests of South Africa. However, hon. members of the CP are obsessed with a single idea. That is that they want to take over the Government of this country in the interests of their own “moppie” (little mob) which is sitting opposite us in this House. [Interjections.] Now they are trying, on the one hand, to accuse the Government of being integrationist, and on the other hand, when it suits them, to accuse me of being a traitor. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister referred to a “moppie” which was sitting in this House. Whom did the hon. the Minister have in mind!

If it is unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

There are only hon. members sitting in this House.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. I did not mean it in a bad sense. I now want to come to the fact and I want to address the hon. member for Barberton. In making the allegation which he did make here, that with regard to the people who are here in terms of the provisions of section 10, such a daughter has those rights which the hon. member described to this House, he is quite wrong. He forgot that we are dealing here with a contract worker who comes here as an individual from the national States. If he has worked for one employer for 10 years, he acquires a certain right in terms of the Rikhoto judgment. If he has worked for more than one employer over a period of 15 years as a contract worker, as a private individual, then we say that in terms of the provisions of section 10(1)(c) of this legislation he may bring some of his relatives into this area—the daughter to whom the hon. member for Barberton referred, or his wife—but only under certain circumstances. It is all spelt out here, and it boils down to only one thing, and that is that approved accommodation must be available. Therefore the hon. member’s argument is devoid of all substances. [Interjections] I want to emphasize again, therefore, and I want it recorded in Hansard, that no rights which have already been acquired in terms of section 10(1)(c) are being affected by this clause, and that it is aimed only at those persons who may enter the prescribed area in future. These are the facts, and this has been the argument of every hon. member on our side. However, those hon. members simply want to use it for the sake of expediency, in order to accuse this side of the House of being racists. In order to evade the charge which has been brought against them, they are quite prepared to tell an abominable falsehood in this House.

You are talking abominable nonsense now.

Hon. members on our side have risen one after another and said that no rights are being taken away in this connection, as I have just told those hon. members. Why do they not accept it, then?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to say that the hon. member for Barberton has told an abominable falsehood?

In the rulings on unparliamentary language, the expression “deliberate falsehood” has been declared unparliamentary. I shall allow the hon. the Minister’s remark, but I request him to be more careful in his choice of words.

I shall do so, Sir.

You are “’n gruwelike, vals mens” (an abominable and deceitful person).

I want to come now to the hon. member Prof. Olivier. The hon. member took umbrage here at the fact that I had strongly attacked him yesterday.

Order! Did the hon. member for Barberton say that the hon. the Minister was “’n gruwelike, vals mens”.

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier took it amiss of me that I had at; tacked him yesterday on what he had said about the image of the department and the Administration Boards. I want to put it very strongly that the argument which I advanced still applies. Absolutely nothing has changed in the argument which I used. The hon. member also arrogates to himself the right to suggest that he and his party are speaking on behalf of the Blacks in this country. Then he uses a pretext in order to drag in our department and to present a certain image of the department, and I strenuously object to that. I want to ask the hon. member quite frankly across the floor of this House today: Is there any department which has to endure more accusations than this one? A point is reached where it really becomes a bit thick, and I object to it, because I resent the skilful way in which it is done. I resent it. The hon. member referred not only to the department, but to the Administration Boards as well. There are no fewer than 7 000 White officials and several thousand Black officials working for the Administration Boards alone. Furthermore, several thousand White officials are employed by the Department of Co-operation and Development. There are also many Black officials in the service of the Department of Co-operation and Development. It is an extremely large department whose activities extend all over the country. Therefore I say, as the responsible Minister, that we have a certain sensitivity with regard to this matter.

With all due respect, I think the hon. member is being extremely presumptuous in wishing to create the impression here, in the first place, that he is speaking on behalf of the Blacks, and, secondly, that he is aware of the image which the Department of Cooperation and Development has among the Blacks. I should like to know how he ascertained this. I hope, therefore, that the hon. member will be more careful the next time he attacks the department.

If I offended the hon. member in any way, I am prepared to apologize to the hon. member for having done so. If I expressed myself with undue severity in saying that the hon. member had abused the privilege of this House in the absence of officials who could not defend themselves here, I am quite prepared to apologize to the hon. member for that as well. However, I am not prepared to withdraw a single argument which I advanced in connection with this matter, because it is my duty to protect the officials of the Administration Boards and of the Department of Co-operation and Development. I regard it as a privilege and a pleasure to do so, because I know the effort these people are making. No one is perfect, but I really think it is time a stop was put to this kind of attack, which, as I have said, has become a bit thick. It remains wrong.

If anyone has a complaint, he must formulate it and he must state it in this House in the clearest terms, but when such general innuendos are made as have in fact been made here, I find it absolutely destructive. I cannot go along with that at all. If the hon. member, or any of the other hon. members of the Opposition, were to do so again, I am telling them now that I shall refute their allegations in the clearest language, unless they can be proved. I make absolutely no apology for this.

I have great esteem and respect for the hon. member, as I have for every hon. member of this House, but this is a place for debating. The hon. members attack me, I might almost say left, right and centre, but I do not respond to that by getting angry; I do become serious, though. The hon. members have never seen me get angry.

Then you must just stick to the truth.

Of course I shall stick to the truth, but then that hon. member must also stick to the truth. At the same time, the hon. member should tell the hon. member for Barberton, too, to stick to the truth.

