As chairman of the Select Committee on the Insolvency Amendment Bill, I move as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will forgive me if I devote a few minutes of my time to the general debate of last week. I find the temptation to do so, before I deal with the financial points, almost irresistible. We know that on 24 March the United Party suffered a heavy defeat at the provincial elections. In the five-day debate of last week it was clearly shown why they had lost that election, because the debate largely followed the main lines of stereotype United Party policy. It is that policy which has brought them to the plight in which they are to-day. You know, Sir, the United Party have gone from one defeat to the other but like the Bourbons, they forget nothing and they learn nothing. They forget nothing of their old tricks and political cliches but they learn nothing from the experience they have regularly had at the polls.

The fact that neither the hon. the Leader of the Opposition nor the Deputy Leader nor any of the provincial leaders took part in this very important debate last week may be significant.

I think it is significant. It may even show that the United Party’s agonizing re-appraisal of their policies is not yet completed, because it is quite obvious that the reasons for their defeat go much deeper than merely organization. After all, Sir, organization must have something that makes it tick. It is not a soulless machine. The United Party have not yet learnt after all their agonizing experiences, that voters do not accept criticism, however well-directed, as a substitute for policy. They have not yet learnt that extravagant promises impress only the weak-minded. They have not yet learnt that a party which exploits grievances, a party which is based on grievances, can have no cohesion. The most important lesson that they have not yet learnt is that political opportunism will always lose out to steadfast principles, particularly if those principles are South African in bone and marrow. We have heard a great deal about promises, grievances, opportunism and more in this debate.

What about the 5,000,000 hearts beating as one?

I shall condole with the hon. member by and by. I say it is significant that the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader or the provincial leaders did not take part. It is equally significant, at any rate, that five out of the 12 new apostles did take part in that debate. I think I will not be premature, Mr. Speaker, if I conveyed my congratulations at this stage to these 12 new apostles on this greatness that has been thrust upon them. Nor do I think it would be altogether out of place if I were, at the same time, to extend my condolences to those who have failed to make the grade. Somebody once said something about dropping a pilot, but in this case it is not dropping the pilot but dropping the whole front bench! My heart almost bleeds for these people who have worked so hard only to find that his Master’s voice has decreed that they should no longer be the shadow cabinet of the United Party! I say, I do not think it is very premature, Sir, because one usually finds that if his Master’s voice speaks on Sunday, the caucus of United Party responds affirmatively on Tuesday. Let me say at once it will not be sufficient to jettison key leaders. What the United Party wants is to jettison key policies. There are certain policies which, if they want to survive, they will have to jettison and that is a much more difficult task than merely to jettison leaders.

The hon. member for Point (Mr. Raw)—I see him in his smiling self—did his very best to “dress up” the United Party policy of race federation. He said it was a way of life, almost a philosophy, of many races living together in peace under the leadership of the White man. Those are brave words, but I am afraid that race federation is completely unrealistic in at least two respects. The first is that to accept leadership is a voluntary act of those who are to be led. It is not something which can rest on merit alone unless that test is accepted by all who are to be led. Lord Milverton, a very distinguished colonial administrator in Africa and elsewhere, said last year that the skeletons of multi-racial dreams lay scattered over Africa. That is true. History has shown that a Black majority will not accept White leadership once they get a share, however small, in the government of a country. That is the lesson that history has taught over the last 20 years. It is also unrealistic in this respect that, as far as I know, the United Party policy has not appealed to any body of Bantu opinion. It has been rejected by the Coloureds; it is daily losing the support of the White electorate. One of these days it will be one of those dreams; the skeleton of one of those dreams that lie scattered over Africa! Facts have shown that this policy, this way of life, this almost philosophy of the United Party, has no future in South Africa either.

The hon. member for Point has sought comfort in an article in the Burger. He says it is admitted in that article that the United Party is the true conservative party to-day; but I am afraid there is bought for his comfort in that article because the Burger was merely referring to the truism that the United Party has consistently and strenuously resisted every attempt to make South Africa free, independent and great. The United Party denied us our right to neutrality; the United Party resisted our right to secede up to the very end; the United Party fought against giving South Africa its own citizenship, its own flag, its own decimal coinage—the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) was given special dispensation to disagree with his party. The United Party fought—that is what the Burger referred to specifically—against the coping stone of our independence, namely, our own republic. I know this is hurting because this is history but the United Party has resisted all efforts to free South Africa from political, economic and military subservience. In every way they have resisted us. Even now the United Party is trying to make it difficult for English and Afrikaans speaking South Africans to be welded into one great nation. We have as an example that letter written by the candidate of the United Party for the Provincial Council to the late Mr. Murphy and that letter has not yet been repudiated by the Leader of the United Party. In all these vital matters the United Party has always been the political “remskoen” (brake) failing to adapt itself to the changing conditions in South Africa. In that sense I agree with the hon. member for Durban (Point) in that sense they are conservative; they are conservative in the same way that the Dinosaurus was conservative!

I do not want to be unfriendly to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), but I think if I interpret the feelings of the Sunday Times correctly, they looked at the front bench of the Opposition and seemed to say in their own minds that nothing reminded them so much of a number of extinct volcanoes. [Interjections.] I must leave the United Party now in its travail. I am sorry I cannot offer them the comfort of twilight sleep in their labour. They will have to rely on a lot of midnight oil and midday sweat in order to devise something which will satisfy their followers in South Africa.

You are as good as Punch.

There is still life in the old volcano!

The financial criticism of this Budget was more confused than ever. We had all the old errors repeated. The assumption that the whole Budget consisted of what was said in the Budget speech was an old error which was again repeated. We had another old error repeated namely the limited and sectional view of our economy and its needs instead of a wide national approach. This year there was additional confusion for two reasons. I think the first was because the Budget was generally so well received by commerce, by industry, by the Stock Exchange and even by trade unions, by the Press and by many economists. That was one reason which probably confused the United Party more than ever before. The second was that the results of the provincial council elections upset my critics.

To the critics of the budgetary suit I have tailored, I offer this quotation: In making this suit “every snip of the scissors has been regulated and prescribed by ever active influences which doubtless to intelligences of a superior order are neither invisible nor illegible”. The operative words here are. of course, “intelligences of a superior order”.

I want to tell you, Sir, that I took a calculated risk this year in casting myself in the role of a tailor. Had the Opposition been well versed in English literature, they could literally have turned the tables on the tailor. They could have retailored the tailor—Sartor Resartus. I can imagine with what glee they would have performed this operation; I can even imagine, when I look at some of the members opposite, with what dandiacal extravagance they would have tried to retailor the tailor. But my fears on this score were needless. The combined literary attainments of the United Party did not rise above the nursery rhyme: “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Sailor”. That was the height of their literary attainment, Sir, and the title of Thomas Carlyle’s famous work missed them altogether. I said this nursery rhyme was the height of their literary attainment, but perhaps that too is indicative of many things!

One of the main points made—I shall deal briefly with them—was that there was no fixed limit to the loan levy. I want to assure hon. members immediately that had it been my object to make the loan levy permanent or even to make it for an indefinite period, I would have said so or I would have made it a tax because that is virtually what it would have been. All I was trying to convey is that unlike-former loan levies, it will not be repaid within a fixed period of time. Some elasticity in repayment was necessary otherwise we may find ourselves in the position in which we found ourselves last year when we had to repay R18,000,000 at a time when it was very undesirable, from the national economic point of view, to make such a repayment. The details will be in the Act and as hon. members will see in the Ways and Means proposals, but I can take them into my confidence at this stage already and assure them that I am instructed that the computer which has to deal with these matters, cannot carry more than seven years on its register. So within a maximum period of seven years, at a time most necessary for the national economy, that loan levy will be repaid.

The hon. members for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) and Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) spoke rather scathingly about the contrast between the slogans “spend for prosperity” and “save to maintain prosperity”. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) even went so far as to say that “spend for prosperity” as a slogan “flopped”. Well that, Sir, is a strange use of words when personal consumption expenditure rose from R3,389,000 in 1961 to R4,603,000 in 1964. It flopped because it rose by 37 per cent! The trouble is that that slogan was too successful. For the benefit of hon. members I may be allowed to say a few words about the relationship between consumption spending and saving. Hon. members will see that personal incomes are usually divided into three segments, i.e., taxation, personal spending and savings. If taxation remains constant and spending is curbed, then naturally savings must rise. If hon. members look at page 10 of the White Paper on the Budget they will see, for instance, that in 1962 spending amounted to 77.2 per cent and savings to 12 per cent. The rest is taxation and smaller items. In 1963 spending had risen to 80.2 per cent and savings fell to 8.2 per cent. In 1964 spending had risen to 83 per cent and savings, in consequence, fell to 5.3 per cent. You will see, therefore, Sir, that there is a inverse relationship between the figure for expenditure and the figure for savings, if taxation remains more or less constant. Eighty-three per cent is too high for spending and that is why we are now saying “save more”. If spending is curbed then, by the same token, savings will be increased. There is nothing inconsistent in that. If we said in 1962 “spend for prosperity” and “save to maintain prosperity” in 1965 it is not inconsistent. There is nothing inconsistent in a man putting on his over-coat when it starts to rain and taking off his jacket when the temperature rises over 100 degrees! That man is not inconsistent; he is not vacillating; he is merely being plain sensible and that is what we are in this Budget to-day.

I believe in a balanced line tailoring, but it must be a national balance. I know some of my critics have their own yardstick of balance. But often their yardstick is warped by the desire to make political capital. Very often it is bent by personal and sectional and class interests. The balance I have struck in this Budget, let me say at once, is not affected by the availability or not of labour. Hon. members argued as if the labour shortage was our greatest difficulty. I want to make this statement that even if skilled labour were available today and had been available in the past in unlimited numbers the growth rate would still have had to be cut down for balance of payments reasons. Perhaps I could explain that to hon. members by quoting from the survey of prospects for 1965 of the Bureau of Economic Research. They say—

I am quite sure had we had an absolute surplus of labour available a year ago we would, at this very moment, have been in very serious balance of payments difficulties. That is obvious and this argument that everything depends on the shortage of labour is therefore a yardstick of balance which is warped by the desire to make political capital out of the situation.

I want to come to the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) who indicated that this Budget was not tough enough to stop inflation. I asked him and he said yes, but at the very same time he says more concessions should have been granted to the ordinary taxpayer! The refrain of the political dirge from the Opposition side right through has been “more concessions to the ordinary taxpayer”, “more concessions to married women”, “more for pensioners” even though they are getting R10,600,000 under this Budget. The United Party is asking me in this Budget—which they say is not tough enough to stop inflation— to pump more and more money into the spending stream. I can almost hear them say “to blazes with inflation, because if inflation increases we can always blame it on the Government”. That is not a national yardstick of balance. Why do the Opposition speakers not follow the financial papers in this respect in praising the Budget for not granting general tax concessions? In almost all other respects they have slavishly followed what the Financial Mail and the Sunday Times have had to say by way of criticism. Why do the United Party not follow those newspapers also in this sensible respect? Now they forget all about their economic masters. Had these been preelection speeches in order to try to attract votes, I could still have understood it—though it cut no political ice with the electorate—but as a post-election plea, I think it is just irresponsible and unbalanced.

The next argument was that there was nothing to increase productivity in this Budget But not a single member of the Opposition told me what I should have done. Because if they had, I would probably have been able to point out that that has been done in this Budget, I notice that the President of Assocom is not impressed by this argument, and says that there are inducements to married women to work; there are inducements to elderly people to work longer. The president of Assocom then says: “What can you do in a Budget more than that?” Of course you can do much more than that and we have done that. In order to increase productivity as a long-range objective we have done the following, for instance, in this Budget. In the case of assistance to immigrants and to immigration organizations we budgeted last year for a total of R3,386,000. This year we have budgeted for R5,065,000. That is an increase of almost 50 per cent. I readily admit that part of that increase was already voted last year in the Additional Estimates but I am comparing the original estimates for last year with those of this year. Last year we granted an amount of R16,290,000 to universities and this year that figure is R18,678,000, i.e., more than R2,500,000 more. Let us take the figures in respect of research and technology. Last year we voted roughly R23,500,000 and this year we are voting R30,757,000. In the case of the training of artisans—and this is more or less all that is offering to be trained—we voted R 34,000 last year and R87,000 this year. In the case of all forms of education, excepting university education, we voted R122,500,000 last year and R131,600,000 this year, i.e., more than R9,000,000 more. In the case of bursaries and grants we are voting R2,195,000 this year plus the amount which may be collected under the 1 per cent scheme from companies. Last year it did not really produce any results but I am hoping that, as in the case of the 1 per cent allowance for technological research—which brought in over R1,500,000 last year—this bursary fund will also benefit to the same extent.

That is the position as far as our efforts to increase our labour force, i.e. our productivity, is concerned. You cannot do everything immediately. Even if we could do so it would not be wise, because as I have already shown our balance of payments position will immediately show the effect. But private enterprise itself can and has done much to improve productivity. Let me give hon. members an example in this respect from the Bureau of Economic Research. They say—

In other words, productivity per man hour has improved, and that is a function of the private entrepreneur. The modest surcharge which I have put on company tax this year, which only amounts to an increase of 1£ per cent— they will pay 31i per cent now instead of 30 per cent—should, I think, act as a spur to companies to promote efficiency still further than they have done in the past, and by promoting efficiency they will increase productivity. As Mr. Keller, the president of the Chamber of Commerce says—

It is not any amount that you give directly for a purpose, but it is indirectly in the means of educating and training facilities and technological research that you spend that money. It is a long-range policy. It does not show results immediately. Immediately the only effective remedy is the question of immigration, and there we have done more than, I think, many people would have expected possible.

Look at your speeches in the past.

The other argument has been that in this Budget there is no incentive to export. But, Sir, that is an illusory argument. After all, all the old incentives in the shape of tax concessions remain. But what has happened in the past year with this increasing local demand, resulting from inflationary over-spending, was that factories have not been able to give sufficient time for the export market; the local market demanded all their products; they were not able to give proper attention to the export market. But all these incentives are there. They could have been used much more fully if it had not been for this over-spending in the local market. The local demand was so great that many of these local markets had perforce to neglect the export market, and when we are now taking steps to make this demand less as a result of monetary and fiscal steps, it stands to reason that export will come into its own again, and all these incentives which still remain will be there for the exporter who wants to make use of them.

The existing tax concessions for export are generous, generous to a degree, and it is not clear how they can be improved. No member of the Opposition told me what I should do; I have not heard from exporters any specific request for improving the incentives for export. But, Sir, the restraint of inflation is the best way to promote exports and to improve the balance of payments. One hon. member said: What is done in this Budget for the balance of payments? If you restrain demand inflation, then it means that there is more opportunity for your exports to rise. There will be less money to buy and your imports will grow less, and in that way your balance of payments will be improved. Restraint of inflation is the best way to encourage exports and to improve the balance of payments, and it is also the best service that one can render to wage-earners and to employers. It is the surest way to make prosperity continue, even if at a slightly lower rate of growth, and it is the surest way, and that is almost most important of all, to improve living standards of all sections of the people.

There are just two points I want to deal with in passing. In regard to the Defence Special Equipment Account, I want to say that the Account clearly needed strengthening because of heavy drawings expected in 1965-6, and as there were substantial savings on other sub-Heads of the Defence Vote, it has been planned to transfer R20,000,000 to the Account by means of virement. This money would have been invested with the Public Debt Commissioners and hence have been available for the Loan Account. Although this virement procedure has been used on previous occasions, it appeared at the last moment, that is just before the end of March, that there was some doubt about the legality of this procedure in this case. It was therefore not followed and the money remained in the Revenue Account, the Loan Account being correspondingly reduced. The matter will be set right in the Finance Bill.

