Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill envisages granting the Treasury more flexibility in allocating money voted for secret services. Hon. members will be fully aware that the Republic is constantly faced with an international offensive, in the political, economic and cultural spheres, as well as in a variety of other spheres, and that counteroffensive measures must be effected. The nature and extent of the above-mentioned actions, as well as fluctuations in the intensity of the pressure brought to bear on specific spheres, is often unpredictable. Consequently, the cost involved in taking steps to counter this pressure cannot always be determined in advance with precision. Therefore, it is not always possible to take steps to vote money in time or to allocate it to departments concerned with counteractive measures.

In terms of this Bill it will be possible to consider the global allocation of money to departments for secret services on an ongoing basis, with the exception of funds directly concerned with certain defence purchases. In terms of the provision of this Bill it will also be possible to bring about rearrangement of priorities among departments in connection with these services and to incur unforeseen expenditure of a secret nature from time to time with the least possible waste of time.

Mr. Speaker, we have tried to treat this Bill with a fair amount of understanding. The principle that accounts be established and used for Government expenditure on secret services without such accounts being subject to the full and normal audit procedures, is already established in our legislation. I shall refer to specific instances in the course of my speech. We accept it like that. Where we are completely satisfied as to the necessity of what has to be done, we shall give our assistance wherever we can to facilitate the processes.

On the other hand, however, it is the duty of each member of Parliament and perhaps particularly that of Opposition members to see to it that Parliament performs its traditional and essential tasks. It is our task to see to it that the Constitution, with all its shortcomings—if one accepts that there are shortcomings—be applied as it is intended to be applied. It is one of the fundamental principles of our Constitution and of the system of government which we have been practising in South Africa all these years, that a balance be maintained between the respective branches of the government machine. The legislative, the executive and the judicial authority should at all times retain their status and independence. Every student of political science is familiar with these things. Therefore I do not think it is necessary for me to advance lengthy arguments or to emphasize these things.

What I am saying, is not being said with any specific reference to South Africa or to the Government of South Africa or to the present juncture. As far as the present juncture is concerned, I can fully understand the Government’s problems of the day. For that reason I have said that we are not unsympathetic towards what the Government wants to do. It remains true, however, that the weaker parliamentary surveillance in any country is at any time, the greater the temptation to malpractices of one kind or another must be. Man is weak and sinful, no matter who the person is. Measures placing the control of large amounts of money solely in the hands of individuals or of small groups of people so that they may spend such money secretly as it suits them, are in any country and at any time an alarming state of affairs.

One of the most important ways in which the judicial authority maintains itself—that applies to this country as well as to any other country which is being governed in a similar way—is by means of the very control exercised by the Lower House over Government expenditure. With due regard to the fact that the executive authority should have adequate room for manoeuvre to be able to perform its duties effectively, it also remains true that it should always take place within the framework of the authority of Parliament as expressed in the appropriation of expenditures.

Our problem this afternoon is this. Although one conceded that certain secret services are undoubtedly necessary, the question is how far Parliament should go in delegating its powers—powers which are by right its own—to the executive authority to utilize such powers on its behalf. The Opposition in particular has a duty in this House in this regard, because, with all due respect, it is always easier for an Opposition member to realize that even Ministers are fallible. It is perfectly natural for members on the other side, in their approach to this problem, to think in terms of their own Ministers whom they know and whom they respect. It is perfectly natural for them to be unaware of any possible danger which may be inherent in the provisions of a Bill such as this. But, Sir, in this Parliament we are not legislating for this Parliament or for these Ministers alone. Here we are writing powers into our Statute Book which are going to be used by other Ministers and by other Governments in other times. The laws we are making here will also be applicable in future. To us it is clear that if there is a single solemn duty which an Opposition in any Parliament has, it is the duty to guard jealously the rights of Parliament itself. One of the most important of its duties, if not the most important, is the right to control and supervise the expenditure of State funds.

†Mr. Speaker, I now wish to turn to the details of the measure we are dealing with this afternoon. There are already three important pieces of legislation on the Statute Book which deal with similar situations. In each case they have reference to one particular department of State only. There is the Foreign Affairs Special Account Act, No. 38 of 1967, the Security Services Special Account Act, No. 38 of 1967, the Security Services Special Account Act, No. 81 of 1969, and the Defence Special Account Act, No. 6 of 1974. These Acts are all closely similar. Each one defines the account, says how the money shall be paid into the account from various different sources, and says how payment shall be made out of the account. In this respect there is perhaps a shade of difference between the Act dealing with the Foreign Affairs Account and the other two Acts, dealing with defence and State security. The latter two Acts do make it clear that the money must be spent on defence or on State security, as the case may be, whereas the wording in the case of the Foreign Affairs Fund is rather wider and might be interpreted as conferring upon the Minister of Foreign Affairs a wider discretion as to how he may spend the money. Yet, I think the context of the Act makes it clear that there too it is the intention that the money should be spent only on foreign affairs. In each case there are virtually identical provisions in regard to the auditing of these expenditures. It is provided in each of these three Acts that a certificate from the Minister concerned must be accepted by the Auditor-General as evidence of the proper expenditure of the funds.

As regards the Bill before the House, there are important differences between it and the three measures to which I have referred. Clause 1 establishes the account to which the hon. the Minister has referred, i.e. the account to be known as the Secret Services Account, which shall be credited with moneys appropriated by Parliament. It seems clear that Parliament is going to be asked to appropriate certain globular sums. These will then go into this account, and the account will be dealt with as is provided for in the Bill. I should like to note in passing that there is not in this legislation any specific repeal of any part or the whole of any of the other measures to which I have referred, so that for the time being at least it would seem to be the case that moneys can be appropriated to the Defence Fund, the Foreign Affairs Fund or the State Security Fund either in terms of the old procedure or by means of this new procedure. I do not know whether it is intended that that should be the permanent arrangement, or whether there is going to be a change in due course. I imagine that the House would be grateful for information on that score.

Clause 2(3) contains what we regard as the major thrust of the Bill. The Minister of Finance is, in so many words, allowed, at the request of any Minister of State, to confer with that Minister and then to make available to the department of State of which that Minister is the head, whatever funds the two of them may regard as justifiable in the public interest. These funds may then be spent in a secret way and without accountability to Parliament. Mr. Speaker, this goes a great deal further than what we have been accustomed to, in two ways. Firstly, there is the quantitative aspect. It will no longer be the case that merely three departments, in the case of each of which it is easy to envisage circumstances in which secret expenditures are necessary, will be able to be credited with money in this way. In terms of this measure any department of State whatever will acquire this privilege of obtaining and expending secret funds without the necessity of accounting to Parliament what is being done with those funds. They will also not be liable to account to Parliament the amount spent. That is the other facet which we find unacceptable. It is one thing to allocate funds to a particular department of State or to a particular group of officials to spend upon their business and to know how much one is making available even if one does not know the details of how it will be handled, but it is another thing altogether to make a global sum of money available for expenditure and not even to know by which departments it is going to be paid out.

The scope of the Bill is wide because the reference is only to “the national interest”. It is a good phrase and we should all, no doubt, wish to use it, but when all is said and done, under what circumstances would this Parliament ever wish to spend money otherwise than in the national interest? The normal budget surely is our joint statement of what we believe is in the national interest to spend. Therefore, to say as this Bill does, that the money may be expended how ever the Minister of Finance together with the other Minister may consider to be in the national interest, is to cast the net as wide as it can possibly be cast in terms of ordinary parliamentary expenditure. I say, as I have noted earlier on, that this contrasts with the Defence Special Fund and the State Security Special Fund and to some extent also, as a matter of interpretation, with the Foreign Affairs Special Fund.

I should say something about the audit procedures laid down in clause 3. These are in the main identical to the former procedures except that, as I have noted, the provision that the Minister’s certificate must be accepted by the Auditor-General has been dropped here. That is certainly not a retrograde step and it may be a positive step, depending how much auditing is done, and we concede that this is the case.

I want to refer to clause 4 in which we are informed that the Bill will come into operation on 1 April 1978. This is very soon, indeed, for a Bill which was only published a matter of a couple of days ago and is having its Second Reading only today. I think if there is a special reason for this, the House is entitled to know about it. I hope that the House will know about it before the debate is over.

Our judgment then is that this measure is very much wider in its application than the predecessor measures to which I have referred. We feel that Parliament under this system will have less knowledge even than it had before of the amounts that are being spent, by whom and for what they are being spent. The phrase “in the national interest”, while laudable in itself, actually constitutes hardly any restriction of the purpose for which these funds may be applied. The Minister of Finance for the time being, whoever he may be, and one other Minister in effect constitute a committee exercising what is normally the function of Parliament to control expenditure. The audit procedures may be improved. We are also curious to know the reason for the very early date on which the measure is to come into operation.

Having weighed all the pros and cons and examined the Bill as conscientiously as we can, I wish to move as an amendment—

1. (1) making it possible for moneys in amounts not divulged to Parliament to be expended by any department of state; and
2. (2) dangerously widening the purposes for which such moneys may be used”.

Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Pinetown …

That is a Freudian slip!

I mean the hon. member for Parktown. I am surprised that he moved an amendment like this, especially in the light of his speech, because I think his whole speech is evidence of the fact that in essence he agrees with the legislation. The principle that Parliament has certain powers, relating to the spending of money, is something we have never disputed. Indeed, what we are dealing with now is an exception which has been confirmed repeatedly over the years by Parliament. It therefore surprises me that the hon. member is moving an amendment like this. He concedes that it is normal procedure in most countries in the world. I want to go so far as to say that if one starts counting, one will find that there is a large number of countries in the world that consider their total expenditure a secret account. I cannot see what the objection is, especially since this principle has already been accepted repeatedly by Parliament in existing laws.

Then I want to deal with the hon. member’s objections relating to parliamentary rights concerning the budget. He said we must guard parliamentary powers and rights jealously. I think that the Government has in fact very strongly endorsed this principle over the years.

The hon. member goes on to ask whether this money will be spent in the national interest. I think that this is the most stupid question which I have ever heard in the House of Assembly. Naturally the Government only acts in the national interest and in no other interest. The hon. member also asked why the Bill must come into operation on 1 April. I think that is also a stupid question. After all, it is obvious that the intention is that the hon. the Minister of Finance must be put in a position in this financial year to implement this legislation. Why must we wait a year and only implement it during the next budget?

