I wish to object to this clause. I gave all my reasons during the second-reading debate. I believe that already the disproportion of representation in this House is too high. This clause will simply increase the disproportion. Although the hon. the Minister said that it would be possible to raise the ratio of Coloured representation in this House when the number of White Representatives reached a certain figure, nevertheless I contend that the original ratio was quite disproportionate and I have no intention of supporting any measure that in the meanwhile will increase that disproportionate ratio. The fact that there is not a vast number of Coloured voters on the roll at the moment has in fact no bearing on my argument. My point is that for 1,500,000 Coloured people there are only four Representatives. The Africans and the Indians have no representation at all, but that has nothing to do with this Bill. Yet the White people, numbering 3,500,000 already have 150 Representatives. Had their registration not been so severely curtailed in the past, the Coloured people should have had higher representation. They would also have enjoyed better representation if Coloured women had been given the vote when it was given to White women. There are also various other factors which I could mention.

Order! That has nothing to do with the clause under discussion.

Mr. Chairman, I am simply arguing against the existing disproportion. I repeat that I have no intention of supporting any measure which will increase the existing disproportion.

Clause put and agreed to (Mrs. Suzman dissenting).

On Clause 3,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

Sir, this amendment does not change the meaning of this clause. The law advisers, however, have asked that the words “the Republic” be substituted for the words “each electoral division” so as to put the matter beyond all doubt. The real intention, as a matter of fact, is to have a quota for the Republic.

I object to this clause for the same reasons I gave at the second reading. I wish to move the following amendment—

This is done in an endeavour to reduce the load and unload as already existing and is in line with the amendment moved by my party in 1961 when the Republican Constitution was being discussed, an amendment which was at that time supported by the official Opposition. I also wish to move the following amendment—

To omit the proviso to paragraph (g) of sub-section (3).

In other words, I do not in any way want to increase the load/unload which at present exists under the Constitution Act.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments put and negatived (Mrs. Suzman dissenting).

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clause and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Orders Nos. II and III to stand over.

I wish to refer to Item G, “Contribution to the S.A. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. In the first instance I should like to mention the fact that there is a rather steep rise in the provision of funds, namely from R8,000,000 odd to R 12,000,000 odd. It represents a rise of nearly R4,000,000. In principle I have no objection whatsoever to an increase in funds for research work, but at the same time I should like to know what is basically behind this extraordinary sudden rise. While I am talking about the C.S.I.R. I want to draw attention to a rather sad event, namely the loss to this country of an opportunity of receiving a very valuable contribution to astronomical work in the Republic. I refer particularly to the European Southern Observatory. This is a project which is in the hands of a consortium of Western European nations comprising French, Belgian, Dutch, Swedish and German interests, costing roughly in the region of R6,000,000 to R 10,000,000. Now, this observatory was considering having its station at Zeekoegat, and whilst investigations in this regard were being conducted, the University of the Orange Free State was considering establishing an astronomical faculty, or, at any rate, an observatory.

The consortium decided, however, to establish their station in Chili, and building operations, etc., have already commenced in that country. Now, it has been suggested that this project—which is quite a large one—decided against establishing a station in this country because, inter alia, there was lack of interest and encouragement by various bodies in the country. However, the president of the C.S.I.R. has denied this allegation, and he has stated that he himself gave it all the encouragement he possibly could.

I should like to ask the Government to pay particular attention to this type of opportunity because it is a terrible loss, indeed it is an irreparable loss, that this country with its clear skies and having English as one of the official languages—compared to the language used in Chili—with its industrial development and its other scientific projects, should have been rejected as a site for the station in question. I say, Sir, that the country should exert itself more than it is perhaps doing at the present moment, Mr. Chairman, I am not making accusations against anybody because I do not have the facts. I am merely mentioning this incident because I should very much like the hon. the Minister to take an interest in matters of this nature. Because, Sir, the large scientific astronomical project which is situated at Zeekoegat and which is run by the French, will undoubtedly move elsewhere. All this means that, not only have we failed to acquire this large, important, scientific project for this country, but in view of the fact that the French scientists at Zeekoegat form part of this consortium, we will also lose a similar project already established in the Republic.

Other projects are being considered, projects for the acquisition of which Australia is competing with this country. We should go out of our way, we should do everything possible, even to the extent of offering to share part of the costs involved, to encourage projects of this type to locate themselves in the Republic. We have the American tracking station which employs 140 South Africans of the total of 146 scientists. If by any chance we were to lose this station—although I think such a thing is unlikely—and if we were to lose more projects of this type, then in my view it would be a disaster for the Republic’s scientific prospects.

We are here concerned with a Department whose functions and activities cover a very wide field. This year is the first time that the activities of this Department are being discussed, and one gets the impression that hon. members are not yet quite sure what the work of this Department embraces. I have listened to speeches by hon. members of the Opposition from which it has become clear to me that the wide scope of the activities of this Department is not yet fully realized by everybody.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Planning and his young Department on the energetic way in which they have set to work to co-ordinate so wide a field of activities. I should like to say this morning that the need for a Department of Planning is probably felt by every person who is interested in the development of the Republic of South Africa. I think that many hon. members of this House have on more than one occasion had personal experience of the lack of co-ordination, not only between various Government Departments, but also between various interest groups which seek to promote the development of the country as a whole as well as of certain areas of the country. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, one is very happy that this Department has been established and that it has set to work so rapidly to co-ordinate the various activities which are aimed at bringing about development and making them more purposeful. I shall be glad therefore if the hon. the Minister will avail himself of the opportunity this morning to give a brief survey of the activities of this new Department.

Permit me, Mr. Chairman, to say a few words this morning about a specific part of our country where the attention of this Department is particularly necessary. I am referring to the Western Cape. The Department of Planning concerns itself particularly with the economic aspect, with a planned development programme for the country, something which is of course to be welcomed. But I want to plead here this morning that the Department should also pay attention to the necessity of insuring that the development in this particular part of our country does not lag behind the development taking place elsewhere. It is a well-known fact, of course, that the Western Cape does not possess many of the raw materials which make it possible for the industrial growth to take place that is taking place in the Witwatersrand complex. But we have other natural assets to compensate for that. If one bears in mind the fact that the heart-land of the Western Cape—and here I am referring to the winter rainfall area, and more particularly the fruit and wine-producing and crop-farming regions in this area— comprises only 4 per cent of the farming area of the Republic, then it is indeed an achievement that this area is already responsible for 10 per cent of the gross agricultural production. One realizes, too, that the climate in this region is conducive to exceptional stability and exceptional development. If, in addition, one takes into account the fact that the industrial development in this part of the country is to a very large extent based on the agricultural potential of the region, then one realizes that particular attention and guidance are needed in the Western Cape.

This Department of Planning has at its disposal—and that is one of the main virtues of this Department—not only the co-ordinated assistance of other Government Departments, but the assistance of outside bodies as well. Here I am thinking of development associations, our universities and other institutions.

I should like to refer to the Regional Survey of the Western Cape which was released by the Department recently, a survey which was undertaken by the Natural Resources Development Council in collaboration with the Economic Research Bureau of the University of Stellenbosch. The following is stated insofar as this heart-land of the Western Cape is concerned (translation)—

Mr. Chairman, the possibilities of industrial development in this area, which according to that report has in recent years lagged behind the rest of the country, are based mainly on agriculture. And, on account of the climatic conditions in this area and the comparative certainty of crops, agriculture in this area is particularly suitable as a basis for this development.

I want to ask this morning that, with the assistance of this Department, which can look for assistance to so many other institutions, and which can call upon the assistance of so many others, particular attention should be paid to economic development, and more specifically, industrial development, in this area as well. That will mean that particular attention will have to be paid to the maximum utilization of water, of which we have large supplies in this area, but which is not yet available in all respects to be utilized for agricultural and industrial purposes.

Let us in that way enable the labour potential of the Coloured people in the Western Cape to be fully exploited too. On account of the relative economic quiet—if I may call it that—as compared with the country as a whole, we have the situation that a large part of the labour force here, namely the Coloured people, is inactive to a certain extent or, to put it differently, is not fully active, as it ought to be. And I am of the opinion that the possibility of further industrial development may in fact provide the stimulus fully to exploit the labour potential of the Coloured population here in the Western Cape, both for agriculture. which forms the basis of our industrial possibilities, and for industry. In that way we may also become less dependent on Bantu labour here in the Western Cape.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for the particular interest which he is displaying in this area, particularly for his interest in the fact that this area has lagged behind somewhat. I want to thank him for the stens taken by him on various occasions to bring the developmental possibilities of this area to the notice of the public and of various institutions, and particularly for the fact, too, that he is going to play an active part in a conference which is to be held here in the Western Cape on the 21st and 22nd of this month, a conference which has been arranged by the National Development and Management Association of South Africa and the University of Stellenbosch, and which will have as its theme “The Mobilization of Resources for the Development of the Western Cape”. [Time limit.]

Shortly after the hon. the Minister had been appointed as the head of the newly established Department of Planning, it was announced that a planning commission had been appointed to go into the matter of beaches for the various racial groups. When the announcement was made, a certain section of the Press said that the outcome of this would be that the Coloured people would be deprived of their traditional beaches and that the existing facilities for the Coloureds would be curtailed. It was stated that apartheid would be implemented further.

My own experience has been different. I appeared before the Commission of Inquiry on behalf of my constituents in Port Elizabeth and East London. My experience there has led me to "believe that the Coloured people are at long last also going to get facilities at the sea where they will be able to spend their holidays and enjoy the attractions of the sea. It came to light that although the local authority of Port Elizabeth had decided as long ago as 1929 to provide separate beach facilities for the various races, nothing had been done as yet to provide even the most elementary facilities for the Coloured people’s beach. As far as East London is concerned, it was found that, as compared with R188,000 which had been spent in respect of the White beaches, only Rl,520 had been spent in respect of beaches for the Coloured people during the same period.

I want to express my satisfaction with the course of events in this respect in my constituency up to the present time. What upset me, however, was the Press reports of what took place before the Commission in Cape Town. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister, before affixing his signature to the final decisions of this Commission, to give consideration to the fact that if the requests submitted to the Commission by Whites and White bodies are acceded to, the Coloured people in the whole of the Cape Peninsula will not even get half a mile of beach area. In my opinion the Whites adopted an extremely self-righteous and selfish attitude before the Commission in regard to this matter. For that reason I want to make an appeal to the Minister to exercise his discretion and to see to it that the selfish requests of the Whites are not acceded to as far as this matter is concerned.

What also upset me was what took place in connection with the area in which I am living at present, an area which is known to the Minister as well, as it forms part of his own constituency. I am referring to Milnerton, a suburb which has its own municipality. Milnerton has approximately five to six miles of beach within its municipal area. The first mile of beach—on the Cape Town side—is bounded by an industrial area, while another stretch of beach is bounded by private property, property on which there is only one dwelling. A third part of the beach is bounded by the grounds of a golf club, while a fourth part is bounded by an undeveloped coastal area lying between the road and the beach. Another part of the beach is bounded by Table View Township, with a road running between the beach and the few houses which have already been built in that township.

The spokesman of the municipality who proposed that the entire Milnerton beach be reserved for Whites, apparently enjoyed putting his case. My experience of this person is that as far as our racial set-up and the racial attitudes which have developed over the years are concerned, he has a very backward outlook. I regret to say that it amounts to a typical White inferiority complex which people seek to offset by being impetuous and by insulting other racial groups which are not White. In any case, the representations made to the municipality amounted to this that the stretch of coast from the Total petrol dump to the mouth of the Diep River should also be reserved for Whites. As far as I know, the people of Milnerton do not use that part of the beach. The people who do use it come from elsewhere. It will still develop into an industrial area, an area in which hundreds of Coloured people will be employed. There was even a proposal—I do not know whether it had the approval of the municipality—that Woodstock Beach should be given to the Coloureds—and Woodstock Beach no longer exists! At present there is a harbour where Woodstock Beach used to be. It was even stated that the Coloured fishermen who sometimes net fish off small boats there will be a nuisance in that area—and this is an area in which there are no White houses in close proximity. The traditional way of life of those fishermen will now be terminated. Sir, it is a picturesque feature of colourful Cape Town to see the fishermen entering the water in their boats there, and it has always been a great attraction for visitors to stop there and to view the scene from close quarters. The White ratepayers have since held a meeting which was convened by the Mayor of Milnerton. At that meeting the attitude of the municipality, which by that time had already submitted their representations to the Commission, was rejected, and what was interesting was that at the meeting wives of city councillors and, amongst others, the Mayoress, voted against the municipality’s proposals. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to take these circumstances into account. The taxpayers’ resolution was adopted at a stage when evidence had already been submitted before the Commission. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to take into account the resolution passed by the taxpayers, who gave the general public a chance to consider the matter and to disapprove of the self-righteousness and the selfishness of the municipality as reflected in these proposals, and see to it that when planning is underaken, it will be done in such a way that the Coloured people who we anticipate will be employed in the factories in the industrial area will also be granted access to the sea. When driving through Paarden Island in the hot lunch-hour during the summer months, one sees hundreds of people streaming out of the factories to take a breath of sea air, and if the employees can relax at the sea, which is at the doorstep of the factories, it also helps the employers to get better service. This should also be made applicable to the industrial area falling under Milnerton, and regard should also be had to the fact that Milnerton is one of the more well-to-do residential areas of Cape Town and that there are many hundreds of Coloured servants who should also be granted access to the sea. I hope the Minister will take into consideration these circumstances affecting a part of his constituency, where the local authority has acted quite wrongly, and I hope the outcome of his planning will be that the Coloured people will also have the use of a part of Milnerton beach, even if it is only the part extending from the Total petrol dump to the mouth of the Diep River.

I want to ask the Minister whether he can give me some information in regard to one or two items of planning. The fishing people on the West Coast, particularly in the neighbourhood of Lamberts Bay, have been assured, in the not so distant past, that a township would be established for them at Elands Bay. As far as I can understand, there has been a Commission or a Committee of Inquiry, which went into the matter, but we cannot ascertain exactly what is envisaged and what plans have been proposed and what progress has been made. The second item is the Coloured people who live in the Native Reserves in the Hay and Kuruman districts. Here again I understand that the proposition to move them is on a long-term basis. The third is, what is going to happen along the irrigation settlements at Upington. Another Minister, some time ago, before this Department was created, actually had a Departmental Committee of Inquiry—I think it was called the Brandt Committee—to make proposals in regard to the disposal of land and the future of the Coloured people in the Upington settlements. These are questions which are put to me as a representative of the Coloured people and I should like the Minister to tell me what is happening. I hope the Minister will be able to tell me to-day, so that I can return to my constituency and reassure these people, who are living in a state of anxiety.

My main theme is this. About three years ago the Minister was at Kimberley and a proposition was put to him, which I think he accepted, to set up a commission of inquiry into the possibility of developing the Northern Cape as a whole. Under the Commerce and Industries Vote I asked that Minister, what steps were envisaged in connection with the undertaking given at that time. I think the gentleman in charge of that Commission was going to be a Dr. Rautenbach. The Minister will recall saying that the roads in the area were bad. I am happy to tell him that the Provincial Administration has come forward and has done its share in providing roads. When one looks at the Orange River scheme in that region, where the emphasis is almost exclusively on agriculture, people there wonder, what planning is being done for the industrial development, which must surely follow on the development of the Orange River project. I do not have to tell the Minister, because he knows it as well as I do, that the Triangle from Kimberley to Upington and Kuruman, and even up to Mafeking, is one in which a tremendous amount of base metals and minerals are found. A large percentage of the production of the country occurs there and is mined there. What we as a community—and I speak for all sections, White, Brown and Black—are concerned about is that all this raw material is being mined and transported away by the Railways for processing elsewhere. We naturally wonder whether the time has not come to examine this thing objectively, with a view to establishing industries in this region, so that when the mines are exhausted, we will not have the community left to its own devices.

The problem of water has often raised its head, but with the Vaal River and the Orange River scheme, there can be no further anxiety on that score. I would like to say that for over 20 years the leading men of Kimberley, and particularly Mr. Harold Morris, who was the electrical engineer of the city at one time, have seen what prospects there are there. Now we have the discovery and the working of the Finch Mine, with the result that Postmasburg and the adjoining towns will enjoy tremendous prosperity. But what we are concerned about is whether that prosperity will be permanent and whether, when these deposits come to an end, those communities will have industries to keep them going. I say that, because, in the past, there has been a complete lack of vision. We have seen enormous complexes growing up in the Southern Transvaal, where most industries congregate. It has been a plea for many years by public men that the railway rating system should be altered because it was designed in the days, when the high rate was on finished articles coming in at the ports. To-day the goods are being manufactured in this country and it would appear to me, that that is no longer a valid argument for a high rate on manufactured goods. I will not go over the ground which the Minister knows so well because he made a speech on the occasion to which I refer, in which he acknowledged that what I am now saying is correct. My plea is that the Department of Planning should not get itself bogged down in the small planning that is being done, worrying about whether or not a small community should be moved. I should like to see the Department using some vision and looking at the country as a whole, and taking heed of the fact, that there are regions, like the one I am discussing, which should be developed, and so ensure that the natural resources there are used to the best advantage. In recent years we have had the Railways spending millions on doubling tracks. That is very welcome, but when one considers that all the new facilities for the transportation of goods are merely provided to cart away raw materials for processing, not only in other parts of the country, but overseas, and that we are making the Japanese rich, one thinks something should be done. Our own assets are being steadily carried away.

The Coloured community’s particular interest in my plea to-day is the establishment of industries which will provide them with employment. These people have not the means to get out of their environment and unless industry is established close by, their future will be very bleak. Let it be said, as the Minister well knows, that there is at the moment a tremendous amount of private enterprise busy in the region. Private enterprise has contributed to no small extent to the development of the region. But the fact remains that in the aggregate the Government as such has done very little to assist in the development of the region and to make it prosper. That applies to the towns as well as to the mining development there. It is refreshing to-day to see the atmosphere among the public of Postmasburg and Kuruman, where all look forward with some hope to the development of industry. All these things fall within the purview of the Planning Department. I do not want the Minister to find himself tripping over all these little planners, of whom we have so many, and who are running round the place, dealing with little pieces of land, knocking off street corners and things like that. That is not planning; that is interference. The planning which I hope the Minister will promote, is the type of planning to which I refer, so that the assets of the country can be utilized to the maximum advantage of all and not for the benefit of the few, as has been the case in this country, where most of the real wealth is in the hands of a select few, whereas the great mass, the worker, the Coloureds and the Bantu, have very little. I think I have now stated my case. I know I speak to a sympathetic ear because the Minister will admit that what I am pleading for is not impossible. It is something which is long overdue and it is something which is within his power to grant. [Time limit.]

What the last two speakers have said rather reinforces the point I wish to make, and that is that it is still not clear exactly what the purpose of this Department is. If I remember rightly, much stress was laid, when the Department was established, on the fact that it was to be a co-ordinating department, because with the amount of planning which was going on in all directions it was essential to have some central point at which all these plans could be brought together to be put into practical form. As the result, we have people to-day who say that they have their plans but they cannot do anything about them because it is in the hands of the Planning Department. That is the one idea, but now it looks also as if the Department is developing into one which is doing its own planning. It has under it now at least two planning bodies, the Council for the Development of Natural Resources which produces plans for different regions, and the C.S.I.R. which, based on its own research, makes recommendations, and now there is a Deputy Scientific Adviser. It is not clear to me what the difference between an adviser and a planner is. He has now produced a report recommending the establishment of four more boards, which will also do planning, so that the Minister’s Department will be getting plans from people in his own Department, from these four new boards, from the Natural Resources Development Council and from the Group Areas Board as well, and it is not clear to me how a Planning Department which will produce its own plans is also going to pass judgment on the plans of other departments. It is very natural that when you are planning yourself, you are inclined to think that your plans are better than those of other people. It will not be long before we have a sub-committee under another Minister to co-ordinate the plans of the Planning Department with those of other departments. I want the Minister to make it quite clear to what extent his department is purely a co-ordinator to make sure that the lines are not being crossed between one department and another, and to what extent it actually originates plans, because it is very important to know exactly what this Department is supposed to be doing.

I merely want some clarity about District Six. The Minister will remember that I raised the question with the Minister of Community Development, and in reply _ he read out a prepared statement on the question, and it is quite clear that for ten years there will be planning for District Six. What I want to know, and many people have asked me, is which Department now really has to do with District Six. As I understand the position, the Minister is in charge of an area which has not yet been defined as a definite group area. When it is defined as a group area, it is handed over to Community Development. Will the Minister tell me whether he has jurisdiction over District Six and its future, or whether it is entirely in the hands of the Minister of Community Development? I raise this because several people have told me that they do not know what to do; they do not know where to go or to whom to make representations, and I think clarification at this stage will help. And just when will people know whether it will be White or Coloured? Because this has a tremendous effect on the property market in that area. Nobody knows to whom to sell or from whom to buy.

Before replying to the general question put by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), let me first deal with certain details. I shall start with those relating to the Group Areas Board. To the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) I want to say that as far as District Six is concerned, the Niemand Report, which was prepared under the direction of the Department of Community Development, has now been submitted to us, and that before that area can be proclaimed, the provisions of the Act have to be complied with. That means that that area has to be advertised and investigated and that representations have to be heard by the Group Areas Board, after which a recommendation will be made. The next step, therefore, will be to advertise that area for a public investigation, which I hope will be done soon. The report has already been submitted to my Department.

I should like to ask this: Did I understand the Minister to say that there would be a further public investigation, in other words, a third investigation?

No. The Group Areas Board will report upon the matter. The Group Areas Board waited for this report and it will consider it jointly.

The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) referred to the investigation in connection with beaches. I appreciate what he said, as well as the fact that he rendered assistance in connection with the representations made on behalf of the Coloured people. As far as the Peninsula itself is concerned, I have taken cognizance of certain Press reports and I will also take cognizance of the representations made by the hon. member. I can give him the assurance that as far as the Peninsula in general and the Milner ton beach in particular are concerned, I shall take that aspect into very thorough consideration when this report is submitted to me.