The other remark I want to make is this: In my Budget speech I estimated the surplus on Revenue Account for 1964-5, as hon. members will recall at R 110,000,000 and I proposed that this whole amount should be transferred to the Loan Account for 1965-6. It will be some time before final figures regarding the surplus become available, but if the amount should eventually exceed the R110,000,000 it is my intention to transfer the excess to the Tax Reserve Account, and if the surplus should fall short of R110,000,000, the transfer to Loan Account will be correspondingly reduced.

*Having dealt with a few general points I want to deal with a few specific constructive points that have been raised. To start with I want to say a few words about agricultural credit. The granting of bona fide loans for agricultural production does not constitute a danger to the position in which we find ourselves and which has been caused by excessive credit facilities. Bona fide loans for production do not constitute a danger but loans for land speculation and for luxury or semi-luxury consumer goods do indeed. That is the danger we want to avoid. The difficulty lies in this, Sir: The Reserve Bank discusses the position with nine banks; those nine banks in turn discuss it with 1,600 branches or more. And in such circumstances it easily happens that there is not uniform explanation or interpretation. I have arranged with the farmers’ group of the National Party, who have asked for it, to have personal discussions with the President of the Reserve Bank in order to bring the difficulties to which the hon. member referred to his attention. He will then see to it that clearer instructions are given to the Bank so that bona fide loans for agricultural production will not be restricted under the monetary measures we have taken provided the necessary security is provided.

The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots) asked me whether the Government had power to take action in the event of a monetary crisis, as for example, widespread devaluation. That is a sensible question and I just want to reply to it: Yes, the Government has the power in terms of the Currency and Exchanges Act of 1933 and the State President may promulgate regulations in order to meet such a situation.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) has also made a few interesting suggestions. He asked whether it would not be better to have one instead of two accounts in the Estimates, not to have a Loan and Revenue Account but only one in order to avoid misunderstanding in connection with the so-called surplus. Many countries follow this system and much can be said in favour of it but naturally it is something which calls for very thorough investigation and study. I cannot at the moment say I think we have studied the position sufficiently or that we have reached the stage of development where that would be possible. He also asked whether it was not possible to modernize the budgetry system so that the budget could, during the course of the year, be adapted to changed circumstances. That too is a very important question and a great deal can be said in favour of it. On the other hand it must be remembered that the principle of parliamentary control must be retained. It is desirable, however, that a measure of elasticity be left in the hands of the executive authority, both in regard to income and expenditure. In Great Britain, for example, the Minister of Finance has limited power to change certain taxations. He may take such steps during the recess if circumstances arise which make it necessary for the national economy. It may not be anything of such importance as to warrant Parliament meeting specially to discuss it but circumstances may arise which make it necessary to have some elasticity. That is definitely something to which we must give attention. I referred to it in my Budget speech and the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) criticized me severely for it. He says that where I said we must simply use the fiscal instruments at our disposal and that it was a pity that we did not have all the instruments merely indicated how uncertain I was. He criticized me severely. But it is like the man with a 7.9 mauser who goes into a camp where there is the danger of elephants being present. He probably thinks to himself that it is a pity he has not got a gun to shoot elephants as well. It was in the same sense that I murmured to myself and said: “It is a pity that I have not also got that other fiscal instrument which I may perhaps need if I come across an elephant! I trust we shall not meet the elephant but it is something which we shall have to face up to at some time or other and for which provision will have to be made, within limits, in some way or other. That will have to be reported to Parliament immediately more or less on the same basis as it is done in Great Britain. There is a need for a certain measure of elasticity in order to enable the executive authority to make such changes as are necessary during the course of the year. The position is different in the case of monetary steps. Those we can take at any time but as far as fiscal steps are concerned we are confined to taking those once a year. Sir, you win remember that Parliament recently gave the Government further power to advance additional funds for the same purpose. We may have to consider increasing the total amount asked for by way of a special power of attorney. I am attending to that matter.

The hon. member for Brakpan also asked for stricter control to be exercised by Inland Revenue over so-called expense accounts, deductions in respect of entertainment, etc. I can assure him that the Department is doing its best but it is difficult, of course, to know where to draw the line.

There are certain other questions I want to deal with. The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) asked whether the P.A.Y.E. deduction tables for married women will be adjusted so as to give effect to the concession announced by me of calculating the tax on the combined incomes of spouses at rates based on amounts equal to the greater plus half the lower of the two incomes. The answer is “Yes”. New tables will be prepared for that purpose.

There was some discussion about the effects of the relief for married women given in this Budget. I do not want to go into too much detail, but I want to point out that this relief costs the State R 1,400,000. Of course the greater the amount of people amongst whom it has to be distributed, the lesser will be the amount that each can get. But it costs the State R1,400,000, and somebody must get the benefit. We tried to work out a system, which we think is fair, but now hon. members come and say: Look, what does it mean? Here is a person with a joint income of R2,000, made up of R 1,200 earned by the husband and R800 by the wife. The only tax-saving for this man is R3 But those hon. members forset what his total tax liability is. That family’s total tax liability under the old system was only R13. We give him back R3, which is more than 20 per cent. Now hon. members complain that he only gets R3! This whole matter is affected by a number of points. The first is how near the two incomes are to each other; the nearer they are to each other, the bigger naturally the benefit will be. But on the other hand, we cannot go to extremes. The hon. member there said that 90 per cent get nothing. That of course is just nonsense! The hon. member cannot expect that relief must be given where no tax liability exists. Thanks to the very low rates of tax in this country and that taxation only starts when the income is already fairly high, due to the generous rebates enjoyed by taxpayers in this country, many are excluded from tax liability. Married persons in the following category do not pay normal tax at all: Persons with no children and an income of R972 or less pay nothing; if they have one child, it goes up to R1,400 before they pay; if they have two children, it goes up to R 1,826; three children R2,314, and if they have four children R2,802, and if they make full use of the allowances for medical expenses, you must add R200 in each of these cases. Therefore, you see, Sir, that only where the taxable income level goes over R4,600, you have this bulge and then there is an appreciable rise of normal income-tax and there the aggregating of the incomes of spouses might cause a measure of hardship. It is quite logical therefore that married couples with joint incomes of from R4,600 to R8,000 stand to gain most from the proposed concessions, but their percentage will not be so very much different if the relationships between the husband’s and wife’s income is constant right through. As I say, I do not want to go very deeply into this, because it seems to me that it is even worse than looking a gift horse in the mouth. Even if we do what some of the hon. members have suggested and tax the joint income on the rate applicable to the larger income, hon. members will still see that individuals will get very little. The one who will get R3 will get R7. That is all. But it will cost the State so much more, it will cost three times as much. Sir, this has been worked out and to come and say here that 90 per cent will not get any relief at all …

Correct.

Well, well. The estimated number of married taxpayers who fall within these limits, is 625,000: the estimated number of married couples of the 625,000 where the wife also has an income, is 235,000. If the hon. member for Benoni is correct that 90 per cent of the married couples will gain no benefit from this concession, then it means that only 23,500 couples will have the advantage of the R 1,400,000! That is simple arithmetic. In fact it is estimated that of the 235,000 who are now married couples falling within these limits, 231,000 will get some measure of relief! You see it is these irresponsible statements that make one wonder whether anything can be done to the party over there.

The hon. member for Parktown pleaded for relief for persons over the age of 65. Now there are many rich people over the age of 65. and why should you give them relief? The hon. member did not plead for any limit in that respect. The hon. member motivated his case by stating that in the United States of America relief was granted in that the first 1,200 dollars of an aged person’s income was free of tax. But in the Republic of South Africa a married man who makes full use of his medical expenses’ concession, only starts paying when he earns R 1,172, which is the equivalent of about 1,500 dollars. The income in South Africa must be already considerable before a man pays taxation and in a very large number of cases such a concession would not be necessary, and those who fall above these amounts in very many cases can well pay. The hon. member asked me to exempt people over 65. But on the other hand, an aged person does not have the same financial commitments as for instance a father of a growing family, or a couple just married who have got to set up house. Why should there be this discrimination between them, singling out of aged persons for tax relief while in fact they and all the other classes of taxpayers are treated so well under this system. These are more or less the points that have been put to me.

I just want to say a word in conclusion. Sir, the dangers of incipient inflation should be seen in their proper perspective. There is no need to magnify them unduly and in that way talk ourselves into a major inflation and panic. But it is also unwise to ignore the danger signals and just to slip quietly into a major catastrophe. I have done my best to steer between Scylla and Charybdis; not to let the economy grind to a stop and on the other hand not to let it race faster downhill and land us in the ditch of inflation. I have done my best to keep the balance between the two.

There has been very little criticism that I have acted too drastically in the circumstances. I do not think any hon. member here suggested that. There were some doubts whether I should not have taken stronger fiscal measures. That is the doubt that was expressed by the hon. member for Pinetown. But let me tell hon. members this: I took into consideration firstly that the demand inflation which we have now stems chiefly from inflationary over-spending and that monetary measures must be the chief weapon, monetary measures which may be reinforced at any time if it is found necessary to do so; fiscal measures are merely supplementary. But I also took into consideration, Mr. Speaker, that the widespread drought when its effects trickle through to the other sectors of the economy, will of itself retard general demand. I believe that these measures will be sufficient. I have said that I have steered the course between grinding our economy to a sudden stop or racing downhill to destruction; between that Scylla and Charybdis I have tried to steer my course. The measures taken are the measures which go as far as, I should imagine, any Government should be able to go at this stage.

But I wish to repeat what I said in my Budget speech, viz. that the maintenance of prosperity and economic growth is not the responsibility of the Government alone. Every South African can assist towards the attainment of this goal by working harder, spending his money judiciously and trying to save a little more, in this way we can ensure that the phenomenal development of recent years is not dissipated in inflation but is preserved and continued, thereby enabling our economy to rise to even greater heights in future.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and T. G. Hughes.

Mr. Speaker, no doubt this Bill has evoked very great interest in the rural areas. Other speakers who follow me will deal with the urban areas, but I want to deal with the rural areas where this problem is becoming an ever-increasing menace for landowners. There is a new conception about national roads to-day. It is no longer merely a road giving access to his farm for the farmer. To-day a road across his property is not just an asset, but it can become a very great liability. I am talking about national roads here. In fact, it may make economic farming on a particular bit of land impossible.

A national road can be a freeway or a highway to which there is no access except by bridges, tunnels, fly-over bridges, clover leaves, etc., and there is no means of crossing them except by means of these entries and exits, but I will come to that point later in the course of my speech. These bridges, be they fly-over or clover leaves, need great areas of land. I am told that in some cases almost a dozen acres of land is required to make a proper approach and a fly-over bridge. They also need huge quantities of earth to build the ramparts and to raise them above the main highway over which they are to go. These works make great incisions into the farmer’s land. The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) raised a very important point the other day, and I ask the House to consider what he said. He spoke about the question of crossing these national roads.

These matters have nothing to do with this Bill.

That may be so, but do you not think you should allow Mr. Speaker to pull me up if I am out of order?

Does this not deal with compensation?

Not in this instance.

If the hon. the Minister would just keep quiet and let me get on with my discourse, perhaps he will see what I am getting at. Supposing a farmer has a national road right across his land, how does he get his heavy machinery across to work the land on both sides of the road? That is where the question of compensation comes in.

Order! I was listening to the hon. member and I was waiting for him to come to his point, but that point has nothing to do with the Bill before the House.

Sir, I bow to your ruling at once, but the whole question of making the land on the other side of the road impossible to farm and creating a strip of land, there which cannot be used, crops up, and my argument is going to be that if that land becomes economically useless, compensation should be paid for it.

On a point of order, may I point out that this clause deals with one matter only, and that is compensation for undeveloped land within the road reserve, for which no compensation is paid. All the other matters raised are irrelevant.

But the Act talks about compensation for the individual whose farm is being cut up.

That is unimproved land within the road reserve. That is all it deals with and nothing else.

Yes, but if by taking that land you make it impossible for the man to farm the land next door to it, surely it is relevant.

It has nothing to do with the taking of the land.

But surely it deals with the compensation for the land that is being taken to build the road on?

That has never been the position in the past and I am now making a concession by paying compensation.

Is the Minister trying to be difficult? I am trying to help the Minister, and that is why I am going to suggest later on that he appoint a commission of inquiry so that these points can be cleared up, because we do not want to hold up this Bill even for an hour, because I think it is essential that the compensation this Bill allows for should be paid, but there are so many other snags in the Bill that we want to make suggestions to the Minister which he may accept, otherwise we will have to move amendments. We want to make suggestions which are fair, because obviously this Bill is trying to be fair to the man who has had bits of land taken from him to make up the full width of a national road. I hope we will be allowed to put our case in the interests of the public. After all, the hon. the Minister did not pull up the hon. member for Paarl when he raised the question of crossings.

That has nothing to do with the Bill.

I am in the hands of Mr. Speaker, who will decide whether I can carry on or not. We are trying to improve a Bill which is out to be fair to the man whose land is taken for a road to be built, but there are many other implications attached to it which must affect him. Take this case. You take a strip of land right through his farm to build a road, and by doing so you make it impossible for him to use the land on the other side of this strip. Should not compensation be paid for that?

Compensation is being paid. You should read the principal Act.

Oh, for heaven’s sake, shut up for a moment.

Order! The hon. member must deal with the contents of the Bill now.

It is very difficult for me to talk when the Minister keeps interrupting me. But I am entirely in your hands, Sir. The question of crossings was raised by the hon. member for Paarl. Was that irrelevant, too?

On a point of order, I wish to point out that this clause deals with two matters. It deals with land contemplated in sub-section (2) of Section 4 (1)bis of the Act. That is what one might call the primary purpose of taking land for national roads. This clause is in respect of land taken for a purpose other than that purpose.

No, it is not.

I am sorry. It is in respect of land which is for other than that purpose because there is no compensation payable. It is land in respect of which no compensation is payable as if it was land mentioned in the section I have just quoted. It is land falling outside of land for which compensation is payable to-day under the existing law. Under the existing law compensation is payable under certain circumstances, for land taken for national roads purposes. Certain land can be taken and no compensation is payable. This clause surely is to provide that compensation is payable in those cases where land is taken and where under the existing law no compensation is payable.

Order! That is not a point of order.

On a point of order, the Minister is interrupting the hon. member on the ground that he is not dealing with the contents of this clause, but I submit the hon. member is dealing with the contents of this clause. He is dealing with that land for which no compensation is payable under the existing law and for which compensation is being provided in terms of this clause, and he is entitled to deal with it because the land to which this clause refers can be the land which the hon. member is describing and which falls outside the area of jurisdiction of the law dealing with compensation as it stands on the Statute Book at the moment.

On a point of order, hon. members have apparently not read this Bill, nor have they read the principal Act.

Are you referring to me?

Yes.

Well, I read it very carefully.

Then apparently the hon. member does not understand the Bill. Sir, this clause deals with one matter only. In terms of the principal Act, no compensation is paid for unimproved land in rural areas within the road reserve. The road reserve means the area taken from one boundary of the road to the other. In some provinces it is 124 feet to 120 feet, and in other provinces it is 100 feet. Lands expropriated by Provincial Administrations are expropriated and compensated for in terms of their ordinances, and their ordinances provide that compensation is not payable for unimproved land within that road reserve. Is that clear now? All I am doing now is to enable the National Transport Commission out of the Road Fund to pay compensation for that unimproved land within the road reserve. It has nothing to do with ingress or exits. Provision is already made for compensation for strips of land falling outside the road reserve, and that is what this clause deals with.