It is true that this is an abnormal procedure, but we must also take note of the particular times in which we in South Africa are living. We are experiencing extraordinary circumstances. If political conditions in South Africa and in the world were normal, it would not be necessary to introduce a Bill like this in the House of Assembly. But we know that we are living in extraordinary circumstances, and extraordinary circumstances also demand extraordinary action. That hon. member knows just as well as anyone else that the enemies of South Africa do not bother about the rules of etiquette and decency when they take action. If we in South Africa want to meet the attacks which are aimed at us, we too must therefore take sophisticated action and take the necessary steps without prejudicing our own cause. Moreover, the Government must often take action through various departments in order to achieve its goal in respect of the attacks on us made by the enemies of South Africa.

Let me give a hypothetical case by way of example. For instance, take the possibility that an African leader who is favourably disposed towards us can give us good evidence of something happening in another country at one or other international level. I think it would only be fair if the Government sponsored his travelling expenses. But, Sir, can you imagine the state of affairs if it was broadcast to the world that the South African Government sent a certain gentleman to Geneva to act as mediator for South Africa at a specific convention? It is in the interests of South Africa that we should have certain funds to carry out this type of financing.

There is already a fund for that.

Another aspect of the matter is that, as hon. members can imagine, it may be a great embarrassment not only for the Government, but also for the person concerned should such a step be made known.

As I said, we in South Africa are faced with extraordinary circumstances and this requires extraordinary action on the part of the Government. Now it is true that certain departments already have secret accounts—I do not think we have to argue about this—i.e. the Department of Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the department entrusted with security services. All that is being envisaged by the Bill is that all the various secret accounts should be covered by one umbrella. The advantage of this Bill is that it will not be necessary to establish a secret account for each department. In this respect, this Bill actually offers a brilliant solution to the problem. We cannot deny the fact that there are many other Government departments who also have to use secret funds.

[Inaudible.]

That interjection shows the greatest ignorance and I do not think it is worthwhile reacting to it. The Bill also provides for the necessary protection—the very aspect about which the hon. member for Parktown had so much to say. I do not think anyone can find fault with the fact that this account will be properly audited by the Auditor General and that it will also be audited and checked by the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of the Treasury. Over the years, one characteristic of this Government in particular has come to the fore and this is that wherever there have been irregularities, it has always exposed them relentlessly. Thus steps have been taken against people in the Public Service irrespective of persons when irregularities have taken place. This is a characteristic of this Government, and it is for this reason, too, that the public of South Africa has confidence in this Government.

In spite of the secret nature of the fund, the funds must in any event be voted by Parliament. The powers of Parliament are therefore not affected by the measure. Nor is it a new principle which is being put before the House today, because the principle has already been in use for many years. Therefore, the powers of Parliament are being derogated from very little, if at all, as far as the voting of funds is concerned. If one takes into consideration the world in which we are living, the Government will have to make increasing use of secret action in future in order to be at all effective. The enemies of South Africa are becoming more and more cunning and are already launching one of the greatest attacks in history against us. Apart from the physical onslaught, a psychological war is also being waged against us. Naturally, this requires opposition of a highly sophisticated nature on the part of the Government. If we were to broadcast these measures to the world, they would be totally ineffective.

We express our thanks towards the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Government for this legislation because it will ensure that the financing of secret action will be streamlined. However, I want to go on to maintain—if it will satisfy hon. members on the other side— that I personally would have asked that hon. members of the Opposition should be able to inspect some of the accounts. However, the fact of the matter is that we in South Africa are saddled with one of the most unreliable Oppositions in the world. We in South Africa dare not share secret information with them.

This is the Official Opposition.

If there are hon. members who object to this statement, I want to ask them whether they expect us to convey information which appears in these accounts to the Official Opposition in the light of the connections which the Official Opposition has with certain subversive organizations.

Then they still go and pay calls in Botswana.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: A few moments ago the hon. member said that the country has the most untrustworthy Opposition that we have ever had … [Interjections.] That is being confirmed. In the second place the hon. member said that normally he would like the Opposition to be informed of these secret matters which are in the interests of South Africa, but…

Order! The hon. member may not make a speech now.

I am trying to enlighten you as to the point of order, Sir, and it will take me only a moment to do so.

What words did the hon. member use?

I am trying to express his insinuation. There was no specific word; it was a total insinuation. The next point he made was that in these circumstances, with the untrustworthy Opposition and with the connections we have, he could not do it. I consider that as an insinuation on the integrity of hon. members of this party.

Order! It is a political argument which the hon. member, or any other hon. member on his side of the House, can also use when replying. The hon. member for Sandton’s point of order is therefore not valid. The hon. member for Newcastle did, however, use certain words which I cannot allow.

*He referred, inter alia, to the links which the hon. members have with subversive elements and I must request him to withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the allegation that the Opposition collaborates with subversive elements. The Opposition must not complain now, because the organizations for which they intercede from time to time in South Africa, do in fact intend to undermine South Africa. [Interjections.] In the light of this, the last thing I would advocate would be to share secrets of this nature with an Opposition which acts so irresponsibly in the politics of South Africa. We would do well in this regard to take note of the activities of the hon. member for Houghton. For security reasons I should prefer not to mention the organizations which the hon. member is connected with or with which she collaborates.

The legislation is just in time, and I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance and his department sincerely on a short and cogent Bill which is set out in such clear language that everyone can understand it.

Mr. Speaker, it becomes apparent that we have here two parties with conflicting ideas. The one party is putting forward ideas which they believe to be in the best interest of the country in general. The Official Opposition, on the other hand, is seeking to try to retain the rights and privileges of this Parliament. Quite rightly they say that every member of this Parliament should be jealous of its rights and privileges. We must, however, take note of the times in which we live. I shall come back to the matter later as I would first like to comment briefly on the three main points which, as I see it, the Bill encompasses.

The first point concerns the right of the Auditor-General. It appears to me, on reading the Bill, that the Auditor-General will have a measure of control which he has not had in the past over accounts of this nature. I believe this will be of advantage to him and, as such, Parliament will be better served. Therefore we in these benches can agree fully with the first principle. The second principle is that from this new fund the Minister is going to transfer moneys to accounts which are already established. I would also like to add my query to that of the hon. member for Parktown in this regard. I assume the amount that will be given out of this fund will be additional to amounts which are voted in the normal course of events and that this fund, in fact, is going to be used only if something of a special nature suddenly crops up for which the other funds do not have sufficient money. It would be in the interest of South Africa that they should get these additional funds to make use of any such opportunity. I should be glad if the hon. the Minister of Finance could respond to that.

I do not believe, therefore, that any new basic principle is involved in regard to the three accounts to which the new Secret Services Account will be transferring money and I believe we can go along with this principle.

It can transfer money to any State department.

I am now coming to the third principle, the principle the hon. member for Sandton is interjecting about. The third principle involved is the fact that from this fund moneys can be transferred to other State departments. One can well see that in this course of action one will be diminishing somewhat the rights and responsibility of Parliament to vote moneys specifically. However, one must bear in mind, firstly, that this Parliament will keep globular control of the amount.

The total amount of money which goes into the account will have to be voted by Parliament, and as such we will have an overall control over the total amount of money invested.

I would now like to come to what I believe is the crux of the matter. It is always difficult to follow an hon. member like the hon. member for Parktown, who is obviously very erudite, very fluent and possesses a great deal of intelligence. It does, however, become somewhat easier when he is expressing the opinion of his caucus, which presumably he goes along with, and it does become somewhat easier to react to what has been said. The crux of the matter is that there is here a possible conflict between the interest of South Africa in general and the protection of the rights of this Parliament. In a situation of this nature, one has to consider the times we live in. If we were living in normal times, we should be extremely jealous of the rights of Parliament. We should see to it that its powers are not diminished in any shape or form or at any time. However, we are not living in normal times. The reason why we are not living in normal times could perhaps from the subject of another political debate. I do not want to go into it now. I am sure that the hon. members on the Government side would have different views as to why we have reached the situation which we are in now.

Let me sum up the situation which now faces us as a country. First of all, we must realize that we are in a grave situation. We cannot alter the fact that the UN has ordered a total arms embargo against South Africa. This is a very serious situation for South Africa. There is very little that we can do to get arms to defend ourselves other than to go through the sort of byways which Rhodesia has been forced to go through over a number of years. This embargo on arms which is currently being enforced against South Africa is the first point I want to refer to.

Secondly, there is the possibility—I think all of us in this House realize it—that economic sanctions might be brought against South Africa. This would create a terrible state of affairs. Unfortunately, it is a state of affairs which has come more in to the limelight recently through the action of Donald Woods in the UN. [Interjections.] We in these benches can obviously not go along with actions of this kind. Economic sanctions would be the most inhumane and unchristian act which can be brought against the Black people of South Africa, because they are the people who would suffer first and suffer most badly. The second point then is that we have to take into account the possibility of economic sanctions being imposed at any time.

Thirdly, there is the border situation. We are aware that our young men are fighting and dying on the borders of this country. We are involved in a war. In fact, after my election, on 1 December 1977, the very first function I attended was the funeral of a young national serviceman who had been killed in a landmine explosion on the border. This brought home to me, as little else had done, the gravity of the situation in which we find ourselves.

Finally, there is the question of urban terrorism. Without any shadow of doubt, we in this country are faced with escalating urban terrorism. Recently there have been two bomb explosions in Port Elizabeth, a town in which I have lived for 13 years and of which I am very fond. It is sad to think that in an area one knows exceptionally well, the possibility of bomb explosions in a crowded main street does exist. When one considers a Bill of this nature, one has to take into consideration the question whether it is in the best interest of this country or not. We in these benches can therefore not support the amendment moved by the Official Opposition because, while we fully concede their point about the rights and privileges of Parliament, we believe that this Bill, if applied properly, will be in the best interest of South Africa, and if it is in the best interest of South Africa, I believe we in this House should pass it.

Where would you draw the line?

I have been asked where I would draw the line.

I think one would start drawing lines when South Africa found itself in a somewhat better situation than the situation in which it finds itself in today. We are in a situation in which certain measures are needed, not necessarily desperate measures, but certainly abnormal measures. We believe that being in this situation we should pass this Bill. There exists of course the possibility that these funds might be abused. Unfortunately the Government does not have an entirely clean record. There have been cases such as the Agliotti affair. It is certainly possibly that these funds might be abused and be used for purposes other than for which they were voted. We in Parliament would have no control over that in terms of this Bill.