But the hon. member for Barberton did stick to the truth.

We shall be able to debate that properly. And I shall do so; the hon. member must not think I am frightened of his bluster.

Unfortunately, I do not have much time left, and I shall soon have to conclude my speech. I do want to say something about housing, though. It is very important that I should say something in this connection, because the subject is dealt with in the Bill. There must be no misunderstanding about this: The Government is really going out of its way to wipe out the housing shortage, not only in regard to Blacks, but specifically in regard to Whites, Coloureds and other population groups as well. I am referring to the Viljoen Commission which I have just appointed. There are also the Steyn Commission and the Croeser working group. I may also refer to the totally new housing strategy which has been introduced. Is the hon. member such a Rip van Winkle that he is not aware of these things in attacking me as he did across the floor of this House or trying to create the impression that I am not replying to these allegations? Has he not heard of the 500 000 houses and the sale of these houses? Is the hon. member not aware of the fact that that capital which is being received is being used to provide housing? I could give the hon. member a lengthy account of the totally new strategy which has been introduced with regard to housing, including self-building under supervision, and a hundred and one other things. So the hon. member should also be a little more responsible in discussing these matters. Sir, I had intended to give the hon. member a good talking to, but my time is running out.

Finally, there is the question of multinationalism in South Africa. Multinationalism was not invented by the NP Government. All the NP has done during the period of its existence, since 1912, has been simply to recognize the God-given truth that there are different peoples and that it is normal and right to recognize the existence of different peoples before God and man. That is what the NP has founded its policy on and that is what the NP is continuing to build on.

Sir, I have to conclude. The kwaNdebele people is a small people. I should have liked to cross swords with the hon. member for Rissik about the kwaNdebele, and I should like to tell him straight away that he should brush up his knowledge of the history of the kwaNdebele, because I could shoot a lot of holes in his argument. However, I do not have time to do so now. He really should brush up his knowledge of the history of the kwaNdebele.

Are you talking about me?

Yes, of course I am talking about the hon. member for Rissik.

But what mistake did I make?

The kwaNdebele people …

There is no such people.

They have now formally requested to have their independence granted to them in December 1984. What the hon. members on that side should realize, therefore, is that the Government has simply recognized the fact of multinationalism and that this has led to the independence of the TBVC countries and to this request from the kwaNdebele people which we have before us at the moment. And this will certainly not be the last people in South Africa to ask for independence. What the hon. member for King William’s Town pleaded for from the NRP benches today is quite correct, too. This is in fact the effect which this Bill will essentially have. He advocated that a further step should be taken, i.e. that there should be a more formal structuring between these States and the RSA which will manifest itself at the economic level and at all levels which normally affect communities.

I want to thank hon. members on this side of the House for their positive contributions and I also want to thank the hon. members on the other side who have made positive contributions; however, a great many negative things have also been said. The effect of this Bill will be positive. I do not doubt that for a moment. With regard to three things in particular, namely the Rikhoto matter, the sport question and the Moutse question, this legislation has brought greater certainty and stability. I am convinced that in spite of what has been said here and what we have been accused of, the various peoples in this country will benefit from this, because it is our wish that this country should be peaceful and prosperous. This is indeed possible, and this Bill will contribute to that end.

Question put,

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

1. 1. On page 2, in line 22, after “1983” to insert:
   , and shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1 March 1983

I think it is fitting that I motivate this amendment briefly. Before coming to that, however, I just want to refer to a figure I mentioned last evening. I referred to an additional amount of R5 000 allocated towards the remuneration of professors. I should just like to confirm that I may have created the impression last evening that that amount applied to the present year, but it is the total allocation for 1984.

I just want to place a few comments on record to support my amendment. The principle at issue here, is that each client is entitled at any time to withdraw the trust money that has been entrusted to the attorney. It is therefore the choice of the client. That is the first principle.

The second principle that is now contained in legislation, is that interest earned on a savings account does not accrue to the attorney, but must be paid over to the Fidelity Guarantee Fund. Therefore, a logical principle inferred from this is that interest earned on trust money, or on any other account, does not accrue to the attorneys. Now the question arises: Whom must it accrue to? In view of the first principle I stated, it is logical that it will accrue to the Fidelity Guarantee Fund. This is to dispel the insecurity of justice that has arisen as a result of the fact that banks have also begun paying interest on the balance in a trust account. Interest can be paid on the daily balance in an account, or it can be arranged to be paid on a given figure at any time of the month. The fact remains, however, that interest is paid on the balance in a trust account, as in the case of a bank account. We must take the right of ownership of that interest into account, and this legislation explains that. That insecurity of justice must be dispelled.