May I ask the Minister what compensation is made for land lying outside that area?

If the hon. member read the principal Act he would have seen that strips of land outside the road reserve which become useless to the farmer are compensated for. I amended that two years ago.

Sir, if one reads the English version of this Bill and you read the Afrikaans version, there is a difference in colloquial language in the wording. It says in English “at the request of the board may pay the owner of the land”. In Afrikaans it says “op versoek van die Raad aan die eienaar van die grond”. Now “land” in colloquial English means an area. If you want to talk about taking bits of land to build the surface of the road you then talk about “earth”, or about “building material” or “road material”, but the word “grond” in colloquial Afrikaans, I take it, is an area; it is a farm. But if you want to dig up a bit of ground there and cart it away to build the road surface, you also call it “grond”. Therefore you can have a whole farm taken away and used to surface the road and yet he will get no compensation whatever. To-day the divisional council can do so without paying compensation. I wanted to bring that to the notice of the Minister because I thought that he should, if he has any sense, appoint a commission of inquiry to go into the whole matter to make sure that no further injustice is done. Surely we are here to watch the interests of the people. Here we have a chance of bringing it to the notice of the Minister, and I thought he would be pleased, considering that we are supporting this Bill, to show him that all the implications of road building are not always understood even by the planners or the road builders or the engineers. I wanted to bring that to the Minister’s notice, but he does nothing but make rude remarks to me the whole time.

Order!

Well, if you rule me out of order, I cannot discuss it.

There is one point on which I hone the hon. the Minister will enlighten the House. The Bill provides that such compensation shall be payable as the board may in its discretion authorize. I think I am correct in saying that on Friday the Minister said that the basis of the compensation would be the market value. I should like the Minister to inform the House how the market value is arrived at, and who arrives at it. Is it merely an official of the board, or is it arrived at by means of a sworn appraisement? This is an important point because the Bill merely makes provision that such compensation shall be payable as the board may in its discretion authorize and there is no provision whatever in the Bill for any resort to arbitration or anything like that by which the man who is losing his ground could object to the amount of compensation payable if he is not satisfied with that amount.

We on this side of the House are proud of our national roads scheme which compares favourably with any road scheme anywhere else in the world. We also recognize the fact that in constructing these roads they have to be straightened and have to go through private properties, and as a result there has been trouble about compensation. What the Minister wants to get at in Clause 1 is clearly stated in the White Paper. The provinces have the right to expropriate land and pay compensation, but there is other land for which the Minister now wants to pay compensation for from the Road Fund in terms of this Bill. It would appear from listening to the debate and what was said by the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) that the general feeling of members is that the payment of compensation is a very difficult matter, and a commission should be appointed to consider the whole scheme of compensation and to straighten it out.

I should like to come to Clause 2 of the Bill, which authorizes the stepping up of the grant from Treasury to the National Road Fund from 5.35 cents per gallon to 6 cents a gallon. It has always been a sore point with the motorist that every time he buys a gallon of petrol he pays 12 cents in indirect taxation. I do not think the would mind to any extent if he thought that the 12 cents was going to improve the road system, but up to now that has not been the case. The Minister, by twisting the arm of the Minister of Finance, has now managed to get it up to 6 cents. I see that this year an amount of R34,200,000 has been appropriated for this account. I am not sure whether this includes the increase from 5.35 cents to 6 cents, but the Minister can tell us. Our road system is a national asset and I should like to suggest to the Minister that he again bring pressure to bear on the Minister of Finance to grant more relief than the 6 cents to help him with his road fund. The cost of constructing roads to-day, particularly limited access roads where you have to build bridges and by-passes, is very high. What was a comparatively cheap road yesterday is a very expensive one to-day. Furthermore, the necessity of building roads to a heavier axle weight is very necessary. At one stage our whole road system was considered to be secondary to our railways. That position has changed considerably, and to-day the primary transport of our country is rapidly becoming road transport. The Government is recognizing the position by relaxing the issuing of permits, and therefore roads must be constructed to a higher standard. In order to do that the Minister and the provinces will require more money. As far as the provinces are concerned, the licence fees paid go into the Provincial Roads Fund and it is ploughed back into the roads systems of the provinces, and we see the results when we drive through the Republic today. There are some very fine secondary roads and other by-pass roads. But one of the greatest users, and who pays very little, is the Minister of Railways, and the Minister of Transport should speak to the Minister of Railways.

That has nothing to do with this clause.

The clause deals with increasing the tax from 5.35 to 6 cents, and I take it this money will go towards the building of national roads. It is a question of the total amount which will be appropriated from the Minister of Finance to build these roads. It is relative to the fact that the Minister of Transport should know that the Railways pay nothing into this fund.

You should speak to the Minister of Finance about it.

No, I think I must ask the Minister of Transport to speak to the Minister of Railways, who in turn can speak to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Railways pays no tax on fuel or licence fees.

Order! That is not relevant.

Then I would like to appeal to the Minister of Transport to approach the Minister of Finance to give the motorist a fairer deal and to appropriate the whole of this indirect tax of 12 cents a gallon to the road fund. The Minister of Finance smiles, but I do not think it is right that one section of the public should be asked to pay for the upkeep of the roads to this extent. The Minister of Transport requires the money and I should like to see the Minister of Finance pass it on to him.

I am very sorry that we cannot continue to discuss the disadvantages of roads running over farm lands in respect of which compensation is now to be paid. What confuses one somewhat is this explanatory memorandum which states definitely that this compensation is payable in respect of any land appropriated for a declared road and for which no compensation is otherwise payable. I want to put it to the Minister that that is not only the land which is actually intended for the road which falls under this Bill but if a quarry is started half a mile further down it will also fall under this.

No.

Why not?

You are totally wrong.

In any case that seems to be the position according to this explanatory memorandum.

Do you object to this clause?

In any case, Mr. Speaker, you have given your ruling and we want to observe it. This is a step in the right direction. It was quite right in the past to appropriate land for road construction purposes. I am talking mainly of what the position is in the Transvaal where 120 feet can be appropriated without any compensation being paid and if the road is wider, if it is to be a national road which is 200 feet wide, under the old set-up the owner was only compensated for 80 feet.

You are totally wrong.

Sir, I am not wrong. Where the road is to be wider than 120 feet compensation is paid, in terms of the Transvaal Ordinance, for the additional land.

That is right.

The owner is not compensated for the 120 feet, and I want to point out that there is land, over which these roads pass to-day, which is very valuable. I know of certain farms between Pretoria and Johannesburg for which the people paid R400 per morgen ten years ago. The road now traverses that land and in terms of the Ordinance the owner is only compensated for 80 feet.

Which 80 feet?

The 80 feet over and above the 120 feet.

You are totally wrong; read Section 4bis of the principal Act. That lays down how compensation should be paid.

But the position is nevertheless that compensation is paid for the 80 feet and not for the 120 feet. In terms of the new Act the board will empower the Administrator to pay compensation for the whole width of 200 feet. We are grateful for that concession but we still say the Minister does not go far enough. Many other disadvantages attach to such a road, disadvantages which cannot unfortunately be discussed at this stage. What I do want to put to the hon. the Minister is this: Under the old set-up the Transvaal Administration was prepared to pay compensation for the 80 feet over and above the 120 feet and if the owner was not satisfied with the compensation offered he could call for an arbitration. Can the hon. the Minister tell us what the position will be in regard to the 120 feet which also now falls under the Act?

The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Bijl) is leaving the Chamber so I will reply to him in his absence and he can read my reply in Hansard. Let me first explain what the present position is. First of all, the National Transport Commission does not expropriate ground; that is the function of the Provincial Administrations under their relevant ordinances. Those ordinances provide that all unimproved ground expropriated for the purposes of a road will not be compensated for except in Natal where they are paying compensation for the ground actually used for the laying out of the national road.

Is the position not that compensation need not be paid?

No, the ordinance provides that compensation will not be paid. The Cape ordinance also provides that no compensation is payable for either a provincial road or a national road where unimproved land is required for the road. After receiving numerous complaints from farmers that valuable grazing land of theirs is being expropriated for national roads and that no compensation is being paid, I am now making this concession that I can authorize an administrator to pay compensation. That is all we are doing. It has nothing to do with the ground which is used for the building of the road. Provision is already made in the principal Act for compensation to be paid for all other ground expropriated, apart from the ground within the road reserve. If the hon. member reads Section 4 bis of the National Roads Act he will see that it provides that an Administrator shall, at the request of the board, acquire by treaty or, failing that, by appropriation, any remaining extent of any piece of land which has been appropriated for the purposes of a declared road. In other words, where the road goes through a farm and a small piece of ground is left on the side of the road, which is useless to the farmer, provision exists that that piece of ground can be purchased by treaty or otherwise by the Administrator and compensation paid. That is already the position. The matter raised here by the hon. member for Green Point is already provided for in the principal Act.

Has provision been made for taking gravel? I am not talking about surface ground. Our soil is only 15 inches deep, so to cover a road 80 feet wide you have to remove a very great deal of soil. Is there any provision for compensation for that soil in our area?

Yes, the provinces do pay compensation.

They do not. The divisional councils do not.

I am not speaking about the divisional councils. We are dealing with national roads, not with provincial roads or divisional roads. The provinces have their ordinances which provide for expropriation and compensation under certain circumstances. The National Transport Commission only deals with national and special roads, and provision was made in this Act only two years ago for compensation to be paid for all other ground expropriated apart from that required for the purpose of building a national road.

What about the material; what about the gravel and sand?

That has nothing to do with this Bill. This Bill only deals with unimproved land actually within the boundaries of the road reserve, for which in the past no compensation was paid. Provision is now being made that compensation will be paid. As I say, this is a concession that I am making to land owners. In the past they never received any compensation, and I am making this concession now to enable compensation to be paid out of the National Road Fund. That is all that this Bill deals with and nothing else. As I have said, the National Road Commission is not a road building authority; it does not expropriate land. That is entirely the function of the Provincial Administration.

Will the hon. the Minister please answer a question? Can the Minister tell me why, instead of providing that compensation must be paid, provision is made that it may be paid. Obviously therefore the payment of compensation will be within the discretion of somebody, and compensation cannot be demanded as of right.

It is within the discretion of the National Transport Commission. The reason why this is being done is simply that the provinces are not prepared to amend their Ordinances to provide for the payment of compensation in cases such as these.

Why not provide that compensation must be paid?

The Ordinances provide that no compensation will be paid for land expropriated for the purpose of either a national, or provincial road. The provinces refuse to amend their Ordinances to provide for compensation. It is now being worded this way with the agreement of the provinces, namely that at the discretion of the Commission an Administrator may be authorized to pay compensation. It is similar to Section 4bis, which reads: “An Administrator shall, at the request of the board, acquire by treaty, or, failing that, by appropriation any remaining extent of any piece of land which has been appropriated for the purpose of a declared road.” This is a concession that is being made to land-owners. They have never received compensation in the past for unimproved land and they will now receive compensation. That is all the Bill deals with, nothing else.

Is the hon. the Minister aware of the fact grantee farms are entitled to the payment of compensation?

Under the provisions of Ordinances, probably yes, but not in terms of the National Roads Act.

They are entitled to it under the John Currie Act. Only the owners of quitrent land are not entitled to compensation.

That may be so, but that has nothing to do with the National Roads Act. The only compensation provided for in the Ordinances is in regard to improved land and in the National Roads Act for land outside the boundaries of the road reserve. As far as the question of determining the value of the ground is concerned, the same thing will be done as in the case of the remaining pieces of land. In other words, appraisers are appointed by the provinces, the value of the land is determined and compensation is paid on that basis.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) suggested that the hon. the Minister of Finance should make a bigger contribution to the roads fund. I fully agree with him and if he can persuade the Minister of Finance to do so I will be very thankful.

May I ask whether this compensation is applicable only to new development or is it to be paid with retrospective effect?

From 1 April 1964.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

The main object of this amending Bill is to facilitate the exercise of certain administrative functions in the Land Bank. As hon. members know, the activities of the Bank are controlled by the Land Bank Board under the chairmanship of the Managing Director, who is also the chief executive officer of the Bank.

When the Managing Director cannot carry out his official duties for some reason, such as when he is on leave, the Minister of Finance may, in terms of the present provisions in the Act, appoint a member of the Board as Acting Managing Director. The disadvantage attached to this is, however, that ordinary members of the Board in the execution of their duties as members of the Board are not in such close contact with the administrative aspect of the activities of the Board that they can take over the functions of the Managing Director immediately. In practice it amounts to this, that the General Manager of the Bank in fact has to assume the responsibility without actually filling the post.

It is now being provided in this Bill that in the absence of the Managing Director, the General Manager will take his place and act as chairman of the Board. The same will also happen if the post of Managing Director is vacant. Next to the Managing Director, the General Manager occupies the highest post in the Bank and, like the Managing Director, he is appointed to his post by the State President. In fact, his status in the Bank and his knowledge of the administration make him the obvious person to act as Acting Managing Director whenever necessary.

It may of course also happen that the Managing Director and the General Manager are absent simultaneously. In such a case the Minister, in terms of the proposed amendment, will be able to appoint another competent officer of the Bank as Acting Managing Director on the recommendation of the Board, but such official will not act as chairman of the Board.

Then there is the provision in regard to annual leave to members of the Land Bank Board. A member of the Board is, in terms of the present provisions of the Act, entitled to be absent from the meetings of the Board, without the consent of the Board, for a period not exceeding 24 sitting days per annum. In practice such an arrangement is unsatisfactory, firstly, because it does not allow a member to accumulate any leave which will enable him to go away on long leave, and secondly because it grants the Board as such no authority to exercise control over the granting of vacation leave to its members. In terms of the proposed amendment, the vacation leave of a member will in future still be 24 sitting days per annum, but from the leave he has allowed to accrue in that way he will be allowed to be absent from meetings for a period not exceeding 48 sitting days during a particular official year. A member will, however, be able to utilize his leave only with the consent of the Board.

I now come to aspects of the Act relating to certain powers of the Land Bank in regard to the granting and administration of loans. A number of amendments are being proposed, some of which are intended to state beyond all doubt the powers which the Bank already has, and others are intended to make adaptations which have become necessary due to changed circumstances. None of these amendments is, however, of a drastic nature.

In the ordinary course of its business the Bank issues numerous guarantees. So, for example, a guarantee is issued to the seller of the ground at the request of a farmer to whom the Board has granted a loan to purchase land. In other cases again, guarantees are issued on behalf of co-operatives for the importation of machinery and goods. Many other examples may be mentioned and the issue of guarantees can in fact be regarded as an essential part of the Bank’s functions. The Act, however, at present grants no express power in terms of which the Bank may issue such guarantees, and to put the matter beyond all doubt the necessary power is now specifically being granted to the Bank to do so.

Hon. members are aware that the Land Bank, apart from ordinary mortgage loans, also grants loans for specific purposes to individual farmers. So, for example, loans are granted for the building of silos and for the provision of water supplies, but in terms of the present legal provisions such loans may not exceed R300 for a silo and R700 for the provision of a single water supply. These limitations have now applied for the past 40 years and during the course of time the aforementioned amounts have lost all proportion to the actual cost of building a silo or making available a water supply. Therefore the deletion of both these limitations is now being proposed. It will therefore in future rest with the Land Bank Board, as in the case of all other loans, to determine the scope of a loan for one of the aforementioned purposes in accordance with the circumstances and the merits of every individual application. The Bank provides for the seasonal requirements of sugar-growers, wine farmers, fruit farmers and citus farmers by way of cash credit loans in order to enable them to defray the costs in connection with the production, cultivation, reaping, processing and marketing of their crops. This is a form of short-term credit which originally was made available to sugar-growers only, but which with the development of the wine and fruit industries in recent years was extended also to those sectors of agriculture. The possibility already exists that this type of loan will also be able to be granted to producers of wattle bark as the result of the measure of stabilization which has been achieved.