I want to service notice on the hon. the Minister of Finance that we shall also move an amendment, but in the Committee Stage and not at Second Reading. This amendment will propose to amend clause 2(3). By this amendment we simply want to give the Auditor-General more powers regarding this account. We do not think it is necessarily in the best interest of the country as a whole to reveal on what the money is going to be spent before it is spent. This might not be in South Africa’s interest However, after the money has been spent, I believe Parliament should have some right to know where these moneys have gone. We do not necessarily want to know in the finest detail on what the money has been spent, but I believe Parliament should be told to what departments of State this money has been allocated, how much went to each of these three funds individually and how much went to other State departments. I hope the hon. the Minister of Finance will in his reply to the Second Reading give us some indication of what the intentions are in regard to post facto control of this account, because we believe that the ante facto control of this account will be very difficult if it is to be in the best interest of the country. We do believe that we must try to retain as many of the rights of Parliament as we possibly can. Therefore I believe the Auditor-General should report on this fund in his report which is tabled in Parliament every year.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. member for Parktown dragged a lot of politics into the discussion of a short, simple financial Bill. He also displayed his ignorance about the Government machinery, and failed to read the Bill properly. The Bill is very simple. In the first place, secret funds for various departments already exist. The hon. member said he did not know how and where these funds would be spent. But they exist today. All the Bill is doing now, is to amalgamate the secret funds of the various departments and place them under the Secretary of the Treasury. The hon. member for Parktown says that Parliament is forfeiting its rights, its powers and its supervision over these funds. This, however, is not the case. On the contrary, Parliament is now being given a greater say. It is now acquiring better control. Whereas funds were only allotted to the Department of Defence in the past, they will now fall under the Secretary of the Treasury who at present exercises control over all Government Departments in any event. In terms of this legislation, the Secretary of the Treasury will exercise powers over the Department of Defence. This Bill is now giving the Minister of Finance further powers to exercise control over those departments, via the Auditor-General and the Treasury. Secondly, the Auditor-General’s hands were tied to a certain extent as far as the other funds are concerned. The Bill is now granting a great many more powers. It states in so many words that the present account will be audited by the Auditor-General. There is no limitation and there is no qualification whatsoever. The Auditor-General now has the fullest right to audit the statements. Those provisions are included in clause 3(2) which reads—

These provisions bind the Auditor-General. However, now he is definitely receiving many more powers in terms of this legislation.

I do not think it is necessary to make politics of this matter. On the contrary, matters are being made much easier for the Official Opposition and Parliament. Instead of it being necessary to look up several documents in order to determine how much money is voted for secret services, one item now appears in the budget, which makes it very much easier to exercise better control over it.

The hon. member also asked why this legislation should come into effect on 1 April. Does the hon. member for Parktown not know that the financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March every year? Since this new account is being introduced in the new financial year, 1978-’79, we must have this legislation now. We cannot introduce this legislation and pass it only in June or July. The legislation is being passed now so that the funds of the various departments will fall under one head in the new budget, and the hon. the Minister will have the right to control these matters after 1 April.

I think this is a simple financial Bill. It simply consolidates, and gives the Auditor-General more power. I think it is an excellent improvement on what we have now.

Mr. Speaker, secret funds are required for security, for defence, for foreign affairs and for other matters. The question is: Does the Official Opposition want matters of the utmost confidentiality to be laid before us in their barest detail? If that is the case, it is also available to the public, and if it is available to all and sundry, it is also available to the enemies of South Africa. Why should we be made more vulnerable by this sort of disclosure? What is the reason for it? I should imagine that some of the money would be spent on a “Sell South Africa” campaign to offset the adverse propaganda being launched against South Africa throughout the world. I believe that some of the money could be used to encourage foreign investors to South Africa. Thirdly, we could explain the realities of the South African situation. This is what the money could be used for.

What is secret about that?

Why should it be a secret fund?

I shall come to the hon. member for Wynberg. These matters will have to be handled in a conventional and in an unconventional manner. Now, hon. members will want to know what the unconventional manner is. It would only reveal the ignorance of whoever asked that sort of question. If we look at some of the people who have fled South Africa and who now sit overseas, for example Donald Woods … If one would ask Donald Woods what his attitude was towards this Bill, he would certainly oppose the promotion of South Africa overseas. He would not be in favour of a Bill of this nature because his plea is for economic sabotage and for non-promotion of South Africa.

It is very strange that in yesterday’s debate I specifically asked the hon. member for Pinelands whether he admired Donald Woods. He replied as follows, and I quote from Hansard—

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the hon. member for Groote Schuur saying: “Hear, hear.”

Have you ever met him yourself? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, because I hear the hon. member for Groote Schuur say “Hear, hear”, and because I heard the reply given by the hon. member for Pinelands yesterday, it comes as no surprise to me that the Official Opposition is opposing this Bill today. [Interjections.] The PFP have always been lukewarm about measures affecting the security of South Africa.

They have always been soft on security. [Interjections.]

At times they have even opposed security measures.

You are lukewarm to opposing the Government.

I want to put it charitably and say that the Official Opposition is not aware of the many countries, including South Africa, that are fighting for their very survival today. I cannot think for one moment that the hon. member for Yeoville, had he been here today, would have subscribed to the views expressed by hon. members of the Official Opposition. I believe he would have been decidedly against the views they have expressed here today. [Interjections.]

This is not a Bill that would normally find favour with members of Parliament I should imagine that these responsibilities which are now being conferred on the hon. the Minister of Finance are not the sort of responsibilities he would even normally look for. Having said that I want to say that we do not live in normal times. In fact the abnormality of the world situation necessitates a Secret Service Account and other similar measures that have to be taken. The enemies of South Africa have taken off the gloves and are fighting us with every means at their disposal, both conventional and unconventional. In order to deal with security, defence, foreign affairs and other matters, there are aspects on which Parliament is entitled to fullest disclosure. However, there are also other aspects of these matters where it is not in the interests of the country that there be a full disclosure.

If it is accepted as a fact of life, then it flows from non-disclosure that the financial details can also not be disclosed. In certain circumstances disclosure could be detrimental to South Africa. In regard to this Bill the hon. the Minister of Finance acquires a very special position in that he will have to sanction vital expenditure and that the Auditor-General will not have all the usual powers. In the end the hon. Prime Minister has to accept overall responsibility despite the fact that he is not specifically mentioned in this Bill. It is an unspoken reality of leadership in any country in the world that the Prime Minister accepts the ultimate responsibility. In view of the fact that this Bill caters for a very special situation, we have no hesitation in giving it our fullest support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Parktown, but before doing so I should like to comment on some of the remarks which have been made by previous speakers in this debate. The hon. member for Walmer, who has just sat down, said that information given to this Parliament would also be available to the enemies of South Africa. That is a very dangerous argument to use, because if that sort of argument were to be carried to its extreme, one could then have a situation where you might well just govern by decree. Simply to say that because information is given to this Parliament it is also going to be made available to the enemies of South Africa, and that therefore the functions of Parliament should be restricted, is a very dangerous argument indeed. The hon. member mentioned certain examples and said that what might well be envisaged by the Government in terms of this legislation would be to promote South Africa overseas. That is certainly the function of a Government and a function of a country, but why does one need a secret account for that sort of purpose in this day and age? [Interjections.] It is a normal function of Government and it happens all the time. The hon. member did say, to his credit, that the Bill was one which would not normally be welcomed by or which would not normally find favour with Parliament. I shall come back to that later on, because the same thread runs through the speeches made by other hon. members who have taken part in this debate. There is in other words at least a consciousness that one would not normally like to see these powers taken away from Parliament.

The hon. member for Sunnyside denied that Parliament was in fact having rights taken away from it. He averred that Parliament in fact had greater control. In fact, Sir, the Bill gives the Minister control; it does not give Parliament control. If the hon. member for Sunnyside would look at clause 3 of the Bill he would find that even the powers of the Auditor-General are to be prescribed by the Minister. In terms of this clause the audit shall be undertaken by the Auditor-General “to the extent determined by the Minister of Finance after consultation …”.

So, Sir, the Minister has the power to determine the extent to which the Auditor-General may operate. The point is that Parliament has rights taken away from it. There is a diminution of the rights of this Parliament.

The hon. member for Newcastle made very little contribution to this debate, except that he too conceded that this was a measure brought about by the extraordinary circumstances in which South Africa found itself at the present time. Again, therefore, there was an appreciation that this Bill constituted a diminution of the rights of Parliament. The hon. member for Newcastle made some extraordinary remarks towards the end of his speech. I do not want to deal with them at length, except to reject them with the contempt which they deserve. We on this side of the House do not need to be read lectures by the hon. member for Newcastle or by anybody else as to our loyalty to South Africa. We do not need to be told what our duty as an Opposition is. We believe that we as South Africans are here as an Opposition to perform a function which is aimed at protecting the interests of South Africa and being effective members of Parliament.

Despite the attitude which hon. members opposite have adopted, despite their criticism and despite their surprise at the fact that we should have moved an amendment to this Bill, there has been a concession made on the part of each of the speakers who have participated in the debate that they recognize that this measure has been occasioned by extraordinary circumstances. This is to my mind an admission that the Bill is in fact detracting from the rights and powers of Parliament. Hon. members must not be surprised if an Official Opposition should be chary of the rights of Parliament being tampered with in this way. One concedes that there may be special circumstances in which powers may have to be circumscribed. One does concede this, and there are precedents for this in this country and in other countries. One concedes that there is existing legislation on the Statute Book which already makes provision for secret funds for the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Defence and the department dealing with internal security. These secret funds do exist, and one concedes that there may be a need for these funds, but what we are objecting to in these circumstances at the present time is the extension of this principle which we regard as an unnecessary extension. That is what we are objecting to. The principle is not a good principle, but it may be necessary, and Parliament has found it necessary in previous Acts which it has enacted and to which I have referred. Here, however, we are extending a principle which we believe is not a good principle. We believe that in a democracy and in a democratic country it is the function of Parliament to scrutinize the expenditure of State funds. We, as a responsible opposition, therefore believe that if this principle is in any way detracted from, it is our duty to express our displeasure at such a sort of step. It is in this spirit that we do so and not that we say there is never a need for this to take place. We object, however, to the extent to which it is being done in the present Bill.

The principle creates any number of dangers. It invites abuse by other Ministers or by other departments if you are simply saying, as this Bill is saying, that any Minister may go to the Minister of Finance to make out some sort of a case for secret funds to be made available and that would be enough, without the knowledge of Parliament in regard to which departments are asking for such powers. We believe this can well be abused. It can be abused to the extent that there may be conflicting operations undertaken by different Government departments. There may be even competitive operations undertaken because one does not know to what extent other departments are going to be told what secret funds are available for the department concerned. There is always a danger when Government departments shroud their activities in secrecy. We believe this is therefore the sort of situation where the greatest possible care has to be taken before the powers of Parliament in this regard are circumscribed.