Representations were also made by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman). He advised me that he could not be present here today, but I nevertheless want to reply to a few aspects. The representations were to the effect that Verulam should be left a White area. As far as Natal is concerned, it is unfortunately impossible to leave the entire area White. It is a fact that there have to be certain areas for Whites and others for Bantu, and for Indians too, and there are even certain areas which have to be set aside for Coloured people. It happens in the case of every proclamation that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction. The hon. member made representations on behalf of the Bantu of Verulam that it should be declared a White area. I am interested to know what his views are in regard to where a place must be found for Indians in that area. He also expressed concern about what would happen to the Whites. He is not the only one who expressed concern in that regard. May I read out what I wrote in reply to a letter which was addressed to me by the M.P.C. for Zululand—

So there is this concern in that area as far as this matter is concerned, but it will be investigated later this month and there will be an opportunity to make representations. You will notice that we are trying to co-operate with the Natal Regional Development Committee particularly because our whole approach is that the planning of group areas should take place on a regional basis. However, I pointed out on a previous occasion that as far as the regional planning of Southern Natal is concerned, we waited almost a year for the appointment of a committee by the Administrator, and we then issued instructions that our Department, which is responsible for the planning of group areas, should proceed with the task and that the planning of southern Natal should be approached on a regional basis without further delay; that the Provincial Administration should be asked also to nominate a person to collaborate in this matter, and that the group areas demarcation of Natal, whether in the southern or in the northern areas, should not be delayed owing to delay on the part of the Administration. Instructions were therefore issued, and since December, when these instructions were issued, large areas of southern Natal have already been investigated, and northern Natal is also being investigated at present. The instructions are that the planning there is to be carried out on a regional basis and there is to be the closest possible collaboration with the Natal Planning Board. I want to make it clear, however, that the responsibility does not rest with the Natal Planning Board but with this Department, although we shall try to co-operate as much as possible.

The hon. the Minister refers to southern and northern Natal. Does he mean the North Coast and the South Coast?

Yes.

Has no Planning Committee been appointed for the South Coast?

One has been constituted for Natal, and this Department requested the Provincial Administration as long ago as 30 September 1963—at that time it was the Department of Community Development—to appoint such a committee. It was not before 24 December 1964, more than a year after that request, that that appointment was made. Constant pressure is being exerted. Even the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) asked when the proclamation of certain areas was going to be proceeded with. I can see no reason why a year had to elapse before that committee was appointed. In the meantime pressure was being exerted by local authorities. They wanted investigations and we therefore issued instructions that these matters were to be proceeded with and that the implementation of the instructions of this Department were not to be delayed because of delays on the part of the Natal Administration. Quite a number of investigations have to be carried out in Natal. The programme for this year includes Umhloti Beach, Grey Street in Ladysmith, Mountain Rise, Newcastle and those areas, Harding, Utrecht, Kranskop, Louwville, Bergville, Winterton, Paulpietersburg, Queensborough, the Hanover/New Germany complex, the Amanzimtoti complex, the Howick complex, the Camperdown complex, the Lions River complex, Umhlanga Rocks and St. Lucia, and then the area north of the municipal boundary of Durban and the magisterial district of Lower Tugela, as well as the Umzinto complex and the Natal South Coast. It is a heavy programme therefore. There are still some areas which cannot be included. We can only do what is within the capacity of the Department, but specific attention is being paid to Natal. As far as the Peninsula is concerned, the investigations have virtually been completed. This area has been concentrated upon recently, and attention is now being paid to Natal and to the North Coast in particular.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cad-man) also referred to the fact that a certain estate agent began to buy in property there on the day of the declaration. The news only came over the radio at one o’clock. The hon. member and other hon. members were indignant about this. I just want to say here that the first announcement was not made over the radio. The announcement appeared in the Government Gazette that morning, and the Government Gazette is obtainable in Pretoria at eight o’clock in the morning. That information was published that morning, therefore, and consequently there is nothing strange about the fact that somebody wanted to take options at one o’clock that day. I do not know whether that agent was an Indian or a White person; I do not know whether any hon. member can inform me in this regard in the absence of the hon. member for Zululand, but I can say this, that if it was a White person who took options that morning, then he was not a member of a qualified group, because the area had already been declared an area for the Indian group that morning and permits will therefore be issued for transfers to Indians only.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) mentioned a few other matters here in connection with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. He wanted to know what the reason was for the increase in the amounts voted for the C.S.I.R. There is the annual increase of 1¾ per cent which is provided for in the Act and which is granted to the C.S.I.R. every year for purposes of normal expansion. Then special provision is also being made for the observatory, in addition to special projects which have been approved. Here I want to refer particularly to the fact that there are two new projects, namely, the oceanographic research project, for which R 100,000 has been made available, and the upper stratum project, for which R 136,000 has been provided. The upper stratum project is a new project, and it is being undertaken at international level. Just as there was an international oceanographic research project a few years ago, in which the Republic participated through the C.S.I.R., when, inter alia, Mount Verna was discovered, there is an international programme to-day to investigate the upper stratum of the earth. The upper stratum of the earth is reckoned to be the top 1,000 kilometres of the earth. This research is being carried out on a world-wide basis and it will extend over a period of three years. This contribution will therefore have to be made every year, although the amount will not necessarily be the same every year. The main reason for the co-ordination of this programme was the fact that the information available about the mantle of the earth was extremely limited as compared with the information about the earth’s crust which had already been obtained by means of a geological survey. There is reason to believe that the earth’s crust is to a large extent affected by natural forces in the mantle, and to us as one of the large fuel producers in the world it is important to have a share in this international survey, and therefore an amount of R 100,000 has been provided for this project.

There is a further new project which is of importance to us, and that is the National Committee for Oceanographic Research. We are situated on the Atlantic Ocean and the Indian Ocean and we are interested not only in the sea, but also in the continental shelf. On the Atlantic Ocean side that shelf extends over a distance of 44 miles and on the Indian Ocean side it extends into the sea for approximately 150 miles. We are also interested in the minerals in that shelf, and accordingly a symposium was held at the University of Cape Town in collaboration with the C.S.I.R., and it has been decided to establish a South African National Committee for Oceanographic Research. The research programme will concentrate, firstly, on a thorough physical and biological study of the two main ocean currents, the Agulhas and the Benguela, and their influence on local conditions along the coast and, secondly, on extensive exploration of the seabed and the continental shelf in particular. Additional amounts have been allocated for that purpose. Then there is a considerably increased allocation to universities for postgraduate research. I think all of us will agree that this is a very welcome increase and that more funds should be made available for research at universities. This amount appears on the Estimates of the C.S.I.R., although the C.S.I.R. only serves as the agent, in collaboration with the Department of Education, Arts and Science and the various universities, for awarding those funds and bursaries for postgraduate study.

Can the hon. the Minister give us the actual figure in connection with the additional amount allocated to universities for post-graduate studies?

The additional amount is R246,000; that is the amount which has been allocated in excess of the amount for last year.

Then there is research by Government Departments, for which an additional amount is also being requested. The largest amount is being allocated to the Department of Defence; the amount involved is something over R4,000,000. Then R326,000 is being allocated for pneumoconiosis research, R52,000 for asbestosis research, R48,000 for community development, particularly in connection with housing programmes, and then there are lesser amounts for certain other Departments.

The hon. member also referred to the observatory and expressed his disappointment at the fact that this international observatory organization, the European Southern Observatory (E.S.O.), has not been stationed in South Africa. He also referred to a leading article which appeared in Scientific South Africa of April 1965 under the heading “An Astronomical Change”, in which they accused South Africa and the C.S.I.R. of not having done everything in their power to keep those scientists here and to get the observatory stationed at Zeegoegat, Klaarstroom and Beaufort West. I made inquiries in this connection from the president of the C.S.I.R. and he told me that that was not correct at all, and that the C.S.I.R. had gone out of its way to get that institution here. He also sent me a letter which had been written by the Chairman of this European Southern Observatory. Professor Oort, the Chairman, wrote, inter alia, as follows (translation)—

It appears from this that the opinion which has been expressed here and to which I referred a moment ago is not correct, that the necessary assistance was rendered and that we should have liked to retain the institution. But Professor Oort expresses the opinion in this letter that conditions in Chile are better than those in South Africa and that that was the decisive factor in this connection. The President of the C.S.I.R. responded to this leading article on 30 April already and wrote to the Editor of Scientific South Africa and pointed out to him that the statement made in the magazine was not correct and that no inquiries whatsoever had been made from the C.S.I.R.

The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) referred to an investigation at Lamberts Bay. As far as Lamberts Bay is concerned, I may say that the diagrams have almost been completed, and as soon as the diagrams of the area have been completed, the investigation will be advertised with a view to declaring a group area for Coloured persons. Good progress has therefore been made.

The hon. member also referred to the problem of communities established along the Orange River. A thorough investigation has been made and there have been further discussions between the Department of Community Development and the Department of Planning and the three divisional councils concerned, namely, those of Gordonia, Prieska and Kenhardt. This is a difficult problem which is closely connected with the provision of employment in that area, and no definite solution can be suggested as yet.

The hon. member also referred to the Northern Cape Province and the assistance which ought to be provided as far as development in that area is concerned. I can only refer him to what I said here earlier this week, when I pointed out that the Orange River Scheme would cause a whole population shift along the river areas, including Kimberley, right down to the lower reaches of the Orange River. As far as Kimberley itself is concerned, I pointed out that if a certain quantity of water was allocated to Kimberley, the population of Kimberley could increase to approximately 700,000 once this scheme had been completed. Kimberley itself will therefore benefit considerably. The hon. member is not correct when he says that the Orange River Scheme is only there for the generation of power. It also holds other great benefits for that area.

As regards the surveys there and the assistance rendered by the Department of Planning, I want to point out that the Natural Resources Development Council, in collaboration with the University of Potchefstroom, commenced a survey of the potential of the Northern Cape Province several years ago. They have already made considerable progress. I think the development associations there are also contributing funds for that purpose. This survey is being carried out in respect of the entire Vaal River catchment area up to the point where the Vaal River joins the Orange River. However, a basic requirement for any development is that the potential must be investigated, as is being done at present by the Natural Resources Development Council in collaboration with the development associations there and the university. As far as the lower section is concerned, the development association there recently held its annual meeting; I was present there in person. They are carrying out a survey in collaboration with the University of Stellenbosch. They have already collected considerable funds for the purpose. The Department of Planning had worked out a general plan for them to indicate what such a survey should comprise. So they are also busy investigating the basic facts in the lower Orange River area, which links up with the area of the Northern Cape association.

The hon. member referred to the mining potential of the Northern Cape Province. We are perfectly aware of that, and it is for that reason that Escom recently supplied power to as far as Postmasburg and Hotazel, and Kuruman as well. Hon. members are aware of the electrification in that area and the development of the railway lines there. A great deal has, therefore, been done in this connection, and more can still be done, because this area is recognized as being one with a very great potential. I can give the hon. member the assurance, however, that we are not losing sight of those areas in our general planning.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hope-well) referred to certain problems in his constituency. We are awaiting the approval of the Administrator. I shall go into the matter and see whether we cannot obtain the co-operation and the approval of the Administration as soon as possible. As far as regional planning is concerned, too, progress has not been as rapid as we would have liked it to be. Surveys in the vicinity of the whole New Germany complex are also on the programme for this year. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible to expedite matters as regards that complex as well.

I want to say a few words about the question put to me by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) regarding the extent to which the Department of Planning is a coordinating Department and the stage at which we hand over to another Department, particularly because confusion has arisen in the case of certain bodies and persons, and people have been under the impression that if they had a problem with some Department they would come to the Department of Planning, which is not the position at all, and I want to avail myself of this opportunity to explain the position in this regard. When the Prime Minister announced the establishment of the Department of Planning, he indicated that it would cover three aspects, namely, economic, scientific and physical planning. He pointed out that certain existing bodies would be handed over to the Department, inter alia the Economic and Scientific Advisory Councils, as well as the Prime Minister’s scientific and economic advisers, and that those two Advisory Councils as well as the advisers would advise both the Prime Minister and this Department. As far as the economic section is concerned, I want to point out that, particularly as regards this aspect, the Department of Planning is not something quite new, as I have already been Deputy Minister of Planning for two years, and in that capacity I was closely connected with those two Councils and the work of those advisers.

The first task which this section undertook was the preparation of an economic development programme, which has already been published and which has been made available to hon. members; I therefore do not want to say too much about it, but I want to point out that the Government has accepted in principle that an economic programme covering a period of six years will be published every year, in the hope that it will be possible for the economic development of our country to be carried out more systematically in future. The first programme covered the period from 1964 to 1969. I want to emphasize very strongly that that economic programme was not the work of this Department alone; it was prepared in collaboration, in the first instance, with all those Departments which are concerned with planning, namely, Finance, Economic Affairs, Labour, Bantu Administration and Development, Community Development and others. It therefore represented a joint effort on the part of all the Government Departments concerned in this development. But in addition the private sector was also brought into the matter. In the 31 sectors into which the economy is divided the private sector cooperated wholeheartedly. We therefore regard this economic programme as a joint endeavour on the part of the private sector and the Administration. A similar programme will be drawn up every year. We expect that this development programme will enable us to determine where bottle-necks are likely to occur and that it will indicate to us what can be realistically achieved if we want a certain rate of development in this country. On that basis certain policy decisions can be taken. Now that the particulars in respect of 1964 are becoming available, this Department is also busy determining to what extent the actual development in respect of 1964 corresponds to what was predicted in this programme. In addition we are already negotiating with the private sector to complete the development programme for 1965-70.

To what extent does the Manpower Board play a part in this planning?

This economic programme indicates what the demand for labour in each of these 31 economic sectors is expected to be, and also what the capital demands, imports, etc., are expected to be, and on the basis of that information it is therefore possible to determine what the total labour requirements will be, and what the employment position will be as far as both Whites and non-Whites are concerned. As a result we can also see what the demand for labour in certain sectors will be. The Department of Education has a manpower section and they make an analysis of the educational facilities that will be required to provide labour, especially in the particular sphere in which there is a shortage of manpower. That was the basis of this investigation, and when these particulars became available, they were immediately placed at the disposal of the Departments of Labour and Education and of the Department of Immigration as well, because they also indicated in what sectors we could supplement our manpower resources on a short-term basis by means of immigration.

Will the hon. the Minister explain to the Committee to what extent there is co-operation between the Manpower Board of the Department of Labour and the Department of Planning?

One of our representatives, the Deputy Economic Adviser, serves on that Board. There is therefore the necessary co-ordination between our Department and the Department of Labour. We are also indicating at the moment what the manpower requirements will be next year and we are trying to determine how the manpower position has been affected by the developments of last year, in addition to drawing a comparison between manpower requirements and the manpower available.

In conjunction with this economic action we have the Bureau of Statistics, which has also been transferred to the Ministry of Planning, for the very purpose of making particulars available sooner. Apart from the Statistics Council, there is also the Co-ordinating Committee on which representatives of other Government Departments serve. The object is that the Departments will not furnish statistics on their own, but will do so in collaboration and after consultation with the Bureau of Statistics. It has also been decided to draw in the private sector to a large extent, and seven sub-committees, which cover, inter alia, national accounts, industrial construction, commercial prices and services, labour and wages, agriculture and mining, have been appointed. The Chambers of Commerce, the Chambers of Industries, the Handelsinstituut and S.E.I.F.S.A. have been asked to appoint representatives to serve on those committees so that we can make sure, before census returns are sent out, that the matter meets with the approval of those people as_ well. I think that will contribute to matters being dealt with more expeditiously than in the past.

As far as the scientific side is concerned, the scientific section is not a large one. Their assignment is to draw up a scientific plan. I summarized the position as follows in a speech—

In addition to this, and with a view to organization in the scientific field, our scientific adviser, Dr. Mönich, was sent abroad. He made investigations regarding the way in which science was organized there and he has submitted a report, which is obtainable from the Government Printer. This report was dealt with last week by the relevant committee of the Scientific Advisory Council. They made certain recommendations regarding the way in which our scientific organization was to be divided and the tasks to be assigned to them. I do not want to go into that in detail; it has appeared in print, and they will submit recommendations to us in the near future.

As far as the physical side is concerned, there is in the first place the Group Areas Board, which has been transferred to the Department of Planning. I want to state clearly here that when the Prime Minister announced the establishment of this Department, he pointed out that it would only deal with group areas until such time as the areas had been proclaimed. Immediately after that the matter would pass over into the hands of the Department of Community Development. That means, therefore, that once that stage has been reached, permit arrangements will be dealt with by the Department of Community Development. Any assistance rendered by the Group Areas Development Board in transferring the communities concerned to the proclaimed areas falls under that Department.

Then there is the Natural Resources Development Council. In this regard, too, a report indicating what work has been done in this connection was published recently and has been laid upon the Table. It covers various aspects. In the first place there is the proclamation of certain areas. Quite a few areas have already been proclaimed. The first area to be proclaimed was the Free State Goldfields. That area has developed to such an extent, however, that further investigations now have to be made regarding the industrial potential and other aspects connected therewith. The latest area to be declared is that of Phalaborwa, which is developing as a large mining and industrial centre. This area has been proclaimed in order to achieve orderly development and in order that all the necessary resources, such as water, transportation, power, and so forth, can be harnessed correctly and timeously. Then Milnerton has also been proclaimed, because it includes the development area of Rietvlei. The latest area which has been proclaimed a controlled area is Richards Bay. The hon. member for Pinetown asked me why there had been no consultation between the Minister of Transport and this Department before Richards Bay was proclaimed a controlled area. I may tell the hon. member that we were agreed, even before the Minister of Transport had gone to make investigations, that Richards Bay was the right place. The further planning of the route will also be undertaken in consultation with other Departments who have a major interest in that route. It is true that the announcement by the Minister of Transport did not appear simultaneously with the proclamation, because all these things take time. Diagrams had to be prepared, and the approval of both the Administrator of Natal and the Natural Resources Development Council had to be obtained. The proclamation did appear at a later stage, but not much speculation could take place in that period. A number of properties may have been bought and sold. We issued the proclamation as soon as it was possible to do so.

In addition surveys have also been made regarding the possiblities of Port St. Johns and its development as a harbour, as well as the development of Saldanha Bay and the whole of the West Coast area. Reference has already been made to special surveys, such as that in respect of the Western Cape. A great deal of progress has been made with the survey in respect of the entire Pretoria /Witwatersrand/ Vereeniging region, as well as the surveys in respect of the Bantu areas. The reports will soon be available to the Departments concerned. Then there is also the survey in respect of the Durban/Pietermaritzburg area, which is being undertaken in close collaboration with the Natal Provincial Administration.

Will it include Thorn ville?

I am not sure, but I shall find out and let the hon. member know. I understand that it does include Thornville. Then a survey is being made of the Vaal River area, as well as the Hluhluwe area and the whole of the Free State. Consideration is even being given to extending the surveys to include the catchment areas of the Waterberg and the Makatini Flats.

The hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) referred to a general and comprehensive plan as far as the provision of water is concerned. I can only say to him that we realize that the provision of water is one of the basic physical factors which can be harnessed in the interests of the entire population, and it is for that reason that the surveys which have already been carried out and which we are carrying out at the moment include so many of these catchment areas—the Vaal River, the Drakensberg area and other areas.

Do they include the Tugela River as well?

The Drakensberg catchment area includes the Tugela area. I want to say here that the Natal Provincial Administration has already done a great deal as far as the survey in respect of the Tugela is concerned, although we should like to see the position in its general context. I nevertheless recognize the contribution which has been made in connection with the whole of the Tugela area by the Natal Administration.

Then there is also the catchment area of the Orange River. As far as the Orange River is concerned, the Department has a close connection with the Advisory Council for the Orange River project. All the various Departments which have any interest in the development of that scheme, such as Finance, Transport, Lands, Water Affairs, Coloured Affairs, the Departments of Agriculture, and so forth, are co-ordinated on this Advisory Council. The relevant committee has already done very good work. All their recommendations are submitted to a Cabinet committee, and once they are confirmed there, each Minister knows what is expected of his Department. Because the Departmental Secretaries also serve on the committees, they know in advance what is taking place. We work through a Cabinet committee, and thereafter it is the task of each Minister to do what falls within the scope of his Department.

The question has been asked: Where do those plans go? Plans which are submitted and which affect the general set-up in the financial or the economic sphere go to a Cabinet committeee. Decisions taken by that committee apply to the Department concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I have tried to give a brief indication of certain aspects. As far as physical planning is concerned, we also intend to introduce certain changes and to bring it more into line with what is done in the case of economic planning, so that there will be a national council on which the private sector will serve along with the Departments. They will make certain recommendations; those recommendations will be considered and then submitted to the Cabinet committee for implementation. In that way we are trying to co-ordinate the activities of the various Departments in the broader sphere. Once decisions have been taken by the Cabinet committee, it is the duty of the Departments concerned to implement those decisions. In that way we shall try to avoid treading on the toes of other Departments. Hon. members may therefore rest assured that this Department will not be saddled with the problems of every other Department. If people are under the impression that they can approach this Department if they cannot get satisfaction from the individual Departments, then that is a totally wrong approach. On the contrary, in terms of the special instructions which we have, within the more general set-up, including special instructions which we get, it will be our task to endeavour to co-operate with existing institutions, and once a decision is reached, it is again the task of those institutions to carry that decision into effect.

Vote put and agreed to.

Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Accounts

On Supplementary Revenue Vote No. 32,— “Agricultural Economics and Marketing (General)”—R 2.272.000.

Could the hon. the Minister give us details of Item 3 “Loss in connection with purchase of mealie stalks under drought relief scheme”—R60,000? As the Minister must be aware there are many queries regarding the effectiveness of this scheme and I shall be pleased if the Minister will give us some details as to how this loss is made up.

The South African Agricultural Union has proposed a scheme in terms of which maize farmers can collect mealie stalks for resale to the feeders. This amount serves as a guarantee to them if they should suffer losses, otherwise they cannot proceed with the scheme. It is to cover the overhead and other costs of the scheme. If they sell all the mealie stalks, there will be no costs involved in the whole undertaking, but if they do not sell everything, then we guarantee their losses to this amount of R60,000 in connection with the implementation of the scheme.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Supplementary Revenue Vote No. 48.— “Foreign Affairs”, R500,000,

The hon. the Minister was so kind as to say the other evening that he would explain this item when we came to it.

In the light of experience and of events which have taken and are taking place and of special circumstances, the Government has decided to approve of this item being included in the Estimates. It provides an amount of R500,000 to Foreign Affairs as a secret item. I want to explain that this amount is intended for the promotion of our foreign relations. I want to emphasize strongly that this amount has nothing whatsoever to do with espionage or any form of espionage abroad, or any undermining activities abroad. It is after all not the function of my Department and of diplomats to concern themselves with espionage and similar activities. Moreover, it is a principle of the Government which is constantly adhered to that we should not interfere in the domestic affairs of other states.