The question arises: What about the right of ownership in respect of interest earned before the date on which interest becomes payable until this legislation comes into operation? How are we to deal with that? To dispel that insecurity of justice, I am moving a further amendment to give this section legal force with retrospective effect from 1 March 1983. The question arises: How have attorneys dealt with this matter until now? I asked the Fidelity Guarantee Fund to go into this, and whilst I am not going to quote verbatim from their letter, since I do not wish to name the provincial law societies concerned, I shall simply indicate the following by way of an adapted quotation from the chairman. He said—

Hon. members can therefore see that the Fidelity Guarantee Fund has, in fact, made provision for this, and only one question remains to be answered. What is the position as regards interest that has been dealt with differently from what the Fidelity Guarantee Fund had arranged with the various societies? What would the position be if everything had been dealt with in this way? We have attended to this question, too. To be able to answer this, I must first state one general rule as regards legislation, viz. that unless the contrary appears to be true, it assumed that the legislator wishes to provide only for future matters. A law has retrospective effect, however. If it is expressly stated in the law itself, or if the law deals with past issues, it is of retrospective effect. There is, however, a further restriction on this statement. According to Steyn’s work, Uitleg van Wette—which I do not want to quote now; hon. members can confirm this—there is another restriction, viz. that even with an express provision of retrospectiveness, unless another intention becomes apparent, transactions that have already been finally disposed of are not affected. Consequently, I also have the undertaking from the chairman of the Fidelity Guarantee Fund that they will deal administratively with those transactions that are not affected by the retrospective effect of this legislation in a fair and just way. It is possible to do so, since this legislation, with its retrospective effect, is creating a legal relationship only between the law societies and the Fidelity Guarantee Fund, on the one hand, and the individual members on the other. We trust that in this way we have brought about security of justice where there was insecurity of justice.

Mr. Chairman, the only question before us now is the amendment that the hon. the Minister of Justice has moved. I think we have had a very good debate in so far as the Fidelity Fund and the Attorneys’ Trust Account is concerned. We do compliment the hon. member for Sand-ton on his excellent exposition, so much so that the House can be very clear as to what we are talking about at the moment. As it appeared on the Order Paper, the amendment did raise a few eyebrows to begin with because one is always very circumspect and very slow to enact legislation that is retrospective. When one does this sort of thing, one is in fact trying to unscramble an already scrambled egg and it is not always easy to do so at that stage. The interest paid on the money by banks voluntarily was like a gift from the gods and this happened simply because of the competition for funds that now exists among the banking institutions. The decision made by the banks to pay interest on current accounts was a very welcome one. However, not all banks do so. Some banks do not pay interest on these accounts at all while other banks again give clients a choice between earning interest on current account and not paying ledger fees. There is also the question of companies that trade and are obliged to accept the interest and individuals who may have a choice. Attorneys fall into both categories because while some attorneys practise as individuals and therefore fall into that category, others again practise as companies and are treated as such because, as the hon. the Minister and hon. members in the House will know, they are entitled to practise as such if they please.

The hon. the Minister and other hon. members may know from their own experience that what has transpired since 1 March is that an attorney accepts money for a case but that money is not classed as trust money because the money he receives is for fees and disbursements at the same time. Therefore the fees belong to him while the disbursements have to be utilized to pay counsel or the sheriff or whoever it may be has to be paid. An attorney may also have accumulated fees in his trust account which he has not been able to debit because the transaction has not been finalized at which stage he will make the necessary debits. Therefore, in that trust account there may be money that belongs to the public and there is also interest that has accrued on the money, part of which would belong to the attorney as well. As the hon. the Minister has said, the law societies did in fact send out circulars in regard to what the position was to be once this legislation was passed, namely that the interest would have to be put aside. This was a request that was made by the law societies and did not, of course, have the force of law. There was a tremendous amount of concern among the legal profession who did not quite know how to interpret this. I know that there were many telephone calls made to the secretaries of law societies asking them to explain the position. Because of all the doubts that existed in regard to the actual meaning of this circular, interest was paid out and we are now going back to the position as it was in March, a period of some five months. It is not all that easy now to go back five months without any explanation but I am happy that the hon. the Minister has come to an understanding with the various legal fraternities in regard to the fidelity fund to the effect that because the egg has been scrambled, the situation cannot be restored. However, the public will at least have the assurance that where interest is paid it will be deposited in the fidelity fund. As the hon. member for Sandton said yesterday, we know that the fidelity fund is, after all, there for the protection of the public. Where the money belongs to the attorney, then he will, of course, receive the interest. From the statements made by the hon. the Minister we know that it is the opinion in law that once a transaction has been completed it cannot be undone and the moneys repaid. Once the transaction has been completed and the money has been paid out, whether it has been drawn or not, that is the end of the matter.

Because of the approach of the hon. the Minister and the law societies in regard to the fidelity fund, we will accept the amendment. We know, of course, that one cannot quote Hansard in court in interpreting the law. However, the hon. the Minister has given the hon. member for Sandton and myself the assurance, with the agreement of the fidelity fund, that what we have discussed today will be carried out in the legal profession.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that we have the greatest appreciation for his amendment, which results in the legislation in question being of retrospective effect. We also have great appreciation for the assurances he gave us as well as the negotiations he conducted with the law society. In the circumstances we believe that the legislation under discussion and the interpretation thereof, as well as the operation of this measure, should not pose any problems in the future.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

I think it is perhaps appropriate for me to draw the attention of the House to the latest issue of Murphy’s Law, in which the author also deals with the reasons why things go wrong. This particular issue is subtitled “More reasons why things go wrong”. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that in respect of this particular measure now before the House, Severett’s Law will not be applicable. That law reads as follows—

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate on the present legislation adjourned last evening, I was making a few general remarks in support of it, particularly with regard to the enormous task and responsibility of our Prisons Service. As I have already said, it is a service rendered by men and women for whom we have the greatest esteem, respect and appreciation.