I want to refer to the estimates of last year as they were laid before Parliament. I want to refer to them in regard to existing secret funds. We know that under the Prime Minister’s Vote there was an amount of some R12 million allocated to the Security Services Special Account. That appeared on the Estimates of Expenditure and Parliament was able to see that such an amount had been allocated. It was a little more difficult to see what had been allocated to the Defence Special Account, but it appeared that some R510 000 at any rate had been allocated to it. We also know that an amount of some R250 000 which appeared on the Estimates of Expenditure was allocated to the Foreign Affairs Special Account. Parliament therefore knew at least what amounts had been allocated to the specific departments. This is not the case, however, in the present legislation. In terms of the present legislation it is for the Minister to decide. The Minister can be approached in a cagey atmosphere by one of his colleagues and if such a colleague can convince him that the department is entitled to some sort of special fund, the Minister determines that such funds can be allocated. Parliament may then be advised that a globular sum has been allocated, but Parliament may never know to which departments those amounts have been allocated. We say that this is not a satisfactory principle. It is, in fact, a principle which invites opposition.

I have referred to the estimates and to the three existing funds, but there are also other Votes where funds are allocated for such purposes. In last year’s estimates there was the Bantu Administration and Development Fund for which an amount of R500 was provided towards secret services. There was also the Police Vote which provided for an amount of R1,25 million towards secret services. One wonders why it is not possible for the Government to continue dealing with these matters on that basis? There were not special funds for the Departments of Plural Relations and Development and of Police, but they were, in fact, able to apply certain funds for special services. Parliament, however, still had control. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell the House, when he replies to the debate, why the other departments which are being catered for in the legislation, cannot be catered for as the Departments of Plural Relations and of Police were catered for in the estimates of last year. Certain amounts were designated as amounts for secret services.

On this basis we believe there are ways in which the Government can deal with any special circumstances which need special funds to be allocated. We believe it is a very dangerous principle for this Parliament simply to give the Government carte blanche to allow any Minister to approach the Minister of Finance to create other special funds. On that basis I support the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Musgrave’s argument hinged on the question of a devolution of the rights of Parliament. He tried to base everything he said on the supposition that we are now taking away from the rights of Parliament. Let me say at once that, if one looks at the measure before us in the abstract, one has to concede that there is a devolution of the rights of Parliament involved. However, I submit that one should never approach any measure in the abstract, because every measure that comes before Parliament is in effect the result or product of the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

*I believe that this is the correct approach to all legislation before the hon. House. After all, legislation is not introduced simply for the sake of introducing legislation: It is introduced for a specific purpose—otherwise it would not have been necessary to do so. Therefore it is not enough to argue that we are concerned with a principle which is not a good one and that the principle should therefore not be extended, irrespective of circumstances. This is basically what the argument of the hon. member for Musgrave boils down to. However, he concedes that it is not a new principle. He also concedes that it is a principle which may very definitely be applied under appropriate circumstances, but he alleges that the present circumstances in which we find ourselves do not justify the application of this principle.

I want to allege that at this specific moment in time we in South Africa find ourselves involved in a total struggle. I want to allege that we are involved in a total struggle for survival. It is not a struggle against an onslaught on the Government only, it is not a struggle for the survival of the White nation in this country only; it is not a struggle against an onslaught which is being made on a specific party in the country, but it is a total struggle for survival, because we are dealing with a total onslaught on the Christian Western civilization and values in this country. It is not a struggle which is being waged by and between soldiers in uniform only, but it is a struggle which involves all the people of South Africa. It is not only being waged on the borders, but also in the towns and cities of our country, in the factories and on the farms, and in the homes and hearts of every man, woman and child who love South Africa. After all, one’s country is more than a mere stretch of land: It is a principle, and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.

Since we have to combat a total onslaught, we must also make total measures to combat that onslaught effectively. That is why we must be prepared in every sphere. Being prepared implies and demands, inter alia, that we should also have the necessary financial means at our disposal. We already have three laws on the Statute Book which provide for secret accounts for three departments, but I allege that this is not enough to make us financially prepared for the onslaught which we have to meet. It is necessary for us to create machinery which will enable us to make financial provision to combat the onslaught in any other spheres where it may manifest itself as well. If we bear in mind the rate at which matters develop these days, it becomes clear that it is not always possible to predict a year ahead in which spheres funds for a specific purpose will be required. That is why it has become necessary to provide for the fonds to be available to combat the onslaught in whatever sphere it may manifest itself in the course of the following year.

When one takes a look at the nature of the onslaught, one realizes that we would be involved in a very unequal struggle if we allowed ourselves to be bound by rules which do not hold good for the other party. It would be like a boxer who enters the ring for a fight against an opponent who is not subject to any rules while he himself is bound by the Queensberry Rules. He is going to box according to the Queensberry Rules, while it does not matter whether the other man uses a cudgel, or a dagger, or whatever methods he may employ. That boxer will not have a snowball’s hope of winning that fight. In the same way, we will not succeed in warding off the onslaught against us if we allow ourselves to be bound by all sorts of rules and principles, no matter how good and elevated they may be, while our enemies do not consider themselves bound by such rules and principles. We have just as little hope of winning this struggle if, in terms of the example which I used, we are going to take the field against an enemy who is not on an equal footing with us, as we would have of winning the struggle if we were going to try to do so without making sure beforehand that we would have the financial means at our disposal when, where and if they were needed.

The hon. members of the Official Opposition have granted that a more effective control by the Auditor-General has been built into the Bill under consideration than we have in the existing legislation. I allege that this, together with all the other built-in control measures, is sufficient to ensure that the proposed funds will not be abused. This Parliament will still have to vote the funds in any event, even if this is done on a global basis, and the responsible Minister will have to clear an appropriation from this fund with the hon. the Minister of Finance. In other words, it will not be left to the discretion of one Minister only to dispose of it; at least two Ministers will have to decide on it. Although it is not specified in the legislation, I presume that if they cannot come to an agreement, they will definitely submit the matter to the Cabinet or to the hon. the Prime Minister. What I want to establish is that it is not a case of one Minister simply dipping into the fund and removing a sum of money whenever he wishes; nothing of the sort.

If we take note of the powers of the Auditor-General in this regard and we also take note of the powers of the Treasury, there is no possibility that, as the hon. member for Parktown put it, “money will be spent in a secret way without any account being given thereof”. The hon. member for Musgrave put it in similar words. There will be no question of those funds being unaccounted for. In fact, a thorough account is given of it. Although this is not laid down in the legislation, it is obvious—the hon. member for Newcastle also referred to the fact that the Government has a proud record as far as dealing with any form of irregularity is concerned—that should any irregularity arise in connection with the handling of the funds, a report will be made to Parliament in one or other form.

The arguments which have been advanced here in connection with the removal of rights from Parliament therefore have more sentimental value than actual importance. For this reason, in view of the advantages of and necessity for the measure in the times in which we are living, I want to state without hesitation that the argument which has been advanced regarding a principle which should not be extended is far outweighed by the advantages of and necessity for the measure. That is why I am pleased to support the Second Reading of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, if the arguments of the hon. members for Newcastle and Mossel Bay were the only ones on which we had to decide, I would not have agreed with them. The attitude that this is something we should do because we trust the Government, is not an argument for the making of laws. We in this party did not approach the matter from this point of view. At the end of his speech the hon. member for Mossel Bay returned to the content of the legislation, and that is what I want to talk about this afternoon.

†The hon. member for Parktown said that it was the duty of Parliament and of an Opposition to guard the powers and control of Parliament, and I agree with him. I agree that the powers of Parliament and its financial control over the administration of the country is one of the aspects that must be most jealously guarded in any democratic system. I accept that. Naturally we in the NRP have looked at the Bill in that light I believe, however, that Parliament has another duty. It has a duty to do what is necessary to serve the best interest of the country and has to ensure that the institution of Parliament, the ability to continue to operate as a free Parliament, is protected and preserved. When one comes to examine any measure I believe one has not only to measure it against the academic, theoretical ivory tower test, but also whether, by following that particular line, one does not in fact endanger the very ability of Parliament to continue as an institution. We have tried to weigh the merits of the Bill before us against that balance. The Official Opposition has decided that the powers of Parliament are the dominant, the overriding factor and that they must come first, irrespective of the consequences. We on the other hand have decided that we will support the measure and I think it is necessary to put the reasons for our support very clearly on record.

Let me, firstly, deal with the argument of the hon. member for Parktown that the moneys involved here could be expended without control. That is not correct at all. If that were so we would have opposed this measure. Parliament has as its highest employee an Auditor-General who is a servant of Parliament and not of the Government, the Public Service or the Ministry of Finance. He is Parliament’s watch-dog. Therefore, to say that a measure which provides for a fund to be audited by the Auditor-General is one which provides for money to be spent without any control, is an incorrect and inaccurate statement and we reject it.

Secondly, we in this party have always found that the Auditor-General, or the Controller and Auditor-General, as he was formerly known, has always been a man of the highest integrity who has to my knowledge never in the history of this institution, the Parliament of South Africa, ever been known to subvert the interests of Parliament and the rights of Parliament to the interests of the party in power, i.e. the Government. The evidence of this attitude is to be found in the Auditor-General’s report of this year in which the Auditor-General has, to the embarrassment of a Minister and the Government, reported to Parliament on issues which he thinks are wrong.

In this case the Minister determines the extent of the audit.

I will come to that. I repeat that we have a watch-dog who is our servant and in whom I have tremendous confidence.

The hon. member for Parktown went on to say that all one has to show is that the expenditure is in the national interest. That is of course not so. The hon. member only quoted half the sentence. He quoted “… the Minister of Finance and such other Minister as being in the national interest …”, but left out the part of the sentence which reads “… utilization for services of a secret nature determined from time to time by the Minister of Finance and such other Minister …”. So, there are two tests. Firstly, it should be a matter of a secret nature and, secondly, it should be in the national interest. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that all the hon. the Minister has to prove is that it is in the national interest and that he then can get as much money as he wants.