To be more positive, Mr. Chairman, in motivating this amount I want to say that emphasis must be placed on assistance, in particular cases, to other countries, assistance in various fields. I also have in mind, for example, the further promotion of co-operation in technical, scientific, economic and other fields; the promotion, therefore, of cooperation in general and the rendering of assistance to other states in particular instances. We know that a different procedure does exist for providing funds for the relief of distress in the case of countries stricken by national disasters; we know that a special procedure exists in the case of technical assistance to other countries. Those procedures will not be affected in any way by this secret item. Those particular cases, for which a procedure already exists, are usually dealt with on ad hoc basis and provision therefor is approved of in that way. That is the position, for example, in the case of the assistance to Basutoland which was announced recently. That will be dealt with under the normal procedure.

But then there are also cases in which it is not desirable and not in the interests of the Republic and other states to announce that the Government has received certain requests in connection with assistance and what the Government’s response to those requests were. I think hon. members on both sides of the House know that special circumstances exist to-day in, for example, some African states. I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate on that. The Opposition is constantly making the accusation and expressing the criticism against the Government that we do not have sufficient contact with the outside world, that we do not co-operate sufficiently with the outside world. They are continually pleading for greater and closer co-operation. Nor is it necessary for me to emphasize once again that the Government is also exerting itself in that direction. It is declared Government policy to promote greater co-operation. Here we now have a special method, a further attempt, to grant assistance, to promote our foreign relations, and I hope that hon. members on the other side will prove the sincerity of their criticism by approving this item as well.

Of course we accept the assurance of the hon. the Minister. All we can say is that it is perfectly clear that this item should not have been defined as it has been. To put an item on the Votes and call it “secret service” and then to have the responsible Minister telling this Committee, at great length, that it is nothing of the sort, seems to me to show a lack of planning, if I may say so, on the part of the Minister of Finance who is responsible for the drawing up of the Estimates. The hon. Minister has made it clear that this sum of money is to be at the Government’s disposal for the purpose of improving foreign relations under certain circumstances and he begs to be excused from going into any great detail as to what those circumstances might be. I think everybody will accept that and we, therefore, have no objection to the passing of this Vote.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote A.—“Miscellaneous Loans and Services”, RIO, 100,000,

There is a new item here. The Committee is asked to vote R 1,000,000 as an advance to the Hotel Board. I wonder if the Minister can give us some details as how he anticipates how this advance to the Hotel Board is going to be used. It seems to be a rather excessive amount in relation to what the Minister told us when the legislation establishing this board was considered. As far as I am aware the board has not yet been established; it is not yet operating. Can the Minister indicate whether this money will be used merely to cover the initial expenses to get the board into operation and that it not be used to achieve the objects for which the board is to be established, namely, to give certain financial assistance, on application, to certain hotels. Because as I understood, and I believe the House, understood the Minister, when he gave us an outline of the operations of the board, the board’s activities will be largely financed out of the levies it is to impose on the hotel establishments it will register. I think the Committee would appreciate it if the Minister could give us some clarity in this regard.

This amount is an advance to the Hotel Board to be accounted for by the Secretary for Tourism.

But the Minister is responsible.

Yes. It has to be accounted for by the Secretary for Tourism and therefore obviously by the Minister. This amount is there so that the Hotel Board can start its operations. The board cannot even come into existence if it has not got any funds. Once it is in operation, its operations will be financed by means of the imposition of surcharges. It will obviously take some time before any revenue accrues to the board via that source but it has, nevertheless, to be appointed and it must function in the meantime. The Department discussed the matter with Treasury and, in order that the Hotel Board could start is operations, it was arranged that this amount would be available, in the form of loan money, to the board from which to draw. Without this amount I don’t know how the board could ever be established; I don’t know how the board can even take the preliminary steps set out in the legislation. This is therefore to enable the board to start functioning. It has to impose levies but the collection of those levies will take some time and funds must be available in the meantime.

Will the board be able to spend this amount this year?

The amount the board will spend will probably be far less than this but we, nevertheless, wanted an overall amount which would ensure that the board would be able to function. It may take 18 months or two years before the board starts getting revenue from the surcharges levied. It may take quite a long time before it gets funds in from the hotels. This is an advance to the board so that it can carry out the functions as laid down in the Bill passed by this House. I trust hon. members will realize that this is the only way in which the board can function without further delay.

With respect, Sir, the hon. Minister has not answered the question I put to him. We all realize that in the case of a new board, like this one, if it has to start its operations, certain moneys have to be advanced to it. That is self-evident. The question I put to the Minister was why the amount was as large as R 1,000,000? This is not chicken-feed; it is a large sum of money. The Minister is now contradicting what he said when he explained the activities of the hotel board. When the Minister asked the House to approve of the establishment of the hotel board he went to great pains to explain that its operation would, in fact, be entirely financed out of the levies it would collect from the hotel industry as such. Now the Minister says that he envisages that it will take 18 months or two years before any income will accrue to the board. Must we, therefore, understand that this contribution of Rl,000,000 is not the final answer and that the Minister will again ask this Committee next year for a further contribution towards the activities of the Hotel Board? I am sorry, Sir, I say that is so much nonsense because I accepted the original statement made by the Minister. It is clear that the moment the board starts its operations it will determine what levy to impose upon an hotel when it applies for registration. Surely the hotels must start paying levies to the Hotel Board the moment they are registered in terms of the levy fixed, or is the hotel industry going to get a period of grace of 18 months before it has to make any payments to the Hotel Board?

The Minister has not answered the other question I asked him either. One of the objects of the hotel board is the furtherance of the hotel industry; another object is to make certain capital loans, on application by any hotel establishment, so that it can improve the conditions it offers to the public. What I asked the Minister was whether any portion of this amount would be made available as a loan by the Hotel Board to any hotel establishment on application? The Minister has not answered that question either. Is that the reason why it is such a big amount? So that the board can immediately make loans available to the hotel industry? These are the questions to which we would like to have replies. With the appearance of this item on the Estimates this is virtually the first opportunity we have of discussing the policy of the Minister of Tourism in regard to the furtherance of the hotel industry and the operations of the Hotel Board.

There is one final point. I think the Minister is under a misapprehension. As far as I remember the Act this Hotel Board is being established as a separate statutory body and that the board will have to report to the Minister who, in turn, will have to lay that report on the Table of this House. That obviously involves the accounting of all moneys made available here. I mention that, Sir, because I do believe that the Minister has the matter in a completely wrong perspective as to the operations of the Hotel Board as an independent statutory body. I hope the Minister will be good enough to answer the two questions specifically that I have put to him.

This is obviously loan money. It is not a contribution to the board for administrative purposes as the hon. member has said. He said we might come along next year again and ask for a contribution towards the administration of the board. The Hotel Board itself will have to pay for its administration. This is an amount on which it can draw in the meantime and it will have to be repaid by the board. So that there will be no delay in the operation of the board this money is made available to it on loan so that it can carry out immediately the very function to which the hon. member has referred, namely, of making certain arrangements with some hotel or other to advance it money for certain improvements.

I do not know why the hon. member thinks the Minister is under a misapprehension about this statutory body of the hotel industry. I know that it is a statutory body. This is a positive step so that that statutory body can operae immediately and so that its operations are not delayed because of the lack of funds. This is loan money; it is not a contribution by the State. It has to be paid back.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote L.—“Transport”, Rl,000,000,

I think the recent comments in the Press about the purpose and need for the terminals, runways and associated facilities at Usakos and Upington referred to in these two items (which are new items) should be answered by the Minister so that we have on record the purpose for which the runways and terminal buildings are being constructed in South West Africa. I think it is unfortunate that overseas countries have put the interpretation on this that they have done and that there has been no rebuttal, as far as I know, of those comments. I raise the issue now with the Minister so that he can deal with the matter and so that we will have on record the fact that this money is being voted for a purpose other than that suggested recently in the Press.

When the Minister replies will he also indicate whether the money we are asked to vote here embraces the proposals contained in the Odendaal Commission’s Report in regard to airfields and transportation as far as the territory of South West Africa is concerned?

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) is under a misapprehension. As far as I know there were no comments in the newspapers in regard to these particular airfields. Certain comments were made by certain persons in the north in regard to the airport being built at Katima Mulilo in the Caprivi. In regard to the construction of the two airports at Usakos and Upington my reply to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is that the Odendaal Commission recommended the construction of these two airports.

Secondly I want to point out to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that Upington is not in South West Africa; it is in the Republic. The purpose of constructing these airports is that we are gradually introducing Viscount aircraft on the Johannesburg/South West run. We require a diversionary airport to Windhoek for our Viscount aircraft. The hon. member is probably aware of the fact that Viscount aircraft, turboprops as well as jets, must land and take off on hardened runways. They cannot land on ordinary dirt runways because the dirt and the stones are sucked into the engines. We must therefore provide hardened runways. That is why we are constructing hardened runways at Usakos—it will not be a full-fledged airport—as a diversionary airport from Windhoek for our Viscount aircraft. In addition to that there is a local air service between Walvis Bay and Windhoek by a private undertaking. As hon. members know it has always been my policy to encourage private air transport. These airports will also be available for private air carriers in South West Africa.

Upington, of course, is an excellent traffic point for South African Airways. If hardened runways are not constructed the Viscounts will not be able to land and take off at the present Upington airport.

Is the safety factor also taken into consideration at the diversionary airports?

That is why we have a diversionary airport. When you cannot land at Windhoek you must have somewhere else to land.

I was fully aware of the fact that Upington is in the Republic. My reference to Usakos in South West Africa was to make quite sure that we would not get the misrepresentations recurring in respect of this item, seeing that it was in South West Africa. What the Minister has just said should deal effectively with that matter.

As far as Upington is concerned. I know that the Minister is going to extend the internal services. I can’t discuss the other areas where we would like to see this sort of development but I think we can take it that this is a step in the right direction.

Vote put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Account, Bantu Education Account and Loan Account and Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Accounts, reported without amendment.

Estimates adopted.

The Minister of Finance brought up a Bill to give effect to the Estimates adopted by the House.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

I want to ask the hon. Minister whether now after introducing this imposing-looking and lengthy Bill on the organizations of the various parties, he would consider a consolidation of the legislation, or at least the publication of this measure in an understandable form for the elections which will take place probably next year. This is an important Bill, a Bill which introduces a large number of new principles into our electoral machinery, or let us say at least one important new principle with a very large number of new details which will affect every member of this House and all the thousands of people who will be involved in electioneering. Therefore, even if the Minister is not in a position to consolidate the complete Electoral Act, at least it will be essential for the functioning of an election that all those concerned should have these details available to them in a clearly understandable form. It is also going to be necessary for officials to understand the details of this measure and the large number of officials who will be involved in applying this Bill should be adequately briefed and adequately instructed in regard to the application of this measure. We are going to have persons who are not familiar with electoral machinery, people whose normal responsibilities do not involve working in elections, who will be suddenly faced with a measure which is going to be complicated even for a trained politician, and even we as members are going to have difficulties in following some of the provisions of this Bill, and certainly persons unfamiliar with electioneering will have considerable difficulties. I would be grateful if the hon. Minister could give us some indication of the steps which he contemplates in order that the details of this measure may be clearly understandable to all concerned.

I want to agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). A whole new special vote system with which political parties themselves have not worked yet and which officials have never administered before is involved here, and consequently I shall give instructions that this amendment must be made available separately and that instructions, proper regulations regarding the way in which it must be handled and regarding the precise procedure to be followed must be added. Those documents must be placed at the disposal of political parties. I also want to give an undertaking that that will be done as soon as possible so that a study can be made thereof and any doubts in connection with the interpretation of what the precise requirements are can be eliminated. I shall do everything in my power to give a clear and unambiguous explanation.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will consider not having the instructions drafted by a lawyer, so that they will be in intelligible language?

My experience is that there are good lawyers too, and I have such a good lawyer in my own Department who also understands the practical side of the matter.

As regards the consolidation of the entire Electoral Act, that will most certainly have to be undertaken in the foreseeable future. We are working on it every year; an edition of Bamford’s Electoral Laws, as prepared by him, has now been published, and I must say that that consolidation has been handled very well so far, but as far as the Department is concerned, we shall see to it that there will be a proper consolidation, seen from our point of view, in the foreseeable future.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Will there be a further consolidation of all the Acts in one book on the same basis as that of a consolidated Act before the time? It would help a great deal if we had all the Acts in the form of one Act. That can be done, and has been done on numerous occasions in connection with other Acts.

I shall make investigations to see what can be done to make available our Electoral Laws in the handiest and best form.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Unlike other Bills, this Bill, of course, has no cardinal principle running through it because practically every clause stands on its own and must be judged on its own. In dealing with a Bill such as this therefore it is not necessary to make a lengthy speech and I make bold to say that it is not necessary either to have a lengthy second-reading debate on this matter. I would suggest with due deference that we can have a much more fruitful discussion in the Committee Stage when we deal with the clauses one by one because each clause stands on its own. I want to say right at the outset therefore that it is not my intention to make a very lengthy second-reading speech but that I propose rather to use my time to explain the Bill to hon. members clause by clause, as well as I can. and in the course of my speech I will naturally outline the background which has given rise to the various provisions. I also want to say that in my humble opinion there is very little in this Bill, which consists of 17 clauses, in regard to which there need by any difference of opinion between hon. members on that side of the House and hon. members on this side. I believe that most of the clauses contained in the Bill will be acceptable to hon. members, whatever their views or their political attitude may be. On the other hand I naturally accept that there are certain clauses, to which I will refer in detail, in regard to which there will be a difference of opinion and which we can debate here.

As far as the first clause of this Bill is concerned, I do not think it is contentious. This amendment arises from the fact, firstly, that an accused person has to be charged within 48 hours, and if Monday is a public holiday and Tuesday is also a public holiday—and there have been such occasions—then, of course, it is impossible to comply with the requirements of the Act. As a matter of fact, in this respect the position has been absurd for many years, if not unlawful, and we are now rectifying it in Clause 1. It has now become urgent, of course, to rectify the position having regard to the five-day week and the fact that there is not always a magistrate available on Saturdays.

As far as the amendment in Clause 2 is concerned, this is, of course, just a formal amendment which refers to the Prisons Act of 1959. The new sub-section (3) has to be inserted, of course, to give the magistrate jurisdiction to try cases which arise from this clause, and it is unnecessary for me to enlarge upon it. Clause 3, of course, is also just a formal clause, and I do not therefore propose to comment on it.

As far as Clause 4 is concerned, hon. members are aware of the fact—this is also perfectly clear from the clause that we have before us—that as our law stood, a magistrate could at any time upon the request of a public prosecutor require the attendance before him of any person who was likely to give material evidence. The public prosecutor could ask the magistrate to order the person concerned to appear before him, and the magistrate could then examine him in this connection. This is a well-known procedure in terms of the Act. All we are now doing is to insert the words “for examination by the public prosecutor”. I must say that after considering this matter I find it strange that these words were not inserted years ago already. What is the position here? The person who has the information is the public prosecutor; it is the public prosecutor who has to set the whole thing in motion. It is the public prosecutor who asks the magistrate that the man be examined, but when he is examined we keep the public prosecutor out of it; he does not have the right to examine the person. In other words, in the past we have excluded the very man who knows most about the case, and it was because of this that we were unable to invoke this section in the useful way in which I believe we will now be able to do so if this amendment is accepted, because it is a useful section and it goes without saying that the amendment which we are now bringing about will add to the usefulness of this section.

We are also adding certain sections here. In the first place we refer—this is something new—to Section 216, which deals with the right of the magistrate to order the appearance before him of a person confined in any prison. That goes without saying. Section 217 refers to a subpoena which may be served upon a person residing outside of the jurisdiction of the court, and that needs no explanation either. Section 218 prescribes the witness expenses to be paid to such a person. That section also has to be included here. Section 219 deals with persons who reside within five miles of the court and who do not receive witness fees, and there can be no objection, of course, to the inclusion of this particular section.

There may perhaps be some objection to Section 254 which deals with accomplices, but I do not propose to deal with it at this stage. I will rather deal with it if and when the matter is raised here. For the sake of hon. members who are not lawyers I just want to say that in brief it simply amounts to this that when an accomplice is called as a witness, the prosecutor generally draws the attention of the presiding officer, the judge or the magistrate, to the fact that the person concerned is an accomplice and he is then warned that if he answers questions put to him to the satisfaction of the court, he will be given an indemnity. It goes without saying, of course, that that should also apply in this case; in other words, if a person who is an accomplice is examined and he answers the questions put to him to the satisfaction of the court, then the other things follow which normally follow in a court of law. That is why we are now inserting these words, which were not contained in the od provision, that the sections referred to shall apply in respect of an examination under this section as if the proceedings were criminal proceedings and the magistrate a court. We did not have this under the old-set-up and I think it is a good thing and it is only fair that we should have it under the new set-up.

As far as Clause 5 is concerned, this clause deals with persons under the age of 18 years. We do not want to detain such persons unless it is absolutely essential. That is the general rule of our law, and we now provide that any youth may be released on bail by a magistrate (if he has the necessary powers) except in the case of treason, murder or a contravention of the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act or a contravention of legislation which prescribes minimum penalties. I do not want to say anything else in that regard; I think hon. members will agree that it is a good thing to treat youths in this way, except in the case of serious crimes which may endanger the safety of the State.

Then we come to Clause 6. Sir, I want to leave this clause in abeyance until we come to the end and deal first with the other provisions. I just want to say in passing that I have decided to introduce an amendment in the Committee Stage to delete the second portion of Clause 6, as printed, i.e. (b) (5), and in the circumstances I do not propose to say anything about the second portion. The first portion deals with a question of practice and I will come back to it again. Clause 7 deals with the detention of witnesses in certain circumstances, and I am going to leave this in abeyance as well until I have dealt with the remaining provisions. I just want to add at this stage that I propose, when we come to the Committee Stage, to move an amendment to insert certain words which were omitted per incuriam. The law at the present time, without the amendment, provides that any witness may be detained by the Attorney-General, and the amendment provides that this can only be done in the case of contraventions referred to in the Second Schedule, that is to say, murder,, robbery, rape and certain other offences to which I will come back again when the Schedule comes under discussion, in other words, serious crimes, plus certain subversive activities. As hon. members will see when I deal with the Schedule, it does not include every offence. As far as Clause 8 is concerned, we are simply adding the words “anatomy pathology and toxocology.” I think the insertion of these words will be welcomed by hon. members on both sides of the House and I will say nothing further about it. The second part of the clause deals with the way in which palm and fingerprints have to be proved. Our system of finger and palmprints, of course, is one of the best in the world and it is a system which has been fully tested. There is no reason why we should not use it except that it should be possible, if necessary, for the expert to be called to confirm his evidence in court.

As far as Clause 9 is concerned, this clause flows from the Children’s Act, and all we are doing is to bring down the age from 19 to 18-years. Clause 10 adds two offences where the court has the discretion—it is not compulsory to impose the death penalty where such offences have been committed. I refer to kidnapping and childstealing. I want to say very little in this regard except that it is a competent sentence under Roman Dutch Law. from which we derive our own concept of kidnapping and childstealing, to impose the death penalty for these offences. Sir. I refer in this connection to a court case which is being heard at the moment in another territory where there is an allegation of conspiracy. I do not think there is anybody who feels that it should not be within the discretion of the court to* impose the death sentence if the court feels that there are aggravating circumstances.

Then I come to Clause 11. As the clause is drafted it is perhaps a little involved, but the essence of it is that we are abolishing compulsory corporal punishment and leaving it to the discretion of the court to impose a sentence of corporal punishment. Sir, I have made a very thorough study of this matter. I was an advocate of compulsory corporal punishment at the time when we introduced it and I am absolutely convinced that at that time it was the right thing to do. In the light of the new approach which people have come to adopt over the years and in the light of the study which I have since made of this matter, I have now come to the conclusion that we have achieved the purpose which we set out to achieve. I do not want to deal with this at any great length. I just want to mention an example of a crime which used to be very common in this country in days gone by and which gave us a great deal of trouble, and that is the crime of receiving stolen goods. This is a mean, cowardly sort of crime in which a person who stays in the background induces youths and others to steal goods for his own enrichment. I have had many conversations with judges and attorneys-general and magistrates who have confirmed that there has been a great reduction in the number of these offences as a result of the compulsory imposition of sentences of corporal punishment. The presiding officers in the courts are aware of this and I believe that they will continue to impose sentences of corporal punishment for this sort of crime, but since we have now set a certain standard during the years I believe that it is right at this stage—and this is welcomed by the Bench—that the discretionary power in this matter should once again be restored to the courts. We have achieved our purpose and I can therefore recommend the acceptance of this clause to the House.

Clause 12 is not of importance. Clause 13 rectifies a matter in regard to which some doubt has arisen, namely whether the court may suspend the operation of any sentence subject to a condition that the accused submits himself to the care of a probation officer. To put the matter beyond all doubt, we have now inserted this amendment, which flows from the Children’s Act. Clause 14 also flows from the Children’s Act and it is not necessary to deal with it. In Clause 15 we are simply following the pattern which was followed previously. In view of the fact that the civil jurisdiction of magistrates has been increased, we are now also increasing their powers to order the payment of compensation.

Then we come to Clause 16, which inserts the new part of this Schedule to which I have already referred, Part IIbis. This Part relates to the following crimes: sedition, murder, arson, kidnapping, childstealing, contraventions of the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act and contraventions of the General Law Amendment Act or of the Sabotage Act, and they include any conspiracy, incitement or attempt to commit any of the aforementioned offences, as well as treason and robbery (including any attempt to commit robbery) where the attorney-general is satisfied that aggravating circumstances were present. Sir, I deliberately refer to aggravating circumstances because hon. members are aware of the fact that at the moment our courts have the discretionary power to impose the death sentence where people are found guilty of having committed robbery and where aggravating circumstances were present. Our courts make use of this right and it does happen from time to time that a person thus convicted is sentenced to death. Sir. it is not necessary to say anything with regard to Clause 17. I have now dealt with 15 clauses in respect of which I believe there will be complete unanimity on the part of hon. members, but I now come back to the two clauses which I left in abeyance.

