Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the Minister of the Deputy Minister—I see that the Deputy Minister is here—would have risen to give some justification for these amendments, and to tell us why it was necessary to introduce these amendments in the Senate. Unfortunately I have not heard the hon. gentleman’s reasons for these amendments.

You thought they were not here.

Why did they not get up then? Surely he is sitting here.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, when the original report was presented to this House, we opposed it. The reasons for our opposition were given then and I am not going to repeat them now. I want to make it quite clear that we are not opposed to the setting aside of land in terms of the 1936 Act for acquisition by the Bantu, or for the exchange … [Interjections.] I am going to deal with the amendment; that is what I am dealing with: … or for the exchange of Black spots which are not economically or socially necessary or justified. Our objection then was, and our objection now …

Order! The hon. member must confine his remarks to the amendment.

Yes, I am just saying why I am opposing the present amendment. Our objection then was to the procedure adopted in the Select Committee, in that the people affected were not given a chance of being heard by the Select Committee. One of the grounds we put forward as to why they should be heard—these grounds were put forward in this Chamber as well—was that the maps and plans as set before the public were not the same as those produced to this Assembly.

Order! Will the hon. member please come back to the amendments?

Sir, my point is that the plans now before us have not been seen by the public, and that is our objection.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member must devote his remarks to the amendments.

Sir. I was hoping that the hon. the Deputy Minister would explain why the amendments were necessary.

The hon. member has made that point already.

Yes, but now I have to deal with why I think it was necessary, because this is quite wrong. We do not know why …

Order! I am only concerned with the amendments.

I understand from an official that these amendments were necessary because the English and the Afrikaans texts were not the same. That is the story they give us: The English and the Afrikaans texts are not the same. Now I do not know; I was hoping that the hon. the Deputy Minister would tell us whether any properties are to be affected which were not mentioned in either of the texts. It may be that certain properties were not mentioned in either text. We find, for instance, that the Afrikaans text has to be amended by the substitution of the word “insluiting” by the word “uitsluiting”. Now that makes a big difference to the persons whose properties are affected here. We are going to oppose this because the public have not seen it; the people affected by these amendments will not know what the position is to be. I want to know from the Deputy Minister whether any steps were taken to advise the people who are now going to be affected by these amendments, that they are in fact going to be affected. This is typical of the whole way in which this report has been handled by the Select Committee and in this House, and we shall oppose these amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to reply to a reasonable question. The hon. member says that he discussed the matter with officials and asked certain questions to which he received a reply. He was welcome to come and put the same questions to us. Had he done so, we would certainly have given him the necessary information. This is manifestly an attempt at this late stage, to oppose these consolidation proposals, and, in fact, the Opposition has every right to do so, but I just want to say that these amendments have had to be introduced, as I have already explained in personal discussions, purely because typing, spelling and translation errors occurred.

Policy errors, too.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I happened to be in the Other Place, where such steps are taken from time to time. That is why there is the opportunity for review in an Other Place. The hon. member, as a senior member, probably knows that this kind of thing can happen. That is why legislation is sent to the Other Place, where certain mistakes are corrected. That is nothing new.

May we not know why …

I should like to tell you why this was done. The hon. member who spoke about this pointed out, for example, that certain spelling mistakes had occurred. When drawing up these proposals, this was not discovered immediately. In this connection I want to mention a simple example. The farm “Leeupan” is spelt in the old, traditional Dutch manner—“L-e-e-u-p-a-n”. In this summary it was unfortunately spelt incorrectly; this did not agree with the spelling in the deed of transfer in respect of that property. These small amendments were consequently put right.

Where is “Leeuwpan”? [Interjections.]

If the hon. member would take the trouble to read the original schedule he would see where the places are situated, because according to the maps Leeuwpan has a name and number with the Registrar of Deeds. [Interjections.]

But where is “Leeuwpan”?

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to know where “Leeuwpan” is, let me say that in South Africa, to the best of my knowledge, there are about 20 “Bleskoplaagtes” and “Leeuwpanne”. He may go and look for them if he wants to. This particular “Leeuwpan” is defined in the original schedule. [Interjections.]

Sir, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister where mention is made of “Leeuwpan” in these proposals?

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking purely from memory. I simply mentioned an example. I was not quoting verbatim. I do not have to refer to this verbatim; the hon. member is free to go and look it up himself. He can then go and compare this with the schedule to see whether there are fundamental changes. In its wisdom, the Other Place decided that these corrections should be made. It is solely that recommendation that is now before this House. It is now being requested that these technical mistakes, typing errors and other small errors which essentially make absolutely no difference to the matter, should be corrected.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak about the merits of the amendments; I can only speak about the procedure. But there is something wrong if the Senate is used as a House of review and brings about fundamental changes to a Bill—and I shall prove in a short while that these are, in fact, fundamental changes —and the hon. the Deputy Minister then returns to the House of Assembly and asks us to accept these fundamental changes, while no reasons were initially given to the House of Assembly as to why these changes are necessary; and that is my protest this afternoon. There is something wrong with the relations between the House of Assembly and the Senate and there is something wrong with the attitude of the hon. the Deputy Minister towards the House of Assembly if he allows something like this. Sir, let us take a brief look at one or two of these amendments. Here we are being asked, for example, to insert “Lot 3 No. 3847” after “14059”. This is a completely different land area, that is involved in that.

That is not a typing error.

It is not a typing error. Listen to this, Sir. We are being asked to delete “3 No. 1301” and to replace it by “2 No. 13010, Lot BJ No. 8044, Lot BJ No. 13011”—to amend one and to add four. This changes the whole aspect; this changes the whole matter about which the House of Assembly took judgment, and there is no explanation to the House of Assembly at all. Here is another one: To insert after “180”, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 191, 260, 261, 283, 311, 310. Sir, that is surely an important amendment. It affects the interests of the public, some of our people, and we received no explanation. If the hon. member for Transkei had not stood up and protested, we would not have known what was going on. I think I am entitled to say, with a view to the amendments, and specifically with a view to the amendments, firstly that the hon. the Deputy Minister owes the House of Assembly more respect and, secondly, that we shall have to look at the relations between this House and the Senate to prevent these things happening in future.

The hon. member is alleging that fundamental changes are being introduced here.

Of course. I mentioned them.

Sir, hon. members of the Opposition, who have made it their aim to jeopardize this whole plan, have had the opportunity, from the beginning, firstly to read the full evidence heard by the Bantu Affairs Commission. In the second place, if they had wanted to attend the meetings of the Select Committee, they had the opportunity to study the map submitted to the Select Committee, together with the proposals. They had the opportunity, if there was any objection, to bring their objections to the attention of the Select Committee and to the attention of this House. I have said—and I want to repeat— that these proposals cover no new ground. I have already conveyed that assurance to hon. members verbally. There is no change whatsoever to the land affected by this.

Between what and what?

I cannot mention farm after farm to the hon. member; and I challenge the hon. members opposite to go and identify each of these farms for me. It is surely ridiculous to expect that of me, and this is an obvious attempt just to be difficult. I have gone into that matter with the officials, and I want to repeat the assurance I have already given: There are no new pieces of land being affected here; i.e. there are no new pieces of land that have been added or left out by amendments in the Other Place; they are exactly the same pieces of land which the hon. the Minister mentioned here when he dealt with the matter. But there were certain typing errors; there are differences between the English and the Afrikaans texts, and to put the whole matter right, the hon. the Minister made these changes in the Other Place and gave timely notice of that. This applies in respect of all these individual farms, and it applies to the principle as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry we cannot accept the explanation given by the hon. the Deputy Minister. He cannot say that these are merely typing errors which are being corrected. He cannot tell us that the English text and the Afrikaans text are merely being brought into line and that no properties are affected. I ask him why it was necessary in the eighth line from the bottom to change the Afrikaans by deleting the word “insluiting” and substituting “uitsluiting”? Sir, those two words have directly opposite meanings and if properties were included in the one and they are excluded now, it must affect those property owners. He cannot say that it is just a “tikfout”, and that properties are not being affected. I ask him to explain this.

If the hon. member will be kind enough to look at the English text, he will find …

Read the Afrikaans text.

*Sir, I have explained that typing and translation errors crept in, but read in its context, the proposals remain exactly the same as those approved by this House. Nothing has been added, and nothing has been taken away.