Subsequently, I want to point out that I believe it is essential that in terms of the present legislation we establish a reserve force for our Prisons Service. History is definitely being made with the establishment of a reserve force. As the population of the country grows, it will become essential for the Prisons Service to see to its need for labour. After all, not only will there be an increase in population, but also a comparable growth in the prison population. This means only one thing, viz. that the Prisons Service will have to see to it that it is prepared and that its staff, its labour force, is supplemented regularly.

That is why I believe the answer lies in establishing a reserve force. By establishing a reserve force, the hon. the Minister and his department are engaged in sound planning. We therefore also take pleasure in supporting the legislation before us.

I do not intend referring to every clause that effects amendments to the principal Act. The establishment of a Prisons Reserve Force, who are to become members of such a force, the duties as regards reservists, the employment of members of the reserve force, their remuneration, and so on, is all fully defined in the new sections 9B to 9F, which are set out clearly in clause 4.

Last year, as well as this year, we spent a considerable amount of time on a new system of national service of the Defence Force. It was essential legislation. The legislation before us at present is also essential legislation. Over the years, the Prisons Service has trained many thousands of officials and members, and everyone who has been trained as a member of the force has received specialist training, as it were, since the work of every person in the force is the work of a specialist. It is true that it has cost the State many thousands of rand to train each member of the force. It is therefore right and fitting that former members of the force be involved in service in a field where their knowledge and expertise can be utilized very effectively. I believe that our Defence Force will show a great deal of understanding for the fact that former members of the Prisons Service be used exclusively for assistance and rendering service on a front where it is imperative that law and order be maintained. The CP therefore welcomes the establishment of a reserve force for the Prisons Service in particularly.

I should like to refer to one other clause. In clause 10 we are dealing with a rectification of, a supplement or amendment to section 44 of the principal Act. Section 44 deals with the penalty that may be imposed for loitering in the vicinity of prisons. If we look at the proposed wording, we note that it gives the Commissioner of Prisons considerably more power in respect of people who could have all kinds of plans in mind and who move around near the prison areas. We believe that practical problems arose as regards the existing wording of this section, and that is why it has been rectified. People who move in those areas with honest intentions need have no fear, but I also think it is necessary to issue a very clear warning to the people who do not have good intentions and who find themselves in those prohibited areas. We therefore support that particular clause as well, and we believe that it will grant the Commissioner greater power in guarding and taking care of the areas where prisoners are detained.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member Mr. Theunissen for the support he gave this legislation on behalf of his party. The hon. member praised the Prisons Service highly, and I want to associate myself with that, since we are dealing here with a service department which really renders a fine service in its field.

I want to be brief. I do not want to repeat the arguments that have already been raised. I think we are all in agreement. This legislation is not controversial. We are all pleased and very grateful that a reserve force is being created for the S.A. Prisons Service. However, I think we should dispel one possible misunderstanding. Certain people, particularly in the private sector, may think that we want to try and supplement the manpower of the S.A. Prisons Service by creating a reserve force for them. That is one of the aims, as the hon. member Mr. Theunissen indicated. On the other hand, I want to point out, however, that apart from the custodial function the Prisons Service performs, it also performs a specific security function in this country. They must therefore be brought in line with the S.A. Defence Force and the S.A. Police. That is why this reserve force, and the provisions in respect of it, are also being brought in line with the system of national service. As the hon. the Minister pointed out in his Second Reading speech, the persons concerned will not be considered for military service of 12 days per annum when they are incorporated into the commandos at a later stage, and they will, in other words, be incorporated into the system of national service of the S.A. Defence Force.

The hon. member Mr. Theunissen also referred to the training of the staff of the S.A. Prisons Service—and I also referred to this in detail during the discussion of this Vote earlier this year. As was pointed out, a great deal of money has been spent on the training of those people, and now they are lost to the S.A. Prisons Service. Although the date of this legislation will come into operation is 1 January 1983, I want to ask that we consider whether we could not get those people who have rendered more than four years uninterrupted service in the Prisons Service in the past, those experts who are perhaps not using the specific expertise they have while serving in the S.A. Defence Force, transferred to the S.A. Prisons Service in the future. I believe this is possible with the cooperation of the S.A. Defence Force and the Manpower Board.

The second matter I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister is that there are many people in our society—I am thinking particularly of our professional people such as pharmacists, doctors, chaplains, veterinarians and people like that—who are not accommodated in the system of national service of the S.A. Defence Force, but who could perhaps apply to do service where there is a service point of the Prisons Service in the community, so that we can accommodate them in this reserve force that is being created for the S.A. Prisons Service as well.

With these few words, I take great pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP will be supporting this legislation. The points we should like to raise are largely points for the Committee Stage. Perhaps it will be as well just to go through them now in case the hon. the Minister would like to make sure about them. The one matter concerns the provision made for the prisons reserve personnel to serve in excess of 60 days per year for purposes of maintaining law and order, security and such matters. I believe that that will be covered by regulation and that they will get credit for this extra service. It is a point we can come back to during the Committee Stage. It is simply a matter dealing with the total service period. Prisons Service personnel who have completed four years’ service are obviously well-trained and are of value to the service. Their services can be used in terms of this legislation. However, it might well be that a young man or woman underwent the necessary training but left the service because he or she found that that type of service did not suit her; in fact, that he or she wanted to get away from that environment. I take it that there will be a method for such persons to ask for a transfer to perhaps complete his or her service in the SADF, for example.