The first clause that I want to mention is Clause 6. The relevant clause reads—

In the first place it should be noted that the attorney-general is not obliged to issue such an order; it is within his discretion. Hon. members may tell me that this is a drastic measure. I agree that it is drastic, and I want to add that it is intended to be drastic. I go further and say that when one examines this against the background and bears in mind what one seeks to combat here, then it certainly cannot be said that this measure is too drastic. Sir, I believe that I shall be able to convince hon. members on both sides of the House that it is not too drastic; it is my duty to convince them. Hon. members need not simply take my word for it. It is for me to submit the necessary proof to them as to why it is necessary to amend the Act so drastically, and I believe that I will be able to do so having regard to the circumstances. There are two types of individuals involved. There is the ordinary criminal and then there is the man who engages in subversive activity or who is a saboteur. There may be hon. members who will say that they agree with me as far as saboteurs are concerned but that they do not agree in respect of ordinary criminals; there may be other members who will say just the opposite. But I can tell hon. members that I need this power very urgently. I need it very urgently in respect of saboteurs, but I want to tell hon. members why I need it even more in respect of robbers. Sir, we have discussed the question of robbery from time to time. We all realize that a new situation is developing in South Africa in respect of armed robberies as a result of circumstances which the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) set out very clearly under my Vote and which I do not want to repeat here. I do not want to say anything here that I cannot substantiate; I want to give a few examples, but before doing so I just want to say in passing in respect of saboteurs and people of that kind that I do not think it is necessary to make out a case; I have already done so in the past; in fact I foreshadowed this legislation during the recess and I discussed this matter with my congresses. Moreover, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also expressed his agreement with me in this regard during the recess. I think that we are on common ground as far as this matter is concerned. I just want to point out that it serves no purpose as far as these people are concerned to step up the bail. Sisulu was worth R6,000 to these people: Bernstein was worth R500 to them and Abram Fischer was worth R 10,000 to them. Defence and Aid will see to it that the necessary bail is put up for these people. I am not going to try therefore to make out a case ns far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, but I do want to make out a case in respect of robbers and other criminals.

Let me deal with a few recent cases of robbery. I asked the attorneys-general to give me a number of examples of recent cases. Errol Smith was released on bail after Mrs. Schapiro had been robbed of a diamond ring worth R 13,000 in an armed robbery at Norwood. and shortly afterwards he was arrested at De Dooms for unlawful possession of explosives and housebreaking implements while presumably on his way to Cape Town to commit burglary. Giovanni My was released on bail after he had been arrested for armed robbery at the Baragwanath Drive-In. Johannesburg, on the 23rd August, 1963, when R340 was looted. While he was out on bail he was responsible, together with others, for a robbery involving an amount of R219,000 at the Benoni Post Office. Angelo Ambroso was released on bail after he had been arrested for robbery involving the theft of jewellery worth R25.000 from Mr. Utian of Johannesburg and while he was at large—he was out on bail— he was again responsible for a similar crime when he robbed Mr Fischer of Johannesburg of jewellery worth R3,000 and thereafter fled the country. Awaiting-trial prisoner James Thubegale was arrested on a charge of having robbed a domestic servant in Sandown, Johannesburg. and while he was out on bail he was involved in the robbery of R9.000 from a White man in Johannesburg. The latter was shot dead on this occasion and later on Thubegale himself was also shot dead. While awaiting-trial prisoner Joseph Sibeko was out on bail after having been arrested on a charge of having attempted to murder a White policeman and on four charges of car theft, he committed three armed robberies involving a sum of R 1,000 in which one of the victims was Bunting of Booysens. The latter was shot twice in the chest. While Cyprian Malaza was still awaiting trial on a charge of armed robbery, on a Bantu shopkeeper at Moroka, Johannesburg. and was out on bail, he and others robbed the Greyhound Bus Service at Westonaria on the 5th October, 1964, and after this incident he shot dead Constable Schoeman of Westonaria on the same day. Sir, these are just a few examples which the attorneys-general gave me at short notice. In these circumstances. Sir, is there anybody who can still be in doubt and who is prepared to say that I am going too far in leaving it to the discretion of the attorneys-general to say that these people may not be released on bail? I do not think it is unreasonable to keep these people in prison until the case has been tried. I do not think that we are doing an injustice to anybody or that we are going too far. Our attorneys-general are people of the highest integrity. I think they can be entrusted with the power to decide whether or not they are going to oppose the application for bail. Take the case of My. I do not hold it against the court that My was released on bail the first time because it was not a very serious crime but he did commit robbery with violence. One cannot tell the court everything that one knows about an accused when application is made for bail; one cannot prejudice the court against the man because his case still has to be tried. But apart from that, I want to say that I think we are ad idem in respect of the crimes set out in the Second Schedule, that is to say, the serious crimes and crimes of subversion, treason and sabotage, but I think we should also be ad idem in respect of the crimes listed in Part II ft is. I propose to say no more about this clause because I am absolutely convinced that a case has been made out for it and that the powers which are being sought here for the attorneys-general do not go too far.

The only remaining clause is Clause 7, which deals with the detention of witnesses. I repeat that in terms of the amendment which I propose to move, these are not the only witnesses who can be detained and that they do not necessarily have to be detained. The attorney-general has a discretion in this connection and this clause only applies to witnesses who have to give evidence in respect of the cases referred to in the Second Schedule.

Sir, the question is whether we have the right to detain such witnesses and, if we have, under what circumstances we should detain them. When the 90-days provision was in operation, I detained practically hundreds of witnesses in terms of that provision; I had the right to do so. But the 90-day provision is no longer in operation and the question arises whether I have the right to detain those people under present-day circumstances. I say that I have the right to come to the House of Assembly to ask for that power; I would be failing in my duty if I did not come to this House openly and state my problem, as I always do in these cases, so that every member can judge for himself. I do not want to cover the whole field again. In fact I do not think hon. members expect me to do so, because this matter was never raised in any previous debate this Session, nor was it raised under my Vote. We carefully avoided it because we were all satisfied that there were no grounds for our earlier misgivings, for our earlier forebodings and for the accusations which we had made in the heat of the debate. Hon. members were satisfied that there was evidence to show that the powers for which I had asked had not been abused. I gave the House the figures at the time. We detained a little more than 1,000 people. In the case of practically every one of these people the matter was submitted to the Minister. Sir, we know that various allegations made by various people, and what happened? There was one action for compensation. The case was heard in the Cape Eastern Court and the judge found without a shadow of doubt that there was not a grain of truth in the allegations of the complainant. Sir, what has emerged from all these complaints? I give this figure subject to correction; I am not perfectly sure of the precise figure but I think at the moment there are still 13 or 14 cases in which people have threatened to institute action. How many of these cases will be proceeded with I do not know, but that is all that has emerged out of all the dust, all the fuss that has been kicked up over the years.

The problem which now faces us is what to do with the witnesses. Let me deal with this matter objectively. Such a witness can be detained at the present moment. There are two types of witnesses who can be detained and I will deal in detail with both types. In the first place it will be possible to detain such a person in a prison. It goes without saying that if I had a place other than a prison in which to detain him, I would detain him there, because I do not want to lock up the man and I do not want the stigma of criminality to attach to him; all I want to do is to keep him in safe custody and the best place to detain him, of course, is in prison. Sir, I know that there will be people who will have misgivings and who will say, “You want to treat the man badly and bully him, or do this, that or the other to him,” but surely that would be stupid. After all, he is the man who has to give evidence for you. It goes without saying that you will treat him decently because if you treat him badly he is not going to give evidence for you, and, secondly, it goes without saying that if he lodges a complaint, as he will naturally do when he gives his evidence, that he has been ill-treated, the judge will view the matter in a serious light, and it will also detract from the value of the evidence. It is self-evident therefore that he will have to be treated as well as possible in the circumstances. But I also realize that while the person is being detained he has no income and he suffers damage. I have to make the necessary provision in this regard, therefore, and hon. members will find that such provision is made in sub-section (6) which provides—

In other words, he will receive his witness fees, which can be prescribed in consultation with the Minister of Finance, in terms of the provisions of the Act, for the whole of the period during which I detain him. The person concerned will therefore be placed as far as possible in the same position as he would have been if I had not detained him.

I have already told hon. members that there are two types of witnesses we have in mind in this connection. In the first instance we have in mind the witness who is afraid to give evidence for the State. Sir, hon. members must not think that these are imaginary cases; I have had numerous examples given to me by the attorney-general of the Cape. As I say, in the first place there is the witness who is afraid to give evidence. We can argue about it as much as we like but the fact remains that there are witnesses who are intimidated; there are witnesses who are threatened, and there are witnesses who are afraid to give evidence. Hon. members are also aware of the fact that from time to time witnesses have to give their evidence under nom-de-plumes. Hon. members know that in many cases judges order the public to leave the courtroom with a view to keeping the identity of such a witness secret as far as possible because there is definitely a danger that he may be killed or injured. It has often happened in practice in recent times that a witness has said to us, “I will give evidence for the State but these people are going to kill me or injure me before the case has been disposed of; I ask for your protection”. Sir, we can give police protection to such a person, and in fact we have done so in many cases, but we cannot look after a witness for 24 hours out of 24; they are going to get hold of him in any case and I can give hon. members examples to prove this. One cannot even guard presidents so closely that it is impossible for assassins to get at him; we know that the history of the world is full of examples where presidents have been killed. Where a witness, of his own free will, asks to be kept in custody, we have no power under the Act to do so. Under our existing Act I do not have the power to take him into custody; I do not have the power to compensate him; I dare not detain him. If this provision is accepted, however, I will be able to keep in custody anybody who voluntarily comes to me and asks to be kept in custody; I will be able to compensate him and then bring him before the court when the case comes up for trial. Then, in the second place, we have those witnesses who do not come forward voluntarily. I am referring here to witnesses who abscond, who are influenced, who move in circles where pressure is brought to bear on them not to give evidence for the State. We need not go far afield to find examples.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) will know about this. There was such a case in Durban where a person was charged with subversive activities. One witness after another refused to give evidence and the reason that they advanced to the regional magistrate was that the accused was a friend of theirs and that pressure had been brought to bear upon them and they therefore refused to give evidence. The magistrate sentenced each of them to 12 months imprisonment in terms of the Act which we passed here last year and in regard to which some angry words were exchanged here. This case was taken on appeal and the Judge-President of Natal, I think, heard the appeal himself and found the sentence imposed by the regional magistrate quite in order—the full 12 months, the maximum sentence that can be imposed in terms of the Act. Sir, I can give hon. members numerous examples of witnesses who were intimidated and who then refused to give evidence for the State. I know that this provision is drastic, but I have already told hon. members that we have now entered the final phase as far as acts of sabotage are concerned, in that we will be dealing in future with trained saboteurs who come to South Africa after having received the most detailed instruction in sabotage. They often come in groups; they receive their training in five training camps in Africa and they know one another. As sensible people hon. members know that it is difficult to prove that a man is a trained saboteur. You have no witness who was in the camp where he received his training and who can point him out and say, “This person was trained just outside of Addis Ababa, or outside of Dares Salaam; you have no such evidence at your disposal. You have to get witnesses from their own ranks otherwise it is impossible in many cases to prove your case. However, there is always a weaker brother amongst them who is prepared to give evidence, and it is for the court to decide whether his evidence is acceptable or not. Once you have caught these people, you find that one of them offers to give evidence for the State; he makes this offer of his own free will; you accept his offer and you then withdraw the case against him. But what is going to happen to him unless you detain him? He will simply disappear. Sir, this does not apply to the Blacks only; it applies to highly developed Whites. Here I want to refer to the case of Bob Hepple, an advocate of Johannesburg. Immediately after his arrest at Rivonia, he wrote out, in his own handwriting, a statement of 92 foolscap pages in which he exposed his whole share in the subversive activities, his communist training and his participation as a communist in the Nusas organization. He cried like a baby and made an impression upon the Attorney-General. He begged to be allowed to give evidence for the State. The Attorney-General accepted his bona fides. I do not hold that against him; I would also have done so. The Attorney-General released him, and where is he to-day? In spite of all his protestations that he would give evidence, he simply did not do so. After all, Sir, we know mankind. In order to save his own skin such a person is prepared to turn traitor. An accomplice who gives evidence in these circumstances is a traitor. Leftwich was a traitor, not only to his country but also to the people whom he had dragged into this thing. Unfortunately, however much he may be averse to it, we have to make use of traitors as State witnesses in these cases. Must we come here and plead that they should not be detained? Must we, bearing in mind what is at stake and bearing in mind the danger that we have to cope with, flinch back for the sake of a doctrine in which we all believe and to which we all subscribe in normal circumstances, the doctrine that a witness must never be detained? Having regard to the specific problems with which we have to cope, having regard to the type of cowardly person with whom we are dealing, having regard to the situation of our country and the ease with which people cross our borders, is this the time to be sensitive in this connection, however strongly we believe in this principle and however strongly we subscribe to it? I say that the time has come when we should attach the greatest weight to what is of the greatest importance. I believe that as far as these specific crimes and these specific people are concerned, it behoves us to take the necessary measures and the measure proposed here is one of the necessary measures. Sir, let me give you the statistics: Six witnesses have been murdered in the recent past. Twelve witnesses fled the country before giving evidence; 43 refused to give evidence as a result of influence brought to bear upon them. That is my reply when hon. members reproach me, as I know they are going to reproach me, for keeping these people incommunicado. I have to keep them incommunicado otherwise influence will continue to be brought to bear upon them and the threats against them will simply continue. The safety valve which I am creating here is that they will be visited once a week by a magistrate. The chairman of the Cape Bar, with whom I have talked this over, has made certain submissions to me which I am considering with a view to a possible watering down of this provision, but I will go into this when we reach the Committee Stage. For the moment I am confining myself to the principle that it is necessary to detain these people.

Sir, I have told hon. members in passing that there are five training camps in Africa in which saboteurs are being trained. This is old news; we are aware of their existence. I do not want to mention the numbers here because I do not want to give away information but we are comparatively well-informed. We know more or less how many people there are in those camps and what type of training they are receiving there. I also know which of them are receiving highly specialized training and which of them are receiving just ordinary training. I can only tell hon. members that up to date we have arrested 133 of these people while they were on their way to undergo training. We are keeping a watchful eye, therefore, but what is even more important is this: We have already arrested 85 who have received their training and who have returned to the Republic. They have been charged and hon. members know that very heavy penalties have been imposed upon them, We are not asleep in this connection. The police are doing everything that can be expected of them, humanly speaking. Sir, however pretentious we may be in respect of certain principles which apply in normal times and to which we all subscribe and however sensitive we may be with regard to this matter, dare we as a House of Assembly say that we refuse to give the police the power to combat these crimes effectively? We cannot make the accusation against them that they have not carried out their duties when we have refused to give them the means to enable them to carry out their duties properly.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize again that we have all had the same training: that we all believe in the same basic juridical principles. Those principles were drummed into us in our student days and we all lived up to them and propagated them in later years when we practised. But we are not dealing here with ordinary people. We are dealing with people who do not play the game according to the usual rules; we are dealing with people who want to tear away the very foundations of South Africa; we are dealing with people who have shown that they will not hesitate for a single moment to kill if it suits them. I move.

The Minister started his introductory speech by saying that there was no general principle in the Bill that we have before us to-day and that it was not necessary to have any lengthy discussion at the second-reading stage, but that the discussion could take place in the Committee Stage. Sir, I am inclined to agree with him and we on this side of the House will not unnecessarily prolong the second-reading debate.

Before we deal with the merits of the Bill, however, I want to protest against the introduction of a measure of this nature at this late stage of the Session. The Minister himself has said that drastic changes are being made here.

Only one.

No, not only one. There are two very drastic changes, one in regard to bail and the other with regard to the detention of witnesses. But, Sir, there are other principles involved as well. The Minister himself in dealing with the two sections in question admitted that they were both drastic. The point is that the Minister is only taking drastic measures because, as he has indicated, drastic measures are required to deal with a serious situation. If the position was not serious he would not want drastic measures. Sir, the position has not developed overnight. The Minister must have known earlier on that he wanted these powers, that he wanted to bring about these amendments to our system of administration of justice. Why could we not have had this Bill early this Session? The Bill was handed to us at the end of last week after Parliament had risen for the week. During the week-end the Bill was put on the tables of hon. members. Hon. members came back on Monday morning to find this Bill on their tables, not only this Bill but others as well. Sir, the House had then started sitting from 10 oclock in the morning until 10.30 p.m. Is it fair to expect hon. members to give their full attention to serious measures of this nature when the House also has to deal with its normal business? I submit that the Minister has not treated the House fairly and that this measure should have been introduced early this Session so that we could have ample time to study it, not only the lawyers in the House but also the lay members. It is easier for the lawyers to understand amendments such as this than it is for laymen. The lay members of the House should have been given ample time to study this measure and to give it their full attention.

This Bill makes drastic inroads in our system of administration of justice, as the Minister has admitted. At first glance some of its provisions appear to be harsh in the extreme and to offend all sense of justice, and then when one considers them in the light of the circumstances prevailing in the country to-day there seems to be some justification for introducing them. Other provisions again, at first glance appear to be innocuous but on closer study show a picture of unreasonable and objectionable interference in the liberty of the law-abiding citizen. Sir, I say “law-abiding” because nobody can object to harsh measures being taken against saboteurs, traitors and others mentioned by the Minister. Those people who resort to violence to promote their cause must expect violence to be meted out to them. We have said that violence must be used to suppress violence. The proud record of the old S.A. Party and the United Party shows that as a government the party has never hesitated to take violent or extraordinary measures to meet violence or extraordinary circumstances. The big difference, of course, between the old South African Party and the United Party on the one hand and the Nationalists on the other is that we took our measures and ended the conflict; the nation has not lived in a perpetual state of emergency. We do not say that the Government is solely to blame for what is happening—not at all. These measures which are introduced from year to year by Ministers of Justice, starting from the year 1950, are measures which one would expect to be used in an emergency. We have no state of emergency but these measures can be likened to emergency measures. Both the hon. the Minister’s predecessors and the Minister himself have indicated to us, when they have asked Parliament to give the police and the courts more powers, that they need those powers to meet the position obtaining at the time. Sometimes we have given these powers because we have been told that it is necessary and that it is the only way in which the Government could maintain law and order and the only way in which they could control the situation. In other cases we have refused to give the powers asked for because we have contended that they have gone too far. Every year we have been led to believe that these powers would be sufficient for the Minister concerned to do what is necessary. Sir, the duty of an opposition is to act as watchdog for the just government of men, but it also has a responsibility for seeing that the safety of the State is not endangered. These are the criteria by which we in the United Party analyse measures of this nature when they are brought before the House.

The hon. the Minister told us at the end of his address of the serious position facing the country. He has also dealt with the serious threat to law by ordinary criminals, not necessarily political offenders. His answer to meet the problem is this Bill, which is a mixed bag. As I have said, it contains provisions with which we do not quarrel and others of which we definitely approve. An example of that is the abolition of compulsory whipping, a measure which we on this side opposed when it was originally introduced into this House. We said that it would not improve the position. We said that it would not cure the trouble. The Minister has justified it by saying that the crime of receiving stolen property has fallen off, and he ascribes it to the fact . . .

No, I did not ascribe it to that; that is what the Attorney-General says.

At any rate, it is ascribed to the fact that there has been a falling off in the number of crimes of this particular type. Sir, we do not necessarily accept that. I think the mere fact that the Minister is now abolishing compulsory whipping is proof of the fact that we were right when we opposed it.

I do not intend dealing with all the clauses at this stage. As the Minister has said it will be more appropriate to deal with them in the Committee Stage, but I do want to deal with certain of the clauses which we oppose. But before I do so I want to refer to Clause 1. Sir, this is an unfortunate section for accused persons. It does not alter the law that they must be charged within 48 hours after arrest without a warrant, but because of the change in the working hours of the public servants and also because of the intervention of public holidays, there may not be a court available for people who have been arrested without warrant to be charged within 48 hours. Although we are against the prolongation of detention without a charge being brought against the accused, in the circumstances we have no option but to approve of this clause because of the fact that the law courts are closed on Saturdays.

Clause 4 is a clause on which the Minister spent a certain amount of time. This is a clause which raises several difficulties which may well be ironed out in the Committee Stage, but it does introduce a new rule which is contrary to our practice. It gives the power to magistrates to take evidence as to alleged offences where the offender is unknown. The new provision, as the Minister says, is the introduction of the public prosecutor. I have no objection to the introduction of the public prosecutor; I quite agree that it is advisable to have him there to lead the evidence for the magistrate because the magistrate should know nothing about the case about which the witness is making a statement. It is quite right therefore that the public prosecutor should be there. I think it has become necessary for the Minister to introduce the public prosecutor because of the inclusion of Section 2 (5) (iv) of the Criminal Code.

No, apart from that.

It has become essential because of the inclusion of that section. As a result of the inclusion of this section, accomplices will be brought before the magistrate. The ordinary rule, as the Minister has said, is that if an accomplice gives State evidence and answers questions put to him to the satisfaction of the court, he is not liable to be prosecuted as an accomplice. I can appreciate the case which the Minister has made out for the power to be given to a magistrate to examine this type of witness. I can appreciate that the magistrate should be given the power to examine an accomplice, and I can also appreciate that an accomplice making a statement before a magistrate in such circumstances should be given an indemnity; it is only right that he should be given an indemnity and the Bill in fact provides for it. The only difficulty I have is where the suspected accomplice is called upon to state all he knows where the prosecution does not know who the accused is. I have no difficulty in those cases where the prosecution knows who the accused is. In a trial in court the accomplice knows who the accused is and the magistrate and the prosecutor are in a better position to assess the truth or otherwise of the accomplice’s evidence. But where he is a suspected accomplice to a person unknown, the position becomes more difficult, because he may in fact be making his statement satisfactorily and he may only be an accomplice as an accessory after the fact; he may not know who the offender is. It may be held that he is not giving his evidence satisfactorily and the magistrate may withhold the indemnity. Sir, I do not want to discuss hypothetical cases but I do think that these fears could be allayed to some extent if it was made quite clear—I am not quite clear as to the position myself— that the man can be legally represented at such an inquiry.

We can only discuss that in the Committee Stage.

That is one point that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister, the question of legal representation. Then there is another problem which might arise, and which can be discussed in the Committee Stage and that is where it appears from the evidence that the man is not an accomplice but in fact the offender. What would his position be in those circumstances?

Another important clause is Clause 6 which the hon. the Minister also dealt with at length. This clause deals with the question of bail. The law at present allows the Attorney-General to issue an order forbidding the granting of bail in any case before the expiration of 12 days. One of the principles of our law is that an accused should be entitled to apply for bail at any time after having been charged. The discretion vested with the court to grant or to refuse bail after having heard objections from the prosecutor. When the 12-day rule was introduced we on this side opposed it. The Government recognized that this innovation, the introduction of the 12-day rule, was drastic and, hoping no doubt that circumstances would change for the better, made provision for this new provision to lapse after a year and to be renewed from year to year. It has in fact since been renewed from year to year. The amendment which we now have before us does away with the 12-day rule. It allows the Attorney-General to object to bail in the case of the offences listed in the Schedule. He can object to bail until the accused has faced his trial, and not only for 12 days. In the past year, however, a new type of criminal has emerged, people who have had no difficulty in getting sufficient bail money put up for them by organizations sympathetic to their cause or by friends who have assisted them in committing certain crimes. These people have made no bones about absconding. The money has meant nothing to them. They have absconded and their bail has been estreated. This has meant that accused persons plotting against the State have escaped and have thus avoided just punishment for their crime, and that they have left others to take the rap.