Mr. Speaker, do I understand the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly? In replying to the hon. member for Transkei, he referred him to the English text. Is the English text of what we are now considering different from the Afrikaans text? Unfortunately I only have one copy in front of me, and that is the English text, but it would appear from What the hon. the Deputy Minister has said that the Afrikaans text of these amendments which we are considering now differs from the English. Is this what the hon. the Deputy Minister is implying by what he has just said to the hon. member for Transkei? Sir, he is not replying; I suppose he will give me a reply later on. Sir, I want to come back also to the original. When the hon. the Deputy Minister refers to differences between the two texts, I wonder if he can also tell us this afternoon which is the original. Of those which we considered earlier, which was the correct one? Was it the Afrikaans text, or was it the English text which was correct? Because it is important that we should know, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Transkei. It is important that the landowners should know whether they have been excluded, or whether they have been included in the areas to be added to the Black areas. That is what we are being asked to do now, but the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot tell us this, and this is what we have been trying to get from him. Then, Sir, I must go a little bit further. The hon. the Deputy Minister in his reply five minutes ago referred to the fact that the evidence before the Bantu Affairs Commission was placed before the Select Committee. He knows that that is not so.

Order! The hon. member cannot say that; he must withdraw it.

I beg your pardon, Sir; I withdraw it. Let me say then that the evidence before us when we discussed this in this House was to the effect that the evidence given to the Bantu Affairs Commission was not placed before the Select Committee of this House. In fact, when we asked that it should be placed before the Select Committee, we were outvoted, and by a majority decision we were denied the opportunity of hearing that evidence. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that if we had stayed on the Select Committee we would have had the opportunity of studying the maps. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we did study the maps. We studied them to the best of our ability, together with the memoranda which were presented to us. But, as was pointed out in the debate, the memoranda did not agree with the maps. I am very surprised this afternoon to see only these amendments before us. There should have been a further amendment. What has happened to Nduma Game Reserve in Northern Natal? Is it to be included in the Black areas or is it not? Because there was an error in the memorandum that was put before this House. I am afraid that once again I must agree with the hon. member for Transkei. Here we have a half-baked measure being put through by a half-baked Government at twice the speed that it should be put through.

Order! I just want to warn hon. members that I shall not allow any further repetition of arguments.

Mr. Speaker, a specific question was put to me in connection with the words “insluiting” and “uitsluiting”. Sir, the attitude of hon. members of the Opposition—if I may use the word, and if you rule me out of order I shall be glad to withdraw it—is absolutely wilful. Here bona fide typing errors are being corrected …

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw the word “wilful”.

I withdraw it. For lack of another suitable word, I shall then content myself with saying that hon. members opposite had the chance, while this matter was under discussion, to indicate these differences and to point them out. These mistakes came to light by way of other people and were corrected in the Other Place, but if the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District is going to link up with the hon. member for Transkei in saying that the replacement of “insluiting” by “uitsluiting” is a fundamental difference, then I just want to tell him that I did not find it necessary to read the English Minutes of Proceedings for today because bona fide typing errors were made here. If the hon. member had read this, he and the hon. member for Transkei would have seen that even here in the English text it is stated “to delete insluiting’ and substitute ‘uitsluiting’ ”. He could surely have read it up in the English text and thereby checked for himself whether it was really an ordinary bona fide typing error or a translation error that was just being corrected. That is the complete and absolute truth in connection with the whole matter.

Do you know in which language the State President is going to sign this?

I have been in this House for a much shorter time than the hon. member, but as far as my knowledge of the rules goes, if legislation is approved by both Houses, the State President signs it as approved by both Houses.

Will the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us which was the original text and which was the translation.

I am informed that the original was in English.

Amendments put and the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Amendments accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 77—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, is this the amendment in clause 7 which was moved by the hon. Senator Niehaus in the Other Place in connection with delegation of powers?

Yes.

We have no objection to the amendment.

Amendment in clause 7 agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the Third Reading of this Bill and we have the opportunity to survey the progress that has been made and particularly the progress that has been made during the Committee Stage of this Bill. This is the opportunity once again to attempt to persuade the House that, having regard to the progress made to date, it should reject this Bill at the Third Reading.

The Bill seeks to take way from the courts the power, the inherent right enshrined in the Criminal Procedure Act to suspend sentence even though the sentences are compulsory. In other words, they still have to impose such a minimum sentence, but they have a right in their discretion having regard to all the facts, to suspend part or all, but four days, of that sentence. There is no question that this amendment seeks to do away with the compulsory sentence which we agreed to at the time in respect of those persons who traffic in drugs and sell drugs. We are all agreed, except the hon. member for Houghton, that the pedlars of drugs should receive a compulsory sentence, but the manner in which those sentences should be implemented is, I believe, a matter which should remain with the courts in each individual case. What the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions proposes here is that regardless of life, of human experience and regardless of our great and magnificent legal and judicial traditions, we, this House, are now expected to pretend that the courts, once they have found someone guilty of the offence of peddling of trafficking in drugs, are to be stripped of their very function. This is a function that they have exercised with such distinction in our country. They have done this in the very worst of times and in the very best of times, to the glory of our country and all our peoples. What worries me about this is the hon. the Minister’s pique, his personal pique. The hon. the Minister is headstrong, and the reason for this Bill is the headstrong hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. This thing brewed up during the recess when the courts gave decisions and it was decided that when this Parliament passed the original Act—I call it the “Drugs Act” for want of a better name—it did not exclude their right to suspend part or all, but four days, of the compulsory sentences this Parliament decided persons should have if they peddled drugs as opposed to persons who used drugs. The Press was wrong in their attitude towards those court judgments. The court judgments were what I have said they were, and the Press then took up these judgments and said in leading articles and in their stories that the courts had in fact cocked a snook at Parliament and at the hon. the Minister and this Government. They were wrong, because they did not. This is in fact not what the courts have said. The courts said that Parliament said that there must be compulsory sentences and that they have to give compulsory sentences where they find people guilty of dealing with drugs. They said that Parliament did not exclude the power to suspend those sentences in circumstances where they were merited. As I said in the Committee Stage, when the courts interpret legislation, they assume that Parliament knew the law as it was when it passed the Act. They are quite right. As I said, we did in fact know that that was the law.

Prove it.

Whether that hon. Minister knew it, or whether all his “Ja broer” colleagues here knew it, is not at issue.

Prove it with one quotation.

I gave you one yesterday.

Prove what? We do not go around the place saying what is obvious and what we know. If I were asked to say everytime a Bill came before this House, that I knew that the law in fact in respect of everything else was this, that and the other, you, Mr. Speaker, would call me to order and ask me to stick to the Bill. That is not the point. This Bill is now here because of that hon. Minister who is headstrong, did not understand that the Press, in its criticism and approach was wrong. The Press must also take part of the blame for this, but I suppose they did not know that that hon. Minister would react as he did.

It was what he hoped for.

Whatever it may be, that is the position. The hon. the Minister must not take umbrage so easily when the Press is wrong. The Press has attacked us and it has been wrong on most occasions, but one has to live with it. On this issue, my God … my goodness …

Order!

I beg your pardon, Sir. Let me say that, as far as this issue is concerned, the attacks the hon. the Minister has experienced are nothing compared with the attacks we have to suffer at the hands of the Press. However, if you know that you are right and that they are wrong, it does not matter; it does not affect your attitude. You stand firm because you know you are right. I ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider this.

I have asked the hon. the Minister of Justice, who is now sitting there, whether he would perhaps indicate to the House at this stage, the Third Reading, what his attitude as Minister of Justice is to the taking away of the court’s discretion. As Minister of Justice he has been singularly silent. There he sits; I do hope that he will indicate what his attitude is. Will the hon. the Minister indicate, perhaps whether he will give the House the benefit of his opinion in respect of the taking away of the discretion of the courts? There he sits; we have had from him only a monumental silence. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister, who is also the Minister of Prisons, whether in his capacity as Minister of Prisons, he perhaps has any views as to the effect this Bill will have on the prison population if this Bill becomes law. Perhaps he will indicate whether he is satisfied that his prisons are now going to have to take people for a period of five years where the courts will have to sentence them for this period in respect of every offence relating to trafficking, whether the offence is technical or not, whether the offence is cold-blooded or a technical contravention. What has been happening in our prisons is that people go in for a certain period of time, after which they are released. But the hon. the Minister of both Justice and of Prisons will have to decide how the hard cases are going to be dealt with. Does he nod his head in agreement? It does not help to have an hon. Minister of Justice and of Prisons who does not in any way help the House in making its decisions. The House is entitled to the benefit of his views and of that of his two departments on this Bill. We would like to know, because something must happen, something has got to give. You cannot sentence a person to a compulsory five years’ imprisonment without any regard to the circumstances involved, without someone being able to come in and ameliorate the situation somewhere. The hon. the Minister now nods his head in approval. That means that the decision that is going to be made in all these hard cases is going to be an administrative or executive decision, where they are taking the discretion away from the courts.