As hon. members know, the production and marketing of sugar is controlled by a quota system. Where the Land Bank grants a sugar-grower a cash credit loan the Act provides that he may not without the consent of the Land Bank Board, transfer or cede his quota for the production of sugar cane to anybody else before the loan has been repaid. That affords the Bank the necessary protection in view of the fact that the farmer’s crop serves as security for the loan. Moreover, if the Bank for some reason should be compelled to attach the sugar crop and to sell it to defray the debt in terms of the loan, the Act provides that the farmer’s quota in such a case vests in the purchaser. This then enables the purchaser to deliver the sugar cane at a sugar mill for sale under the previous owner’s quota. In terms of an amendment of the Act which is now being proposed, similar provisions will be made applicable in regard to the quotas of wine farmers and wattle bark producers to whom the Bank has granted cash credit loans.

A provision is also being inserted in the Act to supplement to some extent the security received by the Bank for these cash credit loans. At present the security consists only of the crop which is being produced with the assistance of the loan. In future, however, the Bank will also have a hypothec on articles or materials which the farmer has purchased with the assistance of the loan. All that actually happens is that these farmers to whom the Bank grants direct loans for their seasonal requirements will now be placed in the same position as regards the hypothec on the goods they purchase with that money as farmers who receive seasonal assistance from the Bank through their co-operatives. The only difference is that such goods which members of a co-operative purchase are in the first place, in terms of the co-operative Societies Act, hypothecated to the co-operative, which in turn cedes the hypothec to the Land Bank as additional security for the loan.

In regard to hypothec loans for the purchase of stock or implements, the Act at present provides that if the debtor fails to pay an installment of his loan on due date, or fails to comply with a condition of the loan, the Board may, after seven days’ notice to the debtor, attach the hypothecated goods and sell them. The intention is, of course, that the loan should then be repaid, but the Act at present does not provide that specifically, and in order to remove any doubt which may exist in that regard the relevant provision in the Act is now being supplemented in this respect.

In cases where the Bank grants a loan to a female person, or where the Bank requires a female to renounce a right such as usufruct in respect of a loan, it is necessary for the Bank in all such cases to obtain from a woman a renunciation of her legal benefits, or otherwise the danger exists that the court may declare null and void her actions in connection with the loan. In our common law, i.e. the Roman-Dutch system of law, there are two types of these legal benefits on which a woman may rely. The Senatusconsultum Velleianum protects any woman, married or unmarried, in all cases where she assumes somebody else’s debt or obligations, whether she does so voluntarily or not. The other legal benefit, called the Authentica si qua mulier protects the husband in addition where she takes over her husband’s debt or obligations.

In order to save applicants the costs attached to the provision of such renunciation of legal benefits, a general provision is now being inserted in the Act in terms of which it will in future no longer be necessary for the Land Bank to obtain these renunciations. It will also save the Bank an appreciable amount of administrative work. I may just mention that a similar provision was inserted in the Building Societies Act of 1934 during the past session.

Hon. members will remember that the Farmers’ Assistance Amendment Act last year granted the Farmers’ Assistance Board the special power, in cases where a farmer did not fulfill his obligations to that Board, without any judicial process to instruct the Deputy Sheriff to attach the security under the loan and to sell it. Formerly the Farmers’ Assistance Board in such cases had to obtain an order of court against such a farmer like any other creditor. When in terms of such an order the security for the loan was attached and the Land Bank also had a mortage on the same property, the Land Bank, in terms of the provisions of the Land Bank Act, could itself attach and sell that land. The Bank always holds the first mortgage on the land. Now the Bank has been deprived of that power it had, and an amendment is therefore being proposed to restore to what they were before the Bank’s powers in respect of such attachments by the Farmers’ Assistance Board. In other words, the Bank will again have the right, in terms of its own mortgage, to attach property which has been attached by the Deputy Sheriff on the instructions of the Farmers’ Assistance Board. In order to prevent unnecessary costs being incurred by the Farmers’ Assistance Board in connection with such attachments, the Bank will further, in terms of the proposed amendment, be able to exercise its right of attachment as soon as the Farmers’ Assistance Board has instructed the Deputy Sheriff to attach the property. The Bank has already consulted with the Department concerned in regard to the practical implementation of these amendments.

I come now to the last proposed amendment, which is also purely administrative. The Act at present provides that the Bank’s financial statements must be sent to the Minister of Finance annually within two months after 31 December. Thereafter they must be published in the Government Gazette and submitted to Parliament. Because of the more extensive activities of the Bank in recent years, it takes an appreciable time to prepare the financial statements and to have them scrutinized previously by the Controller and Auditor-General. The present time limit of two months is too short for that and it is therefore being proposed to extent it to three months. Furthermore, the Act provides that these statements should be signed as correct by the Managing Director, two members of the Board and the accountant of the Bank. The appellation “accountant” is now being replaced by “chief accountant”, because that is the correct designation of the accounting officer entrusted with the preparation of the financial statements.

As you see, Mr. Speaker, these are mostly administrative amendments to facilitate the handling of the Bank’s business and to put the matter beyond all doubt where a reasonable legal doubt existed.

We on this side of the House support this Bill wholeheartedly. Most of the amendments are aimed at facilitating the administration of the Act. We know that during the past 40 years the Land Bank has played an increasingly important role in the country in financing the farming community either by way of direct loans or by way of co-operative institutions. In that way the Land Bank has played an important role which has been of great value to the farmers. The Land Bank has, of course, so far always conducted its business or business lines. On the other hand I also want to point out that throughout the years the farmers have fulfilled their obligations exceedingly well and that the Land Bank has suffered very little loss over this long period of time. I just want to repeat that we support all the amendments proposed in this measure.

I am pleased that such a fine spirit prevails in the House. We as farmers welcome this Bill wholeheartedly. A very great improvement is definitely being effected. More money will now be voted for the storing of ensilage and water. We realize that under present circumstances the loans granted in the past were insufficient. We also welcome the fact that provision is to be made for short-term loans. We are pleased to see that these loans will not only be granted to sugar growers but also to fruit farmers and wattle farmers. We on this side of the House want to thank the hon. the Minister and the Land Bank for these improvements.

I wholeheartedly support the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) where he welcomed this Bill on behalf of this side of the House. The hon. the Minister has explained that the object of this measure was mainly to facilitate the administration of the Act. I notice, however, that in Clause 2 reference is still made to the Governor General. In Clause 2 reference is again made to the Governor-General. I should like to know why we cannot immediately substitute “State President” for “Governor-General”. It would only mean that the necessary amendment would have to be effected at a later stage if we did not make it now. I think I should draw it to the attention of the hon. the Minister that the amendment might just as well be effected now. It could perhaps be made during the Committee Stage. That is the only point I want to raise seeing that most of the other provisions are welcomed by the farming community and will facilitate the administration.

I just want to raise three matters in connection with this Bill. Firstly, the House is being asked to do away with the restrictions to which the Land Bank has been subject when granting loans for the storage of ensilage and water, for example, restrictions which limited the Land Bank to certain maximum amounts and to leave it to the Land Bank to exercise its own discretion. As far as I personally am concerned—I think I am speaking on behalf of all of us—I gladly accede to that request. I want to pay tribute to the Land Bank for the manner in which it has stuck to its guns in these days of rising land prices, I can almost say in these days when people have panicked because of the unparalleled rise in land prices, and have observed sound conservatism, applied the brake, and done everything in its power to maintain a sound outlook as far as land values are concerned. Because of the sound conservatism practised by the Land Bank in the past I gladly accede to the request that those restrictions be removed from the Land Bank and that it be left to the Land Bank to exercise its discretion in determining the amount after it has dealt with the matter on its merits.

The second point I want to raise is in connection with hypothecation loans. In the past an applicant for a hypothecation loans was expected to prove that he either owned land or hired land. It happens that an applicant produces his contract under which he is renting a piece of land for two or five years. The contract discloses the period, the rental payable and the person applies for a certain amount to buy cattle, sheep and implements. That system was defective in the past in that the Land Bank was not always placed in possession of all details concerning the production potential of the specific piece of land on which the applicant was conducting his farming operations for which he wanted to borrow the money. I, therefore, want to know whether it is not possible to make it a rule, as in the case of an applicant who applies for a loan to buy a piece of land, that before a hypothecation loan is granted to anybody, a Land Bank valuator be asked to submit a report on the suitability of that piece of land for farming operations.

The third point deals with the relationships between the Farmers’ Assistance Board and the Land Bank. It often happens that a person approaches the Farmers’ Assistance Committee in his magisterial district and asks for assistance. It seems to me that the necessary liaison is lacking between the Land Bank as creditor and the Farmers’ Assistance Board or the Farmers’ Assistance Committee who is now going to give further credit to the applicant. I want to know whether greater liaison cannot be established between the Land Bank as creditor and the State Advances Recoveries Office or the Farmers’ Assistance Board as another creditor. It sometimes happens that a farmer owes money to the Land Bank and falls in arrear with his interest and capital redemption payments. He is then in difficulty, approaches the Farmers’ Assistance Committee and applies for a further loan or for his debts to be consolidated. The necessary liaison between these two sources of credit is lacking. I think that is a defect and I consequently ask for greater co-ordination in that respect. I cannot enlarge on this matter under this Bill; I would have liked to say more about coordination between the various sources which give credit to the person who asks for such credit but I think it would be just as well that a start be at least made with the Land Bank and the Farmers’ Assistance Board. I should like to know what the Minister’s considered opinion is in this connection.

I just want to deal briefly with a small matter under this Bill. I also want to say that I welcome this Bill. I want to refer to Clause 6 in particular. It deals with advances by the Land Bank for dipping tanks, silos or other contrivances. We are now changing the position and in future advances will only be made after the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has approved of the specifications. We know that there is a shortage of staff in the Department of Agricultural Technical Services with the result that they cannot approve of all the specifications beforehand. It often happens that a farmer wants to effect certain improvements, that he submits his specifications but that Agricultural Technical Services, due to shortage of staff, cannot approve of those specifications immediately. I want to know whether it cannot be considered at a later stage to provide that the subsidy or assistance may be granted provided the work the farmer wants to do complies with the general specifications of the Land Bank and that it should not be subject to the prior approval of Agricultural Technical Services. This is a real problem of the farmers because it has been the experience of many of them that they cannot get assistance for the very reason that Agricultural Technical Service has not approved of their specifications. A farmer has to construct his silo or other contrivance because he has to carry on with his farming operations. He cannot postpone that work. If he does the work without Agricultural Technical Services having approved of the specifications he forfeits the subsidy he previously received from Agricultural Technical Services; and in this case he will not get the advance before Agricultural Technical Services have approved of his specifications. It is to eliminate this difficulty that I am asking for the law to be amended in such a way that it will not be necessary first to have the specifications approved provided the work conforms to the general specifications of Agricultural Technical Services.

I want to thank hon. members for the friendly reception they have given this Bill. I also think it contains a few changes which are very necessary. The fact that all the speeches have dealt with matters which do not fall under this Bill confirms my belief that this is a very good Bill. I want to say to those hon. members who have spoken that consideration will be given to their suggestions. Naturally we cannot do anything in that regard in this Bill. I just want to add, however to reassure hon. members, that the Land Bank has assured me that they have all the necessary reports and information at their disposal.

As far as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) is concerned my information is that those clauses conform with the existing Act and that the position is covered by general legislation. I shall, however, attend to the matter raised by him.

As far as hypothecation loans are concerned I just want to tell the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) that in most cases the services of the field officers of the Land Bank are used to-day. They visit the farms before such a loan is granted.

In all cases?

In as many as possible. We are trying to ascertain whether it is possible to call in other assistance so that the loan is not granted before such a farm has been inspected. I think all members will agree that the Land Bank is very careful but it can be even more careful. We shall see whether anything further can be done.

As far as co-ordination between the Farmers’ Assistance Board and the Land Bank Board is concerned, there is already a great degree of co-ordination between them to-day. I think the object of both those bodies is to co-operate to an even greater extent.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Hon. members have had the benefit of an explanatory memorandum on this Bill, and I think we can accept that this is not an opposed measure. Hon. members know that I appointed a Committee of Inquiry into Road Safety, Road Traffic and Road Traffic Legislation under the chairmanship of the Hon. the Administrator of the Orange Free State. The Report of this Committee was laid upon the Table on 2 February 1965.

Hon. members are probably aware that this Committee made certain recommendations, particularly in regard to the composition of the Action Committee. The Du Plessis Committee made the following proposal in this regard—

1. (a) by the appointment of the deputy-chairman in a fulltime capacity; such appointment to be made by the Minister after consultation with the administrations of the provinces and South West Africa;
2. (b) by increasing the representation of the provinces on the action committee so that the administration of each province as well as of South West Africa will be entitled to nominate a representative.

The recommendations made by the Committee have been accepted by the provinces and the Executive Committee of South West Africa, and I accept them too. Accordingly the primary object of this Bill is to give effect to these recommendations, and the relevant amendments in this regard are those contained in clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 and paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 5.

It will be noted that no specific provision is made for the appointment of the deputy-chairman of the action committee in a fulltime capacity. The existing provisions of Section 3 (8) of the principal Act in terms of which, amongst others, the deputy-chairman is appointed on such terms and conditions as the Minister may determine at the time the appointment is made are wide enough to permit of the proposed full-time appointment recommended by the Committee.

The South African Road Safety Council was established five years ago. The experience gained since then has shown that, with a view to enabling the Council to carry out its functions in the most efficient way, it is in some cases necessary and in other cases desirable to make improvements to the principal Act. For this reason I have decided to make use of this opportunity to introduce amendments in this regard as well. No new principles are being introduced by the proposed amendments. They relate mainly to the streamlining of existing administrative provisions in regard to the appointment of staff, the determination of conditions of service, the investment of funds, and the powers of the Council, as a good manager, to insure itself and some of its officials. Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for me to deal in detail with the provisions of any of the individual clauses of the Bill at this stage. As is stated in the explanatory memorandum, the sole purpose of this measure is to increase the efficiency of the Road Safety Council on both the administrative and the executive level. I am sure it will meet with general approval.

I want to say at once that we on this side of the House support this measure. There are certain points in connection with the Bill which we naturally want to deal with. We think there are some which we think it is necessary to discuss very carefully indeed and we shall no doubt deal with those at the Committee Stage although we want to deal with certain points at the second reading. The hon. the Minister has referred to the report of the Du Plessis Committee and in terms of the terms of reference of that committee No. 3 was—

Much follows then which the committee, quite rightly in my opinion, has taken as being one of its major tasks. On page 5 under the heading “Road Safety as Government Responsibility”, Chapter 2, it says—

Here we have legislation—

It is in regard to road safety that I want to deal with the matter for a moment or two. It is very interesting, in regard to road safety, to find that the South African Road Safety Council, which has been a matter for the Central Government to legislate upon and to deal with in the past—it has never been a matter for the provinces—now comes before us for amendment to its constitution, its powers and so forth in terms of this Bill. Provision is made in regard to the disposal of some of its finances from time to time. Provision is made for the taking on of staff—full-time or part-time, staff which may be of a temporary character to see whether they are going to do their job efficiently and properly or staff which may be taken on permanently. Finance and staff are now two of the features of this Bill before us. We are associating that staff with this question of road safety.