The Leader of the Opposition, as the Minister has pointed out, has in public condemned the practice and demanded that the law be tightened up in this respect because we condemn, as much as anybody else, the actions and and call for their punishment. It has always been our policy that people suspected of committing any offence must be tried by the court and, if found guilty after a full trial, †duly punished and the punishment must meet the crime. It stands to reason, therefore, that we will support proper measures designed to ensure that the accused will face their trial. In 99 cases out of 100, or even more often, the accused do face their trial when they are allowed out on bail and it is uncommon for them to be wilfully in default. Unfortunately that is not so with the new type of crime with which we are faced to-day, namely, the crime which is generally referred to as a political offence. The new criminal, as I have said, does not mind estreating his bail so we have to find new ways of dealing with him. From what the Minister has told us it is not only in political cases, however, where the practice is growing and we are therefore prepared to support the amendment proposed because of the other cases he has mentioned, for instance, the robbers.

I want to make it quite clear, though, that we only support it because it applies to the serious charges set out in the Schedule. Previously the Attorney-General could forbid bail in any offence. It may be argued that housebreaking is not such a serious offence but it must be borne in mind that it is only in aggravating circumstances that the Attorney-General acts and we have had a spate of brutal assaults perpetrated in the course of house-breaking. I know this clause will concern many who have grown accustomed to our civilized way of dealing with accused persons because the principle of a man being innocent until he is found guilty is deeply ingrained in us. But there is this protection against the infringement of what has become to be looked upon as a right, viz. that the discretion of the court is only taken away where the Attorney-General intervenes. For him to do so will mean that he has given the matter consideration and that he has found it necessary. It is not left to the whim of the public prosecutor. Because we disapprove of legislation of this kind, which unfortunately has become necessary, and because we hope that this necessity will not be placed on our Statute Book to stay there for all time, we would like to see it removed as soon as practicable and we will, therefore, endeavour in the Committee Stage to renew the yearly provision.

I have said before that we can only approve of this Clause because of its applicability to serious offences as set out in the Schedule. Those offences are defined. We cannot, however, approve of sub-clause (5) to this Clause, which gives the State President the power to add to that list of offences. The Minister has indicated that he will delete that sub-clause in the Committee Stage, but while it is there we will disapprove of the entire Clause.

The Minister then dealt with Clause 7. This is the most important Clause. This Clause has caused more disquiet than any other in this Bill in the minds of the public. It deals with the detention of witnesses. The Minister says there are two types of witnesses to deal with, those who are afraid to give evidence and those who may abscond. He gave the instance of Hepple. With regard to those who are afraid the Minister says they ask for protection; that he has given protection although there is no provision for it; he says he can’t keep them in gaol and he can’t pay them witness fees while they are detained there and that the law has to be changed to empower him to give them this protection. Nobody will object to his giving protection to people who ask for it. If a witness is being threatened and he wants protection I am sure not a single person in the country will object to the Minister giving him that protection. In fact, they will demand that the Minister gives him protection. We have complained in the past that not sufficient protection has been given to witnesses who have been in fear of their lives. I remember the Paarl riots.

How can they be protected?

They can be protected. The hon. member asks what I suggest to protect them. This Minister is now offering to protect them and I say nobody has objection to their being protected. Nobody objects to the Minister asking for power to protect them. We are not objecting to that. The Minister must know how he intends protecting them; it will be interesting to learn from the Minister how he is going to protect them. He can put them in some place; he can put them in gaol. We do not know. In any case, during the committee stage we shall deal, in detail, with the way in which he is going to protect them.

What about the man who does not want protection?

Why not?

He may say: “I am not afraid of these fellows and I don’t want your protection, thank you”. He, unfortunately, cannot be compelled to be protected. The Minister might say: “I am not worried about him if he does not want protection for his own personal safety or for the comfort of his family but I want him protected in the interests of the State”. I will suggest a way of overcoming that difficulty within a moment but I just want to point out that the Minister did not deal with that type of witness in his speech: he only dealt with the witness who wanted protection. I am now talking about a witness who is threatened.

In regard to the witness who absconds there is already provision in our law that the Attorney General can demand that a witness, whom he thinks is likely to abscond, gives security, that he provides bail, and that, if he does not do sp, he can be put in gaol. So the Attorney General already has a remedy.

And the police-type of cases . . .

If we were only dealing with political offenders I would say the Minister was right but we must not forget that the Schedule does not only deal with political offences.

But the robbers have more money than the political offenders; they have robbed a bank.

The hon. the Minister dealt mainly with political offenders absconding. When he dealt with the robbers he wanted bail refused because he said they committed other offences while they were out on bail I am now talking about the detention of witnesses. I say I can understand the witness giving evidence in a political charge getting protection because he is being threatened by subversive organizations. But witnesses who are going to give evidence in other types of offences in the Schedule are not in the same position at all. In the ordinary course of events we have not had witnesses absconding. It is mainly witnesses involved in political cases who have absconded.

The Minister said an interesting thing. He said he used to detain the witnesses under the 90-day Clause but that he could no longer do so because that Clause no longer existed. But surely the 90-day provision was a totally different principle from this. What we are dealing with now is not to get statements from witnesses. We have already dealt with the Clause dealing with the getting of statements from witnesses, i.e. Clause 4. This provision cannot be likened with the 90-day provision but that is what we fear may happen and that is what the public is afraid of. The Minister himself has likened it with the 90-day provision.

No; I said I detained them in terms of that clause. I no longer have that power of detention.

But they were detained for interrogation. What the public fears now is that this clause, which provides for a witness to be detained incommunicado, can also be used for interrogation. It is a harrowing experience for a witness to be retained incommunicado. Nobody wants to be detained incommunicado. Why should a witness be detained incommunicado? This is one of the objections we have to this particular clause.

What about the magistrate?

The magistrate visits him once a week; what consolation is it to him that he is going to see a magistrate once a week? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. member an opportunity of making his speech.

The hon. the Minister has tried to justify the provision on the ground that the witnesses are threatened with their Lives. I have dealt (with that; I have said that we do not mind giving the Minister the power to give them .that protection. But what happens to the witness after the court trial is over? The Minister has said that we know very well that witnesses are afraid to give evidence in open court, that courts have had to be cleared, that they give nom-de-plumes, that they are only known as Mr. X or Mr. B, that they sometimes appear in court with hoods, so that they cannot be recognized. But what happens after they have given their evidence? Then they are at the mercy of these people.

We look after them.

I do not know how the Minister looks after them afterwards. I do not think he keeps them in gaol.

No, no.

But why cannot he look after them before trial in the same way as he looks after them afterwards? I would like him to tell us that, Sir.

I want to point out that, as far as this clause is concerned, in the detention of witnesses in sabotage cases or other political cases, we realize what the dangers are. We have no sympathy whatsoever with saboteurs. We are prepared to assist the Minister in dealing with witnesses who have to be protected in that type of case. This clause has come as a shock to us, as a shock that the State is not able to protect its witnesses.

You do not look shocked.

I am so immune to shocks from this Government, Sir, that I no longer react to them. We have had this every year from the hon. Minister; we have been expecting something like this. What I do want to say is that this Minister has let us off lightly compared to what some of his predecessors have done, and that he, too, has done in the past.

I say, Sir, that it has come as a shock that subversive elements still have so much power that they can terrify witnesses to this extent. Even where the witnesses are indemnified against prosecution as accomplices they still flee the country rather than meet their erstwhile friends. If the State cannot protect these witnesses, we shall have to give assistance. This clause, however, goes too far. I do not want to use extravagant language, but I must say to the Minister, that it gives me a sense of shock that it should even be thought necessary to detain witnesses—I am not talking about accused persons—in this way. Up to just recently even the accused were not treated in the manner in which they now threaten to treat witnesses. It is not merely the locking-up or detention that troubles us, Sir, but it is also the way in which it is done. The Minister will, by regulation, lay down the treatment to be meted out to these witnesses, who, probably through no fault of their own, but by accident, find themselves being detained because they know something about some offence that has been committed.

We want to know what those regulations will be. I want to ask the Minister whether he will make it possible for Parliament to approve of these regulations from time to time? We are now asked to give the Minister power to make regulations without knowing what he is going to put in those regulations. How are these people going to be treated? We do not even know where they are going, to be detained. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) does not even know. He wants to know from me. I hope the Minister will tell us in detail where it is intended to detain these people.

I told you.

In gaol?

I told you that I did not have any other place at the moment.

But the Minister does not give protection to people who have already given evidence. He does not keep, them in gaol; I do not know where he keeps them.

[Inaudible.]

If it is possible to give the man protection after he has given his evidence, it should also be possible to give him protection before he gives his evidence.

Surely you know . . .

Order! I think this is a matter which can be thrashed out in the Committee Stage.

Sir, this is one of the principles of the Bill.

I want to deal with what is involved. Admittedly these witnesses will be paid. The Minister said they would be paid witness fees and that the scale could vary for different classes of witnesses. I want the Minister to bear in mind that some of the witnesses who are detained may have businesses of their own; they may be in professions on their own. I do not see how the State will be able to compensate them for the time that they are being detained in that manner. The Attorney-General may think it is in their interest to be detained, but they may not think so. We, therefore, have some suggestions to make as to how this matter could be met. We suggest that there must be a limit to the offences. At the moment there is no limit to the offences. The Minister has indicated that he will limit the offences to certain crimes in the Committee Stage. But I submit that the list in the Schedule goes too far and should be limited even more. We can discuss that in the Committee Stage.

We also think that those who do not wish to be detained for their own protection should be allowed to appear before a Judge-in-Chambers—not in public—where the Attorney-General can put to the Judge his case as to why he wants the man specially detained. Let the witness then put his case before the Judge . . .

That is something we can discuss in Committee.

I have another suggestion to make to the Minister, namely, that this should only apply where a charge has been laid. I can think of other suggestions of a similar nature. Sir, I do not think it is necessary for the measure to read as it does now in order to give the Minister the powers he needs. We do take objection to the way it stands now, because we think we can achieve the same ends by less drastic measures.

As I said earlier on, we do not blame the Government solely for the wave of lawlessness or for the political unrest. We realize that there are some forces at work which this Government cannot control, but the Government must realize that all these drastic measures are not curing the evil. There must be a different approach, not only from the political angle, but also from the angle of the manner in which ordinary crime is dealt with. We will assist in granting powers and amending our administration of justice system in a way which may go against the grain, if (that becomes necessary for the maintenance of law and order, not only as far as political crimes are concerned, but as far as all other crimes are concerned. The Minister boasts about the way he deals with political offences; the Minister boasts that he has killed the underground organizations.

I never said that.

The Minister has on several occasions said that he has broken the back of those organizations. He has done that through the powers we have given him and with the assistance of the Police Force. Let me say, Sir, that the police deserve to be complimented on the way in which they have tracked down these subversive elements. Although the Minister prides himself on the fact, and boasts in the country, that he has broken the back of subversion, he now tells us that the worst phase is still to come; the third phase which is going to be the worst phase and that we must, therefore, steel ourselves for measures of this nature in order to enable him to deal with the third phase.

It is only practical to do so.

But the point is this. Sir, that we are told at various times—not only by this Minister but also by his predecessors—that they have broken the back . . .

But surely that cannot affect the sabotage camps in the rest of Africa.

The point I want to make is this: The Minister will not rid himself or the country of this until the Government makes a better appeal to the mass of the population . . .

Do you think that will stop the saboteurs?

Unless those people have fertile ground to work on here they cannot succeed. What this Government must do is to see that it wins the support of the ordinary law-abiding African. He is in the majority. We must see to it that we get his co-operation. That is what the Government must set out to do. The law-abiding man will assist the Government. At the moment the majority are regarded as fifth columnists; we do not know whether they are assisting the outsiders or not.

I do not think that is correct at all.

There is no doubt about it at all that all the laws which have been introduced recently, such as our amended pass laws and other laws, are to track down the Bantu population wherever they may be and to check on them.

Quite right.

The Minister says quite right. There is no doubt about it either that, in the city especially, they are regarded with suspicion as being possible allies of these subversive elements. I say the Government must make greater efforts to win over the support of these people in the fight against this menace. Just as the Government must change its methods of dealing with ordinary crime, it must change its methods of dealing with this other threat. We will oppose the second reading of this Bill; we will move certain amendments in the Committee Stage—the Minister has told us to-day that he will also move certain amendments— and depending on how the Bill comes out from the Committee Stage we will decide on our attitude towards the third reading.

It seems to me that the Opposition learnt their lesson in the past years when we discussed the question of saboteurs here. I say that because it looks as though hon. members of the Opposition have become completely tame. I imagine that we will probably read once again in to-morrow’s editions of the newspapers which encourage, instigate and incite them, that the Opposition have thrown in the towel. I am grateful for this belated repentance, however, which is better than no repentance at all. We are very pleased that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has said on behalf of the Opposition that they agree with quite a number of these clauses. They have no objection to this Bill in principle therefore. But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has made a few observations which I cannot allow to go unchallenged. He says that the Opposition has been prepared in the past to give the Minister the powers for which he has asked. [Interjections.] But when we look at the statistics and see how often they voted in the past against measures introduced by the hon. the Minister of Justice we find that the measures they opposed far outnumber the measures which they supported. The only reason why hon. members on the other side supported us in those cases where they did support us was in fact that we accused them of making common cause with criminals and saboteurs, a charge which they just could not endure.

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

Very well, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that it was with great reluctance that the United Party gave the hon. the Minister the powers for which he asked in the past. I am pleased to see that there is no such reluctance to-day. That is all I want to say in that regard.

The hon. member protested against the late introduction of this Bill. Sir, what are the reasons for this protest? He says that this measure is drastic; that the Minister has known for a long time that he needs this legislation and that he should therefore have introduced it earlier. Why did the hon. member want this Bill at an early stage? They wanted it earlier on so that they could have time to study it he says. Sir, if a Bill is drastic, that is no reason for introducing it at an early stage of the Session as long as it is introduced. That is the important thing. If a measure has to be taken, then it simply has to be taken. A certain incident may occur as a result of which the Minister may have to come here and say, “I have no alternative but to introduce this measure now because I did not know of this incident beforehand”. But hon. members opposite say that he knew about it beforehand and that he should have introduced this measure earlier on. It is not for me to say why the Minister did not do so: for my part I believe that this measure, like all the others, was introduced at the appropriate time, and here I should like to make this observation that the only reason why it is necessary for the Opposition to have a measure such as this timeously is to enable them to study it; there I agree with the Opposition but the necessity to study a measure only arises when it is a very complicated measure and this measure is not complicated; anybody who reads this measure can understand it immediately. In addition to that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories says that the hon. the Minister knew that he was going to introduce this measure. Evidently he also knew it. How then can he say that he does not want to deal with this measure at this stage because he has had no time to study it? If this were a complicated measure I could understand his attitude, but it is a simple measure.

They agree with it; why did they want time to study it?

That is the next point that I want to make. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories says that they will just nibble at this thing a little in the Committee Stage and iron it out in a few places. In other words, he agrees with it. If he agrees with it, why does he want such a long time to study it? If the hon. member’s attitude was that no measure should be discussed here unless it was introduced within the first or second week, then I could undertand it, but then his quarrel is with the Rules of Order and not with the Minister. But the rules are there and in terms of the rules the Minister may introduce legislation as long as Parliament continues to sit. If the measure is not a complicated one then there is sufficient time to study it and then the hon. member’s objection is unfounded. According to our new rules it requires very little effort to study a Bill. The new way in which Bills are drafted makes it a simple matter to study their implications. It is clear to me that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories did not need much time to study this Bill because he was able to put his finger on those matters in respect of which there may well be a difference of opinion. I do expect more basic objections from other quarters because . . .

If you did not like the Bill you would not say so in any case.

If I do not like a Bill or if I do not like a clause I will say so.

Where? Here?

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) has nothing to do with where I will say it but I am prepared to say it here and I have done so before.

When?

If the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) could only be present sometimes as a lawyer when debates of this kind are conducted he would know what he was talking about.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories went on to allege that in the days of the old South African Party and the United Party Governments they also took drastic measures but that they did so in times of emergency. Sir, that is typical of the United Party.

No, I did not say that.

He did say it, or are my ears deceiving me? I wrote down what he said. He says that they also took measures when there was an emergency, but he says that there is no state of emergency at the present time and he wants to know why the Minister is passing this measure.

No.

Sir, that is typical of the United Party. They want to wait until a bomb is exploded at the Johannesburg station, as a result of which people suffer burns which necessitate their hospitalization for weeks and months. They want to wait until a fund has to be established for one of the victims; then there is an “emergency”; then they want to start taking steps. No, we believe in the old saying of the farmers, “Jakkals sê hardloop is ’n goeie ding, maar jy moet op tyd begin” (the jackal says that it is a good thing to run away but it is no use starting too late). And this time it is not a question of running away but of attacking. Attack is also a good thing but one must not wait too long before attacking, and what the Minister is doing here is to attack before it is too late.

What is the rest of that saying?

It says that the hon. member for Hospital is a “tweegatjakkals” (turncoat).

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories has made the general statement here that this Bill amounts to an interference with the ordinary liberties of the individual and that that is why they are against it; this interference in his opinion goes a little too far, but, he says, he is quite prepared to tolerate this interference if the clauses are ironed out a little. He tried to create the impression that in principle he was against this interference and he specifically mentioned the case of the accomplice. He was later on told by Mr. Speaker that that was a matter which could be thrashed out in committee. However, at the risk that your ruling may also apply to me, Sir, I should like to deal with the principle of this matter. There is no reason why an accomplice should also be examined. After all, provision is made in that particular clause that if an accomplice gives his evidence properly, he is given an indemnity. I cannot see why, if proceedings are already pending and an accomplice gets his indemnity if he gives satisfactory evidence he cannot be given indemnity if the case is still being investigated. But if there is no trial at all and there is no accused at all, surely it is self-evident that there is no reason why such a person should have the slightest difficulty.

The hon. member also raised certain objections, as a matter of principle, in connection with Clause 4. I do not want to do him an injustice but I should very much like to know whether he has any objection to the examination being done by the public prosecutor. If he has no objection to it then our whole problem falls away and in that case I will say nothing further about it. But the fact of the matter is that in dealing with this matter we must distinguish very carefully between these two things—and I do not know whether the hon. member is doing so—and that is the right of an accused (or a person who is being examined) to refuse to answer and his right to refuse to be examined. There is a very great difference between the two. An accused may say, “I refuse to answer,” or a witness may say that he refuses to answer, and then there is no way in which we can take steps against him; we do not have the American “third degree” but we detain him for eight days and then we bring him before the court again. All this has to be done by a magistrate. But in this case we will now have the Attorney-General to examine him. The Attorney-General has all the facts, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out. The Attorney-General is the person who knows everything; he knows what questions to put to such a person. If the person concerned comes before the magistrate and he has to be examined, the magistrate will not open his mouth because he does not know what questions to ask; he knows nothing about the case. I am sorry that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories is not here at the moment because he could have made things very easy for us if he had told us perfectly clearly what his objection was. Does he object to the examination of the person concerned by the public prosecutor; does he believe that we are interfering with the person’s right to refuse to answer questions or with his right to refuse to be examined?

He said so.

I am sorry; if that is what he said then I did not hear him very well. I am not sitting in a very good position here. Mr. Speaker, I come now to Clause 6 in respect of which the hon. member for Transkeian Territories apparently strongly objects to the fact that people cannot be released on bail. Or perhaps in this case, too, I did not understand him very well. Perhaps the position is that, as far as some of these crimes are concerned he is entirely in favour of this provision but not in the case of all of the crimes listed here. Sir. for the information of members who are not lawyers I should like to read out the list of crimes in respect of which bail cannot be granted; sedition, murder, arson, kidnapping, child stealing, any contravention of the Suppression of Communism Act or of the Sabotage Act, any conspiracy, incitement or attempt to contempt any of the above-mentioned offences, treason, robbery where aggravating circumstances were present and lastly, any offence either at common law or under any Statute, of housebreaking with intent to commit an offence, where the Attorney-General is satisfied that aggravating circumstances were present. Sir, nobody could object to the insertion of this provision and personally I think it is an improvement on the previous provision in terms of which a person could be detained for 12 days and there was simply nothing that one could do. There are numbers of other crimes which are now being excluded and where people will be entitled to bail and where they can ask the court for bail. This is a very great improvement on the old section. I am surprised that it is even suggested that there are people who say that this is an unnecessary interference with the freedoms of people.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories went on to say that he would like to see a distinction drawn between a political crime and one which is not a political crime. He says that 99 cases out of 100 people who are released on bail appear before the courts. Mr. Speaker, let me say this: Sedition, murder, arson, kidnapping, child stealing and robbery under aggravating circumstances or burglary ...

... or any attempt to commit such offences.

Of course: what is the difference between a person who attempts to commit murder and one who commits murder? From the psychological point of view they are equally culpable and equally accountable for their actions as the hon. member for Hospital knows. He is only interrupting me because he has apparently forgotten some of his elementary principles of law. Why should we distinguish between political crimes and so-called non-political crimes? I do not like the term “political crime” because it is not a “political” crime. We are dealing here with people who want to commit murder and arson for a reason which is entirely different from the reason of those who commit such crimes for their own benefit. To my mind murder, for whatever reason it is committed, is just as reprehensible a crime as murder, arson, kidnapping, child stealing, or sabotage committed for some political reason. One cannot say that the one is a more serious or a worse crime than the other. I treat them all alike. We must either apply the law to all of them or not one of them, and since this is an improvement on the existing section I welcome it. because one does not want to deprive a person of his liberty unless one is convinced that he in fact committed a crime.

I now come to the other principle contained in this Bill and that is that the Attorney-General will have the power to decide whether bail should be granted or not. I think this is a very great improvement on the previous position because previously the question of granting bail was in the hands of the courts. One can almost say that, without realizing that they were doing so, the courts in the past have adopted the approach that the people who break the law are the police rather than the lawbreakers. The courts do not have the facts; they cannot have the facts and they cannot refuse to grant bail because they have no reasons for refusing bail; it is only afterwards that they discover what a dangerous client they have been dealing with. I can well understand why the hon. member for Transkeian Territories wants to perpetuate that situation because it is typical of the United Party to say: “We prefer to lock the stable door after the steed has been stolen.” That is their approach, and the difference between them and us is that we first examine the position thoroughly and then act; we do not try to do patchwork as they did when they were in power.