The courts should decide in every individual case, not as to whether the offender gets a compulsory sentence—we have agreed to that—but in respect of how and in what manner that sentence should be served. This is the sort of situation we have: Here we have the hon. headstrong Minister of the Interior and of Social Welfare and Pensions showing no knowledge whatsoever of the law as he has demonstrated in measure bountiful during the debate on this issue. He is dealing here with essentially a question of law in our courts, with the implementation of the law, and with our prisons. But he speaks alone. There is no answer on anyone of these aspects from the hon. the Minister of Justice and of Prisons. This is what we get from this Government all the time. The department that is responsible is silent. I challenge the hon. the Minister of Justice now to take part in this debate, to tell us that he approves of this and why he approves of it.

[Inaudible.]

Seeing he won’t I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, before he takes this matter any further, to go and consult with the persons who in fact know what the situation is and what the reality of the administration of justice in South Africa is. He does not have to talk to his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Justice and of Prisons, because he might embarrass him. He must go and talk to those who administer justice, go and talk to the Judge President Who have experience of the administration of justice throughout our country and ask them what they think about this particular Bill. It is the courts which temper in our country, traditionally, justice and the “volkswil” which is implemented here with both reality and mercy. Does the hon. the Minister not ask himself why his colleague has said nothing? The hon. the Minister of the Interior is also a young man and does he not ask himself why his honourable and learned colleagues who practise at the Bar have not spoken here and why they have not supported it? His Deputy Minister has not spoken, but that is not unusual in any event. Nevertheless, he was until he became a Deputy Minister, a practising advocate. There they are. Can we have the benefit of their advice? The last time we asked for it, we got the hon. member for Caledon who spoke instead of the persons we asked for. What I ask the House to consider now at the Third Reading is how we can accept this Bill When we have been precluded by the hon. the Minister’s attitude from having any amendment and any amelioration of this Bill done during the Committee Stage? The hon. the Minister’s attitude was that he was not prepared to accept any amendments and that the Government was not in the mood. “Hulle staan mos vas en is absoluut toe.” That was the attitude of the hon. the Minister expressed during the Committee Stage of this Bill.

What do we find this morning? As expected we find in the Rand Daily Mail an article with the caption “U.P. refuses Helen help on drug law.” What else would one expect from the Rand Daily Mail. [Interjections.] Did someone say something about independent? What is interesting is that the hon. member for Houghton, after the debate in the Committee Stage, felt that she ought to give an interview to the Rand Daily Mail.

You mean to say that she did not say what she did not do here?

It would seem that she did not say what she had to in the Committee. But nevertheless, she was pressed to make a statement to the Rand Daily Mail, which she no doubt did with great reluctance. I have no doubt that she only did it with great reluctance, because I am sure the Rand Daily Mail tried desperately to get hold of someone from this side of the House—the official opposition—to explain what they thought about it. But I can only assume these things, because one can only assume that the Rand Daily Mail is a newspaper.

Order! Is the hon. member discussing the Bill?

Yes, Sir, I am. This is what the hon. member said:

The hon. the Minister said he was not going to accept any amendments. Hy is mos “toe”, as he has always been and as his Government is.

He is not prepared to compromise on principle.

As the hon. member for Houghton said in explaining her attitude:

Yes

Ah, she says “ja”! Now she says “ja”. But is that not typical of the hon. member for Houghton? She is the sole possessor of all the virtue, patience and intelligence. In fact, she said the other day that she was the only person who expressed all the “verligte” opinion in South Africa. Is this really what one has to put up with? Is this really how we deal with a matter like this?

She compromised on principle.

The hon. member for Houghton is prepared to compromise on principle in a matter such as this. But it is quite clear that the hon. the Minister was not prepared to accept any amendment. We voted against the clause.

In these days of consensus, it is wonderful isn’t it, how the words of both the English and the Afrikaans languages can be used, and so many new words which mean the same thing can be brought up from time to time in case someone might think that they mean something different, when they are used in another context. But “consensus” is the word. Sir, if there ever was an issue on which there was consensus then it was on the question of drug and the abuse of drugs in South Africa If ever there was consensus, it was on this Act when it came before the House. My main and incontrovertible evidence of the fact that there was consensus, that we and the Government were at one on this question, was the fact that we were roundly attacked and abused by the English language Press for about six months after we had agreed to it. That, Sir, is consensus, and we have stuck to it and they stuck to it.

But here we have a situation where the hon. the Minister because of his pique— just that, nothing more—now wants to take away the one factor which makes a measure such as the Drugs Act work, namely that our courts can apply the matter. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that consensus, a common approach to a subject like this, has no meaning whatever unless you have your feet on the ground. You do not have consensus as angels in the air or as knights—or whatever the hon. member for Houghton is—in shining armour somewhere with wings up in the air. You have it on the ground. The experience that we have had in the past 18 months is that this measure has worked. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider the matter at this stage. He must not worry what the newspapers say. Let this not worry him. What we decided was what we decided, and it is loud and clear. Our attitude is loud and clear in this regard. But I know the hon. the Minister has indicated that he is completely “toe”. I see the hon. the Minister of Justice is not even prepared to look at this matter.

In these circumstances, at this stage, we cannot support this measure, and we will, in fact, oppose it at the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I think the House has spent some time listening to a rather amusing after-lunch speech by the hon. member for Durban North. He made a rather amusing attack on the hon. member for Houghton. And then, Sir, we heard rather ridiculous remarks from various other members who perhaps knew better when they were in the Press Gallery and not on the floor of this House. It was my unfortunate pleasure to read the full Hansard speeches of all the members of the Opposition side and the Government side who spoke when this Bill was before the House in 1971.

What is unfortunate about it?

The unfortunate part was this: There is nothing that the Opposition has said in this debate which tallies with what they said in the last debate on this Bill in 1971. The only one who has stuck to her guns is the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Houghton attacked that side during that debate and she has attacked them again during this debate. She has her opinion on minimum sentences and I do not agree with her, but at least she stood on her own when this legislation was before the House the previous time. I think the hon. member for Durban North …

I am afraid you are out of your depth, my friend.

No, I think the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is completely out of his depth; I think he is more at home in agriculture. I believe it has some sort of relationship with the way he farms. Sir, I want to read what the hon. member for Durban North said in this House on 7th May, 1971.

*I quote (Hansard, volume 34, column 6187)—

That was his only reference in that regard. Then he went further—

That was all the hon. member said in that connection. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pinelands—I think it is the hon. member for Pinelands—is worried about how the rest of the sentence reads. I quote further—

That is what is involved here. We are not dealing here with a person who uses drugs; here we are dealing with none other than the drug pedlar who acts coldbloodedly. I quote again—

Here the hon. member for Durban North compares the drug pedlar with a murderer for whom there are no extenuating circumstances Now, in the Third Reading of this amending Bill, he comes along and pleads about one thing, and that is that he and his side are the fathers of discretionary powers in the court. It is quite clear that that hon. member never looks at an Act again once it is amended.

†I think it is in very poor taste that that hon. member, in his after-dinner speech, should have decided to attack the Minister personally. He said he was worried about his personal pique and pointed to his head. He said he was a headstrong Minister and that he did not understand the law when he made it in the first place. Speaking as a junior member of this House, I do not feel that that is the right way to approach such an important amendment as we have before us today. There was much laughter when the hon. member spoke, and especially when he spoke about the hon. member for Houghton. There was a great deal of amusement. His after-dinner speech found many listeners on the Opposition side, Sir. What was his biggest problem? He said that the prison population would grow to such an extent that the gaols would not be able to hold all these people. Furthermore, he said that the administration of these gaols would then rest with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Social Welfare, but this matter is dealt with under quite a different provision in the previous Bill. Provision is made for that. That man lands up in gaol, having used drugs and perhaps having peddled them at the same time; the hon. member is quite right; he can then be given relief at a certain stage and be rehabilitated, but we are not dealing with those people. We are dealing with the pedlar of drugs, and I think it is unfair to attack this Minister who nut this measure through parliament in 1971 and who on this occasion is tightening un the law to see that the people who actually peddle drugs do not get away with their criminal acts, because what they do is to ruin families and young children. Sir, it is quite obvious from medical reports that substances like LSD do not only create flights of fancy, as was stated in the paper last night; they also cause permanent damage: they cause changes in the chromosomes, and mothers who have taken LSD can give birth to deformed children. Sir, these are serious matters, and when dealing with a matter like this in this House we do not need after-dinner speeches.

Order! I should be glad if the hon. member would refrain from using the term “after-dinner speeches”. What does he mean by it?