In general I would like to make a few points about the Prisons Service on this occasion. There is nothing contentious in the Bill now as a result of the withdrawal of certain clauses by the hon. the Minister. This is an opportunity for us to express once again our appreciation to the Prisons Service. I would say that when it comes to turn-out, appearance and neatness, then of all the uniformed branches of services in this country, the S.A. Prisons Service has the top spot. I think the other services had better look to their laurels to see where they can equal the high standard of appearance which is currently the case in the Prisons Service.

The second point is that there was a TV programme very recently in which the heads of the various services on the female side of things from the Army, the Police and the Prisons Service were interviewed. I must say that the senior administrative officer representing the Prisons Service on that programme certainly did the Prisons Service proud and put across a very good image of the service.

The whole concept of catching the fall-out of trained personnel who have been trained at great expense to the point at which they are just becoming useful within a service, is one which we on these benches feel is a very sound and economic way of going about broadening the base of any service as and where necessary. The approach to this seems to have been very well worked out together with the Department of Manpower and the Department of Defence. Apart from that other measures deal with the privileges of prisoners the deletion of certain obsolete phrases, and updating certain fines, and we on these benches are very happy to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for King William’s Town for his very positive approach to this matter.

With regard to his questions, I think that he should first of all take cognizance of the proposed new section 9B(6) provided for in clause 4 of the Bill. This subsection empowers the Minister to call up members of the Reserve for additional periods of service. The hon. member’s argument probably hinges on the provisions of this particular subsection. It seems to me to be quite natural that we should synchronize our terms of service with these of the S.A. Defence Force for the simple reason that they set the pace. The Defence Force is, in the first instance, entitled to the military manpower of this country.

We have several objectives in introducing this legislation. The first objective is to prevent the Prisons Service from being a kind of easy escape from military service. We are of course part and parcel of the services set up in the country and we have to support the Defence Force in that respect. On the other hand we cannot possibly make our own rules and regulations. Therefore we shall definitely take cognizance of their regulations in this regard.

Reference was made to the appearance of a woman officer on television. I did not see the programme myself but I have received many complimentary reports on the programme. I think it is perhaps proper that we should commend her on her appearance on television.

*The hon. member for Stellenbosch did not take part in the debate but I want to thank him for the special attention he gave this Bill and for his suggestions on improving it. We shall probably hear more about that later.

This brings me to the hon. member for Kroonstad, who asked two important questions. Firstly, he asked whether it was possible for us to deal with those people who have already completed their service period of four years. The hon. member is quite correct in saying that we shall have to enter into negotiations with the Defence Force. Being the service entitled to this particular manpower, the Defence Force will have to give us an indication in this regard whether they can afford our taking over such persons from the reserve establishment of the Defence force. However, on the other hand—I think this applies to the hon. member for Kroonstad as well as the hon. member for King William’s Town—I must point out that if a person resigns before completing his service period of four years—I also referred to this during the Second Reading—and is not taken into the Reserve Force of the Prisons Service, he will automatically be assigned to the Defence Force for further utilization. As a result, there is not even any question of further dealings with such a person, or of his negotiating for a transfer. If he resigns from the Prisons Service he will automatically return to the Defence Force. That, then, is the situation as far as this matter is concerned.

The hon. member for Kroonstad also pointed out that we could well make use of other professional people who do not fall within the framework of our national service system. I have thought about this and wondered whether there are such people. I thought the net recently cast by the hon. the Minister of Defence was so wide that he had caught everybody up to the age of 55 years. I should therefore be very interested to know who the people are who are not caught in this net.

I do wish to draw attention to a provision providing for voluntary service by those people who have been exempted from the Defence Force. Thus these people may, in fact, serve on a voluntary basis. In view of the appeal by the hon. member for Kroonstad I think it is fitting that I should agree with him in that respect. If, indeed, there are such people, and if it is possible, we should investigate the matter. We shall certainly follow up this suggestion.

I want to thank the hon. member for Durban Central and the hon. member Mr. Theunissen for their positive contributions. I do not think those hon. members expect any particular replies from me. However, the hon. member Mr. Theunissen did point out that we would most certainly have to make provision for the expansion of the service to keep pace with the growing prison population. Thus, if there is one message that could go out from this House today it is that we cannot escape our responsibility to the population of South Africa, whatever their race, since the custodial duties of the Prisons Service are at the same time also a duty of protection to the public. Unless the service is properly manned we cannot perform that very important duty to the public. I thank the hon. member for those ideas.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 4:

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

The reason for this amendment is merely to dispel any misunderstanding there may be, since, as the clause reads at present, the impression could have been created that everyone receives the 120 days credit from the very first year. If we insert the words “in excess of four years”, it follows that this applies to members who have already rendered four years’ uninterrupted service and that they receive credit of 120 days only after four years.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated during the Second Reading, I move that clause 18 be negatived. I am not relinquishing the idea completely, but there are problems with clause 18 as it reads at present. I therefore withdraw it at this stage.

Clause negatived.

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

1. 1. On page 16, in lines 22 to 26, to omit subsection (1) and to substitute:
   1. (1) Where a prisoner dies and a medical practitioner is unable to certify that his death is due to natural causes, the member of the Prisons Service in charge of the prison in question shall furnish the report required by section 2 of the Inquests Act, 1959 (Act No. 58 of 1959).