The hon. member for Musgrave conceded that there could be circumstances where secret expenditures were necessary, and he quoted three of them. The issue which this Parliament has to face is whether at this moment in time circumstances exist which make it necessary to spend money secretly. We believe those circumstances do exist. We believe the international climate of sanctions and arms boycotts, and the other threats made against us are special circumstances. The Official Opposition does not concede that those circumstances exist to such an extent that this Bill is justified. There is a difference of approach, a difference in the way one weighs up the security and safety of one’s country as opposed to the academic theory of how Parliament must have all and total control over everything. Let us look at what we are asked to give up. The hon. member for Musgrave said that one could even get conflicting and competitive expenditure for the same purpose as a result of this Bill because one hon. Minister would not know what another hon. Minister was doing. This is one of the weaknesses of opposing a Bill merely on suspicion—simply because one does not trust the Government. One then has to use ridiculous arguments. Surely the Bill stipulates quite clearly that every Minister must consult the hon. Minister of Finance. Surely the Minister of Finance will know if he has granted two Ministers money for the same job or purpose. It is therefore nonsense to say that there will be conflicting and competitive interests.

What are we asked to sacrifice in terms of this Bill? Instead of voting three amounts, one amount will now be allocated. R510 000 was voted for Defence Intelligence last year, but the hon. member for Musgrave excluded the biggest amount when he quoted what had been voted. R1 000 913 900 was voted for the Special Defence Account. His party unanimously voted—as we did—for this budgeted amount last year. We voted for this amount of more than R1 000 million to go into a fund, the audit of which was limited. We do not know the details of the expenditure and on what that money is spent Parliament voted more than R1 000 million as a blank cheque to the Department of Defence because we believed it was necessary to secure the safety of South Africa. We all voted for it. Because there is now to be one fund and because this principle is to be extended, it suddenly becomes a threat to the institution of Parliament. R250 000 was allocated to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and R1 250 000 was allocated to the police. We voted all these amounts last year, knowing that a certificate from the hon. the Minister would prevent them from being audited. We are now being asked to put all this money into one fund. However, instead of just a certificate from the hon. the Minister—and I refer specifically to the wording of clause 3(1)—“the account shall be audited by the Auditor-General”. It will be fully and not partially audited. The Official Opposition has not read the legislation. Clause 3(2) reads as follows—

There is no limitation on the fund, which is fully audited. The limitation is on the detail of what it is spent on once it has been agreed that it shall be paid to a department for purposes of expenditure. The hon. the Minister may then say what part of that money has been used for a particular purpose—and produce a certificate—but he does not have to disclose and publish the details of that expenditure. What we are being asked to give up, is not control of the money which Parliament votes, nor the right of Parliament to vote it. Parliament will vote this money and the Official Opposition will have the right to vote against it. There will be an amount on the Estimates for which Parliament will vote. It will be fully audited and there will be a limitation only on the source on which it is finally going to be spent to the extent that that is secret.

I should like clarity on one point from the hon. the Minister. Am I correct in assuming that since the account will be audited, the amount which will be paid over to the different departments out of the Special Account, will be reflected in the Auditor-General’s report? I am not referring to the details, but to the departments to which it is to be paid. Am I correct on that point?

I shall come to that.

I believe that this is important If it is not implicit in this provision, then it should be inserted by way of an amendment.

What we are being asked to judge—and I conclude with this view—is whether Parliament considers that circumstances in South Africa today are such that we should sacrifice the right to vote detailed moneys for specific secret purposes and that we should sacrifice, after the expenditure, the knowledge of some of the detail on which it is to be spent. The point is not that we should vote money over which there will be no control, or that we should vote money which can be spent as the particular Minister likes, but that money should be voted for a specific purpose. This being so, we believe that Parliament will voluntarily give up its right to have the amounts specified under different departmental heads. However, we shall have the right afterwards to know that it has been correctly spent.

We in the NRP, having looked at all the arguments, having debated them all in our caucus and having seen what was asked of us, came to the conclusion that South Africa deserved of its Parliament an Opposition which would give its blessing to a measure of this sort, with certain limitations and safeguards, because we see South Africa’s safety as being paramount to the continued existence of a free society in South Africa. For that reason—and that is why I have spoken at length, lest there be any misunderstanding of where we stand—we shall support this measure, because we believe it is in the interests of the safety and security of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I readily concede that if we had lived in a normal world and not in a world which is as dangerous as we are presently experiencing, it would probably not have been necessary to introduce such a measure in Parliament, nor would it have been necessary, perhaps, to establish a secret fund of any nature. But I think that all responsible hon. members and all responsible people outside will agree with me that this is not the case, and I think nobody put it more clearly than did the hon. member for Mossel Bay at the beginning of his speech. He pointed out what sort of world we were finding ourselves in. The pressure and the threats against South Africa are becoming more and more serious, and it is therefore necessary to decide on counteractions, and to carry through these counteractions to the very best of our ability in the best interests of South Africa and all its people. Stated briefly, that is the reason why I felt at liberty to come forward with such a measure. The principle of a secret fund is surely not a novel one. That has already been stated by several speakers. The principle already exists. It was accepted a number of years ago. All that we are doing now is to give a new form to the secret fund which we feel should be established for the very important purpose which I have just outlined.

†I want to record my great appreciation to hon. members for the most responsible way in which this debate has been conducted. I want to record my appreciation to hon. members on this side of the House, as well as to hon. members of the NRP and the SAP for their support of this Bill. It is the perfect right of any opposition party and of any hon. member of this House to decide to support or to oppose any measure brought before the House. Hon. members of the Official Opposition who have spoken in this debate, have in fact indicated that they will oppose the measure. Moreover, they have introduced an amendment which, I regret to say, is unacceptable to me. They have that right, but in the light of the importance of this measure and in the light of the motive underlying this measure, there is a fundamentally important reason to put this country, I would hope, in a somewhat better position in order to counter some of the iniquitous propaganda and some of the iniquitous measures that are being used against it. In order to do that, I would have hoped that the Official Opposition would have seen their way clear to support this measure, regardless of what they may have thought of certain details. However, we must face the position as it is, and I believe that one can make out a strong case for this measure. Indeed, I believe that hon. members on both sides of the House who have supported this measure, have in fact made my task far easier, because they have put forward some extremely convincing counter-arguments.

I should like to deal with a few of the issues that have been raised, even if I do perhaps repeat to some extent points that may have been raised in the debate. I think it is extremely important that one should deal with the criticism that has been made to the effect that this measure may to some extent affect the rights of Parliament. I daresay that if one were to look at this measure closely, one would have to agree that although there is going to be a secret account, an account which will have an amount in it, that amount, as is the case with every amount in every vote, must be accepted by a majority vote in Parliament. That, Sir, is not infringing the rights of Parliament. Since, however, a global amount is going to be distributed amongst three or four or whatever number of departments for the purposes that have been discussed here this afternoon, and since those sub-amounts are not going to be disclosed, one could strictly argue, I imagine, that that might mean a limitation on Parliament, to the extent that one does not know precisely what the amount will be which, for example, will be going to Foreign Affairs. However, I would like to deal with this point immediately in order to show what the position will be in practice. As hon. members have pointed out, we must look at this not as a theoretical exercise but as a very practical issue. The position will be that we will have a central single account. There will be one amount which will subsume the other amounts to be used for departments A, B, C and whatever other departments are involved. The departments that will make use of these sort of funds will be very limited. That assurance I can give the House.

The Minister of Finance, in consultation with a specific Minister, will then decide what goes to department A. Again, with the relative Minister, the Minister of Finance will decide what goes to department B, and so forth. This account will then be audited by the Auditor-General. As has been pointed out quite correctly by several speakers, and especially by the hon. member for Durban Point a moment ago, the Auditor-General is not simply any member of our society. He is in fact appointed by the State President, and he can only be dismissed with the active participation of Parliament Parliament has a say in this matter. But it goes further than that, Mr. Speaker. The Auditor-General has access to Parliament in the sense that he has direct access to members of this House serving on the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The Auditor-General is entitled to meet hon. members face to face in that extremely important committee of this House. There he may put his cards on the table and argue any case he likes, according to the way in which he sees the facts and the principles of sound finance.

Therefore one must be very careful, in dealing with a matter like this, before one says that the powers of Parliament are being arbitrarily curtailed. Any report that comes from the Select Committee on Public Accounts has to come before this House. This House sees that report. The procedure involved there is simply a different mechanism from that employed when one stands up in this House and discusses the matter across the floor. The argument that Parliament is being bypassed is accordingly one which I cannot accept.

I am not a great authority on the manner in which secret accounts of this kind are dealt with in many other countries. I am, however, aware of the procedure followed in two or three of them, and I believe that our system here compares well with those of which I have some knowledge, simply because we have taken great pains not to circumscribe the rights of Parliament if we could possibly avoid doing so. What would our enemies like better than to know precisely which departments are spending what amounts over what period of time? This is exactly what they are trying to find out. In fact, in all sorts of subtle ways, they often try to establish those very facts. This is the sort of thing we experience in all sorts of strange ways. All we are doing here is that instead of allocating Rx to the Foreign Affairs Fund, Ry to the State Security Fund under the Prime Minister’s Vote and Rz to the Defence Account, we are adding those amounts together, and those amounts can then, in terms of this measure, be distributed to the various accounts. In reply to the hon. member for East London North, I want to say that this will in fact be the sum total of the amounts. All the amounts going to the secret funds of any departments will be included in the globular amount provided for in terms of this measure. It is not as though this will be only part of the story and that further moneys will be voted directly to the other three funds mentioned. The money voted in terms of this measure will include the moneys voted to these various funds. That in itself gives us a certain manoeuvrability, as I said in my Second Reading Speech. One must bear in mind that circumstances change very quickly in this type of cold warfare, which is a severe type of warfare. One is suddenly confronted by a set of circumstances, and it may be that it is essential to do something which is going to cost a certain sum. Provision is now being made for this fund so that we can at least have an account which we can make use of quickly. This will be done in the most responsible manner, Sir, because what are we trying to do?

Before the hon. the Minister leaves this point, I should like to repeat that my question to him related to what was to happen after the money had been expended. In other words, the Auditor-General will in his report indicate the departments to which the money has been allocated. This will not be done in advance, but ex post facto, in the Auditor-General’s report?

Let me deal with that question immediately, Mr. Speaker. The position in terms of this Bill is of course that this account must be audited by the Auditor-General. The extent to which he carries out the audit, of any separate secret account, which will determine whether or not that specific point the hon. member has raised will be covered, will be determined by the Minister of Finance after consultation with the Minister concerned and the Auditor-General himself. That we still have to do, and I shall certainly bear in mind the requirements of sound financial administration. I certainly do not wish to do anything myself to curtail the free exercise of the powers of the Auditor-General. Obviously it is extremely important, but as to whether the Auditor-General is going to certify in his report, which will be laid upon the Table in Parliament, that X amount has gone to department A and has been properly used, I must say that I do not think the amount will be mentioned. I cannot give an undertaking in this regard at the moment, because we shall have to address our minds to this very carefully in the light of State security. I should not like to give an outright undertaking now that the department will be named. I think, however, I can give the absolute undertaking that we will do this in the most responsible manner we can, having regard to the need for security. I hope the hon. member will accept that.