If I may start at once with one aspect of road safety it is very interesting to find that the committee reported that uniform legislation in some respects was not a major factor in regard to road safety and that accidents were not due, as a major factor, to the lack of verbal uniformity in the legislation of the four provinces. But they do point out certain aspects in respect of which they think there might be uniformity and those aspects are not dealt with in this Bill before us. The hon. the Minister, quite wisely, has realized that we live in a world of men; that we have to deal with people’s feelings and certain powers and functions of the existing authorities such as the various provinces and so forth. One of the matters in respect of which the committee found that there was a need for a certain measure of uniformity to assist in road safety was the licensing of the vehicles and drivers. The Bill before us deals with the four provinces but we must remember that under the Transkei Constitution Act the licensing of drivers and so forth is a function of the authority in Umtata, namely, the Transkei Government. It is no longer a function of the Provincial Council of the Cape of Good Hope. Apart from South West Africa which is now imported into this Bill for the first time we have a sixth body and that sixth body is today charged with this very important function which the committee has found to be associated with road safety and the prevention of road accidents. The Minister shakes his head. It is for him to say where he draws the line. I am merely concerned with the facts as they are on the Statute Book and the facts as they appear in the documents before us including the present Bill.

The action committee has nothing to do with the licensing.

I am not concerned whether the committee has anything to do with licensing, Sir, I am concerned with the fact that the committee reported that licensing was one of the factors which were of great importance in dealing with road safety and the prevention of accidents. I have already said that I appreciate the position of the Minister in trying to cut through the recommendations of the Du Plessis Committee in regard to certain matters. The Du Plessis committee recommended certain things which the hon. the Minister has not put into this Bill and there are other matters which the Minister has imported into it. In the main, what is important, are the administrative measures but the Minister has gone further than that. He has brought in financial matters and the question of staff. We are concerned with, the avoidance of accidents, if we can. Surely there is nothing at the present time in regard to road safety or traffic or any of these other matters related to traffic on our roads, whether it be motor vehicle insurance or accident rate or anything else, which has shocked South Africa more than the growing number of road accidents. Every man, woman and child who goes upon the national road, a main road or a secondary road, on foot or in a vehicle, is in jeopardy. The accident rate has shocked South Africa. This council has, as one of its chief functions, the prevention of accidents which is road safety. Many measures are adopted for that purpose and if the Road Safety Council has the staff and the money, which it apparently has because provision is made for the disposal of money, one of the things it could do is to set a standard by which there can be a test in regard to speed limits and matters of that kind instead of the hotch-potch arrangements that are in force all over South Africa at the present moment. We have the position to-day that each municipality is left entirely to its own devices. The truth about road accidents in South Africa is that it is mainly due to impatience on the part of someone; impatience on the part of the motorist or on the part of the pedestrian. A pedestrian will take a chance because he is impatient. A cyclist takes a chance; a motorist often takes a chance in the hope that he will get away with it. Having said that there are many other things which have brought the whole question of road safety in South Africa into disrepute. All our laws dealing with road safety to-day are in disrepute. If in an ordinary circle of people talking around their teacups a question arises as a person who has managed to beat the traffic cops he is looked upon as a sort of local hero. Instead of being ashamed of himself of whatever he may have been guilty of, it may have been an infringement of the spirit or the letter of some road safety regulation or other, he is looked upon as a bit of a hero because he has managed to get away with it. That is the position because our road safety legislation is in disrepute to-day. The public is not backing it, Sir. There is no general acceptance and the creation of an atmosphere in which a member of the public, motorist or otherwise, having endangered the lives of innocent people, is looked upon with disfavour because of the attitude in general of men and women towards people who do that kind of thing. It is in this respect that additional money can be spent and additional staff taken on. One of the things that could be done is to lay down clearly the precise nature of dealing with people who exceed the speed limit throughout the Republic. What happens to-day? They hope they will be able to get away with it. They hope that the one system adopted in one city or municipality will not be adopted in another.

The Road Safety Council has no executive powers; that is the responsibility of the provinces.

The whole of the work of this body is advisory at the moment, as I understand the position. On what do they advise?

On all matters.

Yes, on all matters. Let the Minister refer to paragraph 2 (3) of the report which says—

Surely one of the things on which it should give advice is to satisfy itself what would be a satisfactory system to adopt throughout the whole of the Republic to limit speed limits, a system which could be applied by all municipalities whether they be large or small.

That is part of its job.

Yes, it is part of its job but where does it do it? We have had cases recently where some local authorities have used radar. We recently had a radar case which was thrown out. I believe there has been an instance where a radar case has been accepted by the magistrate. So that a magistrate who is confronted by a new psuedo-scientific principle submitted to him by the prosecution, it may be by a local authority through its own traffic police or by a province (although I have not heard of such a case as far as a province is concerned) has to satisfy himself that that is in fact a good and a satisfactory and legally water-tight case which can be brought against the accused. It is for the magistrate to say whether he is prepared to accept the case whether it is radar or some other system which trapped a motorist who was going too fast. The old stop-watch method of timing the motorist over a certain distance and so forth all come into the picture. I want to give an example to illustrate how dangerous that sort of approach is. There was a case of a man who was trapped by a gasometer which is a trapping device consisting of two rubber tubes across the road. An electrically operated machine takes the time when the vehicle passes over the one tube to the second tube; it immediately gives the speed the vehicle was passing over a matter of 25 ft. magnifies it and gives you the mileage per hour. In this particular case the person was charged but the case did not go to court. It dragged on and eventually somebody was called from the C.S.I.R. because the motorist had taken counsel’s advice and had decided to defend the case. This was no easy walkover for the municipality concerned. When the municipality had to prove that the gasometer was a correct device for the purpose and accurate it sent for an official from the C. S.I.R. to give evidence to the effect that the gasometer was an accurate and scientific device for the purpose of checking the speed limit. He was asked a few questions about it, the way it was to be operated and that sort of thing, and then he climbed onto the next train and went back to Pretoria. He was not prepared to give any evidence of a specialist character in regard to this matter. Now, Sir, this particular machine is sold throughout South Africa, and I would like to read to you from a letter that accompanies the offer to sell the machine to various local authorities. I have it here, and as a mark of my good faith I am prepared to show it to the hon. the Minister, but otherwise I do not want to mention names, but it is signed by a director of the agencies who sell the gasometer, and here I am going to mention names, this is the Tellus Agency—

This was to sell it in South Africa. This is from a letter sent to people in Johannesburg, telling them what is going on in Australia. It also states—

Now we come to South Africa, where we have the agents De Jong & Co. (Pty.), Ltd., taking over now from Australia. Their address is in Johannesburg. They say, inter alia, I do not want to read all of it—

This is criticism of the stop-watches—

“Always” in capital letters——

Who wrote that letter?

That is what the agent who sells the machine states. It says here “he would always be found guilty”, and then “it is no good having a test case, because the accused would always be found guilty”. Because the machine can be cooked. Sir, this is being used by some of our municipalities, this gasometer, a machine in respect of which the people who are selling it are prepared to go on record in black and white of saying that the machine can be cooked so that there will always be a conviction. It continues—

This is the kind of thing that is happening now in South Africa. This is the machine that is being used. For these people it is a question of money, and we have before us this Bill in regard to staff and money to be spent with a view to try and stop motor accidents. Sir, one of the major causes of accidents is speeding, is impatience. And what we should have throughout South Africa in my opinion is a method whereby there can be no questioning but that when a case is brought to court, the system and the method which is adopted shall be a system and a method approved by the top possible authority as to the testing and the checking, so that there can be no argument as far as the accused is concerned, providing the testing and checking has been adequately carried out by the people concerned. Sir, until we are prepared to take steps, and very, very serious steps, against the motorist who speeds under circumstances where to speed is dangerous, we are going to be in the difficulty that we are to-day of seeing a continually rising and ever-growing list of casualties, more and more people being killed on the roads. Sir, I cannot over-plead the case here. We have got the Road Safety Council, we have got the instrument, and in the money that we provide, we have got the necessary finances, and in this Bill we are giving them the staff. It may well be, as the hon. Minister interjected just now that they are an advisory body, but, Sir, their advice can go with the full force and effect of the Minister and his Department, and indeed the Government behind it when it comes to dealing with matters of this kind. Sir, we are tinkering with this question of road safety, of road accidents. We are playing with it.

I want to deal with one other aspect to which I think the Road Safety Council should apply its mind, and with which they should deal with the new powers and functions given to them under this legislation, and that is that when you are dealing with accidents on the roads and you get official reports as to where the accidents have taken place, over and over again you find from your own knowledge, or the knowledge of local people such as a local authority, that the official list of accidents at a given spot does not tally with what the local authority says. Over and over again is there not only a discrepancy, but a vast discrepancy. Only a few years ago when the Secretary for Transport and members of the National Transport Commission and others came down to my own area, this very point cropped up in an acute form, and it took me months and months of investigation to try and find out why these discrepancies occur, why it is that when you go to the authorities in regard to a particular point and ask how many accidents have taken place here during the last 12 months, one authority, the official authority representing the road safety people will tell you that there were X accidents, and then a local authority or some other authority concerned in the matter will say it was X × 2 accidents, double the number. Mr. Speaker, a tremendous lot of accidents to-day do not go to court. If there is nobody injured, by-and-large the police are so worked off their feet, that they do not want to have cases going to court where all that they get out of it is a conviction for somebody because somebody else’s mudguard was dented. But the difference between a dented mudguard and a dead person may be a very slight difference indeed so far as the actual accident itself is concerned. The police simply have not got the time to deal with all these minor cases. So that one does not go down on the official record. If it did, we might see some engineering problems, which are referred to in this Bill.

You are not discussing the Bill at all, but the Road Safety Council.

That is in the Bill.

No, only the composition of the actual committee.

It is no good the hon. Minister trying to put me off my point. We are setting up an action committee.

We are not setting it up, it is there already.

We are recreating it.

No.

Does the hon. Minister deny that we are recreating it, with the nominees of the five Administrators.

The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) moved a motion on 26 February, when the whole question of road safety was discussed.

I am not concerned about a private member’s motion. I am dealing with the Bill before us now. We are recreating the council. The Minister cannot deny that.

Of course I deny it.

The five Administrators have never had the right to nominate a representative. There a joint representative for the four Administrators, and now you have brought in the Administrator of South West Africa.

What has that got to do with the functions of the Council?

We are providing the money for it. I refuse to be diverted like this. We are voting the money and putting down the law as to how the money should be spent, and we say what the functions are, and we are providing the staff for the Road Safety Council to carry out its functions, and the functions are laid down.

That is already provided for in the principal Act.

Mr. Speaker, when the matter comes before us in this form, with the increase in staff and the disposal of moneys, then we are entitled to discuss what the functions of that new body are, which is now being recreated, which is not the old council at all but an entirely new one and a new action committee. Read Clause 5 and then Clause 6.

You misunderstand the position.

I simply refuse to be diverted. I say on this question of accidents that there are engineering problems as well that the council should go into and make representations to the appropriate road authority. That is one of its functions. That is the thing that is not being done, and I emphasize it here as part of the work that they ought to do. We cannot expect the police to do it, we cannot expect the police to deal with the innumerable cases. But the report that we get in regard to accidents at the certain spots are entirely erroneous and they are giving a completely false impression to everybody involved in the matter, because they are not listing all these minor accidents of which there must be tens of thousands, which never appear in the police courts and are never the subject of a charge. This is the kind of work which in my opinion this new body we are now reconstituting can get down to with advantage to South Africa and in the interest of road safety and with a view to preventing further road accidents. Place the whole matter on a proper basis, a basis which will be acceptable to the motorist and to all local authorities, and get definite data in regard to all accidents, all kinds of accidents, so that the map prepared on the basis of accidents on our roads shall be a true reflection of where the accidents take place and the precise reason why accidents have taken place, instead of scratching out probably more than half of the accidents that are occurring at the present time. Then we will be taking the first step towards dealing with road accidents and the fatalities on our roads.

As the hon. Minister rightly said when he introduced this Bill, he has followed up the recommendations which he found in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Road Safety, Road Traffic and Road Traffic legislation, submitted by a committee over which the hon. the Administrator of the Free State, presided, Mr. du Plessis. I am very pleased indeed that the hon. the Minister has taken certain steps because they are very long overdue. Sir, this committee reported back in November 1964 and it had been appointed in February 1964, some four years after the principal Act appeared on the Statute Book. Now if one reads this report it is very clear that it was essential that certain steps should be taken. I can tell the hon. the Minister that not only the public, but industrialists and commercial people, many of whom served on the various regional road safety councils throughout the country, will appreciate the fact that something positive, is now taking place with regard to this particular council, and when the hon. Minister talks of appointing a chairman on the advice of the Administrators and extending the Action Committee by giving it a representative from every province, including South West Africa, that is one of the features which was found necessary in order to activate this body into greater action. Now one is not critical in the sense that one wants to in any way tear to pieces what the Road Safety Council has been trying to do. But the criticism, Sir, rather is the fact that the council has not moved; it has set up bodies, it has sent out a great deal of information, it is providing funds, but in many senses its conduct is virtually that of a defeatist body which knows that it is difficult to do anything to arrest this tremendous rate of fatalities in South Africa, that it is common to all countries in the world, and that one has to continue to do research until one finds some solution. But we maintain, Sir, that machinery has been created and one can try and do something very much more effective than has been done in this direction. When the hon. Minister talks about the fact that he is taking powers in this Bill for the Action Committee to appoint additional personnel, he virtually has arrived very close to what is one of the most vital aspects of road safety work in this country, something that is supported by the people who have had a lot of experience, namely the local authorities throughout the country, which believe that one of the most important methods that can be used to-day is to have personnel on the roads and in the field in order to afford the greatest measure of watchfulness, care and advice to the motorist. It has been found that that is the most successful method of trying to instil into the mind of the motorist how essential it is for him to curb his exuberance on the roads with the modern type of vehicles that are being used.

Order! I do not want the hon. member to go too far. I allowed the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) to put the case on behalf of the Opposition, but the hon. member must deal with the Bill as it is before us.

With the utmost respect, Sir, Clause 6 of the Bill talks about the appointment of personnel. It is a new power, and the hon. Minister made that very clear.

But the hon. member must not go into too much detail.

Sir, I am dealing with the principle of the reconstruction of the Action Committee, following upon a report. I would like to say this that one of the local authorities in fact has submitted that it would be wise if the Road Council would make use of its funds to assist local authorities in the form of a subsidy which it gives to all the regional road safety councils in any event to help them to carry out their work, a subsidy to local authorities to step up the salary of the average traffic officer, the so-called traffic constable …

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of Clause 6 there is a substitution of one subsection for another, which provides for the Action Committee doing something which it has never done before and that is to appoint personnel, a very vital feature.

It has done that before.

Why then the amendment to give it greater powers?

Read the principal Act.

I have studied the principal Act very thoroughly. This is an expansion of the Action Committee. I do not know why the hon. Minister is so sensitive about it. He should be glad that we want to assist him, because the opinion of the public is that this Road Safety Council, despite its machinery, despite its set-up and its finance, is virtually not making the headway that one would expect. In increasing its powers to provide additional personnel, I say it is getting as near as it can for the first time to some glimmer of hope in this whole problem that faces us. We have had a debate on road safety. We know that people are dying like flies. Over the week-end 16 people were killed in this country. We are having greater casualties now than we had in World War II as far as South Africa is concerned. We know that the cost to the country is already nearly R70,000,000 per annum.

That matter is not germane.