Sir, I just want to refer to one or two other minor matters raised by the hon. member. He referred sneeringly to the will of the people. The Opposition often refers sneeringly to the will of the people as if it were only the will of the National Party. I want to tell the Opposition today that if they have ever barked up the wrong tree, then they have done so in regard to this drugs measure. I want to tell them that they can stand barking up this tree as long as they want to, but they will achieve nothing thereby. The hon. the Minister introduced a measure here in 1971 and on that occasion he had the support of South Africa and by means of this amendment he again has the support of South Africa in the interests of the youth of South Africa and not in the interests of one or two people— not because he is arrogant and wants to introduce an Act here which is to his own taste only. Sir, we on this side ask the hon. the Minister not to accept any further amendments to this measure. In fact, we go further and we ask the hon. the Minister, if it should appear in future that further amendments are necessary, to come back to this House and to take even stronger action, because if South Africa does not take the lead in eliminating the drug pedlar, we shall, as far as our youth is concerned, regret not having done so in future.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Caledon for springing to my defence in this gallant fashion. It is very kind of him indeed. Sir, I am not going to spend any time on the hon. member for Durban North, because towards the end of this session I have really begun to feel quite sorry for him. He has had what I can only call a disastrous session. [Interjections.] My hon. friends’ raucous laughter is unfortunately not going to disguise the unfortunate part of the beginning, middle and end of this session which the hon. member for Durban North has brought to a sad close today, and I am going to leave him to contemplate his navel sadly like a Yogi. I am, however, going to give the hon. member the secret of my success with the Press, which seems to drive him to distraction. The real truth, Sir, is not that I am so great; it is just that the official Opposition is so awful; it is as simple as that. It is just the contrast between the way in which the official Opposition handles measures in this House, together with their lack of consistency and lack of principle, and my own attitude in this House that makes me appear perhaps rather more important than I am.

Sir, let me now come back to the Third Reading of this Bill. I opposed this Bill at the Second Reading; I tried unsuccessfully, and without the help of the official Opposition, as the Rand Daily Mail correctly reported this morning, to get amendments accepted at the Committee Stage in order in some way to lessen the damage of clause 3. It has, I have always understood, been the usual practice. One cannot talk of a consistent practice because that does not exist with the official Opposition, but it has in the past, I understand, been the usual practice that in the Committee Stage of Bills to which they have objected at the Second Reading the United Party have tried to get some amelioration of the clauses to which they objected. Not however in this regard, and only for one reason, because I happened to move the amendment, and I happened to call for the division. It is just pettiness in the extreme on their part. It is certainly not considering the common good in this case.

However, the hon. the Minister did not see fit, unfortunately, to accept my amendment and we are now in the Third Reading of the Bill and quite clearly I am going to vote against it, as I have done during the Committee Stages and against the principal Act as well, as the hon. member for Caledon has pointed out. One of the major reasons, as was clear from the amendment I moved at that stage, was because that Bill at that time decreased the authority of the courts. It removed the discretionary power of the courts of law and of course the Bill today, the Third Reading of which we are now considering, still further reduces the discretionary rights of the courts. The hon. member for Caledon has said that this Bill is concerned only, in the first instance, with drug pedlars, dealers in drugs. That is correct if one looks at the face value of the Bill, until one again examines very carefully the definition of “dealer” as far as the possession of certain drugs is concerned, and as I pointed out in the Committee Stage, the possession of what I am told is a relatively small quantity, a quarter of a pound, I have now ascertained, is deemed sufficient to regard a person to be a pedlar. As I pointed out, the onus of proof of innocence is on the accused and in the case of the many hundreds, indeed thousands, of people who are charged in our courts of law with this crime, they are undefended and the onus of proving their innocence is going to be very difficult for them. I envisage, as the result of this amending Bill, that hundreds of really genuine users, rather than, pedlars, of dagga are going to be sent to gaol for five years, because that is the minimum sentence on conviction on the first offence. I consider that an extremely harsh penalty indeed. I am very sorry that the hon. the Minister would not consider the amendment, which would at least give a person the chance of getting a suspended sentence on a first conviction, on a first contravention of the law. Well, that has now been accepted by the Committee and there is nothing more that can be done about it.

I can only ask the hon. the Minister whether he has read this report which I have in my hand, which is the second report of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, which was Pres. Nixon’s official commission. This is the second, and I believe the final report, of this commission. Now, as I said before, nobody can consider these experts, who have sat for years, doctors and other experts, senators, congressmen, etc., examining and taking evidence throughout the length and the breadth of America on drug abuses, as being an amateur commission, and nobody can consider them as being representatives of a permissive society. They have come out with a very extensive analysis of the use of drugs of all kinds in the United States, including marijuana, which is dagga, and all the hard line drugs. They are all discussed here, including LSD, heroin, cocaine—the lot. The first recommendation which they make is that the possession of marijuana for personal use would no longer be an offence but marijuana possessed in public would remain contraband, subject to summary seizure and forfeiture. The reason they came to this conclusion and recommendation was because on considering all the expert and medical advice which they could obtain they came to the conclusion that one cannot consider the use of marijuana or dagga in the same category as the hard line drugs. As I say, they are not asking for the legalization as far as public possession is concerned—that would be trafficking in it. However, for private use they do ask that the penalties be removed.

Did they not come to that conclusion because it is so prevalent in America?

Oh no, if they did come to that conclusion because it was so prevalent in America, many other crimes, I promise you, would also not carry a penalty.

But what did they say in the report?

No it has nothing to do with the prevalence, I promise the hon. the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. It has more to do with the fact that they distinguish between the harmful effects of marijuana on the one hand and hardline drugs on the other. That is the one reason. In fact, that is the main reason, because expert opinion has led them to this conclusion.

I do not know why the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept expert opinion like this. The recommendations of the American Medical Association, the recommendations of the Wootton Commission also on drug abuse and the recommendations of the Canadian Ledain Commission are similar in this regard. These countries are as much concerned about the harm which the abuse of drugs is doing to their young people and populations as we are. They may be permissive in certain senses in contrast to South Africa, but I can assure the hon. the Minister that as regards the abuse of drugs, they too are extremely perturbed. The hon. the Minister will know that the strongest possible measures are taken to detect drug smugglers and drug pedlars and to bring these people to book. Here we have this expert commission making these recommendations and particularly because of our indigenous inhabitants and the fact that I am so concerned that thousands of Coloured and African users of dagga are going to land behind bars for five years as a result of this measure, I do ask the hon. the Minister to give this matter his earnest consideration during the recess and to see whether he will not rethink this. I am only concerned now with the use of dagga. As I have pointed out to him, although he may think and some people have stated—on what medical grounds we do not yet know—that our dagga is so much more powerful than dagga or marijuana found for instance in the United States of America, these experts show that dagga and marijuana is imported from all over the world and used in that country.

I know it is too late at this stage in this session, but I wonder if the hon. the Minister will consider studying these reports and rethinking this matter, because of the really serious consequences in our population and particularly, as I say, our Black and Coloured people who far outnumber the Whites in the use of dagga.

I do not think there is anything further that I have to add to what I have already said at the Second Reading and the Committee Stage and I will vote against the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the arrogance of the hon. member for Houghton becomes worse with almost every speech that she makes in this House and her exhibition today was quite unbelievable. Does she really think that she is as good as she tries to make herself out to be? Quite frankly, if she does, she is obviously beginning to believe some of these completely exaggerated statements of her young Progressive admirers.

I do not wish to deal at any great length with what she said. She did not contribute very much to this debate other than once again to plead for a soft line on dagga. I made it quite clear yesterday that we on this side of the House did not share her view on this question of dagga being a drug on which this House and the country should take the soft line which she suggests. I hope that the hon. the Minister will not listen to what she has had to say. The hon. member for Berea will, however, deal at greater length with it. What is of concern to us on this side of the House is the amendments which the hon. the Minister is introducing, the amendments to the principal Act which if accepted, will prohibit the courts from exercising the discretion which they have been able to exercise up to now, namely to suspend sentences in appropriate cases. We have no quarrel with him or the Government on the imposition of a minimum compulsory sentence for convictions under the original Act because we regard this as being a very serious offence indeed. What we do consider is that the courts should in appropriate cases, having imposed a compulsory sentence, continue to have the right to suspend sentences where they consider it to be appropriate. I gave the hon. the Minister examples of situations which can vary from case to case but he has chosen not to reply to this argument either at the Second Reading or at the Committee Stage and he presumably will not answer it now. He will not answer it, because the argument is unanswerable. It is no good for the hon. the Minister to say that a cold-blooded pedlar should receive no mercy, because we agree with that. The cases which I have brought to his attention are not those of coldblooded pedlars but cases where possibly the person may have committed the crime, as I have pointed out in the example of the Shangase, where there may have been duress or intimidation. There may be technical guilt as well. All these factors are to be taken into account in determining whether or not the sentence should be suspended in whole or in part. The hon. the Minister is now making it impossible for judges to take into account these varying circumstances. He has made out no case whatsoever for it, and we on this side of the House are as determined as we were in the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage to vote against this Bill also at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading debate and during the Third Reading debate on this Bill, the hon. member for Houghton referred to the question of dagga. I think she virtually repeated some of the quotations which she used in the Second Reading, but in a few brief moments I wish to contrast the Prog-missive approach of the hon. member for Houghton with the pragmatic conclusions of the official Opposition in regard to dagga. The hon. member for Houghton discoursed learnedly on the Canadian report, on the Broughton report and on the Nixon Commission. She is not the only member who has read these reports. Our only wish is that she has read them more carefully than she has read the report of the Schlebusch Commission. I want to draw her attention to the fact that perhaps she may be aware of the fact that in conclusions regarding dagga, five of the thirteen members, the hon. Tim Lee Carter, the hon. Harold E. Hughes, the hon. Jacob K. Javits, the Hon. Paul G. Rogers and Mitchell Ware, J. D., expressed their reservations in regard to the findings of the commission in so far as dagga was concerned. I just pass that on for the hon. member’s information.