Give us an outright yes or no. [Interjections.]

This has to be carefully discussed and there is provision in the Bill for such eventualities. What is important—the hon. members of the Official Opposition have completely missed this point—is that we have tried to bring this matter squarely under the purview of the Treasury, the Treasury in the broad sense of the Minister of Finance and his senior officials. At the same time, however, we are not interfering with the three Acts that already exist since we have found that they are working very well. The three Acts which exist, bearing on defence, foreign affairs and state security, work very well and I know of no problems and of no irregularities whatsoever. There is provision for proper audit and the provision in that regard is being carried out. We do not want to interfere, but the amounts which go to those departments will nevertheless go through this account and therefore we shall have the Auditor-General looking at the thing as a whole.

What more can one really say? I can perhaps refer to a few other specific points which have been made, but I think I should first of all refer to the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Park-town. The amendment is to the effect that the House declines to pass the Second Reading because the Bill proposes to weaken most seriously the control by Parliament of public expenditure by making it possible for moneys, in amounts not divulged to Parliament, to be expended by any department of State. I have just explained to the hon. member for Durban Point that that is a matter to which we will address our attention very carefully. The amendment also contains the words “dangerously widening the purposes for which such moneys may be used”. I think the hon. member for Durban Point has completely disposed of that issue since he correctly referred to the Bill itself in terms of which the only funds which are involved are funds of a secret nature. That puts an immediate curtailment on all of us in so far as these matters are concerned. These matters must be of a secret nature and if there is any doubt about that, the Auditor-General will very soon say that those moneys have not been spent on secret matters. There is therefore a very firm constraint. Secondly it has to be in the national interest. The hon. member for Durban Point correctly referred to this requirement. The hon. member for Parktown said that all things were in the national interest. I would hope they are. However, if the Bill is accepted, it will be written into an Act of Parliament that we have to bear the national interest deliberately in mind. The Auditor-General has very far-reaching powers. If one looks at the Exchequer and Audit Act, as amended, one sees that the Auditor-General does not only ascertain whether moneys are properly controlled and properly spent for the purposes for which they were voted, but he can also look at the effectiveness of the expenditure. What more can one ask? That will apply here since the audit will be conducted by the Auditor-General.

I think the hon. member for Mossel Bay was absolutely correct when he stressed the need to be practical in these matters. If one wants to be theoretical, one can talk about these fundamental principles for probably a week. The other point I want to make concerns the date on which this measure will become effective. I was asked: “Why 1 April? Why the hurry?” It is not a case of there being any hurry. We have been working on this for quite a long time, and in the first instance we wanted a simple Bill. We do not want a complicated system here. We want a simple Bill, one in respect of which I as Minister of Finance, the Cabinet and, I would hope, the House, could confidently feel that there is the necessary financial control all along the line. This is of the utmost importance because it involves public moneys. We had to reconcile the rights of Parliament with the best interests of the country in a very difficult and very spiteful world. I hope I may be allowed the liberty to say that I think we have succeeded, after a considerable degree of discussion, in achieving a compromise between those two fundamental considerations and that I can confidently put it before the House. The date 1 April has been decided upon because that is the beginning of the new financial year; and why not get this thing going, if it can be done, rather than leave it over, which would mean it would have to stand over for a further whole year? That is the sole reason for that date. It is a practical issue. We should like to bring this measure in right away.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can add very much more except to thank the House for the manner in which this matter has been debated. Having examined this matter very closely and having been involved in discussions on it for quite a long time, discussions which took these fundamental principles into account, I feel confident that we have got something here affecting our financial system that deserves a fair trial by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

A Bill such as this, by means of which a diversity of matters are being regulated, does not of course have a single, continuous underlying principle, but affects a variety of subjects which could probably best be debated during the Committee Stage.

For the convenience of hon. members, I should nevertheless like to explain briefly the substance of the different provisions in the Bill.

Clauses 1, 2 and 3 deal with the same matter and seek to declare a company like the South Atlantic Cable Company, in which the Department of Posts and Telecommunications holds 65% of the shares, to be an “associated institution” so that its staff may become members of the Associated Institutions Pension Fund. The company and its staff will themselves be responsible for the financial obligations to the fund.

Furthermore the object of clause 4 is to extend the existing statutory provisions for the recognition of previous pensionable service of the employees of local authorities whose functions are taken over by the Government, to all such employees who, in consequence of the take-over, became members of any pension fund or pension scheme under the control of the State.

The constitutional development of the different peoples in Southern Africa, sometimes has as a further consequence that members of pension funds or schemes under the control of the State, become involved in this development and that on such occasions their accumulated pension rights are jeopardized. In accordance with the Government’s policy of protecting pension rights rather than to convert accumulated pension rights into cash before they would be payable in the ordinary course of events, there is already existing legislation to protect such accumulated pension rights in some cases. Clause 5 has as its object the extension of these provisions and making them more generally applicable.

Since Bophuthatswana has become a sovereign independent country, it is also necessary, as in the case of the other population groups, to make it possible for Indians in this country—i.e. Bophuthatswana—to claim social pensions from the Republic in suitable cases.

As has already been stated it is our policy, where possible, to protect pension rights in cases where the person concerned has not yet reached pensionable age. We also want to do this now since a number of CSIR employees will in future become Armscor employees. These people, who are presently members of the Associated Institutions Pension Fund, remain members of that pension fund in terms of clause 8 and thus do not forfeit the pension rights to which they are at present entitled.

The development of the universities serving the different Black nations has reached a stage where they are being served by their own people to an increasing extent. Naturally we do not want to discourage this type of development. This development does, however, entail that members of other population groups must of necessity vacate positions so that members of this group may be accommodated in such positions. When that happens, it is obviously necessary to attend to the pension rights of those people who are thus affected. That is what we are trying to do in clause 8.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated in his opening remarks, this is a Bill which touches and amends a number of Acts. We will support the Second Reading of the Bill. As I understand the Bill, there are six major areas. One of these is to be found in clauses 1 and 2, which amends the Associated Institutions Pension Fund Act, Act 41 of 1963, so as to include companies. I assume the definition of “company” is in terms of Act 61 of 1973. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has mentioned, the South Atlantic Cable Company in which the Post Office has a 55% share, now needs to have these words inserted so that the legislation not only refers to an institution, organization or body, but also a company. I am glad to have the word from the hon. the Deputy Minister that the company itself will accept responsibility for the contributions concerned.

As far as the rest of the Bill is concerned, the second item which I should like to refer to begins with clause 4, which amends section 16 of the Second Pension Laws Amendment Act of 1974. I gather that here only a very small group of people is concerned. Nevertheless, each person is important. Some of these people are Coloured people, some are temporary staff with a few female workers here and there. In order to regularize, so that they are not penalized, the date 1 July 1973 is being inserted. This seems to us to be reasonable, because in a changing Southern Africa, inevitably, one is going to get people moving from country to country and not only from homeland to homeland. This places the responsibility on us to protect their pension interests as well.

The third item I would like to refer to concerns the provisions of clause 5, which amends section 10 of the Pension Laws Amendment Act, 1975. We have here an interesting move. In terms of this provision one not only has people appointed or nominated, but also people elected. I can only assume that this must refer to Dr. Kriel, the Minister of Health of Bophuthatswana. I think one must pause here a moment and say that it is a very good development that in this new independent country they have someone of the stature and status of Dr. Kriel occupying a very responsible position. Quite rightly he and others who may be affected should also have their pension rights protected and we would also support this provision.

The fourth item concerns clause 6, which amends section 8 of the Pension Laws Amendment Act, 1976. Here the date is given as 26 October 1976, whereas it, of course, really affects in the main the independence of Bophuthatswana. This is an extension of a provision which already exists for Whites and Coloureds and for Indians as well. That seems to be perfectly reasonable and perfectly fair.

Clause 7 should not delay us very long. The clause specifically has to do with employees of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. The operative word is “without a break in his service”. This of course is a very important measure. I just want to take a minute to say that the changes and amendments now before the House highlight one of the most important aspects of pension funds and pensions, something which has been debated time and time again, i.e. the transferability of pensions. One hopes that the time is not too distant in the future when we will have before us legislation making transferability a right laid down by statute. I am also thinking of other people who are affected, for example people who have served in universities for many years and who decide to go into another career or who are persuaded to go for instance from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions into another career. If there is any break in their service they obviously cannot claim the right of transferability. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me to digress a little here because it is such an important issue. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree that the matter of transferability of pensions is something which needs urgent attention.

In clause 8 provision is made—and quite rightly, too—for the many people who have been serving in a number of universities, such as the universities of Fort Hare, of Zululand, the University of the North and others failling under the Medical University of Southern Africa Act. As developments take place, their jobs are inevitably going to be in jeopardy to an extent. They should not be penalized. Therefore we welcome the provision which is now being made. If they, as I understand the position, should be discharged now in order that someone else can take their place, all they would receive at the moment is a gratuity. With the introduction of this measure they will not only receive a gratuity, but a pension as well. I think adequate protection is now being provided. We therefore support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, without going into detail, as the hon. member for Pinelands did, I wish to state that we on this side of the House also welcome this Bill because it eliminates certain shortcomings as a result of which people and groups suffered hardships in the past. A lot has been said in the past about the transferability of pension benefits. I think the State is setting a very good example here, in that pensions can be maintained instead of a merely paying out sum of money. May that also serve as an incentive not only to statutory bodies, but even to the private sector. I think pension benefits are certainly among the most important of conditions of service for anyone entering a profession or accepting a job. It is precisely people who are affected by this, whose services can now be retained, people who render very valuable service in the national interest and also in the interest of other population groups and peoples. I am referring in particular to people who are directly affected by the new dispensation of States about to receive independence. For that reason I think it is only fair that their pension benefits should be guaranteed and that they will not be penalized in this regard. Therefore we welcome this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches support the Second Reading of this Bill. We believe it is necessary. We have indeed become accustomed, as far as I can remember, to a Pensions Laws Amendment Bill whereby certain matters are rectified, being introduced almost every year. It is interesting to note that in terms of clause 9 of the Bill there are various dates on which the various clauses are to come into operation. Indeed, one of these clauses is to be back-dated to 10 May 1963.