Very briefly, the motivation for this is that this clause, in fact, replaces a process which has been outdated for a considerable length of time and which was practically no longer implemented in the case of a death due to unnatural causes. There are, in fact, provisions in the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act, Act No. 81 of 1963, which, read together with the Inquests Act, would have obviated the whole matter, but for the sake of greater clarity, after negotiations with various interested parties, with the official Opposition as well, I decided to effect it in this way. I do so with their support.

Mr. Chairman, we have studied the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister and I think it effects a great improvement. It states quite clearly that the medical practitioner first of all has to issue a death certificate or refuse it if he has reason to believe that death was not due to natural causes. Therefore we support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

I think it is fitting that I refer in passing to the very interesting remark made by the hon. member for King William’s Town on the television programme concerned. For the sake of the record, I just want to mention that it was Brigadier Van Zyl who participated in that programme. I am simply giving this information so that the hon. member can take cognizance of it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill arises from the report of the South African Law Commission on the Review of the Law of Admiralty, which was tabled in this House on 3 June 1983.

It appears from the report of the commission that our law in this regard is in need of reform. The admiralty law in South Africa is identical to English law as it stood in 1891, together with any amendments to that law by virtue of statutes having force of law in South Africa. This was brought about in 1890, when the Westminster Parliament enacted the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, which came into operation on 1 July 1891. In terms of section 2(1) of that Act the Supreme Courts of the Cape Colony and Natal, and the Eastern Districts Court, became colonial courts of admiralty.

As hon. members are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of South Africa applies the Roman Dutch common law. Should our Supreme Court, however, sit as an admiralty court, English law is applied. Although in form there is only one court, in substance there are indeed two. Similar disputes may result in different judgments under the common law and the admiralty law respectively. Furthermore. Mr. Speaker, since 1890 there has been a period of great development in the maritime law. Most of, these developments, however, have not been incorporated in South African legislation, with the result that South African maritime law has become outdated and filled with many anachronisms. It is, inter alia, for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that the South African Law Commission feels that reform with regard to jurisdiction and procedure is urgently required. Except for a few improvisations, the recommendations of the commission are reflected in the Bill.

*Mr. Speaker, the maritime claims that were specified in the International Convention for the Unification of Rules Relating to the Arrest of Sea-going Ships, that was entered into in 1952, has served as a basis for the definition of a maritime claim as contained in clause 1(1)(iii) of the Bill under discussion. Consideration was given not only to United Kingdom legislation, but also to that of other territories. It was as a result of this that claims relating to marine insurance found in Scottish law and in the law of the USA have also been included.

In terms of clause 2 of the Bill, the power is being vested in each provincial and local division of the Supreme Court of South Africa, including a circuit local division, to hear and determine any maritime claim of any nature, irrespective of the place where it arose, the place of registration of the ship in question or the residence, domicile or nationality of the owner.

For the most part, the Law Commission used the existing admiralty powers as a basis for reform. In this way the benefits of the action in rem and the maritime lien are retained. Clause 3 contains provisions relating to the action in personam and also stipulates the circumstances in which a maritime claim may be enforced by an action in rem. Clause 3(6) requires further elucidation. Basically, it provides that certain actions in rem may be brought by the arrest of an associated ship instead of the ship in respect of which the maritime claim arose. The meaning of such an associated ship is specified in clause 3(7). The International Convention to which I have already referred contains similar provisions. However, the provisions of the Bill are an extension of the idea contained in the Convention, based on the fact that since entry into the Convention, the provisions in this regard have been evaded by the formation of so-called “one ship companies”, viz. companies owning only one ship. This provision extends a principle of the South African law that is summarized as follows in Lategan and Others vs. Boyes and Another, 1980 (4) SA 191 (T)—

Clause 4 makes the provisions of the Supreme Court Act, 1959, and the rules made thereunder applicable mutatis mutandis in relation to admiralty proceedings as intended in the Bill, except in so far as those rules are inconsistent with the rules of the admiralty courts of the Republic that were in force in terms of the “Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890” immediately before the Bill came into operation. The latter rules are deemed to be rules made under the Supreme Court Act, 1959, and apply in respect of proceedings in terms of the Bill. The power of the Chief Justice to make rules under section 43 of the Supreme Court Act, 1959, includes, in terms of clause 4(3), the power to make rules prescribing certain aspects for the purposes of this Bill.

Clause 5 deals with the powers of the Supreme Court in the exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction. For example, the court may decide any matter arising in connection with any maritime claim, notwithstanding that any such matter may not be one which would give rise to a maritime claim, may order any person to give security for costs, may set conditions in regard to arrest, etc.

Clause 6 deals with the law to be applied. From an academic point of view, it is probably the most important clause in the Bill. It is, with regard to any matter in respect of which a court of admiralty of the Republic referred to in the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, of the United Kingdom would have had jurisdiction before the date of inception of this Bill, the right that the High Court of Justice of the United Kingdom would have applied in the exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction at the commencement of this measure. With regard to any other matter, the Roman-Dutch law applicable in the Republic must be applied. In terms of clause 7(1), a court may decline to exercise its admiralty jurisdiction in any proceedings instituted if it is of the opinion that the action can more appropriately be adjudicated upon by another court in the Republic or by any other court, tribunal or body. In terms of clause 7(5) the Minister may, on the recommendation of the judge president, submit the question as to whether or not a particular matter gives rise to a maritime claim, to the Appellate Division and may cause that question to be argued before that division so that the Division may decide the question for future guidance.