Yes, Sir. The hon. Minister knows these facts. Therefore I say that we support the provisions of the Bill but we ask the hon. the Minister to do one thing and that is to try and ensure that more positive action is taken with this fresh set-up, with the introduction of a representative of each province, with the strengthening of the Action Committee by closer co-operation of each province, which is the body that is charged with legislative rights and other rights in regard to traffic control—that is why they are introducing the various Administrators—and they are increasing the representation of each province in order to strengthen the liaison between the provinces specifically and the Road Safety Council Action Committee, because the province is the channel through which the control of traffic takes place and the Government of the whole of the traffic laws and regulations throughout the country takes place. This fresh set-up was specifically recommended by the committee, and perhaps to assist you, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure you cannot read every report …

I do not require the assistance of the hon. member. The point he is raising now has been made already.

All I want to say is that this Bill which accepts that particular report has as its purpose the strengthening of the Action Committee, and therefore I say that the hon. Minister should give the House an assurance and give the country an assurance that with the strengthening of the Action Committee, steps are taken which not only are more positive, but which are not defeatist. Sir, we are not prepared on this side of the House as representatives of the vast public outside to allow the Road Safety Council to continue with a defeatist attitude.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to resume my seat.

Mr. Speaker, in view of your ruling, before I start, I want to ask you whether I am entitled to refer to page 6 of the report chiefly, which says—

Now if you are prepared to allow me to speak on research and guidance and education, then I can continue, but if you feel that under the circumstances it is no concern of this Bill, then I must at once resume my seat.

It has nothing to do with the contents of the Bill.

Sir, I will resume my seat.

Sir, before you rule me out of order, I want to tell you that I intend to deal with Clause 6.

If the hon. member knows that he will be ruled out of order, he should sit down.

Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to go against the ruling which you have given, but I would like your guidance as to what we can deal with under Clause 6. The amendment which we are asked to deal with is—

What I want to deal with, if you permit me, is what is intended by the word “officer” in this amendment, because I would like to see it extended to a much wider field than apparently is the intention here. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that these officers which are to be appointed should be people who not only do their work for the Road Safety Council as a council, but they should have the power, in terms of the main Act, to extend the purposes of this Act to the schools and universities where I feel road safety should start. It is for them to be taught …

That is being done.

I know that in the Coloured areas and in the Coloured schools many of these people are anxious to form what one might call a corps, perhaps in uniform, where they can be trained in the work of road safety, and I was going to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will extend this and accept an amendment in respect of Coloured schools …

That has nothing to do with it.

Order! I have given the hon. member an opportunity of coming to this point, but as far as I can see it has got nothing to do with the Bill.

Then, Mr. Speaker. I am a casualty of the road and I will sit down right now.

I would like to deal with the matter which the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) dealt with, and I would like to deal with it in relation to Clause 6 which provides for the appointment of certain officers, which the hon. the Minister does not dispute. Now Section 18, which is being amended here, provides that “subject to the provisions of subsection (2), the Action Committee may appoint such officers as it may deem necessary to assist the Council to achieve its object and to perform its functions and duties”. Now, these officers here being appointed are going to be appointed for the purpose of helping the Action Committee to achieve its object. But they are also going to be given exactly the same powers, because that is what the Act says, that is to say the section here being amended—they are getting the same powers as the Action Committee, and the Action Committee in turn has exactly the same powers as the Road Safety Council, and it exercises those powers when the Road Safety Council is not sitting. What then are the functions of these officers? What is the purpose of appointing these officers here? It is to achieve the objects and the aims of the Road Safety Council, to perform its functions, through the medium of the Action Committee? But be that as it may, the hon. the Minister is appointing these people; the Road Safety Council presumably meets them to fulfill its functions. The hon. Minister surely would not appoint them otherwise. But one of the functions that this Council has is not only to promote road safety education and so on, but in consultation with interested bodies to undertake or promote road safety education in respect of all sections of the adult population, and to attain the support and co-operation of all bodies interested in road safety. Surely one of the things that this body is going to have to do is to seek the co-operation of the local authorities who are vested normally with the task of regulating traffic, and as the hon. member for South Coast has so rightly said, surely there is no factor more conducive to death on the road than speed, carelessness, impatience. But what are the traffic police doing? What are they going to co-ordinate? Surely they are going to co-ordinate the activities of the traffic police and surely they are going to put the traffic police to some good, to some better use than what they are employed for now. Because most of the traffic police in South Africa to-day are being employed for the purpose of collecting revenue h r the local authorities.

Order!

What I want to ask the hon. Minister is that when he appoints these officers to perform the functions of the Council through the Action Committee, surely the point made by the hon. member for South Coast is one of these matters which needs his and the Council’s and the Action Committee’s and these persons’ (to be appointed) urgent attention.

Why is it that no one knows of this gasometer that the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has mentioned? Why does the Minister not know about it, or does he know about it? I think we are entitled to know. If these officials he now seeks authority to appoint are going to do anything at all, then surely this is one of the things the Minister must have been aware of. If the Minister is not aware of it, he is not doing his job properly. It is no good the Minister saying that it is up to these people to make recommendations. They make recommendations to the Minister, inter alia. The hon. member for South Coast has now raised the question of the gasometer. In one area of South Africa …

Order! I have allowed the hon. member for South Coast to state his case, which he did clearly, and it should be left at that.

I merely wish to enlarge upon it.

There is no necessity for that, because it is not relevant to this Bill.

I should like to ask the Minister, when these officers are appointed, and are obliged to perform the functions of the Council, how will they go about promoting the general application of traffic engineering principles which affect road safety? What sort of people is he going to appoint? Will they be engineers? I hope so, and I hope that he has regard also to these devices such as have been mentioned, and when these persons take the power to make representations to the authorities in regard to legislation affecting road safety, I should like to know whether they are going to make particular reference just to one province, or whether they will make general reference to all the provinces? One of the functions of this road safety council, and therefore of these officers, will be to promote or encourage an institution for training facilities for persons engaged with traffic law enforcement. I should like to know from the Minister what he has in mind with these people. I believe this would be a very good school for such persons, to set up a school for the promotion of road safety. What is traffic law enforcement to-day? What are the causes of the high death toll on the roads?

Order! That is not relevant.

May I not continue?

Sit down.

Order! The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) is not the Speaker of this House and if he does it again I shall ask him to leave the Chamber.

High time.

Order! Who said that?

I did.

Will the hon. member withdraw it?

I withdraw it.

One of the other functions of these officers is that they will organize safe driving schemes. Can the Minister tell us how they will do that? What is a safe driving scheme?

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill or else resume his seat.

In terms of the Bill, the persons to be appointed are to have, inter alia, the power from time to time as circumstances make it desirable to arrange for road safety congresses to be convened on a national, provincial or regional basis.

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat now.

The Bill before us is a measure by which the Minister is trying very hard to get the Road Safety Council to work. Since the formation of the Road Safety Council, we have had the du Plessis Commission on road safety and the result of that commission and the memorandum submitted by it, have convinced the Minister that the Council is not serving the purpose he thinks it should serve. The Council consists of some 90-odd members who work on a voluntary basis, and in order to get a council of this magnitude to work properly it is necessary to have some sort of continuity and to strengthen the action committee when the Council is not sitting. It is also very necessary for the Minister to have a body with whom he can consult in order to take action in regard to road safety. We on this side welcome these additions and particularly the strengthening of this action committee. I think that is very necessary in order to get this Council to work. When one sees such a large body, one would think it is unwieldy, but they have been broken down into six sub-committees which do very useful work, but unfortunately the information channelled by these sub-committees may take some months before any action is taken.

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

I am talking about the constitution of this Council and the Action Committee. This Bill seeks to strengthen the Action Committee.

Order! That point has been emphasized already. The hon. member must raise new points.

On a point of order, I should like to address you on that point, Sir. It is perfectly clear from Clause 6 that provision is made for officers to be appointed by the Action Committee, and these officers are to assist the Council to achieve its objects. We have been asked to pass that clause. We are being asked to give authority to the Action Committee to appoint those officers for that purpose. Sections 5 and 6 (a) of Act 1 of 1960 say that the objects of the Council are to promote and encourage road safety in the Republic in all its aspects and to formulate and propagate a co-ordinated national policy concerning road safety matters. These officials who are to be appointed by the Action Committee are to assist the Council in regard to such matters. This is not just an advisory council. In regard to matters such as research and education …

Order! The hon. member has made his speech already and he cannot make another speech. He must state his point of order clearly and concisely.

The point is that the officials to be appointed in this clause, are officials who are there for the purpose of assisting the Council to deal with these matters, and I submit that we are entitled to discuss those matters because the officials will have to deal with such matters. We are entitled to discuss the duties and functions of the officials whose appointment we are being asked to approve.

The hon. member may proceed, but he must confine his remarks to the Bill.

The Bill strengthens the Action Committee and it also seeks to pay the full-time members some remuneration so that they are not out of pocket. Any measure which can strengthen the Minister’s hands in connection with road safety matters is welcome. I am limited in my discussion, but this Action Committee and the Road Safety Council are very important matters. The du Plessis Commission shows how far they can go and they give their reasons why these extra people should be appointed. We are dealing with the Bill that appoints them, but unfortunately we are restricted in discussing why they are being appointed. But it can do no harm to strengthen the hands of the Council and the Minister, and we hope it will do something to ensure road safety.

I wish to refer to sub-sec. (1) (b) of Clause 6. I should like the Minister to tell us what intention he has in mind in giving this Council the right to appoint temporary staff, which is contrary, of course, to what is generally accepted in bodies of this nature. If the intention is that this will enable the Council to have persons who will go in for research programmes in various fields, I believe this provision is a very sound one. I raise this because I particularly have in mind a matter of great importance to road safety and which is the subject of contention in my own constituency. I wish to put it very briefly so that the Minister can go into it. I believe it is in the interest of road safety that it be done. I refer to the use of the gasometer. It has been used on the roads in the area and there is great contention as to the accuracy of the instrument and whether it should be used. I submit that it is desirable that the Minister, in case of need, should have someone temporarily appointed to examine the whole of this question so that we can have an authoritative opinion. If the instrument is as efficient and accurate as is claimed, it is unquestionably of great importance to road safety and can bring about a great change, as I must say it has brought about in the area concerned. If on the other hand an instrument like this is inaccurate as is claimed by persons having knowledge of it, it is also important, and I ask the Minister to have the matter investigated thoroughly so that we can find out authoritatively whether the use of this instrument is fair and whether it is accurate or not.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the game is that hon. members opposite are playing now. If they are opposed to this Bill, why do they not vote against it?

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

Sir, with all these senseless remarks they are merely applying delaying tactics, and I am replying to the nonsensical statements which have been made. I do not know what hon. members had in mind. Just about everything they said here had absolutely nothing to do with this Bill. If they are concerned about road safety, why were they not here on 26 February …

On a point of order, I think the hon. the Minister is reflecting upon the Chair.

I am saying that if those hon. members were so concerned about road safety, why were they not in their places on 26 February when the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) had a motion on road safety before this House? [Interjections.] I say that they were not here. I replied to that debate, and the only hon. member on that side who was present, apart from the hon. member for Green Point, was the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller). In the afternoon there were about ten of their members here. [Interjections.] It was not only the fact that they did not speak, but they were not even present. I made the observation, and the hon. member for Green Point concurred, that so little interest was shown in the debate that it was really a disgrace.

Order! I must now ask the hon. the Minister to come back to the Bill.

The hon. member should control his language.

Virtually all the remarks that have been made here have nothing to do with this Bill. This is an amending Bill the sole objects of which are, firstly, to grant the Action Committee wider representation, on the basis of a recommendation made by the Du Plessis Commission, and secondly, to bring about greater efficienty in the administration of the road safety organization. But the hon. members want to discuss the functions of the road safety organizations. They have already had an opportunity of doing so and I am not going to reply in this regard. I am prepared to reply to questions in connection with this Bill, but the hon. members want to know now what the road safety organizations have done. The hon. member for Florida used the word “defeatist”, and said that the road safety organizations were standing still. I have never heard such nonsense in my life. It is absurd to make such an allegation. If he wants to know what they are doing and what they have done and what they are still busy doing, he can look at column 1939 of Hansard of this year. The whole of my reply is set forth there. This Bill merely deals with extending the representation on the Action Committee and making the administration of the road safety organization more efficient, and it has nothing to do with all the senseless stories they have put forward here.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I want to say that this Bill deals with the safety of the country, and not with road safety. [Laughter.] Therefore I believe that, in view of the fact that this is a brief and clear Bill, there will not be much discussion about it. Hon. members who made a study of the Official Secrets Act will know that the principal Act of 1956 deals only with military matters. Here a new principal is now being introduced, namely the words “military or police matters”. In other words, police matters are now being included in this Bill. If hon. members look at the clauses dealing with it, they will see that it refers to any person who has in his possession any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information which relates to any military or police matter. The military or police matters are qualified by the preceding words. Hon. members may now ask me, firstly, why it is now found necessary to include police matters here. and. secondly, they have the right to ask me how far it goes and what precisely we envisage, and what the police matters comprise; what may be published and what may not be published. I have said that the basis originally, in connection with this paragraph, was that it really dealt only with military matters, and now we are also introducing police matters. Hon. members who have noted what has been happening in South Africa in recent years will readily agree with me that, in regard to certain matters, one can hardly draw a dividing line between police matters and military matters. It is a fact, and we have seen it over and over again in recent years, that there is increasingly less difference between the cold war on the one hand and the real war on the other. Hon. members know that in former years, when one was faced with conventional warfare, there was a formal declaration of war between countries, but we increasingly find that to-day there is hardly any declaration of war. Hon. members will know that particularly the communists concentrate on undermining a country to such an extent that, without declaring war and during the period of cold warfare, it is hardly necessary for them actually to wage war to get that country under its domination. It tries to subvert it to such an extent that it falls into its lap like a ripe apple. The happenings of recent years in South Africa make this so clear that I do not think it is necessary for me to go into it any further. Therefore I believe that any person who has in his possession any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document, etc. in respect of a police matter should be covered by the terms of this Act.

But of course it does not end there. That sketch, plan, model, etc. must, of course, stand in relation to the safety of the State. It is quite clear that the mere possession alone of anything like that is not being made punishable. In addition there must be the intention to use it “in any manner or for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the Union”. Hon. members will also note that the word “publish” is also new in this Bill. The people who, in the first instance, are, of course, interested in this matter are the National Press Union.

Some time ago I had a discussion with the representative of the National Press Union. This morning I discussed the matter with representatives of the National Press Union, namely with the Cape Town representatives of the N.P.U., who were authorized to discuss this matter on behalf of the Press Union. They put their problems to me. I put my side of the case to them, with the result that the Press Union and I understand each other in respect of this Bill, and that they accept the Bill as it stands here; and I gave the very clear assurance to the Press Union, which is also undoubtedly contained in this Bill, that the Bill has nothing to do with the formal matters concerning the police such as the transfer of officers, police salaries, etc. Those matters are not affected because they have nothing to do with the safety of the State. Nor has the Bill anything to do with the combating of crime or the reporting of crime.

We are dealing here only with matters which may jeopardize the safety of the State.

Can you give an example?

Yes. The question was put to me by the Press Union whether we could not define more closely what our intention was, and that was a fair question. I went into it very thoroughly, but my problem is that as soon as one begins watering it down, one does not know where one will end up. Therefore the position, as I explained to the Press Union, is that the safety valve in this case, as in the case of the other security legislation, is the fact that, in terms of the 1956 Act—and this Bill does not affect that position—the Attorney-General, and he alone, has the right to decide when a prosecution should be instituted. It goes so far that before any prosecution can be instituted the Attorney-General must hand in to the court a certificate to the effect that he authorizes the prosecution. I gave that reply to the Press Union and it satisfied them, and they understand the position and realize why it cannot be otherwise.