It is a pity your party’s members on the Schlebusch Commission did not do the same thing.

I want to come back to the hon. member’s remarks in the Second Reading debate where she said, and I have her Hansard here:

I submit that that is an inconclusive conclusion.

I briefly want to quote some other authorities too. Firstly, I would like to refer to a report brought out in Great Britain as far back as 1968 in which they admit that there are still a number of imponderables. This is the most important fact. They say—

That is dagga—

Then I want to come back not to an American, Canadian or British report, but I want to deal with the International Narcotics Control Board. Surely, this is the body which co-ordinates data on this matter and which decides what is best for the world with regard to recommendations concerning narcotic drugs. This is what they said in 1968 in paragraph 27 of their report—

Then, three years later, the same body, the International Narcotics Control Board, stationed in Geneva, said this under the heading of “Cannabis”—

Finally, as late as 2 October, 1972, the journal of the American Medical Association published an article entitled “The Toxic effects of Chronic Marijuana use”, and it points out that a man by the name of Campbell, and other, have demonstrated cerebral atrophy in ten individuals who had smoked marijuana from three to eleven years. In conclusion, I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton: Does she condone the use of a substance which leads to cerebral atrophy?

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to members who have participated in the debate that I listened with great interest to the various standpoints which were adopted here. The hon. member for Berea talked exclusively about the danger of dagga. I want to support him wholeheartedly in everything that he said in regard to this matter. We, too, believe that dagga is dangerous, not only as the starting point of a step leading to destruction, but also in itself. We could quote numerous examples, but I just want to quote one, namely what Professor Paton said. This is not the Paton whom the hon. member for Houghton is always quoting. Professor Paton said that if one were to inject any person intravenously with dagga extract, it would have precisely the same effect as LSD. These are the facts as they stand. This being the case, one does not play with such a dangerous substance, but accepts in practice that it is a dangerous substance and one deals with it as such.

The hon. member for Musgrave said that I am making it impossible for the courts to consider extenuating circumtances, as in the cases which he mentioned, which were very clear examples. I shall furnish him with a full reply in that regard when I come to the last part of my Third Reading speech.

First I want to deal briefly with the hon. member for Houghton. I want to assure her that she is the person Who has, ab initio, adhered to her standpoint in regard to this Bill as well as the principal Act. Her standpoint is that we are immediately going to charge thousands upon thousands of people because they are going to be charged with the use of and dealing in dagga, and that we are going to fill our prisons with them. The facts indicated by statistics are that not even 1% of all accused over the past 18 months have been charged with dealing in dagga. In other words, her thousands will dwindle to scores in regard to this matter. I repeat for the benefit of the hon. member who is always so concerned about the non-Whites in South Africa—I am worried about them no less than she—that this Bill protects the non-Whites just as it protects the White. It protects the non-White in the same way. It protects the non-White against being exploited by the moneymakers in his own ranks in the ranks of the Whites, or by anyone who sells dagga to him and who wants to destroy his brain and his spirit in that way. It is intended to protect him as much as anyone else. Then she says that the users of dagga are now to be punished by this provision. The user will only be punished if he is a pedlar. If he is a pedlar and at the same time a user, the rest of the provisions of the Act come into operation, which provide that we may at any time remove him from prison and take him to a rehabilitation centre where he may undergo rehabilitation and be rehabilitated. [Interjections.] I asked my department to bring me 115 grams of dagga. I have seen this amount of dried dagga in a packet and I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that it is more than the tobacco which any normal pipe smoker would have in his possession from day to day. It is quite a substantial amount. The fact that a person has such a quantity in his possession is not in itself an indication that he is already guilty. He need only furnish an acceptable reason for having so much in his possession. This, too, I told the hon. member yesterday and I do not want to go into this matter any further.

I come now to another argument. The member referred to the commission in America, to experts. I now want to ask the hon. member whether she endorses the recommendations of that commission.

Yes, of course I do.

Fully? She is therefore in favour of the possession of dagga for personal use not being punishable in South Africa. Am I right?

I have not gone into the details of this report.

No, the hon. member must not run away now. She quoted that passage specifically, that it has become part of modem life. After conducting a thorough investigation into people who had dagga in their possession for their personal use, that commission recommended that it should not be punishable in any way. That, then, is the recommendation she wants me to accept. I now ask the hon. member in all honesty, whether she as an honest person endorses this view in regard to South Africa?

I think the using of drugs should not be an offence as far as dagga is concerned.

In other words, it should be possible to use dagga safely …

I am not asking for complete legalization, but I do not want the user subject to a penalty … [Interjections.]

I understand very clearly. She says that we should not legalize dagga, but I want to repeat the she endorses that a person who possesses dagga for his own personal use should not be penalized in South Africa.

That is right.

She endorses this and I am grateful that we now have it on record. I wanted us to hear this standpoint clearly from the hon. member herself. Now the strangest part of it all is that the hon. member is asking me, as the Minister responsible for this matter in South Africa, to accept the report of the American expert, while President Nixon, who appointed that commission and who selected those experts himself, did not accept that report. He even went so far as to reject the report.

The penalties in the courts have changed considerably.

In regard to the possession of dagga, not in regard to drugs and dealing in drugs. This Bill deals only with the dealing in dagga and has nothing to do with use. The hon. member is off the subject. The fact remains that President Nixon himself did not accept this report. The hon. member for Houghton, however, recommends to me here in South Africa that I should accept the report which the appointer of the commission himself did not accept in his own country. Now, I know, and I have often made inquiries about this, and I have also been told this from many sources when asked why that recommendation was made, that it was made because they did not see their way clear to opposing the public opinion of the permissive American community. Public opinion in America says: “Legalize marijuana”.

What about the courts? They are no longer imposing these harsh penalties.

In regard to the use of dagga, yes, but I am talking about dealing in dagga. The hon. member comes back to the wrong subject everytime. I just want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that I understand her standpoint. I accept that she is against this and that she will vote against it. I am grateful that we have it on record that she is in favour of a person legally being able to possess dagga for his personal use in South Africa. I think that it is good that we should know that.

Now I want to come to the hon. member for Durban North and the argument he raised, and also to the hon. member for Musgrave who spoke along the same lines. The first argument by the hon. member for Durban North is the old argument, namely that it is an inherent right of the courts to suspend sentences. I want to tell the hon. member that if this were in fact true, then he need not vote against this clause. This clause has nothing to do with the inherent right of courts. This clause amends section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Act. If the Criminal Procedure Act is not the Act which bestows this right on the courts, if it is an inherent right according to the hon. member, then how can this matter affect the situation? After all, here I am only making section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Act inapplicable here. Hence my argument that the court’s right to suspend is entrenched in the provisions of this section; and the courts receive right exclusively as a result of the fact that this Parliament has entrusted it to the courts by way of that legislation. This is therefore not an inherent right. It is a right granted by the legislature to the courts, in terms of those provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act. If that is true then this legislature is also entitled to withdraw those same provisions and nullify them in cases where it feels that this may be essential. This is my reply to the hon. member.

But now I want to repeat what I said on the previous occasion. In 1971 the Opposition did not realize that section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Act would apply to these provisions.

Nonsense.

Today I am going to present proof of this, after having been able to investigate the position. Section 6 of the original principal Act does not deal with dealing in drugs, but with the club owner on whom certain obligations are placed to inform the police when he is aware of the fact that trafficking in drugs is taking place in his club. In the discussion of that section the main speaker of the Opposition, the hon. member for Durban North said (and I quote from Hansard, 1971) column 6198—

What is being referred to here is the club owner—

This is in regard to section 6—

This is the section in the principal Act dealing with the extenuating circumstances. In other words, here he is very clearly advocating that the section 6 contraventions should be included under the section in the Act dealing with extenuating circumstances, to section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Act. I therefore allege that the hon. member was not aware of the fact that extenuating circumstances could result in suspended sentences for the club owner in terms of section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Act. But this case is made even more difficult by the rest of his speech on this same occasion. Just listen to what the hon. member went on to say. He had been speaking about the club owner—the hon. member must listen now—and then he went on to say—

There must be no extenuating circumstances for the drug pedlar. He must receive a prison sentence. That is beyond all doubt. But in regard to section 6 offences, in which the club owner who may experience such problems is concerned, he does in fact find extenuating circumstances. That is why he advocated that the section 6 people be included in the provision made for extenuating circumstances in accordance with section 7 of the Drugs Act. But the drug pedlar, an offender in terms of section 2, need not be included. As he said there, there should be no mercy of any kind for the cold-blooded drug pedlar.