I realize that retrospective legislation of this nature obviously becomes necessary when one is dealing with pension matters and endeavouring to preserve certain pension rights. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will, when improvements are made to other types of pension schemes, make certain that these improvements are granted at an early date and that people will not sometimes have to wait six months or until 1 October of any year to receive the increases. I mention this because it is interesting to note that with regard to the legislation now before the House a large number of provisions are made retrospective.

With regard to the transferability of funds, which was referred to by the hon. member for Pinelands, we in these benches fully support the view which he put forward, particularly in view of the fact that there was a committee of inquiry which investigated pension funds matters, and, if I remember correctly, they tabled a report sometime during 1966. Unfortunately, the hon. the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the administration of pension fund Acts, has not yet acted in terms of some of those recommendations. It is hoped, however, that the hon. the Deputy Minister will use his influence as Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions to try to encourage the hon. the Minister of Finance to take some action in this regard.

There are other matters of detail concerning this Bill which I should like to discuss. I do not think the Second Reading is really an occasion where one should go into a great deal of detail. However, I should like to say something with regard to clause 6 in terms of which, as far as social pensions are concerned, provision is made as far as residential qualifications are concerned so as to bring the Indian community within the ambit of the provisions of the Act of 1976. We, of course, welcome this extension. We believe it is obviously necessary in view of the fact that there are Indians in Bophuthatswana, and it is necessary for them to have their social pensions dealt with on the basis as set out in the Act of 1976. However, I think this does bring about a situation where the administration of some of these social pensions will make it rather difficult in this regard now that it is to be extended further. In terms of other legislation these pensions are subject to the persons being within that particular area. The Act of 1976 proclaims that these areas which were once part of the Republic of South Africa, for residential qualification purposes shall be considered to be part of South Africa. But as far as the social pensions are concerned, once the person has moved to another area, and the payment of that pension is to be continued, I believe that it will be difficult as far as the administration is concerned, because in terms of the Social Pensions Act the pension shall cease after a period of six months after a person has left the Republic. With regard to the administration of these pensions I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister how his department will become aware of the fact if a person should leave another territory, for example Bophuthatswana—or, in the case of Transkei, White or Coloured—in order that their pension can be stopped after a period of six months. I do not think it would be fair for these people to have an advantage over those who are still living in the Republic. I agree that they should be dealt with on the same basis, but they should not be placed in a more advantageous position. This matter is now complicated a little further because we are now incorporating another group, namely the Indian community in terms of clause 6 of the Bill.

The other matter which I should like to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister at this stage relates to clause 8, in terms of which the pension benefits of members of the staff of certain universities may be discharged in certain circumstances. The Bill outlines the four Black universities where these people are placed and from where they might be discharged in terms of Government policy in order that their positions can be taken over by persons of that particular race group. However, there is a limitation. I agree that this is an important principle and as such it is acceptable. However, there is the important provision in terms of which this is restricted to a certain period, and I would be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister could give some indication as to why he felt it was necessary to place a proviso here limiting it to a period of five years.

In the basis for the calculation of pensionable service, one-third of the period is taken from the date of discharge until the date that that person would normally have retired, or a period equal to the period between the date of discharge and the date that that person would normally have attained the age of retirement, which I presume is the age of 65, the recognized age of retirement. There is this provision now limiting this concession—if I might use that word—to a period of five years. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give consideration to why it is necessary to have such a proviso, because obviously the person is placed in a situation where he is being discharged and that his post is going to be occupied by a person of another race group. Therefore I believe it is necessary that the utmost assistance should be extended to that person, particularly in view of the fact that the clause states—

That provision has already been made so that people who are placed in that situation will receive the full assistance in terms of the clause that is now before us, without necessarily imposing such a proviso.

With these few words we in the NRP support the Second Reading of this Bill. We are indeed pleased to see that it is introduced at an early stage of the session. That means it will be put into effect very soon after it has been passed by the Other Place. Those who are going to benefit by the provisions of this legislation will certainly have their pension benefits protected in terms of certain clauses contained in this Bill and will receive that protection expeditiously.

Mr. Speaker, if I had not said during my Second Reading speech that we could have a more detailed discussion of the Bill during the Committee Stage, I would now have felt myself at liberty to move that the Bill not be committed. However, I have already given that undertaking and I suppose we shall have to deal with the few matters hon. members mentioned during the Committee Stage.

Order! I should just like to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the Second Reading of the Bill has not yet been passed. Therefore the Bill may still be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the admonition. I can only reply that when one deals with pension laws, one remains an optimist. One keeps on believing that one day one will also receive a pension. Therefore I believe that the Second Reading of the Bill will be passed.

I want to thank hon. members who participated in the debate sincerely for their support. I am also grateful for the support I received from hon. members of the Opposition, and in particular for the sound suggestions made by those speakers of the Opposition who participated in the debate. The hon. member for Pinelands mentioned a few aspects which I am not going to discuss again. What he said actually amounted to a further explanation of the Bill. I thank him for the additional education which he provided.

†I want to reply, however, to one question that was put to me. That is in regard to clause 7 of the Bill, a clause which provides for a person to be deemed to remain a member of the pension fund without a break in his service. Let me say that I fully agree with the hon. member. This Bill is a further proof of the belief of the department as such in what the hon. member has said. That is that there should be, as far as possible of course, a transferability of pension funds. The situation in South Africa is, of course, that we still do not have a State pension scheme. Regrettably, too many private pension funds render it very difficult, as the hon. member will agree, for us even to try, in terms of a multilateral agreement, to come to some of the agreements which I would like to see incorporated in all private pension schemes. Whatever the case may be, and whatever the reasons may be for the case being what it is, I can assure the hon. member that we will endeavour, as far as it is possible for us, to make more and more pension funds transferable in order to prevent people losing their pension benefits when changing employment.

At this stage I must point out that there is still a considerable degree of misunderstanding in connection with what the rights of people are. Allow me to refer to one particular instance. Mention was made of it by the hon. member, and I can think of quite a few people who can serve as examples. If someone resigns from, say, the Department of Education or from a university post, and collects the gratuity which is due to him, and with that, joins another pension scheme, in turn leaving or losing his new employment at such a time that he is not entitled to a pension under the new scheme, there is always, in the schemes over which this department exercises control, the possibility that such a person can redeem pension rights that he previously had. I do not want, however, to enter into a discussion of the matter. I merely want to mention one instance. Someone who collects Rx on the date of his resignation from a certain fund where he is entitled to pension rights, is entitled, after a period of five or six or seven years, to redeem the same pension rights which he had five years previously by paying back the amount which he had collected in cash, with a little interest added, interest which is calculated by the pension scheme. I do not think it is an unfair arrangement. The situation differs, of course, from one instance to another. However, if there are such instances, we would be only too pleased to look into the matter and to come forth with amendments in the same way as we have done with this fund.

The problem concerns private pension funds.

Yes, that is of course the instance I have mentioned here. I think I have now replied to that hon. member, but if there are cases that can be brought to the notice of the department, we shall certainly give our attention to them as expeditiously as possible.

I must also thank the hon. member for Umbilo, with his intimate knowledge and detailed study of matters dealing with pension schemes, for his contribution here. He pointed out quite rightly that some of these clauses are made retrospective. He did put a few questions to me, and I think they are questions which should be replied to. He mentioned, for instance, the difficulty of administration. Perhaps that hon. member, with his intimate knowledge of the department, should also have said that we are not only faced with the difficulty of administration in these new areas, and with all the things that go hand in hand with that. The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, dealings as it does with thousands upon thousands of cases of people moving from one province to another, changing their addresses each time, deserves a lot of thanks, in my opinion, for the way in which it is administering, with very little inconvenience to the pensioners concerned, the different pensions that are paid out.

They are doing a very good job.

They are doing a grand job, and I know that the hon. member for Umbilo’s sentiments in that regard are sincerely meant. There is, of course, quite a simple way in which we can keep track of people who are receiving pensions, but who leave after six months. We keep track of them by merely knowing at what point the payment of their pensions is made. If the point of payment is changed to any other place, we know whether the person concerned has left a particular country in which the pension has been paid out.

It may be paid directly into a bank account.

We do keep track of that as far as possible. But there are loopholes, of course. Those there will always be, but I think we have a fairly safe method of controlling these administrative matters.

In connection with clause 8, I think the hon. member asked why the period of five years was mentioned. Let me merely point out that this is the usual period allowed. It is, at all times, assumed that if a man has, through force of circumstance, had to resign from a job, he should be given ample time to apply or look for another post of the same nature and with the same remuneration, always considering of course his age and qualifications. That, of course, has applied in all previous cases. This period of five years is therefore not something new that has now been brought in. I therefore think the hon. member will agree that we cannot change the system in toto.

I thank hon. members for what they have suggested. It keeps us on our toes. I thank them for their contributions and for the support given to the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, in both the hon. the Deputy Minister’s introductory speech and my comments during the Second Reading debate, reference was made to the South Atlantic Cable Company. I wonder whether there are any other companies. Is there only this specific company or is this proviso made with the object of covering other companies in future? The South Atlantic Company is the only one that I know of, but it may be that there are many others concerned. Is this proviso intended to cover a number of other companies?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is perfectly correct in stating that there is only the one concern at the moment. It was brought to the notice of the department by means of the particular case of the South Atlantic Cable Company, but there may be others, too. I have already instructed the department to ascertain whether others will be coming forward.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I should like to discuss briefly the fundamental aspects which are involved in this Bill.

Appointment of members

In terms of the present provisions of the Prisons Act, the appointment of all members of the Prisons Service must be approved by me. I have already delegated the power to appoint members who are not officers to the Commissioner. Although most of these appointments can be disposed of properly at a lower level, the Commissioner may, in terms of section 93 of the Act, not delegate this power further than to officers of or above the rank of brigadier. By authorizing the Commissioner by law to approve of such appointments, this problem is being overcome.

Determining security measures I have also delegated to the Commissioner the power to determine security measures and the same delegation problem to which I have already referred, is being experienced here. The Commissioner deems it necessary to delegate some of these powers to other officers, although not all of them hold the rank of brigadier. To make this possible therefore, the Commissioner is now being authorized to determine security measures.

It is no longer the policy of the department to classify prisons as maximum or medium security prisons or as open prisons, and any provision which refers to that, therefore falls away. Instead, security measures are specifically determined for each separate prison where the necessity exists for such security measures.