I may also tell hon. members in this regard that there is an agreement between the police and the Press Union in regard to reports, etc. That agreement is now being reviewed and the negotiations between the police and the Press Union are still in progress. I have given the Press Union the assurance that if they find it necessary, before the negotiations are finalized, to discuss this aspect of the matter with me further, they are very welcome to do so, and I shall grant them the opportunity.

The hon. member for Yeoville asked me to give examples. I shall do so. During the Poqo troubles, for example, we found sketches, etc. of police stations, notes in regard to the strength of the police and in regard to weapons and ammunition in their possession. These people could not be charged under the principal Act, because it does not refer to police matters. It is expected that in future—I do not want to say too much about it at this stage—we will probably come across more of these things. But I want to give hon. members two examples. In one newspaper—its name is not relevant now—a sensational article appeared about certain operations which the Security Police were alleged to be carrying out during the Poqo troubles in Basutoland and on the borders of Basutoland. Even the names of agents of the S.A. Police are alleged to have been mentioned in this article. It so happens that this was quite untrue. There was nothing of the kind, but it could quite possibly have been true, and, if it were true, this report would, of course, have given those subversive elements precisely all the information they needed in that regard. I repeat that one must cover oneself in respect of those things as the result of the turn which cold warfare has taken recently, not only in this country, but in the rest of the world. I can give another example. In combating these subversive elements, it may, e.g., be necessary for the police to have a concentration of men at some spot in order to surprise these elements at a given moment. If one does not have this legislation, and such information should reach a newspaper which is not concerned about the safety of the State, there is nothing to prevent it from publishing that information, to the detriment of the safety of the State. I therefore repeat that the basic principle contained in this Bill, in so far as the police aspect of it is concerned, is simply that we want to guard against the publication of information affecting the police in so far as the safety of the Republic is concerned, or that it should not directly or indirectly be divulged to anybody. The safety valve is the Attorneys-General. In the past we have already taken wide powers in terms of similar legislation, where the Attorneys-General of the various divisions of the Supreme Court were the safety valves. I make bold to say—and I think hon. members on both sides will agree with me—that the Attorneys-General exercise those powers in such a way that nobody, however carping he might be, can in any way criticize the way in which they exercise their powers. I have every reason for believing that where the basic standpoint here is that one wants to ensure the safety of the State further, and that no prosecution will take place in terms of the Act without the Attorney-General issuing a certificate to authorize it, nothing will go wrong in respect of this legislation either. This, Mr. Speaker, is the basic and only principle of this Bill.

The hon. the Minister has told us that the Newspaper Press Union is satisfied with this legislation. I wish to say at once that I hope to show that this legislation goes too far. I hope that it will be possible for us to convince the hon. the Minister that this legislation goes too far and that it is necessary to bring about important amendments. We accept that the safety of the State is the supreme law; that has come down to us from Roman times, but on the other hand we also believe in the freedom of the individual. We believe that it is most important that that freedom should be upheld, subject only to the safety of the State. We concede that it is necessary to protect the safety of the State. Sir. we also believe that another very important freedom is the freedom of the Press, and my submission is that the provisions of this Bill, particularly the provisions of Clause 2, are so wide that they can, and, I believe, do interfere, with the freedom of the Press. I believe that the freedom of the Press could be restricted very much under the provisions of this measure. We believe that one has to look not only at this Bill but at the Act which is being amended here so as to be able to understand fully the implications of the amendment which is proposed to be made here. I refer only to Clause 2. I think the remaining provisions of the Bill are completely non-contentious. Sir, Clause 2(b), to which I confine my remarks, reads—

Sir, this goes very far indeed. It is very interesting to see what the amendments are. The amendments have already been referred to by the hon. the Minister, and in the very clear form in which they now appear, the words proposed to be inserted being underlined, you can follow them very clearly. The words which are being inserted in line 18 are “or any military or police matter”, and in the following line the words “publishes it or directly or indirectly” are proposed to be inserted. Those words, incidentally, substitute the words “directly or indirectly” which now appear in the Act. Sir, a person does not have to be guilty of having contravened all the provisions of this section, but only of the relevant provisions. We have no difficulty whatsoever in respect of matters affecting the military. So far as the military are concerned, we believe that these powers are necessary. The difficulty arises from the inclusion of police matters. We know that our police are our first line of defence, and when they act in support of the military there is no difficulty. The words proposed to be inserted here are, “publishes it or directly or indirectly”, but the really objectionable provision is the reference to publication “in any manner” prejudicial, not to the safety of the State—that we must accept—but prejudicial to the safety or the interests of the State. Sir. the “interests of the State” are tremendously wide.

The same applies to the military aspect.

The hon. the Minister can reply later on. Let me try to put my argument first. What has to be proved in this respect is that information has been communicated to a person “in any manner”, not necessarily for any purpose; if it is communicated for a purpose prejudicial to the interests and safety of the State it is a different matter. But information might be communicated quite inadvertently and it need not relate to the safety of the State; it may relate to “the interests” of the State, and the word “interest” covers a tremendously wide field. The clause taken as a whole, in my opinion, is worded in such a way that it could cover matters far beyond the ambit of the matters which the hon. the Minister has indicated to us he wishes to control. It is my belief that this clause can be limited by amendment to cover only what it is necessary to control, leaving out matters which it is quite unnecessary to deal with. I hope that the hon. the Minister will agree that if we can put forward amendments which, while protecting the safety of the State, limits the operation of this clause to cases where it is absolutely necessary, amendments whereby we may be able to arrive at a clause which is generally acceptable, it would be all to the good. For our part we will try to frame such amendments and we hope that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to give very careful consideration to the proposals that we will put forward. We hope that it will be possible to arrive at an agreed measure which will go as far as is absolutely essential for the purpose of protecting the safety of the State but which, on the other hand, does not cover matters which, judging by what the Minister has said, he does not intend to cover.

Sir, there are also difficulties which arise from the provisions of the existing law which is being amended. Section 8 of the Official Secrets Act deals with “proof of purpose prejudicial to the safety and the interests of the Union”, and it reads as follows—

This is a case where the onus is reversed, which makes it all the more possible that innocent persons might find themselves before the courts, and convicted under the provisions of the law if it is amended as suggested here by the hon. the Minister. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act which is being amended provides—

Sir, that is an enormous onus for an accused person to discharge, and that onus is being increased very greatly by the amendments which the hon. the Minister proposes to make to the sub-section which I am discussing. Sir, there are circumstances in which there can be no objection to reference to police matters if those are matters which are appropriate, but I do believe that the wording of the clause as it stands is such that persons and newspapers could be convicted in cases where they have acted in all innocence and where they have no intention of committing an act which is prejudicial to the safety of the State. One must be prepared to concede—and I do concede—that where the safety of the State is concerned, there is a very heavy onus on us when it comes to legislation of this sort. But the term “the interests of the State” is a tremendously wide term, and after having thought over this matter very deeply, it is my honest opinion that this clause goes very much too far. I repeat that I hope that it will be possible to limit this clause to cases which it ought to cover, and that it will exclude cases which it ought not to cover. If we can devise such an amendment and find common ground, then we will support this Bill at its third reading, but we believe that the clause as it stands goes too far. We believe that the Opposition would be failing in its duty if it did not take a firm stand on what we believe are the true interests of the State, and also for the protection of the freedom of the individual in matters other than those affecting the class of case, to which I have referred, where we say it is proper that there should be legislation. In those circumstances—and I hope that the hon. the Minister and the Press will understand that we are taking this line because we believe it to be in the highest interests of this country of ours—we should be very careful in considering legislation of this sort. In order to protect the good name of this country, I wish to move as an amendment—

In considering a Bill of this kind, it is certainly not necessary for us to review the circumstances under which we are living, because I think it is common cause on both sides of the House that we are living in a world which is full of problems, that we are living on a continent which is full of problems, and that in our own country we are faced with problems and threats. I think that is a proposition with which hon. members on that side of the House will agree. Indeed that was also the attitude which was revealed here by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), namely that the interests of the State deserve our very serious consideration. Before I go on to discuss this measure, there is one matter in regard to which I should like to have a little clarity from the hon. member for Germiston (District). If my memory serves me correctly, he said that they had no objection to the insertion of the word, “military matter”, but that they objected to the insertion of the term “police matter”.

That was not the only point I made.

Is the hon. member satisfied with the insertion of the words “military matter” or is he not?

Make your point; we will reply to it in due course.

Sir, surely this is a simple question. I do not want to become involved in an argument with the hon. member for Germiston (District). I just want to have clarity as to whether we differ on this issue. I do not want to put words into the hon. member’s mouth, but if my memory serves me correctly, he said at the beginning of his speech that the Opposition had no objection to the insertion of “military matter”, but that they did object to the insertion of “police matter”. Is that correct, or is it not correct?

He did say so.

He cannot reply; he is not a member of their Cabinet.

Sir, I call this House as my witness. The hon. member said that he did not object to the insertion of the words “military matter”, but that he did object to the term “police matter”.

I am not a witness under cross-examination.

Sir, I said at the outset of my speech that I wanted to try to ascertain in all friendliness in what respect we differed. If the hon. member did say what I attributed to him a moment ago—and until such time as he tells me that he did not say it, I accept that he did say it—then I want to point out to the hon. member how completely illogical he is being. This Bill deals only with the insertion of the words “or any military or police matter” and the insertion of the words “publishes or directly or indirectly”. In other words, formerly it constituted no offence where information, etc. was communicated to a person in connection with purely a military or police matter. It is now being made an offence where information is made known in connection with a military or police matter. Formerly it did not constitute an offence if something was published for general public knowledge; it was only an offence where information, etc., was divulged to a person directly or indirectly. Sir, this constitutes the whole principle of the Bill. The hon. member says that he has no objection to the insertion of the words “military matter”; he only objects to the insertion of the term “police matter”. He says that if this clause is passed unaltered, innocent people will be brought before the courts. His objection is that the Bill does not define sufficiently clearly what may be done and what may not be done; that innocent persons will therefore be brought before the courts and, what is worse, that the onus will rest on them to prove their innocence. If the difficulties which the hon. member foresees are created by the disclosure of information, etc. which relates to police matters, why then cannot the same circumstances be created by the disclosure of information which relates to military matters? If he has no objection to the insertion of “military matter”, then I need argue no further with him; if he wants to be logical, he should also accept the insertion of “police matter”, because the problems which he mentioned in connection with the onus of proof and the other problems to which he referred, apply just as much to military matters as they apply to police matters. If the hon. member is still not prepared to tell me that he did not use the words which I attributed to him, then I think we need not go any further because then he has proved my case for me.

Hon. members of the Opposition admit and accept that the interests of the State must be protected and particularly the safety of the State. Sir, the safety of the State in peace time is just as important in the hands of the police as it is in the hands of the military, and that is why we feel that this clause should apply, not only to a sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information which relates to munitions of war, but that it should also be extended to information, etc., which relates to military or police matters. If hon. members on the other side want the safety of the State to receive preference and to be protected, then they should give us the necessary support when we seek, for their sakes and for the sake of all of us, to protect the safety of South Africa. I know it is difficult to determine where the line should really be drawn; it is difficult to determine what is a contravention and what is not a contravention, but on the other hand hon. members opposite must realize that where we are dealing with the safety of the State, the interest of the individual is really a secondary consideration. I do not have the slightest hesitation in saying that in my opinion the safety of the State is the primary consideration, and if the preservation of the safety of the State happens to cause some inconvenience to the individual, then the individual must simply be prepared to endure that inconvenience.

The hon. member then went on to analzse this clause. The impression which he has created is that it will be a very easy thing now to bring a charge against a person. But that is not quite correct. It is not only a question of the disclosure of information which relates to military or police matters. The clause goes on to refer to information which such a person “has in his possession or under his control” and “who communicates it to any person in any manner or for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the Union”. The English text refers to “the interests of the Union” and the Afrikaans text refers to “die belange van die Unie”. And I want to put it to the hon. member that “belange van die Staat” has a much narrower meaning than “interests of the State” and, from that point of view, I do not think the hon. member need be concerned that the word “interests” has such a very wide meaning that it can be interpreted to cover practically every act, because the Afrikaans word “belange” which is used here to define the object which it is proposed to achieve, has a very much narrower meaning. Sir, I hope that hon. members on that side, since they themselves are so concerned about the interests and the safety of the State, will accept this proposed amendment. But there again they are being illogical; they say that if they can get this sub-section (2) altered in such a way as to suit them or in such a way that it will be a little clearer to them, they will be prepared to support this Bill at the third reading. But, Sir, what they are doing here is to oppose the principle of the Bill. In moving as an amendment that the second reading of the Bill be taken this day six months, they are opposing the principle. They must not come along with a pious expression on their faces therefore and tell us that they are concerned about the safety of the State, because according to the hon. member’s amendment, they reject this Bill entirely. I feel that the hon. member should rather withdraw his amendment.

The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) appears to suffer from the same delusions as the N.P.U. representatives seem to have laboured under when they spoke to the hon. the Minister. They appear to have done what the hon. member for Ceres appears to have done, except that he has less excuse because he is a lawyer; they appear to have listened to what the hon. the Minister said the Bill meant, and not what was in fact in the Bill. The hon. the Minister made out a case of sweet reasonableness. He said that the Bill dealt only with certain matters relating to the safety of the State and he mentioned, in answer to the hon. member for Yeoville, certain matters which nobody in this House, at any rate not in the Official Opposition, would quibble over.

But before I leave the hon. member for Ceres, I want to point out to him that when he answered the hon. member for Germiston-District (Mr. Tucker) he was unfair to him in quoting what he had said out of context. The hon. member for Germiston (District) indicated that the context in which these words, “military or police matters” appeared, was in fact objectionable because these words were so wide. The hon. the Minister’s case was that there was really no change at all: he said that before the Official Secrets Act applied to military matters and that all we were doing now was to extend it to police matters. Sir, it goes very much further than that. The hon. the Minister says that to-day it is difficult to distinguish between a police matter and a military matter. I suppose there is no one who can bear better witness to that than the hon. the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Defence. It seems that they were so confused as to whether Mr. Plotz was a military man or a security man that everyone forgot about him and that he disappeared. The hon. the Minister should rather have said that it is very difficult to-day to distinguish between what is a police matter and what is not. What is a police matter, when you look at the situation in South Africa today? There is not one act, from the cradle to the grave, whether it is in your business, at your home, in the field of entertainment, in your motor car, which does not in some way or other concern the police in South Africa. A police matter is any matter whatsoever, but prosecutions in relation to the publication of police matters will be determined, as the hon. the Minister pointed out, by one person. There will not be a prosecution in the normal course of events unless one person instigates it. In this connection the hon. the Minister stood behind the record of the attorneys-general of South Africa. Sir, do I have to remind the Minister that when he shows that the attorneys-general have a good record and when he says that the N.P.U. does not have to worry about what will happen, that the attorneys-general will exercise their discretion properly, the hon. the Minister himself is in fact the attorney-general. The Criminal Procedure Code provides that every attorney-general shall exercise his authority and perform his functions under this Act or under any other law subject to the control and direction of the Minister who may reverse any decision arrived at by an attorney-general and may himself in general or in any specific matter exercise any part of such authority and perform any such function. It does not help the hon. the Minister to hide behind the attorneys-general and their record as to what is going to be done and what is not going to be done. The hon. the Minister is going to decide that. He is going to decide in which cases the Press, as it will generally be, or anybody else is going to be dealt with and for what purpose.

That is a strange argument.