†In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my appreciation to Mr. Shaw of the Natal Bar for his part in the measure. In this regard, I associate myself with the remarks of the S.A. Law Commission in paragraph 9 of its Report—

Dr. Botha, Deputy Chief State Law Adviser, had the invidious task of acquainting himself with martime law in general and the proposed Bill in particular and of casting it in a mould peculiar to the draftsmanship of a highly skilled law adviser. He accomplished this task in a relatively short period and is to be commended for that.

Finally, one hon. member in particular, who is very much scholarly inclined, has over the years thought his writings kept the topic of admiralty law very much alive, namely the hon. member for Groote Schuur. The third edition of his text book The Law of Shipping and Carriage in South Africa recently saw the light with a special chapter on admiralty jurisdiction. I think he welcomes the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to respond to the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech on the Bill. Admiralty jurisdiction law is certainly not a topic which dominates dinner party conversations throughout South Africa. To be honest, it is not a branch of the law practised with any great expertise by most lawyers. It is a highly specialized field of law in which there are only a relatively few in this country who are authorities.

Admiralty law, founded in English trading history, though complicated is nonetheless particularly fascinating in South Africa where it has had to march side by side with a developing South African law which is based on Roman Dutch principles. This has led to many anomalies. Fortunately, however, a good lawyer is not necessarily a walking encyclopaedia, but rather one who knows where to find the law and how thereafter to interpret and apply it. So we legislators, having read the documentation which has been put before us, having studied the background and this law’s long history, having sought and obtained learned advice will hopefully with minor amendments transport the draft legislation into law without displaying too much ignorance as to its detail or the ramifications thereof.

Speak for yourself. [Interjections.]

Before I attempt to discuss the nuances of the document before us, I think it is only proper to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. the Minister in regard to the author of this Bill and its draftsman, Adv. Douglas Shaw, QC, of the Durban Bar. Mr. Shaw has worked on the Bill at the request of the South African Law Commission for something like three years and has brought a keen mind and a remarkable expertise to bear on its drafting. The Bill before us is certainly a fitting monument to his labours.

I should also like to pay tribute to the legal profession in South Africa who submitted many valuable comments and memoranda, and several of whose suggestions have been incorporated in this final product.

The Bill which seeks to modernize and reform the law in its application to shipping matters has several major attributes. Firstly the existing admiralty law applied in South Africa is pegged to 14 heads of jurisdiction which were laid down as long ago as the year 1890. Despite important developments in maritime traffic since then, these basic heads of jurisdiction have not been amended and as a result claims falling outside the scope of the heads cannot be tried in South Africa except in some cases through the ordinary courts applying a different system of law. The Bill extends the jurisdiction of the South African admiralty courts to 26 heads of jurisdiction, giving our admiralty courts full jurisdiction in virtually every kind of shipping matter. The Bill codifies what seems to be a comprehensive list of all actions which can be termed maritime claims. One of the effects of this, coupled with clause 2 of the Bill, is to internationalize thoroughly South African admiralty law. In future, whatever the nationality of the shipowner, wherever a ship may be registered and wherever the cause of action arose, a claimant will be able, if the ship concerned is within the ambit of South African waters, to sue in this country for redress. South African admiralty law and justice is therefore placed on the world map.

Another point worth mentioning is that present admiralty law is buttressed by a highly complex system of ranking of claims based on historic maritime liens. Because of the development of law in past decades, this system, unchanged, became inappropriate, obsolete and even somewhat chaotic. In clearly stating logical and easily understandable ranking of claims in clause 11, the Bill clarifies and settles these issues.

Furthermore, the Bill goes a long way towards clarifying the previously restricted rules regarding various peripheral matters such as ancillary judicial powers, rules of evidence, disputes as to jurisdiction, etc. Also, in subsections (6) and (7) of clause 3 an important innovation has been introduced by providing that a maritime claim may be brought by the arrest of an associated ship instead of the ship in respect of which the claim originally arose. The term “associated ship” is, of course, clearly defined in the Bill so as to avoid legal uncertainty. This basic principle has in the past been obviated by the proliferation of what can be termed one-ship companies and by other legal ploys designed by shipowners to avoid corporate liability when one of the ships in a fleet becomes liable to a claim. The subsections I have mentioned provide a logical extension to the international convention which the hon. the Minister mentioned, the international convention with regard to the arrest of sea-going ships. In this respect it can be claimed that South Africa leads the world.