Sir, I want to let this standpoint suffice, and I await proof to the contrary by way of a quotation. I want to let this standpoint suffice, that in 1971 the Opposition did not realize for a single moment that the provisions of section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Act would be applicable to this. Many people might believe the hon. member but it will be heavy going. The hon. member for Houghton attacked the United Party time after time on the minimum penalties, their cruelty and the unapproachability of the Government in this regard. And the Opposition never once used the argument in their defence that the courts could apply extenuating circumstances and impose suspended sentences in terms of section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is such an obvious argument. They could have routed her with it at once if they had realized it at that stage. Sir, when they gave us the original power and agreed with us, they were under the impression that it was not possible to make provision for extenuating circumstances and suspended sentences, otherwise someone on that side would at least have used that argument against the hon. member for Houghton.

That is not true.

Many people may believe you, but I do not believe you; I want to be very honest.

The hon. member for Durban North said that it is due to my own stubbornness that I want to force this legislation on to the Statute Book now. He said that I had been influenced by newspaper reports and by the way in which these were presented. I want to give him the assurance that the moment we realized that suspended sentences could be imposed in respect of people who were dealing in drugs, I immediately adopted the standpoint, and said that it had not been the intention that those people should receive suspended sentences. This has been the case from the beginning. We were of the opinion that the suspended sentences should be applied in respect of the user, the person who had been forced into it, the addict, the person whom we could rehabilitate. But we never felt that there should be suspended sentences for the unscrupulous pedlar who made money out of these people. For that reason I immediately adopted the standpoint that as soon as the opportunity presented itself I would immediately avail myself of that opportunity to rectify the position, as it is now being rectified here. The hon. member is giving me a great deal of credit when he says that it was solely as a result of my stubbornness that this position is now being brought about. This Bill, as it now appears here, was of course submitted to the Cabinet, as is the case with all Bills. The Bill was approved there, in the presence of all the Ministers present; subsequently it was submitted to our caucus, in which all our practising advocates have representation, and where they discuss such matters freely. It was approved there, and I can state today that I am standing here with the unanimous support of the full Cabinet and the full caucus for this Bill. There was not a single contradictory voice. The hon. member is giving me a great deal of credit when he says that I, as a result of this stubbornness, have been able to force this measure on an entire caucus and an entire Cabinet. He is giving me a great deal of credit when he says that I was able to do this as a result of a personal standpoint.

Sir, I want to deal with another matter. The hon. member for Musgrave mentioned certain cases and said that in respect of such cases there may be extenuating circumstances. He said that we were now depriving the courts of the right to take such extenuating circumstances into account in such cases and in this way, therefore, to impose a lighter sentence on these people. I want to reject this immediately. The Bill, as it reads at present, retains that full possibility, even after this amendment has been passed. Allow me to explain what I mean. The penalty for a drug pedlar is, for the first offence, a minimum of five years and a maximum of 15 years. For the second or subsequent offence the minimum sentence is ten years and the maximum sentence 25 years. Now, it is my contention that apparently the way we on this side feel about this matter differs from the way hon. members opposite feel in regard to how serious the offence is. My feeling is this: When a pedlar deals in drugs, and he is convicted of having cold-bloodedly done so, why should he then receive the minimum sentence? In my opinion he may then be given ten, 12 or 14 years. If the court finds extenuating circumstances, similar to those which the hon. member for Musgrave has in mind, the court may reduce that sentence to seven or eight years, or whatever period it may wish, until it reaches the minimum of five years. We on this side regard five years as being a realistic minimum. The Opposition, with the standpoint they are now adopting here, accepts a minimum sentence of four days for a drug pedlar. This is the minimum sentence which they are now, in effect, prescribing, for if we were to accept their recommendations, the court would be able to suspend a sentence, with the exception of four days. That is the difference between us and them in this respect.

Why do you misrepresent the argument?

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

Mr. Speaker …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word.

Mr. Speaker may I address you on this?

No; the hon. member must withdraw the word.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; if the hon. member does not say that he deliberately misrepresented …

Order! No, the hon. member …

He is saying merely that the hon. the Minister is not giving a correct interpretation.

I understand that very well, but the hon. member must withdraw the word “misrepresent”.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; I did not say that he deliberately misrepresented our argument. I merely said that he was misrepresenting our argument.

It has been ruled from the Chair that the word “misrepresent” is not parliamentary.

Mr. Speaker, in view of your ruling, I withdraw the word. [Interjections.] Why do you misstate our argument then? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member can understand Afrikaans and would listen carefully, he would hear what I am saying to him. We are saying that in effect the minimum penalty is five years. The Opposition is in fact saying, through their standpoint, that suspended sentences ought to be available for the drug pedlar; and in practice the sentence may be suspended to a minimum of four days. The court has to impose the minimum sentence of five years and may then suspend the entire sentence except for a period of four days; in that case it may not suspend the sentence completely. The attitude of the Opposition means by implication that the effective minimum penalty for a cold-blooded pedlar could be four days, and that is the difference between the two parties in practice. The fact remains that sword of a suspended sentence remains hanging over the head of the drug pedlar, but if he is not a South African citizen and leaves the country immediately, then that suspended sentence is not worth the paper it is written on. Sir, we on this side regard this matter in a more serious light than the Opposition. We believe that this contravention is such a serious one that the minimum sentence of five years should in reality be five years. The maximum penalty is 15 years and the minimum five years. But in our opinion, that five years must in reality mean a minimum of five years. For the Opposition the five years minimum becomes the maximum, and the minimum becomes four days because the rest may then be suspended.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Does the hon. the Minister imply by what he has just said that he considers that the courts did not act properly in the many instances in which the courts themselves decided to impose suspended sentences?

No, I am not casting any reflection on the courts to the effect that they acted improperly. I am merely saying that in 1971 the legislature did not state clearly enough how strongly it felt in regard to this matter, and that it is doing so clearly in this amendment; that is all I am saying. When the legislation was passed in 1971 hon. members opposite thought, as we did, that they were speaking in the same strong terms as I am speaking in today, for they were then not aware of the suspended sentences. I repeat this, and I am still waiting for the proof to the contrary if it is not true.

Nonsense!

The English-language Press then berated them for six months on end, and now they have found this loophole to enable them to get into the good books of the English-language Press again by saying: “We knew it all the time”, and for that reason they are now opposing this Bill. Sir, I have the greatest respect for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but why did no one on his side use that argument in defence of their standpoint when they were attacked by the hon. member for Houghton?

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is the hon. the Minister unaware of the fact that the United Party distributed an aid memoire at that time, which dealt, amongst other things, with the very question of suspension of sentence?

If that is the case, then I want to say that hon. members on that side let their party down very badly in this debate, because I advanced this argument from the very first day, and no one on that side referred to it. It was my first argument in my Second Reading speech. If it is true what the hon. member is saying, then hon. members opposite let their party down very badly, for they could have used this argument a long time ago and proved it. [Interjection.] That pamphlet was drawn up after the Bill had been piloted through. I persist in my argument that this matter of minimum sentences has been debated in this House for a long time; the hon. member for Houghton attacked the Opposition on their attitude in regard to minimum sentences, and if they had had this idea in the back of their minds, then surely it is only logical that one of the practising lawyers opposite would have risen and would have said to her: “Why are you kicking up such a fuss about the minimum sentences? Surely the courts may suspend those sentences”. Sir, I am waiting for one single quotation from Hansard to prove to me that that was their attitude in that debate.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? What would the Minister have done if we had drawn his attention to that specific right of suspension?

Then I would immediately have said that we should eliminate that loophole. Sir, now I have heard a very interesting argument. In other words, the Opposition wants to imply that they were aware of this loophole, that they did not want to reveal it to us, so that they could get away with a piece of dishonesty. This is now their new excuse. Sir, it is a very thin fig leaf; their comfort is very slight. I want to close with this idea: The hon. member for Durban North quoted this passage here and argued about the clause 6 cases, the club owner, how the Minister should please consider extenuating circumstances, and how he should include his case under clause 7 of the Bill, which makes extenuating circumstances possible in respect of the consumer; but in the same breath he said that we did not want to include the drug pedlar here because he was in a totally different category. That proves to me that the hon. member was not aware of the position, but the same suspension clause is applicable to clause 6 as well. Why is the hon. member advocating that it should be included if it was applicable, and he was satisfied with it? Why? The problem is that that shadow Minister of Justice of the United Party himself does not understand and appreciate the problem, and now he is trying to get out of the poor advice he gave to his party at that stage, by professing here that he had known about it, and had not dealt with it. But I want to go further. I want to say something in conclusion to the hon. member in regard to this matter. He went back to 1971 and said that we had reached a joint decision there, and he said: “What we have decided in 1971, we have decided”. He began this 1973 session by saying: “It is what it is”, and I conclude by saying to him: “We decided what we decided”.