Sir. I hope that the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) will not follow the example of the hon. member for Ceres; I hope he will have a look at the Bill before he speaks and see what it says. The hon. the Minister talks very glibly about the safety of the State. If the Minister, as the hon. member for Germiston (District) has pointed out to him. had framed this Bill in such a way that it dealt only with the safety of the State then we would not have had any objection to this Bill at all. But it does not do that at all. What it says in effect is that any person—usually it will be a newspaperman but it could be anybody—who publishes any information that he has in relation to a military or police matter and communicates it in any manner or for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or the interests of the State, shall be guilty of an offence. The hon. member for Germiston (District) quite rightly pointed out that it did not matter whether he had the intention to do it or not. If you do it in a certain manner which might be prejudicial to the interests or the safety of the State you are committing an offence. How is anyone to know what the hon. the Minister will regard as being in the interests of the State?

How do you know it is an offence then?

It is not a case of doing something with the specific object of undermining the State. In that case you commit an offence in any event. You don’t need this Bill to convict somebody for having done something with the intention of undermining the safety of the State. As I understand the position that is treason and our law already provides for that. This Bill goes much further and is much more vague. It is not a case of whether you publish something with the object in mind of prejudicing the State or of prejudicing the interests of the State, for example. The point is that if you publish it in such a manner as is likely or calculated to be prejudicial to the interests of the State then you are guilty. How is anyone to know what manner of publication is likely to be prejudicial to the interests of the State?

Those are the words of the old Act. You tell me what the difference is.

These are the words of the old Act in relation to munitions of war. “Munitions of war” is a term which is defined in the Official Secrets Act as meaning “any article, material, etc.”. What is a police matter? Can the hon. the Minister deny that any matter is a police matter to-day. The Group Areas Act is a police matter; everything to do with group areas, every investigation is a police matter. Bingo is a police matter; attending a rugby match at Newlands is a police matter to-day.

You know the clause does not stop at police matters; it goes further.

That is the point. What I am trying to indicate to the hon. the Minister is that all you have to say in South Africa is “police matter” and you don’t have to go any further; you have covered almost every aspect of everyone’s life.

Nonsense.

Now I know I am right hearing the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). Let me give the hon. the Minister an example. An article appeared in the Argus of 23 March 1965, under the heading “Keevy Replies to Comment on Police Pay”. It says—

Then it goes on—

Then it goes on—

What I want to ask the hon. the Minister in all seriousness is this. To judge from his attitude towards what I have just quoted, he seems to think that this is not in the interests of the State.

It has nothing to do with the Bill whatsoever.

But he could be charged.

Of course he cannot be charged.

Of course he could be charged in terms of this Bill. I ask the Minister to look at the Bill again. There has been a publication of some information in relation to the pay of the police the object of which, let us presume, was to ensure that the police got better pay. A worthy object but the manner in which it was done apparently, according to the Commissioner of Police, had this effect. So this was publication of information in a manner which, as alleged by the Commissioner of Police—I can give the hon. the Minister no higher authority —was prejudicial to the interests of the police and if it is prejudicial to the Police Force it is prejudicial to the interests of South Africa. On the wording of this clause, as it reads— I don’t have to read anything into it—that situation is covered.

If the hon. the Minister’s case is that he only wants to deal with the matters such as those he gave in his example, he should have brought a Bill to that effect. Had he brought a Bill to that effect, or if he could change this Bill to that effect, he would have the wholehearted support of this side of the House, as the hon. member for Germiston (District) indicated. The hon. the Minister is a lawyer; he knows perfectly well that this goes much further than the examples which he gave us. It deals with so many different things that it is very difficult to know what one should do if one has such information. There is certain information which would be in the interest of South Africa to disclose. Let me say to the hon. the Minister that it not only affects the Press, but it affects anyone, and as I see it, it even affects a member of this House. There is no protection here given to a member in this House. If they have something which, if it were disclosed and were published, and if it is said jn this House it would be published, published to the House and to the public, then it may “in the opinion of the Minister not be in the interest of the safety of the State”.

Outside the House?

Whether he says it here or says it outside. It seems to me there is no protection.

Surely you know that you are now talking nonsense!

Will the hon. the Minister tell me whether this Bill in any way changes the natural construction of Statutes? Is this not a later Act than the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act?

If you go on like that the Sunday Times will drop you.

You know, Sir, the hon. Minister has got an advantage. He could run away from adversity very more quickly than I could. The hon. Minister knows as well as I do that, in terms of this and his own Press—I must say this is the one occasion when I can say “his own Press” supports this interpretation—it provides that persons, e.g., who are detained by the police, should not be disclosed. The hon. the Minister will not deny that. It may not be in the interest of the State to disclose the names, “in the opinion of the Minister”, and he may be able to prove it. But where does this stop? Surely it is always in the interests of justice, in the interests of the public and in the interests of the State to know who is being arrested, why they are being arrested or if they have been arrested. You see, Sir, one of the difficulties about this is that at the trial, when it is held, someone is charged by the Minister, and then the trial may be held in private. I don’t think the hon. the Minister will deny that if someone did publish that information the Minister could prosecute him. If someone, for instance, published information about submarines off the Transkeian Coast, a matter which caused this Government a lot of discomfort during the recent elections. [Laughter.]

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

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will confirm or deny this, that in terms of this Bill, as it now stands he would be entitled to prosecute him in terms of this provision. The fact of the matter is that the hon. the Minister has been less than frank with the House when he introduced this Bill. It does not deal just with the matters indicated by the hon. the Minister, and if the hon. the Minister is sincere in that, I am quite sure we can find a formula, as the hon. member for Germiston (District) indicated. We would be able to find a formula in the Committee Stage, and we can test the hon. Minister’s sincerity.

But according to your amendment you do not want a formula. You do not want the Bill at all.

We do not want the Bill at all as it is now. That is what the amendment says. Unless the hon. the Minister is prepared to change it, we will have none of it. But the hon. member for Germiston (District) made it very clear. He said if a formula could be arrived at, if the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept an amendment to limit the Bill to what he said was aimed at when he introduced the Bill, then at the third reading we will support the Bill. That is what the hon. member for Germiston (District) said.

You do not want it at all.

The hon. Minister’s sincerity will be tested in this regard, and I hope the hon. the Minister will live up to the second-reading speech that he made.

Before replying to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), I just want to say that I really cannot quite understand the Opposition’s logic in this matter, because, although they are only dissatisfied with certain aspects of the Bill, they move an amendment aimed at wrecking the entire Bill. In other words, they are not apposed to any particular clause of the Bill which can be put right in the Committee Stage, but in regard to this matter they do not want any Bill whatsoever placed on the Statute Book, not of this nature nor of any other nature. We listened to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), who is, of course, a shadow minister in the shadow cabinet, and then we listened to the other hon. member, who is also a shadow minister now, and I want to say that if they carry on in this way, the United Party is going to find itself in a very precarious position during the next stages …

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, let us try to view this measure in its proper perspective. I gather that the Opposition has certain objections to the scope of this measure, but only to the scope of this measure, and not to the principle, because if they were opposed to the principle, they would have been logical in their arguments and would have rejected the measure in its entirety—as they are in fact doing in their amendment. But in their arguments they object to the scope of this Bill. This Bill, Sir, has two aspects. It relates to military matters on the one hand and to police matters on the other. The safety of the State is of primary concern. That is accepted by the Opposition as well. The safety of the State has two aspects. The one is external security, in regard to which no outside interference can be tolerated. In this regard military matters are of primary importance. However, the Opposition concedes that the safety of the State can also be threatened from within, and then it becomes a matter for the police. I want to say a few words in connection with the police aspect of the matter.

The hon. member for Durban (North) says that the term “police matter” is too wide, and he tries to make out that this term can include any matter. For instance, he mentions “bingo” and horse-racing, and, as he put it, anything from the cradle to the grave. But surely he should read the Bill in its proper context. In the first place the Opposition is not opposed to the inclusion of the word “military”. The hon. member for Germiston (District) said that. His only objection was in regard to police matters. I want to say immediately that “military matters” is as general a term as “police matters”, because “military matters” is not defined in the Official Secrets Act, just as we are not defining “police matters” in this Bill. Therefore, neither of the two is limited to certain matters only. In this respect the hon. member for Durban (North) is again not being logical.

But now we go a little further. The measure provides that “police matters”, which is what they are objecting to, only refers to matters involving “the safety or the interest of the Union”. Therefore it is ridiculous to mention “bingo” as an example, because the safety and interest of the State are not involved when a man plays “bingo”. The term “police matters” does not include anything whatsoever; it only relates to “any matter prejudicial to the safety and interest of the Union”. The safety of the State must be involved. If somebody trespasses on my property, it is a matter for the police, but it does not affect the safety of the State. So there are many police matters which are not involved in this Bill, because they do not affect the safety of the State. The hon. member says that if a member plays “bingo”, he will also be prosecuted, because it will be in the interest of the State to prosecute him, but that is not the case. Consequently his argument is without any foundation.

I want to point out once again that, although they have no objection to the principle, they move an amendment which rejects the principle. Secondly, they have no objection to the scope being extended to include military matters, but military matters are not defined, just as little as police matters are defined; and, thirdly, I think the entire matter has been taken out of its context by the hon. member for Durban (North), whereas one should view it in its proper perspective, which is that the safety of the State has two aspects, the external one and the internal one, and if they want to be honest they must watch both these aspects, and not do as they did last year when they spoke against the measures that were taken against sabotage. First they refused to provide the means with which to combat sabotage, but when sabotage was actually committed, they were piously …

The hon. member must return to the Bill. Last year’s measures are not under discussion now.

With all due respect, Sir, I am merely showing how this Bill is running parallel to what happened here in the past, but if you rule me out of order, I shall resume my seat.

I wish to oppose this Bill most strongly. I oppose the introduction of a Bill which goes very much further than anything we have had up to the present. I want to say at once that I see a considerable difference between the Defence Force and the Police Force. As I understand it, the Police Force is a branch of the Public Service which is there to protect the public. I have always understood that that is the basic function of a Police Force, to protect the public. I do not understand the Defence Force to have quite such a function. It is there to protect the State as a whole, while the Police Force is there to protect the public, and therefore there is a difference between the two. It is true that the primary function of the Police Force has largely been obscured in this country because of the introduction of an enormous Security Branch of the Police Force over the last few years, and therefore one tends to forget the basic function of a police force as it functions in other civilized democratic countries. But apart from that, the Defence Act also goes very far. It is extremely difficult to report any actions which have to do with that Ministry without first referring the matter back to the Defence Chief, and I understand that the Press has considerable difficulty in this regard, so that even if there were not this distinction between the Police Force and the Defence Force, I would still be opposed to this Bill.

Would the hon. member have any objection to this Bill if the security forces were attached to the military force instead of to the police?

I would then have fewer objections because that would at least narrow the scope of the whole thing. That would have been one intelligent direction for the Minister to have thought of, rather than include the whole ambit of police action within the purview of this Bill. But the hon. member for Heilbron must remember what I have said about the Defence Act, and that is that I believe that that Act goes too far in any case. But I think the suggestion that the Security Branch be put under the Defence Act rather than under the Police Act would, of course, go at least some way towards meeting some of these objections. My objections are, first of all that there is no definition in this Bill of “police action” and that as the Bill stands it could have a very wide cannotation indeed. It need not necessarily involve security matters only. This means that it will have a crippling effect on the Press in reporting any matter referring to police action. I do not know how any newspaperman is going to know what he may or may not report.

Strangely enough, they do not object.

The hon. the Minister tells us that the National Press Union has agreed to this. I think that in fact the newspaper people are going to find this law very difficult indeed. As it is, they have to run to the Ministry for permission to print even the most innocent article about movements of the Defence Force. They have to run to the prison authorities for permission to print the most innocent article about the prisons. Under the Prisons Act they fall under severe strictures if they inadvertently report anything which is not strictly correct in connection with what is happening in the prisons. This Bill now adds additional strictures with regard to what the Press may or may not report. I do not know how any newspaperman is going to discharge the onus of proof which is now being placed upon him; how he is going to show that what he reported was not intended to be prejudicial to the State. I think it is a most difficult onus of proof for him to discharge. Already the newspapers are functioning under considerable difficulties and this Bill widens the whole scope of ministerial actions. They have to clear every matter with the Minister which may fall under “police matter”, as they already have to do under the Defence Act and as they already have to do under the Prisons Act. The hon. the Minister has given us the explanation that the police were handicapped by the publicity which was given to certain matters relating to Poqo last year but. Sir, surely South Africa is not the only country which has difficulties about security matters. Surely this cannot be the only country where the police may find themselves in difficulty if premature publicity is given to the actions of persons in subversive activities or matters affecting the security of the State. But other countries take an intelligent attitude towards this matter; they have an agreement with the newspapermen, with the editors of newspapers who, after all, are adult and responsible persons. They have an agreement whereby if certain matters were considered to be prejudicial to the State, advance information is given to the Press and the Press is asked to suppress the reporting of such matters. In England, for instance, there is what is known as a D Notice. This is given to responsible members of the Press who are told that any advance publicity would affect the security of the State, and in terms of a gentleman's agreement, such news is not published until the Government gives the green light. In the United States also this matter is not one for legislation. What happens is that the White House press attached will call together the responsible editors and inform them that security might be breached if any advance publicity be given. The newspapermen, being responsible adults, and as much concerned about the safety of the State as the hon. the Minister is, will not give advance publicity to such news. I see no reason why the Minister could not also take the Press into his confidence when there are any swoops, for instance, by this Security Branch, and when premature publicity may jeopardize the interests of the State. The hon. the Minister could surely inform newspaper editors accordingly, and I am sure that those editors will act like responsible people and that they will not publish that information in advance. This happens in America. It happens in England and I see no reason why it should have to be a matter for legislation in this country, and moreover, legislation of as wide a nature as the hon. the Minister is introducing here to-day. It seems to me that that is the sensible way to deal with security issues. The sensible way would be to try to obtain the co-operation of the newspapers. Instead of that, however, we have the heavy hand of the Minister here once again and we will again have legitimate complaints that news that comes out of South Africa has to be smuggled out of the country and that the so-called freedom of the Press is now being further impinged upon. Sir. one argument that one could use overseas in attempting to off-set extravagant criticism against this country was that at least there is some form of Press freedom.

“Some form of Press freedom”!

Yes, it is by no means complete. The Press is already severely circumvented under the Defence Act and under the Prisons Act in what it may or may not report.

We have always had it.

Not to this extent. In fact, it is not a matter for legislation. If the hon. the Minister had listened to what I said about the United Kingdom and the United States he would understand that it points to exactly the opposite. There might be an Official Secrets Act, but the publication of matters relating to Defence, the publication of incidents that take place in prisons and now the publication of so-called police matters, are not matters for legislation in other countries. They are matters of co-operative action between the Minister concerned, the Government concerned and the responsible newspaper editors. As far as I know these confidences are not abused; they are respected by newspaper editors overseas. There is no reason whatsoever why the hon. the Minister should not take the Press into his confidence when these matters are under discussion or when they are about to be given publicity. The fact that the onus of proof is being placed on newspapermen, the fact that no definition is given of “police matters” and the fact that very heavy penalties may be imposed under this Bill, certainly impel me to oppose this Bill in the strongest possible way. I do not know what amendments the Official Opposition intend introducing in the Committee Stage. As far as I can see there is only one clause in this Bill which also contains the principle of the Bill; the other amendments are of a purely consequential nature. If any really far-reaching amendment can be introduced and accepted that will be another matter, but as the Bill stands, the principle is embodied in this clause and I see no prospect of amending this Bill in such a way that I would be prepared to support it.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.