What is patchwork?

It is patchwork to shut the stable door after the steed has been stolen.

I now come to the other clause which I think is going to be the only contentious clause, i.e. Clause 7. although I must say that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories did not say very clearly whether he was opposed to this clause in principle; whether he only objected to the formulation of the clause, or whether he wants to drag other State bodies into it. I just want to say that in this case, too, as the Minister has already said, there are witnesses who desire protection; the hon. member conceded that. The Minister can give them protection in one way or another; to that he has no objection. But. Sir, the Minister must have this clause so as to be able ta detain these people in prison because there is no other place in which he can keep them. The Minister is not a hotelier. The only place in which he can lock them up is the gaol. He will treat them as he used to treat 90-day detainees, and surely, bearing in mind the fact that literally hundreds of people were locked up and that there are only 17 cases in which the people concerned think that they have an action against the Government or against the Minister on the ground that they were allegedly treated badly, we can assume that in this case, too, the detainees will not necessarily be treated badly. As a matter of fact, on the strength of what we know about our prisons, I think we can say that the prisoners are treated very well there, except of course, that they are deprived of their freedom. But then the hon. member says: “What about those witnesses who do not want protection?” Sir. let me put another point of view, but let me first say that those witnesses are subjected to continual pressure not to go and give evidence. I do not know whether it has occurred to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories or other members of the Opposition who are going to take part in this debate that there is also another side of the story and that is that the ends of justice are defeated in abstracto where witnesses are interfered with. They are either killed or they flee the country with the result that the criminal cannot be tried, and if the criminal cannot be tried, an injustice is committed and the ends of justice are defeated. It is on a par with the case where an innocent person is found guilty. It is precisely the same thing. Let me put this to the Opposition: In considering this matter, are they prepared to tolerate a situation where justice cannot be done because the criminal cannot be tried for lack of evidence and owing to the absence of witnesses who were available with the resultant prostitution of fairness and justice? Are they prepared to tolerate such a situation? The Minister’s purpose here is to ensure that justice prevails, even if it has to be done at the cost of the freedom of a few individuals, whose loss of freedom after all is a trivial price to pay.

Not as far as they are concerned.

The hon. member then proceeded to ask two other questions in connection with this same point. He said: “Who wants to be kept incommunicado.” The person who is detained will be visited by a magistrate every week, and if the detainee has any complaints he can submit them to the magistrate. That adequately answers the hon. members question. Because what does incommunicado mean? It means that the detainee does not know anything about what is going on outside and nobody outside knows anything about him; he is not in prison; he is simply detained as long as he is needed in the interests of justice or as long as he himself wishes to be detained.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories then went on to ask a very peculiar question, which struck me as being very strange. He said that the Minister was protecting certain persons before the proceedings, but that once the proceedings were over, once the evidence had been given, he no longer protected them. The hon. member apparently wants to suggest that the situation before the proceedings is on a par with the situation after the proceedings. But, Sir, that is not the position. The fact of the matter is that before the proceedings and before the conviction or acquittal, there is always an urge to meddle with a witness for the sake of the self-preservation of the accused. That urge is much stronger before the proceedings than it is after the proceedings. Because once the criminal has been found guilty, that urge is no longer there; the accused then serves his sentence. If such a witness is meddled with after the proceedings, the only motive will be revenge; we know that the urge for self-preservation is much stronger than the urge for revenge. The inclination therefore to interfere with the proceedings and with the evidence before conviction is much greater before the proceedings than after the proceedings. That is the reason why there is not a single case, as far as we know or as far as the police know, where people have been killed after the proceedings out of revenge.

I come back to the hon. member’s allegation that this measure interferes unduly with the liberties of the ordinary citizen. Sir, the hon. member will be well-advised in dealing with this subject to read some literature dealing with countries which were subjected to sabotage. Take a country like Algeria. In Algeria people who were entirely innocent were subjected to pressure and that is also my answer to the hon. member in respect of his accusation that the Government should take measures to ensure that it will be possible for the Bantu population to be more law-abiding. In the first place, I do not believe that our Bantu population is so non-law-abiding. I feel therefore that it is scandalous to make such an allegation by implication. But just to show how saboteurs set to work and how they make use of the most innocent people, this is the sort of thing that we find in Algeria, for example; Ordinary labourers who belong to a certain group of the population are ordered by the saboteurs’ council to wear certain clothes, a certain type of uniform which fits in with their tradition of bygone days, because they pride themselves very much on their nationalism. If anybody disobeyed those instructions, whatever his reason may be, he was summoned before the tribunal and found guilty. And what was the penalty? His penalty was not a fine, not imprisonment, but he was sentenced to go and plant a few hand grenades at a certain place or to go and hide a few sticks of dynamite at a certain place. And if he did not do so, they did not kill him; they killed his wife and children. That was what they did. In this case, in taking this measure, we want to make sure that even the most innocent people are not forced into the trap and that is why we have to take measures here which differ from the measures that we had in the past. What I find most remarkable is the fact that the Opposition, although they frequently broadcast these high ideals and these high principles in respect of legal concepts in our country, concepts which are not lacking in nobility, create the opportunity for people to hide behind concepts which are much more noble than the criminals themselves. I wonder whether the Opposition will not be prepared to alter that particular image which it has created for itself in this country? Because these criminals definitely do not deserve the protection which the Opposition is apparently prepared to give them.

I want to conclude by saying that it was high time this measure was introduced. I say that it brings about an improvement in various provisions that we already have for coping with a state of emergency. I want to say again that the Opposition has apparently become tame and I welcome this belated repentance which I hope is not false repentance. In conclusion I want to congratulate the Minister on having introduced this Bill, even if it was introduced late, and I want to say to him that he should take no notice of these reproaches because this is a simple Bill; one does not need a hundred years to study it.

One advantage in following the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) is that there very seldom is anything in his speeches that needs a reply, and on this occasion even less than usual. The hon. member for Standerton likes the sound of his own voice and is not always so concerned about the substances of what he says. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to waste time on his speech at this stage. [Interjections.]

At the outset I want to add on behalf of this side of the House my protest to that of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories against the introduction of this Bill at such a late stage in this Session of Parliament.

Why do you repeat that?

I also protest against the continual interruptions on the part of members on the opposite side. We gave the hon. Minister a fair hearing, and the least that we can expect from them is that they give consideration to the point of view of this side of the House.

What is your point of view?

The hon. member for Heilbron would be the first one to squeal loudly if we were to interrupt him as much as he is now interrupting me. Mr. Speaker, to revert to my address, I wish to add my protest against the late introduction of this Bill [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, am I to be subjected to continual interjections during my speech?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I wish to point out in elaboration of what the hon. member for Transkeian Territories said that there is no excuse whatsoever for leaving the introduction of this Bill until so late.

Order! I gave an hon. member an opportunity to discuss that point and another hon. member to reply to it. Does the hon. member not think it would be best now to confine himself to the Bill?

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise another aspect of this, [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, am I to be subjected to these interruptions?

Order! The hon. member must now continue with his speech.

I am raising a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

That is not a point of order.

The point I wish to make is this in regard to the late introduction of the Bill, that it is not only the members of this House who have the right to consider legislation which is introduced by the Government, it is also members of the public. They have the right to express their views on legislation through the recognized means, and, by introducing legislation of this sort in the last minute, it makes it impossible for the public to express its views or its opinion on this legislation, and, Mr. Speaker, we are getting this sort of legislation from the hon. Minister of Justice at the late stage of the sessions year after year.

You have now said that six times already.

I wish now to deal with this Bill. The hon. the Minister has said that there are not many clauses in the Bill to which this side of the House can object. But, Mr. Speaker, I would draw the hon. Minister’s attention to the fact, which apparently he has overlooked, that in one clause alone there are very drastic and harsh changes in the law and, although there may not be many clauses to which objection can -be taken, those that are objectionable are highly so in the form in which the Bill appears at present. In fact, Mr. Speaker, to deal specifically with Clause 7, the provisions of this clause are nothing short of alarming. It is alarming to see that in South Africa, which claims to be a Western democracy, and which I would like to believe believes in the principles of Western democracy, that in such a country we have come to the stage where, the hon. Minister of Justice and the Government tell the country that it needs a clause of this sort in the interest of law and order, in the interest of the protection of State witnesses. Mr. Speaker, the Government cannot escape from responsibility for the situation which exists. As has been stated by, the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, we on this side of the House do not say that the Government is responsible for the present situation, but we do say that the situation in which we find ourselves to-day is to a great extent the result of the policies of this Government, policies which continually antagonize the law-abiding elements in this country, particularly the law-abiding Bantu.

Are saboteurs law-abiding?

Order!

Hon. members are obviously afraid of what I have to say. They are obviously ashamed of this legislation, and they have reason to be ashamed. Do hon. members, who take this Bill so lightly, appreciate that, in -terms of Clause 7, a witness, a person who is not accused of any offence at all, can now be arrested and detained in gaol for three and up to six months; and do they appreciate that it is not limited to six months, because, as with the 90-day clause, they can be re-arrested and, re-detained for further periods of six months? Do they realize that? Do they realize what that means in practical terms? Do they realize that it means that persons who are not charged with any offence are shut away from association with their wives and families, are prevented from continuing their occupation? This is the sort of lighthearted attitude that we get from that side of the House. There is a further aspect of this. The Minister has said that he does not intend any stigma on the persons who are arrested and detained in this way, but undoubtedly there will be a stigma and, what is more, it will undoubtedly jeopardize the jobs of -the people treated in this way, because their employers will tend to say, perhaps quite wrongly, that if this man has been arrested and detained, there must be something wrong that he has done, and the tendency will be that, upon his release from detention, he will be given notice by his employer. So that undoubtedly the persons who are treated in this way will have a stigma attaching to them, and it is no consolation to such persons to be told that, during the period they are detained, they will be paid witness’s fees, because, apart from the purely financial consideration, the witness’s fees do not compensate for the loss of salary during that period. The Minister has given as his reason for wanting these powers, firstly, the contention that he wants to protect witnesses who want into be protected. Well, it ought to be obvious to the Minister that he does not need this sort of provision in order to protect witnesses who want to be protected. He has said that such witnesses can be put in gaol. I am sorry, he said that he cannot put them in gaol because he has not the power to do so. It ought to be obvious to the Minister that it is not necessary to have such a drastic provision in order to change the law to make it possible for the State to protect witnesses who wish to be protected and who demand the protection of the State. If the only way to protect such witnesses is to put them in a gaol for the period that the trial is awaiting the court, then it is possible to change the law to make provision that a witness who wishes to be protected can be placed in gaol, but why arrest a man who asks for State protection? That is not necessary. If he wants to be protected, if he wants to be placed in gaol, with his consent, that can be done. But this provision does not deal with that situation at all. It provides for the arrest of witnesses. The hon. member for Heilbron says you cannot detain him for anything else. If he wishes to be detained in gaol, why cannot he be detained, and if it is only the question of witness’s fees that is worrying the Minister, the law can easily be amended to provide that, where a State witness wishes to be protected by voluntarily going into gaol, he can be paid witness’s fees during that period. That argument by the Minister does not justify this provision at all.

Now in regard to absconding witnesses, there again there is an existing provision to deal with absconding witnesses, so that the Minister does not need these drastic powers. If he is not aware of it, then perhaps the Minister would look at Section 214. Perhaps we could have one of the hon. members on that side to tell us why in the light of Section 214, the Government claims to need this provision. [Interjections.] I hope that when these hon. members on the cross benches rise to speak and we on this side will treat them as they have treated me to-day, they will not then do what they usually do and that is to claim the protection of the Chair. [Interjections.]

The Minister referred to the case of Bob Hepple to justify this provision. [Interjections.]

Order! I warn the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker).

This Minister said that Hepple made a full statement and asked to be made a State witness, and on the strength of this he was released and he immediately absconded. That type of situation would not be altered by the provisions the Minister is now proposing, because in terms of Clause 7 it is not every person, not every State witness, who is going to be arrested and detained. The Attorney-General would have a discretion and presumably if he gets a case such as Bob Hepple he will exercise his discretion by releasing the particular witness on his own recognisances. So how does the case of Bob Hepple justify these provisions? But I would like an explanation from the Minister. The Minister, in answer to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, said that the State protects witnesses after they have given evidence, but the hon. member pointed out that once they had given evidence they could be subjected to intimidation and harassed by the persons who, it is claimed, would do it before they gave evidence. If the State is able to protect its witnesses after they have given evidence, why can it not do so before they give evidence? Perhaps the Minister will explain, in the light of this statement that he is able to protect witnesses after they have given evidence, why he needs these provisions.

Before I sit down, I want to deal with one matter which was raised by the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze). He said that in the past we on this side of the House had agreed to drastic powers only when there was an emergency and that our attitude is to close the door when the horse has already run out of the stable. That is quite unfair. The hon. member for Standerton, if he was in the House when the Bill which was debated arising out of the report of Judge Snyman, will know that that is not true, because when that Bill was introduced it contained a number of provisions which were drastic but which in terms of the findings of Judge Snyman were obviously necessary, and we on this side of the House readily supported it, while opposing provisions which we considered were not necessary and which were too harsh and drastic to deal with any situation which was claimed to exist by the Minister. But we are quite unable to support Clause 7 in its present form. The Minister has said that he proposes to introduce one amendment to limit it to the offences referred to in Part II bis of the Schedule. This will certainly be an improvement, but despite that the clause will still be far too wide, in our opinion. The Minister has said that suggestions have been made to him to further restrict this clause, by the Cape Bar Council, and he said that he proposed considering the suggestions, and I am pleased to hear that. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give careful and serious consideration to any suggestions which may be made to so limit this clause that it will enable the State to deal with the situation which must be dealt with, and that is the presenting of evidence in cases where the security of the State and the maintenance of law and order are involved, to limit the law to that situation, but not to take these wide powers which he has under these laws and which in our view are quite unnecessary, even accepting the facts which the Minister has stated exist and which he claims will have to be met in the future.

The hon. member who has just sat down objected to the late introduction of this Bill. If he had watched the newspapers, he would have seen from recent cases that there have been certain events in connection with certain witnesses which have necessitated the introduction of this Bill. It is obvious, since the steps being taken here are drastic ones, that the Government hesitated to take such drastic steps before they became absolutely essential, and it is for that reason that this Bill is only being introduced now. The hon. member made the point that it was not fair to the public, as the public did not have the opportunity to express their opinion on this Bill. Sir, he need not worry about public opinion. Public opinion fully supports this Government when it takes steps to ensure the safety of the public, no matter how drastic those steps may be.

I now come to the first point in connection with the granting of bail under Clause 6. The normal position is that an application for bail is submitted to the court, but the court does not possess all the details. Only the Attorney-General has all the details, which he cannot submit to the court at this stage. He has the record of the accused. The accused may be a habitual criminal, and the Attorney-General is not allowed to submit the accused’s record to the court, as the court is not supposed to know the person’s record at that stage. Consequently the court is in no position to judge whether or not bail should be granted. It is only right that the Attorney-General, who is in possession of the person’s record and who knows how dangerous it might be to set him free, should be in a position to prescribe whether or not bail is to be granted in the case of these serious crimes, so that it is rather surprising that after all these years such a provision is being placed in the Act only now.

Then there is Clause 7, which is being opposed so strongly. I want to point out that if this person is detained incommunicado it does not mean that he is only allowed to be visited by a magistrate. As a matter of fact, the provision reads that the magistrate shall visit him once a week, but Clause 4 provides that the Attorney-General may allow anybody to visit such a person and, as I understand the position, it was the custom, even under the old 90 days clause, to allow the person’s family, as well as any other person who, in the opinion of the Attorney-General, would not influence that person to the detriment of the State, to visit him. But as far as Clause 7 and the entire Bill are concerned, it is the Minister’s intention to move certain amendments at a later stage, and therefore we shall not discuss the details at this stage. We are dealing with the general principle now, and as far as the general principle is concerned, it has been stated here that the Government should do more to win the goodwill of the Bantu in order to avoid such drastic legislation in that way. I want to ask the Opposition: What has not already been done in the countries to the north of us to win the goodwill of these persons? In the countries north of Rhodesia the Whites displayed such a measure of goodwill that they were driven out of those countries. In Rhodesia, where the policy of the United Party is being followed, and where they have already granted the same privileges as those which the United Party are pleading for here, there is even more drastic legislation than this. I should therefore like the Opposition to indicate to us how much further they want to go than the people in Rhodesia have done. If they want to go further than those people have done, then they must simply expect the same result, which is that we shall also be driven out of this country. So, as far as gaining the goodwill of these people is concerned, I cannot see how we can do more than what is already being done by our Government in terms of its general policy to grant these people as many powers as possible, due regard being had to the security of the Whites. I also want to say that any government that is worth its salt will take steps, however drastic they may be, to ensure the safety of the State, and this Government is already known as one that will not hesitate to take the necessary steps in that regard. We have the fullest confidence that justice will be done here in the circumstances, and that has already been clearly proved by the Government in the case of all the other drastic legislation, and consequently, because this legislation is essential to ensure the safety of the State, this side of the House will support it.

I was interested to hear from the hon. the Minister that he intended to introduce certain amendments to this drastic measure in the Committee Stage, and he told us what they would be. One of them is important to some extent. That is the amendment he intends introducing to Clause 6. The other will be to Clause 7. As far as I am concerned, the fact that he is going to introduce these amendments in no way changes my attitude to this Bill and I intend moving an amendment—

Now the Minister has some interesting comments to make in his second-reading speech. He told us that despite all the predictions of the past about abuses under previous drastic pieces of legislation, very little had been done by way of proving that these powers had been abused. He himself was only being subjected to something between 13 and 16 cases or threatened cases, because they have not all come to the courts yet. in regard to the measures he has taken. Coming from someone who is well versed in law, I must say I find that statement extraordinary. First of all, the hon. the Minister knows very well that by the nature of the laws he has passed over the last few years, they give him protection in practically everything except cases of assault. In every other record, like detention for 90 days, the people on those charges have no case against the Minister. People who were detained time and again under the 90 days’ provisions have no case against the Minister by virtue of the law itself, which was all-encompassing. People who even tried to get themselves before the court during their detention in order to make charges of ill-treatment were unable to do so because the courts ruled that they had no jurisdiction whatsoever over people detained for 90 days. So this extraordinary allegation of the Minister does not hold any water at all. There are still cases of assault. We will see whether they will come before the court; nobody knows, but I will tell the Minister this much, that when a man is already in gaol and he is held by the prison authorities, it is no easy task for him to bring such a charge against the Minister, particularly when he is held on Robben Island to which there is little access, and where the regulations make it extremely difficult and its very geographic nature makes it very difficult for people to act. He commented about Defence and Aid, and he once accused me in this House of being an agent of Defence and Aid. I denied it then and I deny it now, but I will never have the slightest reluctance to bring up any case in this House, whether it has been supported by Defence and Aid or not, where the normal rule of law has been abrogated. As far as I am concerned the right of defence is an ordinary part of the normal rule of law to which the Minister himself at one time used to adhere. In fact, he had no objection to funds being started to assist people held under emergency regulations in days gone by.

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

What I am saying is that this Bill forms part of a long historical process that we have been undergoing in South Africa. Long ago, when this process started, one could predict with the greatest of ease that once the Government had started on this slippery slope of taking unfettered powers to detain people without trial, to deny people the normal rights of bail and so on, we were on this slope which led completely away from the rule of law to arbitrary control by the State. I say that the Government is a glutton for such powers. It is like a compulsive eater; the more it takes, the more it wants to take.

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

There was a time when the Minister in introducing laws of this nature used to express his regret and said he hoped that firstly he would never have to use these powers or secondly that he hoped that this would be the last of this type of measure that he was bringing before the House. Each time the Minister has given us some sort of reason for introducing a Bill, and if not he, then his predecessor. The beginning of this was the original Public Safety Bill and the whipping Bill and the anti-communist Bill before that. Then we had the events of 1950, leading to the banning Bills, the banning of the P.A.C. and the A.N.C. Then we had this Minister introducing his sabotage Bill in 1962.

Order! I think the hon. member must come back to the Bill.

May I not trace the historical development that has led to this Bill?

Then the hon. member might as well cover the whole history of South Africa.

I will be very brief. I would not attempt to do that. This particular law is in fact amending some of those previous laws, and may I not refer to them? Then in 1963 we had the 90-day detention law and the emergency powers which the hon. the Minister took without having to declare a state of emergency. Last year there was a further extension, where the Minister took powers in regard to witnesses in certain cases, and now in 1965 those powers are again extended. This time the Minister gave as his excuse that we are now entering a new phase again, where amateur saboteurs were being replaced by trained saboteurs. We are entering a new phase where professional saboteurs trained elsewhere in Africa are now going to come down and attack South Africa, and prior to this the hon. the Minister takes these vast powers. The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) says that the Minister must of course take these powers in advance; he must not wait until the station bombs explode. I might point out, Sir, that he had not waited until the station bomb exploded when he took his powers last year or the year before, whenever this happened; he already had extensive powers. There is absolutely no guarantee that every time the hon. the Minister takes new powers it is going to avoid any of the dangers which he foresees. There is no such guarantee at all. Indeed, as I think our history has shown us, every time the hon. the Minister takes an extreme measure, all that happens is that there is a chain of action and reaction. The more drastic the powers the hon. the Minister takes, the more drastic are the actions of saboteurs and subversive elements. When political organizations that were legal were banned, illegal, subversive organizations immediately sprang up, and then when the hon. the Minister took his sabotage powers, his powers of house arrest, etc., there was further sabotage in South Africa, and finally when he passed his 90-day detention law, that did not stop people either. Equally, with the same infallibility one can predict that the taking of these powers is not going to make the slightest difference to any future action. Interestingly enough, however, there is no evidence of any emergency. These are powers, of course, which should be utilized during a declared state of emergency, but there is no emergency. In fact, the hon. the Minister of Information is spending hundreds of thousands of rand overseas telling everybody how good we have it here; that we have never had it so good.

He is perfectly right.

May I ask the hon. the Minister then why he is taking these powers if the Minister of Information is right? Why then do we need powers which pertain to an emergency situation? Well, Sir, let us do away with the courts of law altogether; let us do away with Parliament altogether; let us do away with the facade of democracy, which is all we have here, just in case there may be an emergency situation around the corner! As I say, none of these measures is going to make the slightest difference because the Government never tackles the source of discord; the Government never tackles or even recognizes the existence of legitimate grievances. But for the work of agitators, but for the work of subversive elements, the non-Whites in South Africa would not even know that any grievances exist! Sir. I will return to that point a little later. I want to come to the actual clauses of this Bill. There are two main objectionable clauses in this Bill. Like hon. members of the official Opposition I am obviously in favour of Clauses such as the one that does away with compulsory flogging.