I am afraid that I cannot accept any amendment. I have heard no argument from the Opposition side which convinced me that my standpoint is wrong. The fact remains that we view this matter in a more serious light than does the Opposition, and we want to convey our opinion to our courts, in clear legal language, whom we know will with the greatest accuracy interpret the language conveyed to them by Parliament.

Question put and the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen. S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and W. M. Sutton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move pursuant to Standing Order No. 25—

The University of the Western Cape, with its approximately 1 600 students, had a faltering start more or less thirteen years ago. Its establishment was accompanied by excluding non-White students from being admitted to certain open universities. It is only under restricted circumstances that they may still be admitted to these open institutions, and this is of course subject to the approval of the Minister of National Education. Initially there was, therefore, a suspicion that the University of the Western Cape would not be a true university. This suspicion still prevails, although I must say that I think the authorities have already done a great deal to remove that suspicion. However, over the past few days certain things have unfortunately happened at this institution, things which have given rise to a great deal of alarm and which I believe may harm the success and status of this institution no end. What is more, these things may ruin the relations between the students and the university authorities, relations which would be very difficult to restore in the near future unless, of course, the situation is handled with great wisdom and a great deal of tolerance. The establishment of this institution is therefore the result of the policy of parallel development, and instead of its becoming the show-piece of the Whites’ readiness to create equal and equivalent facilities for the Coloureds, it may yet become a source of considerable embarrassment. I must say that we did warn previously that the handling of this institution left much to be desired.

†Only last year the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations was warned by the hon. member for Wynberg that he had to look into the matter of the appointment, and the speeding up of more Coloured personnel at this institution. The hon. member at that time—and hon. members can look it up in the debate under the Coloured Relations Vote—quoted illuminating figures of the position at similar non-White institutions. Whilst the other non-White institutions are getting more non-White staff, both teaching staff as well as administrative staff, we find that at the University of the Western Cape after 13 years the number of Coloureds on the teaching staff is only 12, whilst there are 79 Whites on the staff. Surely it cannot be fair, and to my mind it cannot be right. This appears to be one of the root causes of the dissent which we have today at this university. After all, if this institution is to be an institution for the Coloured people, why should they not run this institution themselves? Why should they not run their own affairs? If this bone of contention is not removed speedily, and if some clear promises are not given in this regard, I am afraid I can only foresee friction and perhaps upheaval, and I do not see the possibility of a solution in the problems of that institution. I believe that we must not display a lack of confidence in the ability of the Coloured people to run their own affairs. It is, of course, clearly resented that we seem to think they are not capable of running their own affairs.

*There are, after all, dozens of Coloured principals today who are handling tremendously large Coloured schools with ease, with competence and with efficiency. I think it is almost inconceivable that in this case, too, they will not be able to find people who will be capable of handling this institution as well.

†Secondly, when White people are appointed on the staff, like we have had to do up to now, is it too much to ask people to show the necessary respect, goodwill and the clarity of mind in order to justify their appointments at this university? Why should there, after all, like we have seen in the Press, be suggestions of being treated rudely? White teaching and administrative staff who apparently cannot rise above the level of a paternalistic and a condescending attitude should not be appointed at this institution. How are these people selected, and why can we not have there people who, apart from being academically suitable, will also have some fine qualities like human understanding, tolerance and a real sense of dedication to the cause of the Coloured people? I believe that people who have those qualities in addition to their academic qualifications, are people who will not be regarded as oppressors by the Coloured people. What has happened?

Do you have any evidence for that statement?

Mr. Speaker, I am judging according to what the Coloureds are saying themselves.

According to certain newspaper reports?

That does not matter. This is the feeling amongst them.

But you state it as a fact.

I am still coming to the commission. What has happened at this institution, I believe should also serve as a lesson to us in our day-to-day relations with a people who are also extremely sensitive and proud of their own position. These students are now also getting their parents and friends involved, which I believe will be a further blow to the building of sound relations between the Whites and the Coloureds. Having said all this, I want to say that I do not approve of students who intimidate innocent staff members and other students and prevent them from fulfilling their duties. I do not approve of that whether it comes from Coloureds, Black or White students.

Yes, but!

I believe that one must maintain stability and that no one is entitled to take the law into his own hands and cause chaos, and thus impinge upon the wishes of others who are less militant and who do not feel aggrieved. After all, this institution is costing the taxpayer a lot of money. In one year we have nearly doubled the expenditure on current account and for this purpose the Coloured taxpayer is also making a significant, a considerable contribution.

*The question that arises now is this: How is one going to solve this confrontation and deadlock without any harm being done? The hon. the Minister has already approved of a commission of inquiry which will be constituted from representatives of the senate and the council of this institution. In the meantime the registrations of all students have been suspended, and before 15th July a decision will have to be taken on each student’s application for readmission. If the grievances, which have been submitted in the form of a memorandum, are also to be decided on properly, one may ask: Can this be done before 15th July? Will it be possible for the commission to complete its work before that date? The question I want to pose now is an important one: Surely the question of whether or not the students have a real case—and this is the way it appears to me, to judge by the memorandum submitted—will affect the readmission of the students considerably. This memorandum, so I believe, was prepared in good faith as they saw the situation and contains reasonable objections coming from a group of young people who want to be regarded as full-fledged students and not as high school pupils. A second question is whether the commission will be sufficiently representative. Will some of the small number of Coloured members of staff also serve on it, and should a Coloured educationist or Coloured educationist from outside not serve on it as well? Even a representative of the ex-students would contribute to creating confidence that such a commission would be impartial. I want to say that I agree with the principal’s statement that a period of calm is necessary in order that a satisfactory solution may be arrived at. However, calm alone is not all that is necessary. We also need a background of atmosphere of calm.

†My appeal to the hon. the Minister therefore is to ensure this background of confidence and trust, because without this background we will not solve this deadlock. I do not believe that the predominant majority of students and their supporters want to kill this institution. To regard them all as agitators will, I believe, be a grave mistake. It will be much safer, much wiser and nearer the mark to regard this incident as an example of a case where the lines of communication between two interested parties, although they may appear to be hostile towards each other, have broken down. I believe that these lines of communication must be reopened for the sake of the people who desperately need self-expression and who also need satisfaction in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park has made a speech in which he has tried to blow hot and cold in all directions. I could not help gaining the impression that most of the statements made here by him were quite unjustified and, to a large extent, even responsible. The only effect which his speech can in fact is to encourage those people who are behind that organization, who are the instigators who, through intimidation, prevent fellow-students from attending classes and break up classes in an irresponsible manner, for these people have the hon. member on their side and, last but not least, his party as well.

I want to assure the hon. member that by what he said here this afternoon he has not in the least made a positive contribution to this matter. Let me remind the hon. member that the State established that institution, at great expense, for the Coloured population and the Coloured students. This institution even started with more facilities than just about any White university in South Africa had during its initial stages. What is more, there is a very good reason why the percentage of White lecturers has been so high and that of non-White lecturers so small. This is the case and the facts are correct. But has this not been the position because there was practically no room for Coloured students at our White universities in previous years? The University of Cape Town was a so-called open university, but only for as many students as were admitted by White university authorities. In other words, practically no properly trained Coloured lecturers were available in this country. That is the reason. It was in fact on account of the comments, of the destructive criticism of members opposite that the Government and the university authorities went out of their way to appoint good staff. I can give the assurance that the teaching staff of the University of the Western Cape have been selected carefully and are people who can hold their own in any academic circle. As far as the number of non-Whites is concerned, I can say without fear of contradiction that it is the policy of the Government and the policy of the hon. the Minister to increase the number of non-Whites systematically and as rapidly as possible. In fact, the opportunities are there at the moment and if these people want to avail themselves of their opportunities, I can reassure the hon. member and give him the assurance that there will be an increase in the percentage of Coloured teaching staff at that university year after year. This also applies in respect of the administrative section.