Having said all this, I want to say that we in the official Opposition have two reservations to the Bill which I believe must be mentioned. Firstly, while the present situation is that English law applies to all admiralty cases in South Africa, clause 6 of the Bill provides for a dichotomy in that, with regard to cases in respect of which a court in South Africa had jurisdiction by virtue of the old 1890 English enactment, viz. those 14 heads of jurisdiction, English law and its extensions will still be applied, but with regard to any other matter not covered by those original 14 heads of jurisdiction, any other matter found under the new and broadened heads of jurisdiction, South African law based on Roman-Dutch principles will apply. There are cogent arguments on both sides of the fence in this matter. On balance, we would have preferred South African law to have applied to all matters. In other words, we would have preferred the Roman-Dutch law, as amended over the years, to apply to South Africa. This would have had two advantages. Firstly, the situation would have been more consistent and no disputes or doubts could ever arise as to which law was applicable at any given time in relation to any claim. Secondly, South African law sources are more readily accessible to us in our country than are the authorities and sources of English law. However, we accept that since the Supreme Court was first established in Southern Africa 150 years ago, a large number of cases applying English law have been decided and these have built up an authoritative and understood body of precedent in this country. In this respect we appreciate the drafter’s dilemma. Here I would like to quote from the book the hon. the Minister mentioned a few moments ago, namely the third edition of Bamford’s The Law of Shipping and Carriage in South Africa, at page 195, where the learned author states as follows—

That was the comment of the author of that book. I believe that the fact that we have reservations about the answer provided in this Bill does not, however, outweigh the Bill s other attributes.

A further reservation relates to the rules of court. I would like to address the hon. the Minister directly on this issue. The present Admiralty Rules of Court date back to 1890. This Bill retains those rules which are both complicated and lengthy and not easily applied. If I am not wrong, I think the rules run to something like 300 pages, perhaps even more. Clause 4(2) of the Bill has relevance here. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to cause these rules to be looked at with a view to having them updated, streamlined and perhaps even shortened. Hopefully the Minister will respond positively to this request. Secondly, and I am not sure whether the hon. the Minister is aware of this aspect, these rules are not publicly available although they are used by judges, by the staff of the Supreme Court and by those few in the legal profession who practise this branch of the law. I want to ask whether it is not possible to have these rules published in the Government Gazette by way of general notification.

Finally, I would like to say that in these times of supertankers and the dangers of pollution, of which South Africa is today and during this particular week greatly aware, in these times of multinational shipping corporations, a maritime nation such as ours deserves a civil law which is equal to the complexities of the late twentieth century. I believe that this Bill provides that need. Accordingly we will support it at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in associating myself with the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Sand-ton in their praise of the Law Commission and particularly of Advocate Shaw and the legal draftsmen. Adv. Shaw was willing to come and inform us laymen about this highly specialized subject.

We probably all recognize that it is essential to have legislation to enforce maritime claims and regulate the jurisdiction. Due to the increase in marine traffic around our coast and, as the hon. member for Sandton said, the greater value of cargo, we can take it that maritime claims will increase not only in number but also in value. Particularly when we look at the definitions clause, we see that “maritime claim” includes, inter alia—

It also includes—

The existing legal position is untenable, as the hon. member rightly said.

The jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty in England was the result of a growth of a system outside the normal common law system, with its own procedure, jurisdiction and judges. The law administered was based more on maritime custom, which in turn was influenced more by the Roman law than by the English common law. I think that in this regard I can set the mind of the hon. member for Sandton at rest that South African courts, that are more acquainted with the Roman law, will not find it so difficult to implement the law that we are at present making provision for.

Admiralty courts existed in the Cape Colony and in Natal, and still exist, but because the admiralty courts did not exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Courts it was found that various courts were able to apply various legal systems to the same dispute. This, of course, is undesirable in the extreme. I need not elaborate on that further. The legislation now provides that the provincial and local divisions of the Supreme Court in South Africa will have jurisdiction in maritime affairs. The areas of jurisdiction of the courts include that portion of the territorial waters of the Republic adjacent to the coastline of their areas of jurisdiction. The law to be applied is, firstly, the law elected by the parties themselves in their agreements and, alternatively, the law of admiralty of the United Kingdom in those cases where the admiralty courts, had it not been for this legislation, would have had jurisdiction as created in the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act. In all other instances the Roman-Dutch law applies. I concede that there may be an urgent need for the codification of our law in this regard, but this would take many years and would be a long process. The most urgent matter, viz. certainty as to which courts have jurisdiction, and the matters now being regulated in this legislation, are very important and could not be delayed until after the codification of the law as a whole.

Interesting provisions relating to procedure are also being laid down. For example, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule, particularly because one finds that ships may sail away and that entries in the log book sometimes make it difficult to obtain the necessary information. For that reason, hearsay evidence is permitted, but it is left to the discretion of the court to decide what value they will attach to it.

I therefore wholeheartedly support, the Second Reading of this Bill. It will bring about greater security of justice in regard to a most urgent matter. As I said earlier, this legislation does not cover the whole field. We shall have to give further attention to this. I also associate myself with other hon. speakers in thanking and congratulating the Law Commission once again on the excellent piece of work they have submitted.

Mr. Speaker, earlier on one of my hon. colleagues remarked that the hon. member for Nelspruit could claim to be the admiral of the Lowveld. Since he comes from one side of the Transvaal and I come from the other, I think I can claim to being the vice admiral of the Bush-veld. [Interjections.]

A former dean of the department of law at Stellenbosch, the famous Prof. Morty Malherbe, once made the statement that a good knowledge of law alone does not necessarily make a good lawyer, but that one must have a good legal instinct as well. Coming from the interior, and as a person who is not really very fond of the sea, I find myself today in a position of being involved with the law of the sea, and I said to myself that if I did not want to go overboard I should have to cling to something. I therefore decided to stick to the notes I have before me.