Why do you use the word “flogging” when you know that that is the wrong word?

What would be the right word?

Cuts. There is no flogging under our law at all.

Would the hon. the Minister prefer me to use the word “whipping”?

Yes. You are using the word “flogging” only for overseas consumption.

The hon. the Minister is quite wrong. I personally do not find “whipping” a very much kinder word than “flogging” but if the hon. the Minister prefers me to use the word “whipping” I will do so.

That is the only reason you are using it.

The Minister is quite wrong. To me they connote the same thing. If they do not connote the same thing to the Minister, I am quite prepared to use the word “whipping”. Judging by some of the pictures that I have seen of the results of the whipping that is administered, it is a pretty severe punishment. I am very glad that the hon. the Minister is abolishing compulsory whipping in South Africa. Sir, there are two very objectionable clauses which is the reason why I moved my amendment. The first of these is Clause 6, which the hon. the Minister says he is going to amend to a considerable extent in the Committee Stage but certainly not enough as far as I am concerned, and the second is Clause 7. Clause 6 is the no-bail clause. We have had a no-bail clause in our law until now which was, however, limited to 12 days and which had to be re-enacted every year. The hon. the Minister has come and asked this House every year to extend that clause for another year. He is now doing away with that necessity. This is becoming a permanent part of the law. Bail can be refused not only for 12 days now, but until the prisoner is brought to trial, and to my astonishment I find that the official Opposition is now supporting this clause, which it fought when it was only for 12 days and which it fought when it was a temporary facet of our legislation. It is now being extended indefinitely and it does not have to be re-introduced every year.

I suggested that it should be.

That may be so. but the Minister has given no indication, of course, that he is going to do this. The hon. member, as I understood him, has said that he is going to support this Clause. The official Opposition is opposing the Bill but not Clause 6. I am objecting to Clause 6; I think it is a very bad clause and I am giving hon. members my reasons. I wonder, first of all. if hon. members realize how long it takes for cases to be heard in this country after arrest. I wonder if they realize what this means to the accused who, by the way, according to the Minister, in quite an impassioned speech in the House the other day. are presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. The hon. the Minister told us that that was one of the basic tenets of our system of justice. This, of course, was when he was prohibiting the publication of photographs of people who had been arrested, or even after they had been convicted. He told us that one of the reasons was to protect the innocent, because he said that the accused was innocent until proved guilty. Now, Sir, this does not matter any longer; the man is held indefinitely until this case comes up for hearing and, whether he is guilty or not, he has lost his liberty in the mean time. I should have thought that the main reason for bail and leaving it to the discretion of the court, who always had the discretion, except in the case of certain very grave offences, was that there was no reason why the man should be denied bail. Where the prosecutor was able to satisfy the court that the accused should be denied bail, he could be denied bail. Now that discretion is being taken away from the courts and it is left to the Attorney-General who, if I may remind the House with all respect, generally acts on information given to him by police, so it is not really an enormous safeguard. Sir. I have case after case that I could quote in this House. I have here seven cases that I can quote to the House to show the length of time between the arrest of an accused and the date on which he appeared before the court. I have here the case of a woman, a nursing sister, arrested in May 1964, who is still ...

On what charge?

It does not matter what the charge is. I could not care less, because, to quote the hon. the Minister, a person is presumed innocent until found guilty. Surely even a murderer is entitled to a defence. Surely the hon. member does not think that the accused person is naturally guilty just because he has been accused. I am commenting on the length of time between the arrest and the trial, and it does not matter whether the charge is one of murder or sabotage or housebreaking. What interests me is the length of time, because, after all, such people may eventually be found innocent. This woman is still awaiting trial. Then I have another case of a man arrested in May 1964, remanded to October 1964, remanded again to April 1965 and still awaiting trial. Then I have the case of a person arrested in 14 May, remanded until 19 October, then to 26 April 1965, and still awaiting trial. Sir, I could go on giving other examples. The point I am making is that under this clause, bail may be refused to accused persons, not only in the case of crimes where bail could not be granted in the past, but in the case of other crimes such as crimes under the Suppression of Communism Act and under the Sabotage Act. Perhaps I should remind hon. members on this side of the House not only of the length of time between arrest and trial, but of the very wide definition of the crime “furthering the objects of Communism”. It may mean writing a slogan on the wall; it may mean distributing pamphlets. It might be that sort of minor crime as well as the more serious crime of subversive activities and undermining the State. Sir, that wide definition was fought by the official Opposition in the days when it had teeth and nails with which to fight, but if this is a tooth-and-nail fight, I yet have to see a sign of a tooth and a sign of a nail. At any rate, the point I am making is that, in those days when the official Deposition fought that measure, it also strongly fought against the wide definition of sabotage. Under this new clause which the Minister is now introducing, anybody arrested on a charge of sabotage, which is very widely defined, or anybody arrested under the Suppression of Communism Act, can be held for this long period of time. Sir, I could quote what the Judge-President of the Transvaal said about keeping people in gaol while the police looked for evidence. He said that people were sometimes arrested on flimsy evidence and kept in gaol while the police were scratching around looking for evidence. I want to remind the House of the figures I gave in the debate on the Justice Vote, when one of the charges of abuse of power which I brought against the Minister was that numbers of people were arrested and held for long periods, not under the 90-day clause, but on charges of sabotage and other charges, and never finally brought before the courts, because no charge could be made to stick, and these people were finally discharged. They were kept in gaol month after month. Now, Sir, we are going to increase and intensify this detention of people in gaol without any right to bail. I just want to remind the House that the figures reveal that, during 1963 and 1964, 3,605 people were arrested and held on security charges. Of these nearly one-third were released without trial for lack of evidence against them, and many of them had been in prison for many, many months. Of the 3,605 people who were arrested, 1,802 were finally discharged and found not guilty. That is the reason why I oppose Clause 6, even though the hon. the Minister intends to introduce some sort of relief during the Committee Stage.

Clause 7, which now allows the Minister to keep witnesses in gaol for six months, is, of course, equally abhorrent to anybody who has the slightest pretensions to respecting the rule of law. As I mentioned, last year the hon. the Minister took the power to keep recalcitrant witnesses in gaol for up to a year if they refused to give evidence, but at least there was an appeal to the courts against this decision. In the case of this clause, as far as I can see, there is no appeal. This is the 90-day clause over again in many respects. It is twice as long, of course, or it can be twice as long. If the case does not come up within six months, and the witness is released, I cannot see why the man cannot be re-arrested after his release if the case has still not come to court, so like “90 days” the term “six months” does not mean anything either. I know that the hon. the Minister, when he is accused of abusing his powers by keeping witnesses in gaol for longer than six months is going to say: “But the hon. member raised this matter in the House: she knew that this was implicit in the law; this was no abuse therefore; she knew perfectly well that it was implicit in the law.” The term “six months” does not mean very much therefore. The point I want to make about this six months and its similarity to the 90 days, is the solitary confinement or “incommunicado” which is the nice word which the Minister prefers to use, so I will use it too. The man will be held incommunicado except for a visit by the magistrate once a week. The hon. the Minister apparently has taken absolutely no notice whatever of all the evidence brought by psychiatric experts about the effects of solitary confinement on the minds of people and the unreliable evidence that they may give after having been kept in solitary confinement. Sir, I say that this is obtaining evidence by coercion, by duress, and nothing that the hon. the Minister says about the magistrate makes the slightest difference. He says, of course that he is going to lay down regulations. Well, Sir, I hope that this time at least we will have a chance of seeing these regulations. We were never able to see the regulations that he framed under the 90-day clause. Those regulations were kept for himself and the police force; nobody ever saw them, although during the declared emergency in 1960 the regulations governing detainees in those days were gazetted and everybody could see what regulations obtained in regard to detainees under the declared state of emergency. In this case no emergency has been declared; vast powers are being taken by .the Minister; he is going to frame regulations and we do not know whether we are ever going to be able to see those regulations.

The hon. the Minister talks about protective custody. He says that he has to protect the man before he gives evidence. Why he thinks that there will not be vengeful motives after evidence has been given I do not know, but, of course, I am not suggesting that he should, therefore, keep witnesses in gaol for ever. But I am afraid .that this is a ludicrous explanation. The real explanation, of course, is that the Minister wants evidence, and as to what happens to the man after he has given his evidence, the Minister could not care less. That is .the real truth of that matter.

The hon. the Minister says that witnesses are open to influences; that they might be influenced by others. Sir, will he tell us here and now whether these witnesses are going to be allowed to see their families?

Yes.

Regularly?

Yes.

It is no good for the hon. member over there to tell us that 90-day detainees were allowed to see their families, because they were allowed that privilege on very rare occasions and not as a matter of right at all. At any rate, these witnesses will be allowed to see their families. They will also be allowed to claim witness fees, which amount to about a rand a day. Is that correct?

There are different scales.

There are different scales, presumably related to the different racial groups of this country. Sir, is the hon. the Minister going to compensate people for the loss of their jobs? Because when a man comes out of gaol in this country, especially if he has been held on a security charge, he loses his job as surely as day follows night and if by any chance a sympathetic employer takes him back you may be sure that the hon. the Minister’s Security Police will arrive on the scene and warn the employer that he is engaging somebody who may be a dangerous security risk. Is the hon. the Minister now going to do this in reverse since these people will be State witnesses? Is he going to see to it that those people do in fact get their employment back; that they do not get endorsed out of the towns, as has happened over and over again in the case of these hundreds of people who were held under the 90-day law and then discharged without charges having been brought against them. Perhaps we can get a guarantee from the hon. the Minister in that regard too. It is not going to help, as far as I am concerned; I do not think that this is a power which the Minister should take at all. One tries to get alleviation but as I say it is not a power which the Minister should have at all. Sir, I might say that that was the feeling held by hon. members of the Nationalist Party way back in the roaring forties when they were in opposition and when they were far more sympathetic . . .

Order! The hon. member must not go back to ancient history.

Sir, it is not so ancient; it was only 25 years ago that hon. members on that side were proclaiming that such things were scandalous, that the procedure was a scandal; “that putting people in gaol without evidence in the hope they will become so desperate that they will confess to something or other, is scandalous; these are disgusting measures which are being applied and that is what we object to.” Sir, I could not put that in better language myself, and that language was used by hon. members on that side of the House and by someone who is holding a very exalted position in South Africa to-day. I am tired of saying the same things over and over again in this House and I am sure hon. members are tired of listening to the same thing, so it might be a good thing perhaps if we had fewer of these laws, coming one after the other in quick succession, always with the pious hope that this is the last power that the Minister is going to take, his last territorial claim. He always has another territorial claim. Incidentally, while I am on the subject of what bores me stiff, I am tired of hearing hon. members on the other side say that because I oppose laws of this kind I must be in favour of sabotage.

Of course you are.

Order! The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it.

I might say that I am completely untouched by this sort of nonsensical comment; it does not mean anything to me. I oppose things on principle and to me the principle here is very clear. This is another abrogation of the rule of law in South Africa and therefore as far as I am concerned there is no emergency situation that justifies this. If there were an emergency situation the hon. the Minister has all the powers he needs under the existing Statutes, under the Public Safety Act and other Statutes, under which he could in fact declare a state of emergency and protect the citizens of South Africa against widespread sabotage, etc. As I say, this sort of legislation produces nothing but a chain of action and reaction in South Africa.

You are sorry that you cannot be responsible for passing this legislation.

I am going to conclude by saying that it is obvious that this chain of action and reaction is going to go on in South Africa because the basic reasons for discord in this land of plenty are never tackled, and if one cannot rule by consent one has to go on ruling by the sword and by the gun. The Government is introducing measures which are applicable only in communist states. That is the irony of it all; the measures introduced by the Government to fight Communism are only found in totalitarian and communistic states. Sir, there is an easier way for the Government to do this and that is to take some cognizance of legitimate grievances; to realize that there must be some reason why we cannot obtain the consent of the vast bulk of the population, and at least attempt to introduce alleviating legislation instead of blindly continuing on this path which is no guarantee for the future security of South Africa.

The measure which we have before us and the next measure on the Order Paper amend legislation which has been passed over a period stretching from 1950 to 1964 with scarcely a break, and on each occasion we have been told that these measures are going to enable the Government to deal with the problems facing this country.

To deal with crime.

Yes, to deal with them finally. Sir, the Government has asked for these powers, and hon. members opposite in the recent election—I challenge them to deny it—claimed that the Government had dealt finally with these matters: that it had these matters under control, and yet after this short spell they come and ask for these additional powers. [Interjections.] Sir, hon. members opposite are indignant. I wonder if they told their constituents at that time that a Bill of the kind now before us was going to be introduced within a short while. The fact that hon. members opposite are indignant simply shows that the blow has struck home.

The Minister has stressed the need for additional powers. It has been indicated by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) to what extent we agree with the Bill. I am very glad that certain of the provisions are to be dropped by the Minister. I hope that before this measure is finally passed, the Minister might reconsider his attitude on certain other points. Sir, I am astonished to see that the hon. the Minister claims that all is restful and quiet. He nevertheless states that he requires these additional powers. Sir, events will show whether this is the last piece of legislation of this sort with which we will have to deal. The measures that we have to deal with are obviously not measures which one would like to see. It is the hope of hon. members on this side of the House and I hope of all hon. members that the day will come when it will be possible for us to remove this sort of legislation from our Statute Book. That should be our aim, the aim of all of us in this House and the aim of all good South Africans should be to seek to find a solution to the difficult problems that we have in this country, problems of immense complexity. I believe that that places a tremendous responsibility on the shoulders of each and every member of this House. Each of us carries his or her share of the responsibility. After all, what we are seeking to do is to find a means whereby people of this country can live in peace; a measure which can bring about a harmonious state of affairs. We know that this is a country with a great potential future, provided we can solve the difficult problems which arise from the situation which faces us here. Sir, I am not talking of rebellion. It is necessary that things of that sort should be put down. This side of the House has shown in times gone by that where action is taken which affects the interests of the State, it is prepared to take action, but we must also remember that quite apart from the responsibility which rests upon us for dealing with the security aspect, there is just as big a responsibility that rests upon us all to seek to bring about a situation which will be very different from the unhappy situation which we have had in South Africa over a certain period. [Interjection.] Sir, I propose to ignore that interjection. I am talking quite seriously about the future of this country. Here, Sir, we are piling up legislation on the Statute Book dealing with this problem. It is a matter of great concern to us that the Government finds it necessary to come forward with these measures and finds it necessary to ask for these additional powers.

As far as the provisions of this Bill are concerned, I hope that it will be possible to bring about major amendments in the Committee Stage. The hon. the Minister has referred to certain provisions which he states will be left, but I want to say that it will be our duty to examine critically the powers which exist. It is quite clear from what the hon. Minister has said that there are difficulties facing this country and obviously we have to face them. I express the hope that we are going to find a way to face and to overcome those difficulties and to bring back that harmony to this country which, long-term, is absolutely essential if we are to secure the future of the coming generations. Let us not forget, Sir, while contending over measures of this sort, that we must seek to put measures on the Statute Book that will not only secure the position of to-day but the position of to-morrow. In that respect there is a great responsibility on each and every one of us. The future of your and our children, I say to members opposite, depends on the success which we in this Parliament are going to achieve in the coming years in dealing with the underlying causes of some of the problems which we are dealing with by means of this legislation.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) made a few allegations which I cannot allow to pass unchallenged. In the first instance he said that it was stated by the Government not long ago that we had come to the end of legislation dealing with sabotage and other activities. I do not think that there is the slightest truth in that statement. Indeed, we know that in this busy world in which we are living, the measures which we have to take are living things; they are things which have to adapt themselves to all circumstances. What we have said—and this is the reason for our success— is that powers are given to the Minister and that, if necessary, further powers will be given to him. That is why there is confidence in this Government. There is confidence in this Government because it is prepared to ensure the safety of South Africa. The hon. member said that he hoped the day would come when these measures would be removed from the Statute Book. Sir, that is our hope, too. We would have been pleased if circumstances had made these measures unnecessary. I think the hon. member realizes this fact. But what the hon. member also realizes is that there are circumstances which compel us to place legislation on the Statute Book in order to protect South Africa. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has admitted that there are such circumstances and I am pleased that he has made that admission to the Government. Certain circumstances have arisen over which we have no control. I am sure that the hon. member realizes that this plot which is being hatched, this organization which is being set in motion, which has resulted in the hon. the Minister needing these powers, is not operating only within the borders of South Africa but that these are activities which are going on beyond the borders of South Africa.

I want to ask the hon. member for Germiston (District), with all respect, whether he thinks there would have been any difference if a United Party Government had been in power as far as these dangers which threaten us are concerned.

We would have done far better.

Does the hon. member honestly think that this threat which we are experiencing from beyond South Africa would have been less serious if the United Party had been in power? The only difference would have been, if we had been prepared to forfeit that which was our own, that we would definitely have known that we did not have it any longer, that we did not have to fight for it any longer. This fact would then have made these people more satisfied, but it would otherwise not have made any difference. The hon. member spoke about an “unhappy situation”. The hon. member knows, and hon. members opposite have admitted it, that these circumstances which are so unfortunate, circumstances which we all regret, arose because of our geographical situation, our population situation and the rest of Africa. The hon. member said “we must bring back harmony”. It is all well and good to say “bring back harmony”, but we have certain duties to fulfil. The hon. member also spoke about responsibility. We have duties to fulfil and those duties are, in the first instance, to keep South Africa safe and where attacks are planned against South Africa, to protect South Africa against those attacks.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has said that we are living in abnormal times. He said that there are conditions which have given rise to the fact that we have had to come forward with drastic measures. I am pleased that he has said this; I appreciate it. Sir, because this is indicative of a sense of responsibility on the part of the Opposition. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories went further—I also appreciated this remark—and said that they also wanted to help. There are certain basic tenets which one has to accept and one of these is that the Government of the day has more information at its disposal than the ordinary man in the street. I think that we must also accept the fact that the Government of the day also has more information at its disposal than the Opposition has. The hon. the Minister of Justice has submitted certain facts to us. There is a problem and the hon. members opposite realize that there is such a problem. Hon. members realize that there are witnesses whom we have to use in certain cases, but the lives of these witnesses are in danger. They may, perhaps, want to give evidence but their lives are in danger. We also know that the danger exists that they may be tampered with; we have proof in this regard. We also know that some of them have been killed. Those are the problems we have. I want to ask the hon. member for Transkeian Territories with all respect: If he knows that conditions are abnormal, if he realizes what the problems are and if he wants to assist us. how does he want to assist us? If he is not satisfied with the assistance which we ask of him here—we say that these are the powers which we need in order to protect this country—he must please suggest something better.

Change the Government.

The hon. member himself laughs at the suggestion! I am very much in earnest. If the hon. member wants me to consider seriously what he has said, he must do something about it. He must say: “No, you must not do that; I want to help but I shall help in this or that way.” But they do not do so. I realize that the Opposition are in something of a quandary. I realize that the Opposition are responsible and that they are facing up to these circumstances. I realize that they also want to do something to ensure and perpetuate the safety of South Africa.

We have had the unfortunate position that a great fuss has been made in the Press, particularly in the newspapers which are inclined to support the Opposition, in connection with this legislation. Those newspapers drive the Opposition, as it were, to oppose this legislation. I honestly think that if they analyse their own opinions and feelings they will come to the conclusion that they should not oppose this legislation.

There are two important clauses in this legislation and these are the two clauses which have been discussed thus far. The first is Clause 6, which deals with the question of bail not being granted in certain circumstances, on the authority of the Attorney-General, and Clause 7. I frankly admit that I myself do not much like Clause 7 and I want to confine my speech to Clause 7. I do not want to discuss the merits of Clause 7 but the important principle which it contains. The important principle which it contains is that the freedom of the individual is restricted to some extent. The freedom of the individual is restricted in Clause 7, and we, as lawyers, do not like this fact. In normal circumstances we accept the fact that this is not necessary. I do not want to say that we are in a state of emergency but we are all aware of the fact that the circumstances in which we find ourselves are not normal. I frankly admit that we do not like this state of affairs. We know that in this regard we are interfering with the freedom of the individual which is something which we would not do under normal circumstances.

A great deal has been said about the rule of law with which this Government has apparently interfered from time to time. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories also said to-day that they must protect the rights of the individual. That is one of their tasks as Opposition. It is not only their task; it is also ours. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) also spoke just now about the rule of law which we are supposed to have interfered with from time to time. I should like briefly to deal with the principle of the rule of law and I want to ask, in pursuance of this matter, whether in the light of circumstances as they are, we should continue with legislation of this nature. Mr. Speaker, what actually is this so-called rule of law? It is no more nor less than that the law is our master. This Parliament is the highest authority in the country. This Parliament makes laws in accordance with prevailing conditions. Once this Parliament has made the laws it is for our courts to apply them, and our Judges and our magistrates, all of us, are subject to the same legal principle, namely, that the law is our master. I want to go further; not only is the law our master but it is our only master. No official can give us any commands which are in any way in conflict with our law. It follows then. Sir, that the freedom and property of the individual cannot be taken away from him, except in accordance with the law. That law in terms of which he can be deprived of his freedom and his property under certain circumstances depends upon the laws made by this Parliament. There are certain other characteristics of our rule of law which are so often mentioned, such as, among others, that our cases are tried in public, that our courts are impartial and so forth. I say without the slightest fear of contradiction that I think that our courts are not only impartial but that the integrity of our courts is probably among the highest in the whole world. Not only our Judges but our magistrates in our various towns who have from time to time to apply the laws which we pass here will also have a share in the application of this Bill which is before us to-day. Other than is the case in many countries of the world—not only behind the Iron Curtain —the onus of proof in South Africa is on the State to prove that a person is guilty. But there are certain qualifications to which the freedom of the individual is subject in respect of his own person and property, namely, that no matter how important the freedom of the individual may be, the interests of the State must come before the interests or the freedom of the individual. The interests of the State are the guarantee for the freedom of the individual. If the administration collapses, if the interests of the State collapse, then the personal freedom of the individual also disappears.