Since my time is very limited, I want to put a few points to the hon. member and ask him, as he has intimated that he has very good contact with the students, to convey them to the students. Students must have opportunities for submitting their grievances or problems to the university authorities. Those opportunities exist. However, we express our strongest condemnation of the conduct of people abusing their position as students in order to pursue political objectives. Our universities have been established—and this applies to all universities—for people to devote their best years to equipping themselves academically as well as they possibly can. This also applies to the Coloured students at the University of the Western Cape. What is more—I want to put this to the hon. member as my second premise—we may not break down the authority of our university authorities and staff, nor may we permit students to do so. If that were done, all standards would fall away and then the future of that university would fall away, and so would the respect which people have for the degrees conferred upon students. We have also been told by people who hold talks with students and listen to their views, that these people tend to turn their grievances and problems into race problems. Let us remind them that students at all universities, all over the world, have problems. Facilities cannot always be afforded as rapidly as the demand for them arises, but I can tell you, Sir, that recently we had visitors from abroad again who told us that the facilities of our students in South Africa—and I include those of the University of the Western Cape—rank amongst the most favourable ones in the whole world.

Sir, I want to make another statement, namely that order and discipline are still the basis of our civilization today and will also be the basis in the future. If we allow people to stir up disorder, simply to spend their university days in an undisciplined manner and eventually to reach the stage where, because they have been enjoying a holiday at a university for a number of years, they may even be demanding a degree for themselves, we may as well write Ichabod across the future of the leaders of this population group. They will simply have to adjust themselves to being subject to proper control.

Finally, I want to emphasize that high academic standards are very important to any university, especially to a young university such as that of the Western Cape. It must set great store by its students having to be people who will maintain high academic standards. Their own people demand this from them, ask this of them. One of the problems of the leaders of the Coloured community is that their own people do not accept them very readily. They are so quick to say to one another, “You are a Coloured just as I am; what can you teach me?” That is why it is so important that the Coloured person who is a trained, graduate teacher should convince his own people, as well as all of us, that he is a person of standing, that he is a person who can hold his own and can take the lead. Therefore, if we want to make a contribution today, we must strengthen the hands of the university authorities of the Western Cape. We must tell these students that they should count their blessings. To those hiding behind the smokescreen of student uproar in order to make political capital, we must say that that game must cease. As far as I am concerned those people should leave the campus without more ado.

Mr. Speaker, it is probably not wrong to expect hon. members to bring up a matter of great public importance, such as this one, by way of a debate of this nature, but I was nevertheless disappointed at the way in which the hon. member for Newton Park presented the matter. Although he did qualify his statements, his speech attested from start to finish to his ignorance about the University of the Western Cape, to a measure of irresponsibility, where on the one hand he referred to calm while displaying on the other hand a typical Mark Anthony attitude, and, finally, to a kind of naivety I did not expect from him. If the parents of these students are supposedly suspicious of this university, it is strange that it is the second fastest growing university in South Africa today, if one bears in mind the fact that the number of students increased from 164 to 1 572 over this period; 490 diplomas and 463 degrees have already been awarded. In a single year, as a result of the fact that this university is now starting to draw its lecturers, whom it has produced for the Coloured people, from the ranks of its own past students, the number of Coloured lecturers increased from seven to 13. Where are we to find the rest? Recently, out of 13 applications by Coloureds, 10 were appointed, notwithstanding the fact that their qualifications are not always what one would wish them to be. The hon. member spoke about “root causes”. I want to tell Him that these “root causes” exist in his mind. He deduces this from the memorandum which the students submitted to the principal, but it is something which exists in his mind. When we examine the facts relating to these “root causes” with reference to the question as to whether the Coloureds are able at this stage to take over their own university and to set a standard which will be credit to the educated Coloureds, I want to tell him that these are based on complete ignorance. These people are simply not capable of doing this, and even if we should find the requisite numbers, we shall find that they will not be prepared to do this work. We are, however, doing our best to encourage them and we are leaning over backwards to help these people at all times. It is a matter of principle with the council that when a Coloured person applies and his qualifications justify it at all, he is preferred to a White applicant. That assurance was given by the Prime Minister to the Executive of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council last year. He said that if a Coloured person were available and were at all qualified for a particular position, a White person would not be appointed.

I think the hon. member is a little confused as far as the readmission aspect is concerned. In the first place, the closing of the university actually has nothing to do with the grievances of these people. It has to do with a state of disorder which was aimed not only at disorder itself, but at the eventual disruption of all classes, a state of disorder which could possibly have endangered people’s lives. It was the duty of the State and that of the university authorities to act. That is something any responsible university official would be able to tell you, whether he is White or non-White.

I do not want to blame the hon. member altogether, but I think he tried to play the judge in respect of some of these problems before the matter had been investigated by those who will examine it impartially. The University of the Western Cape is an institution which is near to my heart. The problems and the unrest there began in May last year, when a students’ representative council was elected without there being any real compliance with the university rules. For that reason the university council did not recognize its members. This led to a court case, which is still pending today. The university council cannot recognize these people. In the meantime they went ahead and acted as a students’ representative council. The university council was prepared to negotiate with them informally, but not on a formal basis. These people nevertheless went ahead and their chairman, Mr. Henry Isaacs, became the chairman of SASO. This is a movement which calls itself a Black movement and which is totally aimed at polarization between Black and White and apparently believes that there must be a Black revolution in South Africa. Hon. members will realize that such a movement, led by such a person, who is the president of this type of organization, will eventually create a confrontation. Mr. Isaacs went along and made statements in the Press which led to his eventual suspension. Disciplinary action was instituted against him. He was eventually suspended and forbidden to enter the university campus. This he completely ignored. He entered the university campus, and there is sufficient evidence that he was instrumental in causing meetings which had originally taken place once a week, to degenerate into daily mass meetings attended by between 200 and 300 people. And this led to the disruption of classes. There people entered lecture rooms where lectures were in progress. The students who were conscientiously applying themselves to their studies were hindered in their work, and consequently confrontation resulted. This was inevitable. Surely one has to exercise discipline in a case such as this.

Approximately a week or so ago a mass meeting of these people took place, where an action committee was formed after Mr. Isaacs had landed in trouble with the law. They then handed a memorandum to the principal. Certain complaints were set out in the memorandum, and I take it that the hon. member received a copy of it. The principal asked the students to give him an opportunity to study the memorandum and told them that he would reply to it later. A few days later some of the members of the action committee returned and asked him to address the student body. Sir, this student body had already been incited, and he was asked to address them on a memorandum which was riddled on the one hand with political slogans and on the other hand with grievances which—I grant this— could quite possibly justify an investigation within the university, something which will in fact be done. Surely, for a principal to have to address such a group of people who have already been incited is something which is quite impossible. Surely one would only have laid oneself open to conduct which could eventually have led to disorder. As I have said, these people had been incited on the one hand by slogans and on the other hand by grievances. I concede that it is just possible that, as far as the university’s internal affairs are concerned, there may be some substance to these grievances. At the meeting which the students attended as a body, and also during their advance on the administration building, students carried banners bearing, among others, the following slogans: “Dialogue— no; confrontation yes, yes, yes!”, “Sack our companions, we sack you”, “Stop talking —action, yes!”, and “White arrogance means Black frustration”. You see therefore what was happening. These people marched around the university buildings, and I must honestly tell you that the principal had no choice but to say that he did not see his way clear to address them. After he had consulted professors, he said that he did not see his way clear to address these people, but that he would inform twenty members of the action committee on the position as regards the memorandum. This they did not accept, and eventually it really resulted in disorder in the sense that these people then began to move around the administration building, to sing and to make insulting remarks. Nobody denies that. One of the songs they sang had the following refrain: “Arson, rape and bloody murder …"; this is repeated three times, and then, at the end, they sing “When the Black revolution comes”. Now you can see, Sir, what we had to deal with in a situation such as this. This spirit was untenable and the best thing the university council could do was eventually to decide to close the university.

In the two minutes which I still have left, I want to say that the university council decided to be fair to everybody, because the State has two very important duties in this regard. The first is that it must maintain law and order. In the second place, the State is expected to act fairly towards everybody. These students will be treated fairly. It was decided: Very well, let us therefore close the university. Let there be readmission. In 95% of the cases, and perhaps in 98%, of them, this will in any case just mean the formal completion of a form. It was also decided that these complaints, which I do not want to deal with now, would be investigated. A committee will be appointed to this end, as well as a committee which will deal with the readmission of students. The committee which will investigate the complaints will consist of Prof. Gunter, Prof. Kriel, Dr. Hansman, Mr. P. M. Sonn, a Coloured member of the council, and Mr. L. V. Mohr. Then there are three members of the senate and the secretary. The executive committee of the council will readmit the students. As I have said, this will merely be a question of filling in a form. None of the Coloured parents need fear that there will be any discrimination against students who are intent on studying. The committee charged with the readmission of these students will consist of Whites as well as Coloureds, as was in fact suggested by the hon. member over there. These Coloured members are Mr. Adam Small, Mr. Colin Johnson, a Coloured lecturer, and Mr. G. J. Gerwel, a lecturer whose photograph hon. members have probably seen in the newspapers.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 25.