In pursuance of this point I should like to quote something which was written recently in an article by Mr. Justice Broome. He said—

That is why I say that when we ask ourselves whether we must interfere with the freedom of the individual, as we indeed interfere with the freedom of the individual in Clause 7, we must of necessity ask ourselves why it is that we have to interfere and whether the interests of the State, on the grounds of which we make this interference, are not more important or are not so important that even the individual has to forfeit his freedom in the interests of the State. That is why I say that when we are faced with this question I think we all accept the fact—and the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has admitted it—that there are abnormal circumstances in regard to which we must consider the interests of the State and not simply the interests of the individual. I say that when we consider the circumstances we must also accept the fact that the individual must forfeit his freedom because the interest of the State takes precedence, even if the individual were to lose his freedom because of this fact. But there are certain things which we must consider in the application of the machinery which we are creating to overcome these circumstances. In the first place, as I said just now, we must accept the fact that the Government is in the best position to pass judgment in regard to the situation. The hon. the Minister has told us to-day about the circumstances as he sees them. He told us something of what is still being hatched beyond the borders of South Africa. He told us something of the dangers which possibly still threaten us and I think we must all accept the fact, the Opposition included, that he and the Government are in a better position to judge that position.

But if now we accept the fact that abnormal circumstances prevail, we must also accept the fact that these things are necessary and that we have to take these steps. All that we must ask ourselves is how far we must go and whether in the light of all the circumstances we are not perhaps going too far. The third qualification which I want to add is that when a government is placed in a position such as this Government is placed, and has to make a choice between the freedom of the individual and the welfare of the State, then it must consider the welfare of the State and not the interests of a political party. I think that in this case this legislation complies in principle with all the requirements. Because the Opposition accept the principle, as we do, that this is necessary, I feel that they ought not to oppose the second reading. We should all ask ourselves how far we should go in the light of all the circumstances.

The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) thinks that we, the Opposition, are in a difficulty, in a dilemma—in fact he said “Die Opposisie in ’n bietjie in ’n penarie.” I want to tell him that every speech that has been made this afternoon, and I include with great respect the hon. Minister of Justice, has illustrated beyond all doubt that it is the Government that sits in a “penarie” and not this side of the House at all. They have come back once again with an attempt to justify the unjustifiable—and this is a very embarrassing situation. They must not expect to get out of their embarrassment merely by alleging that we are embarrassed. We did not bring forward this legislation—we did not bring it to this House. The Government did, and the Government must take the responsibility; the Government must suffer its embarrassment, and the Government must be prepared to take the criticism.

Now, Sir, one of those very reasonable arguments which the hon. member for Ceres was heard to advance, was that in actual fact he did not blame the United Party for the attitude we have taken up on this Bill, but he blames the English-language Press. He said that we are driven by the English-language Press to take up an attitude which really we do not want to take up, which embarrasses us, but which perforce we must take. This is a very interesting contention. We have heard it said in this House over and over again that we enjoy no public support at all. We have it flung at us from time to time that we do not have a newspaper which we directly control. And now, all of a sudden, there is this very close link between us, the disowned, the dispossessed, and the English-language Press, so that we waited for the English-language Press to make up its mind about this Bill, and then willy-nilly we are driven, we are under compulsion. The hon. member for Ceres himself laughs, because he recognizes, I think, that what he said, he said with his tongue in his cheek. He is a good-humoured man, he may even be a good lawyer, Sir, but certainly he has not adhered to the facts when he says that we are driven by the English-language Press. We are driven, Sir! We are driven by the dire necessity to try to explain to hon. members of this most honourable Government that even they can reach the limit, the point of no return—no return, that is if they presume, as they have presumed again this afternoon, and as the hon. member for Ceres has said they do presume, to adhere to the rule of law. How can you continually claim that you adhere to the rule of law, and prostitute on every occasion the very law to which you adhere? How can you do it? When will the honourable Government decide that the rule of law has ceased to exist because they have destroyed it? At what point? How many laws have first to be changed?

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

Sir, may I not deal with any statement made by a speaker on that side?

That point has been made over and over again.

The hon. member for Ceres, I think, recognizes that what he calls “die groot beginsel”, the great principle of this Bill is in Clause 7. That, of course, in itself is a concession, which we accept with gratitude, because as a rule one does not meet with that sort of frankness from members on the Government side.

The hon member is dealing with all sorts of things, but he is not dealing with the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with respect I am dealing with the Bill.

Order! The hon. member must obey my ruling.

I am, Sir.

Order! The hon. member may proceed with his speech.

I want to say—of course we agree that there is a very important principle in Clause 7. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories has made that point in his speech, but then you cannot immediately in the same breath say that, having recognized the importance of this principle, you are going to depart from it, which the hon. member for Ceres says the Government is going into do. If this is a great principle, then it must be adhered to, and surely the principle which is the freedom of the individual, and which the hon. member for Ceres says is important is completely negated by this clause. There is no doubt whatsoever, and I think there can be no doubt even in the minds of the Government, that, in terms of this clause, the individual and his freedom may well be in jeopardy at the moment it is presumed that there was justification for his detention, at a time when there are certain facts, or information assumed to be facts, on which he is detained, and which detention may well turn out to be completely unwarranted. Yet he will have been deprived of his liberty and of his freedom. Nobody, with great respect to the hon. the Minister of Justice, has yet suggested how that damage to the freedom of the individual is to be made good. There is no way, obviously. You cannot lock a man up for six months and then say: “I am very sorry that I did it; I should not have done it.” What you have taken from him you cannot give back to him. That is where the importance of this principle is so very painfully and clearly illustrated— that, having embarked on legislation which enables the Government quite legally to do this, the way is open to the grossest kind of mistake, of error (if not abuse), and surely even the Government will admit to the frailty of human nature—even on their side! Mr. Speaker. I am particularly impressed with that portion of Clause 7 which apparently provides for a person—this person for whom the Government says it has great regard, the individual, whose liberty is important—for that person to be deprived of the said liberty when someone presumes that it is in his interest, the person’s interest. This is a remarkable doctrine. I think it is fair to argue that if it is presumed to be in the interest of a person to deprive him of his liberty under circumstances which in no way suggest that he is an offender—in other words, that he has committed a crime—that the very least that should be laid down is that he will be consulted about .the deprivation of his liberty! Any ordinary person would assume that that would be the case. I can hardly believe that an hon. member, however much he differs from me, will say to me: I think it is in your interest to be sent away somewhere for six months, without saying to me: “What do you think of it?”, without giving me the opportunity of saying, as a person who is affected by this clause, that, regardless of the risk that I may run in remaining at liberty, I prefer my liberty and that I will take the risk. I want to touch on one important aspect of the matter. We are told, for example, that such a person can be detained perhaps because it is presumed to be in his interest, not necessarily in the interest of the State, or even only in the interest of the State, and that then he is going to be paid witness fees. Now whatever that may be—let us assume R1 a day— what does it mean? A man is put away for six months. He has a wife and five children to support, which he can do if he is working. But, if he is detained under this clause, he gets witness fees of R1 a day! What happens to his family? Nobody says a word about that, Mr. Speaker. Surely this is a matter of some importance. One would think that hon. members opposite would have thought of the freedom, of the dignity of the individual. What happens to his job? Should he be released at some time, what happens to his reputation? Is that man doomed to go about for the rest of his life explaining to one and all that his temporary absence from the scene, wherever it might have been, was not due to any fault of his own, but that the State decided that it was in his interest that he should take this enforced holiday, wherever it might be? Is that his position? Mr. Speaker, I think we would understand the position far better if an hon. member of the Government would say: Whether or not it is part of our system, whether or not it adheres to the rule of law or not, we want this power. That is simple language. But to suggest that one can have one’s cake and eat it, that one can respect and maintain the rule of law and introduce a Bill like this, is beyond all human comprehension—certainly beyond mine—and, until somebody on that side gets up to explain how these two opposites can be reconciled, how they can be joined together—ithe rule of law and the abrogation of law—I must prefer my one-man view of it, which is that it is completely impossible, and that all the reasons that we have heard are not .the true reasons for this Bill.

I want to deal very briefly, Mr. Speaker, with the definition which the hon. member for Ceres, a level-headed man whose opinion I respect gave the House this afternoon—during your absence, Mr. Speaker—of the rule of law. He says it means, in effect—I made a very brief translation of it—that the Judiciary must implement the laws of Parliament. Now, Sir, I must say, perhaps with little experience of the law, that I have never heard anything approaching this definition of “the rule of law” and I want to tell you, Sir, that if you, first of all, permit me to do so, and secondly, if time permits, that I have a book here on the rule of law which sets out very concisely a number of opinions of eminent lawyers and I don’t count as one of them of what the rule of law means. So this is not only my opinion that nowhere, I say with great respect to the hon. member for Ceres will he find any definition of the rule of law, which is at hazard here in this Bill, any definition even approximating his—not one! When you say that the rule of law is that the Judiciary—the independent Judiciary of which that hon. member spoke so proudly, and of which all of us speak proudly—is there merely to implement the laws of Parliament and that in saying so, Sir, we can then still claim to adhere as a State, as a nation, to the rule of law is, I think you are straining the point, because surely Parliament makes the laws, as we all know, but the Judiciary is there to interpret the laws. Is that not correct?

What the hon. member for Ceres is proposing when he asks us to accept this definition is that where the rule of law on a certain day has certain limitations in so far as the restriction of the liberty of the individual is concerned, it is proper under that same rule of law for the Parliament of the country, which has established that rule, to produce a new law and that is the end of the matter! How do you have the rule of law if it is at all times at the mercy of the legislator, if there is no norm and no principles to which we all wish to adhere, but it is merely left to the whim of Parliament as expressed by Parliament? [Interjections.] The hon. member did refer to what he called a compromise. He said our law was a compromise between the interests and the rights of the individual and the rights of the State. I maintain that that statement must be completely divorced from the previous statement which is the definition of the rule of law, because the one has nothing to do with the other. Therefore let me deal with this last statement that our law is a compromise between the interests of the individual and the rights of the State. Take Clause 7. To summarize it, the clause would then read, in so far as it affects the individual, that whenever the Attorney-General deems it to be in the interest of such a person he may issue a warrant, and arrest him. Let us examine that. Sir, would you suggest that anyone is in a better position to determine what your interests are than you are, yourself? I maintain that I am in the best position to judge what my interests are, when it comes to my freedom and my liberty and my job, or the protection of my wife and children. The State is not interested in that. So when one talks of the interests of the individual, as the hon. member for Ceres did, it becomes clear that in order to observe that simple rule, unless the person concerned is suspected of being guilty of an offence and then goes through the process of the law, he cannot be detained in his own interests. Nobody can pretend that he is being detained in his own interests. If the State were frank, or the hon. member were frank he would say: We do not care whether it is in the interests of the individual; we say it is in the interests of the State, and he can go and jump in the nearest lake as far as his interests are concerned. That is language which I can understand. But this kind of legalistic argument, at which I am pretty good myself, as a sea-lawyer, does not get us anywhere. Let us face the simple fact that there is in this particular clause, a provision which can in certain circumstances deprive the individual of his liberty regardless of his own interests and regardless of the rule of law.

I was also interested in the speech of the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze). He said among other things: I do not believe our Bantu population disobeys the law; it is a scandalous allegation. In other words, he was trying to pin on to us an allegation that, by and large, our Bantu population is not law-abiding.

That is what the hon. member for Transkeian Territories suggested.

I did not say that. I asked you to use the law-abiding population to help you.

Now you see, Sir, how this statement is turned around. It does a complete whirligig, and in the mouth of the hon. member for Standerton it then becomes an allegation from the Opposition that the Bantu population of South Africa is not law-abiding. If that is, in fact, the allegation he makes, then it is not true; secondly, if it is a scandalous allegation, there remains the denial of the allegation which is that we believe the Bantu population disobeys the law, and conversely, the hon. member for Standerton says he believes the Bantu population does obey the law. From that premise I want to examine the position very briefly. If, by and large, our Bantu population is law-abiding, so much so that any allegation to the contrary is scandalous, why this legislation? Against whom is it directed? Where is the lack of respect for the law? From which quarters are the law-breakers expected to come? The Minister has given us chapter and verse of certain persons who have had to be held in certain cases, and it is perfectly clear that the subversive movement, to the extent that it is being organized from outside and may or may not be taking root in South Africa, is, according to the members of the Government, supposed to have a hold on the Bantu population. Now if that Bantu population is law-abiding, as the hon. member for Standerton says, then surely there is no need for this law, because we already have on the statute book a mass of legislation, some of it very restrictive and some of it on the admission of the Minister of Justice, drastic, but necessary. We have not come here to criticize that; we are here to criticize the present legislation. In other words, on the admission of the hon. member for Standerton, this Bill, or some of its provisions, at any rate, is surely a case of piling Pelion on Ossa. Enough is enough if we need certain laws, we have them, and if the Bantu population is law-abiding, why put this Bill on the statute book? I hope that before this debate ends, we will have some explanation of this phenomenon that you do not need laws—because the Bantu population is law-abiding—but you put them on the Statute Book just the same. This is an absurd argument, I am afraid.

Again, dealing with the hon. member for Standerton, he referred in comparative terms to Algeria and certain incidents there; he said the saboteurs did not deserve the protection the Opposition wishes to accord them. Surely he knows in his heart that we do not seek and never have sought and never will seek to protect the saboteurs.

Look at your history.

We do seek the protection of the dignity and the liberty of the individual. If I must accept the argument of the hon. member for Standerton, it means in effect that a law is justified because one saboteur who otherwise might not have come within the net of the law, justifies it regardless of the fact that thousands perhaps have suffered unnecessarily under it. I thought that in Biblical terms it was the other way around—that it was far better to let one man go unpunished than to inflict punishment on a thousand innocent persons. I do not understand why the hon. member for Standerton, for whose knowledge of the law one has a variable regard, should have come up with that specious argument.

I was very much impressed by the information the Minister gave in his speech, from which it becomes perfectly clear that without certain powers, at any rate, the State might well be hamstrung in the face of subversive activities in South Africa. We have acknowledged that certain powers are necessary, and we have always asked the Minister to tell us the facts about the position. It is remarkable that to-day we heard the statement made by the hon. member for Standerton, that by and large the Bantu poulation is law-abiding—in other words, there is no need to panic as far as they are concerned—and we recall that the Minister has gone out of his way, on several occasions this year, to tell South Africa and the world that the position is well and truly under control, and that the public need have no fear whatever, but that thanks to a vigilant Government and a vigilant Police Force, and thanks to the good sense of our population, the position is tranquil. The Minister said it—he may have said it with his tongue in his cheek, but we have taken it at face value—and if that is the position, one asks oneself why this Bill is brought in at this stage. There has been, I admit, speculation on this side about the reasons why the Bill has been introduced now. I want to say that I think that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary—and if there was any such evidence it would have been adduced —there is only one explanation. The Government has come to the conclusion that the best way to frighten the population of South Africa is to suggest that subversion is growing apace, and that for that reason new laws are needed to curb it.

Order!

Sir, the matter has been canvassed on both sides, and I do not want to detain you on the point. I merely wish to say that the whole purpose of introducing this Bill now, instead of at the beginning of the Session, is to ensure a grand-stand finish—so that when Parliament rises, this impression of the urgent need for this kind of drastic legislation lingers on for a long while afterwards, to drive more and more people into the laager.

Order! That is irrelevant.

You do not think I should continue with that, Sir? (Laughter.) Sir, may I deal with one other point? We have tried to tell the Government the effect of this Bill on public opinion in South Africa.

And the curtain has been drawn already,

Before the curtain is drawn, I think it is necessary for us to consider the impression that we are creating in those countries with which we profess to have a certain friendship. What we ourselves are doing to what is called our image in the outside world is also important. Thus you have our newspapers to-day carrying reports showing that as hard as the Department of Information and our Diplomatic Corps are trying to persuade the outside world, or those countries which are well-disposed towards us. that all is well in South Africa, so reckless and so rapidly the Government shatters that improved image with the legislation which it introduces into this House. Sir, you only have to look at the front page of any one of a dozen newspapers from the world’s capitals—in Europe, in Britain, in the United States—to see the impression that is created in the world.

Order! That point has been raised before. The hon. member must come back to the Bill now.

Then—finally, let me say that we cannot in all conscience accept the Bill as it stands. We have tried to make it clear to the hon. the Minister why we cannot accept it, and I hope that hon. members opposite will recognize that our motives in opposing this Bill, to put it at its lowest, are at least as pure as the motives of the Government in proposing it.

I do not want to devote much time to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel). The Opposition are known for quoting only portions of clauses and not the whole clause. As far as Clause 7 is concerned I want to point out that the hon. member is very worried in regard to what will become of a person who is detained for a period of six months. He harped continually on the question of who was going to determine the interests of the witness concerned. I just want to point out to the hon. member that if he reads Section 215 bis (1) proposed to be inserted by Clause 7, he will perhaps understand the position, but this he has not done. He only read what appeared in the newspapers and although hon. members opposite are not the owners of the newspapers I just want to say in passing that the newspapers prescribe to them what they should say.

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

As I have already said, the hon. member was worried about the interests of the person concerned. He wanted to know what would become of the work of that person and what would become of his family. I should like to reply briefly in this regard. This clause provides—

I want now to analyse what becomes of such a person’s work, about which the hon. member was so concerned. Take a case in which he is intimidated. The hon. member heard the hon. the Minister say in his introductory speech that a few witnesses have been murdered over the past year. The hon. member is not concerned at the fact that witnesses are murdered. What became of the work of those persons?

If the man is dead he will not of course work any longer.

When such a person is intimidated, his life is also in danger. It is in his interests that he be detained. I am sure that it makes no difference then if he loses his employment as a result of his detention because his life is in danger; that is to say, if he loses his employment when he leaves the prison. But this will not happen. The hon. member is concerned about one person who may perhaps be detained in the interests of the administration of justice, but what of all the people who are affected thereby if he does not give evidence and the accused persons are freed and can continue with their sabotage activities? The hon. member himself may well be affected; it may be his child or his wife who is affected, but he is not worried in that regard, [Interjections.] No, the hon. member said that he was only worried about the criminal. He is worried about the criminal but he is not concerned about what will become of the law-abiding public. The hon. member and the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) said that the public did not have the opportunity to consider this Bill because it was introduced too late. I want to remind those hon. members that the public put the National Party in power; they have full confidence in the Government that it will place the proper legislation on the statue book, just as it has done for the past 17 years. The public are satisfied with it. Why now should we ask the public what they think of this Bill, They are satisfied with the Government and they are satisfied with this hon. Minister.

The hon. member for Germiston District also alleged that during the past election campaign we had said that the position had finally been brought under control. Once again they are putting words into our mouths. We did not use the word “finally” and we shall never use it. Not one of us would be so irresponsible as to say that the position was finally under control. No. this Government is a responsible Government. The hon. member for Hospital said that we were in a quandary and that we were trying to extricate ourselves from our predicament. But we are not in a quandary. Does the hon. member think that we would have introduced this Bill if we had been in a quandary?

I am quite satisfied that Clause 7 makes the necessary provision for protecting people who want to give evidence in the interests of the State, and that they will not lose their employment.

As far as Clause 6 is concerned, the hon. the Minister told us that this was a drastic clause and in this connection I just want to refer briefly to what was said by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). The hon. member said that investigations take so long that the period of six months would be extended by a further period of six months. She mentioned the case of a certain woman who committed an offence and was arrested. She said that this matter has been pending for six months now. I asked her what the offence was but she did not want to reply. Why not? Because quite probably it was a serious crime, a crime which falls under the second part of the Schedule. It is absolutely untrue that it takes so long to deal with ordinary cases. Accused persons can †obtain bail. But if the crimes fall under the second part of the Schedule, then bail is not granted. Bail will, for example, be granted in the case of a traffic offence. I am pleased that the Attorney-General will have the discretion to refuse bail when the crime is a serious one. Sir. I welcome this Bill. I want to remind hon. members of the old saying that prevention is better than cure. We prefer to be prepared so that we will have this legislation ready should it become necessary to use it. That is why this Bill has been introduced at this stage and I 1hank the hon. the Minister for it.

The hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) will forgive me if I deal with his remarks when I come to deal with Clause 7 of the Bill. Sir, I want to come to what the hon. member for Omaruru (Mr. Frank) said and that is that this Bill is in -effect a preventive measure and that it is better to have it and to be sure. He said that this was not final; that we would go on, and he agreed with the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) that the law would be adapted from time to time, that it would be added to from year to year to adapt it to our circumstances. Sir, I want to suggest that that is perhaps the cause of this debate and of this Bill here to-day, that the Government has not adapted all our laws to the circumstances of South Africa to-day.

This is not the basis for the hon. the Minister to meet the problems of South Africa. Many members during this debate have spoken about abnormal times. I want to suggest that in abnormal times we must be very careful to see that the temporary evils caused by this abnormal circumstances do not so cloud our judgment that we finally go to the length -of changing the basis of our constitution. Because we are dealing here not just with laws to deal with subversion. You cannot make laws dealing with the safety of the State or the freedom of the individual without dealing with what is basic in our very existence, in our very constitution. Sir, I do not think there is anyone who would disagree with that statement.

The hon. the Minister has described this Bill as a drastic measure. He said that it was meant to be drastic, and I do not suppose that the hon. the Minister will agree with the hon. member for Omaruru that more drastic measures than this are needed to secure the safety of the State, because that is what the hon. member said. I am certain the hon. the Minister does not agree with that.

I said “if necessary.”

Yes, if necessary we must adapt our legislation accordingly from time to time. I want to say to the hon. member for Omaruru that if he is prepared to support this measure, he must also see to it that the Government adapts all its laws to the circumstances of our time.

Then I come to the hon. member for Prinshof. Sir, the thing that appals me about Clause 7, the thing that appals me about this Bill, is that it indicates that the realationship between the law and the people in respect of whom the law is to be applied, has broken down or is on the brink of breaking down.

You know that you are talking nonsense now.

When the stage has been reached in any country when the Government’s solution to the problems of the country is to make laws—that is the Government’s answer to everything; it makes a law about it—when you get to the stage that having decided to take that course of action and you make your laws and you cannot enforce those laws, then there is something wrong, either with the laws, the way in which you apply your laws, or with the method whereby those laws are enforced. There is something wrong somewhere. Sir, if you make laws you have to be able to enforce them. Up to now in South Africa we have always been able to enforce our laws by means of time-honoured processes which have no peer in the Western world. That is exactly what is happening here—and I am not talking nonsense. If this is the stage we have reached, then the Government is telling us, by introducing this Bill that it is not fit to govern South Africa in any other way than by passing laws, and I suggest that they are not fit to govern South Africa if this is the only basis on which it is to be done. The hon. member for Omaruru is quite right there. If this is the basis, this will happen every year and every year the Minister will have to come back with tears in his eyes, as he always does, and say how much it offends him, how much he hates introducing a Bill of this kind but that he has to do it. And, Sir, what is happening in the meantime to that process of law? What is happening to the very principle about which the hon. member for Ceres spoke so eloquently?

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