Privileges

The concepts “privileges” and “indulgences” imply that these are not rights which can be claimed, but no specific provision is made therefor. However, in order to grant the Commissioner or persons delegated by him express sanction to grant or withdraw such privileges or indulgences, such a provision is considered essential.

Reception of prisoners and execution of sentences in prisons

The existing provisions of the Act merely make provision for the reception and detention in the Republic of persons who have been sentenced to imprisonment in territories in Africa according to the law in force in such territories. No provision exists for the detention in the Republic of unsentenced prisoners of other territories in Africa.

The Republic of Bophuthatswana has at present only one prison, namely the Bophuthatswana Central Prison. Initially this prison ought to be sufficient for the needs of the territory as far as long-term prisoners are concerned. As a result, however, of the situation of the police stations and magistrate’s offices, which are scattered throughout the entire area, it will not always be practicable to channelize unsentenced persons and short-term prisoners to the Bophuthatswana Central Prison, but will often be more realistic and economical to have such prisoners received and detained in the nearest prisons in the Republic until the Prisons Service of Bophuthatswana has developed to such an extent that it can be self-sufficient in all respects. Provision is therefore being made for the reciprocal reception and detention in the Republic or in any other territory, of unsentenced persons and short-term prisoners.

In terms of the provisions of section 292(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, and in view of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Penal System of the Republic of South Africa, the number of strokes which may be inflicted in the event of corporal punishment, are to be reduced from ten to seven. Similarly, this commission also recommended that the minimum period of detention of a habitual criminal, as prescribed in section 38 of the Prisons Act, should be reduced from nine to seven years. Provision is now being made for these essential amendments.

Recognition for highly meritorious service

Provision is also being made now for rewards for highly meritorious service in the interests of the Department of Prisons. This is considered essential, because there are many instances where sterling services are rendered to the department and where compensation ought to be paid, but as the provisions of the Act read at present, it only makes provision for compensation in cases where information has been given in regard to escaped prisoners.

Imposition and execution of sentences

The maximum fine which may be imposed on members of the Prisons, Service who are not officers, upon conviction in an officers’ court, is being increased from R30 to R60. The increase of the fine is deemed to be necessary in view of the fact that the existing fine of R30 has remained unchanged for the past 18 years, whereas salaries of members have by comparison increased considerably during the same period. The result is that the fine of R30 no longer has the same effective deterrent value and a steadily increasing tendency in respect of disciplinary contraventions by members is discernible.

The addition of a further penalty for members who are not officers in the form of depriving the member of not more than two of his off-days per month, is a very practical arrangement which is aimed at affording young members at training colleges, as well as first offenders, an opportunity to keep their service records clean, because the intention is not to enter this type of disciplinary infringement on a member’s record and so prejudice his career in the service in cases where a member pleads guilty to minor contraventions.

As far as departmental disciplinary trials of prisoners are concerned, the sentence which entails the deprivation of all privileges, gratuities or indulgences for a period not exceeding one month, is being deleted. The policy of the Department of Prisons is to move away from the idea that the deprivation of privileges is a punishment, because by implication it makes privileges legally claimable as rights. Instead, the idea should be encouraged that privileges, the awarding and the forfeiting thereof, are instruments in the programme of treatment.

The apparent age below which a prisoner may be sentenced to corporal punishment in terms of the Act, is being reduced from 50 to 40 years. That follows on a recommendation made by the Commission of Inquiry into the Penal System of the Republic of South Africa.

Release of prisoners

An essential provision is being inserted to enable me, in addition, to release prisoners, sentenced to two or more than two years’ imprisonment, on probation. I already have the power to release such prisoners on parole.

It is also intended to increase the special remission of sentence granted to prisoners who have rendered highly meritorious conduct from a maximum of 90 days to a maximum of one year so that it may serve as a greater incentive to prisoners to behave in a more unexceptionable manner during the interm of imprisonment.

Training and treatment of prisoners

It is considered essential to authorize the Commissioner to exempt prisoners in complete segregation on any day or during any period of such labour as he may determine. The gist of this addition is that prisoners who have been segregated should still have the opportunity to work, but facilities at all prisons are not of such a nature that prisoners who are in complete segregation during the work period as well as during the rest period, can be provided with work. It may therefore be necessary to exempt such prisoners from the performance of certain types of labour.

Indemnification of the State from liability

In all cases where use is made of Government transport by members of the Prisons Service or their dependants—excluding a member of the Prisons Service or a temporary warder or employee of the State acting in the execution of his duty as such or any person expressly authorized thereto by the State— whether free of charge or against repayment of the expenditure of the State, it is required of the persons concerned to sign certificates of indemnification before undertaking the journey. Such certificates are signed by all the interested parties and kept in the custody of the department.

Problems are however experienced in that members who have not yet attained the age of majority are not authorized to waive their rights by the signing of an indemnification certificate and no other person, not even the parent of the minor person, may waive or limit their rights in that manner.

In order to overcome this difficulty, an addition to the Act is essential to provide that all persons who make use of Government transport, shall indemnify the State from all loss or damage resulting from any bodily injury, loss of life or loss of or damage to property caused by or arising out of or in any way connected with the use of any Government vehicle or vessel or the use of any other Government property.

In this manner, therefore, the cumbersome use of indemnification certificates is also being eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has galloped through this Bill at a fine speed and I hope I have not missed some of the explanatory remarks which he was making. We have studied this Bill in considerable detail and although the Bill does contain a number of clauses that we do not like, we do not feel that any of them introduces a fundamentally new principle; in fact, these clauses that we do not particularly like, provide for the extension of existing principles. I especially refer to clauses 4, 10 and 18 of the Bill. I hope very much that we will succeed in getting some amendments passed to these clauses during the Committee Stage. There are other clauses in respect of which we require greater clarification. The hon. the Minister has given us some details on one of the clauses on which we wanted such clarification, i.e. clause 7. However, by and large we feel that the main thrust of this measure is in the right direction in so far, anyway, as it implements a few more of the recommendations contained in the Viljoen Commission’s report on the Penal System in the Republic. For instance, the legislation increases the powers of the hon. the Minister to grant remission of sentence to certain classes of prisoners. It also gives him increased powers to release prisoners on probation instead of only on parole as was formerly the case. Of course, the Bill does, as the hon. the Minister has told us, reduce the minimum period for the indeterminate sentence from nine to seven years which we consider to be an improvement.

As far as corporal punishment is concerned, the measure also improves matters. It reduces the number of strokes that may be inflicted on a prisoner convicted of an offence within the prison. It reduces the number to seven, which is not, I may say, as low as was recommended by the Viljoen Commission. The Commission recommended that the maximum number of strokes in all cases should be five, if I am not mistaken, that is strokes imposed by the courts for the original offence and strokes imposed in prison for an offence committed inside the prison. However, it does reduce the number of strokes that can be given to an offender and it reduces the maximum age limit at which corporal punishment may be inflicted. In this case the amendment does, in fact, carry out the recommendation of the Viljoen Commission as far as convicted prisoners are concerned. As the hon. the Minister no doubt will remember, I have pleaded in the House, when the Criminal Procedure Act was being amended last year and in previous years, for the abolition of corporal punishment altogether. That has not been done, but I obviously welcome any measure which reduces the severity and the incidence of this type of punishment, although equally obviously of course, I do not think the hon. the Minister’s amendments go far enough. We shall try to do something about this during the Committee Stage. I do not propose to go into detail in regard to other clauses of the Bill, with one exception, which I shall come to in a moment. My colleagues in these benches will be dealing with other aspects of the Bill which I do not touch upon.

What I would like to try and elicit from the hon. the Minister, is more detail as to the reason for the far-reaching amendment to section 22(c) of the original Act, contained in clause 4 of the Bill. In this regard I am referring to the proposed new section 22(2)(b) in particular. The hon. the Minister rather glossed over this during his Second Reading speech and I do not understand, from what he said to us this afternoon, why he has found it necessary to introduce what I believe to be a very far-reaching and, as we see it, an objectionable change to the existing law. The original Act simply stated that the privileges and indulgences applicable to each of the various types of prisons should be determined by the Minister. He could, of course, under the provisions of section 93 of the Act delegate these powers to the Commissioner, and the Commissioner in turn can delegate the powers to anybody who is in the prison service under the same section. There is no mention made, however, of the power to withdraw any privilege or indulgence granted to any prisoner without furnishing any reasons and without hearing such prisoner or any other person. We believe that this is an objectionable clause and we are certainly going to vote against it at the Committee Stage. We have placed an amendment on the Order Paper which we hope the hon. the Minister will consider.

I wish that the hon. Minister will give us, in his reply this afternoon, some indication as to why he considers this far-reaching amendment necessary. I know that there have been applications to court by prisoners as far as the withholding of certain indulgences is concerned. One such case is presently on appeal and therefore I shall not go into any detail on that. I am now referring to a case where prisoners made an application to be given newspapers. They lost their case, but it is presently on appeal.

In 1973 there was the Hassim case brought by two prisoners on Robben Island who had been denied study privileges, library books and certain other so-called indulgences. I shall not go into the detail of these cases now, but I shall raise them again in some further detail when we get to the Committee Stage of the Bill. The hon. the Minister won those cases, to all intents and purposes. There was, of course, one section of the case which he did not win, but he won the major part of the case and therefore it seems to me that the existing law, as it was interpreted by the judge, Judge Diemont, was all he required. Therefore I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister is introducing this very far-reaching amendment to section 22 of the principal Act. There are possibly other applications pending—I do not know that for certain—and it is also very possible that the major reason for this change is that the hon. the Minister wants to make it absolutely clear that no prisoner has any hope whatsoever in succeeding in any application to court as far as so-called indulgences and privileges are concerned.

In other words, no lawyer in his rightful mind would recommend to a client, who is a prisoner, that he has any hope of succeeding in any application against the withdrawal of these privileges and indulgences. If that is the case, I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us so, because, as I have said, he did not really enlighten us in this respect when he delivered his Second Reading speech. Is this what clause 4 is all about? Is it to ensure that no appeals to the court will be made in future and to make the law so watertight that there is absolutely no point in anybody who is a prisoner, applying to have indulgences and privileges which have been withdrawn, restored or to have those which have not been granted, granted in future? I have to be quite honest and tell the House and the hon. the Minister that this is my suspicion. I do suspect that these applications to court irritate the hon. the Minister, the Commissioner of Prisons and probably also the officials in the Prison Department. If I am wrong, I shall be very glad to hear it from the hon. the Minister.

I do not think there is any point in going into any further detail at this stage, because we can do so in the Committee Stage. We are not going to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, because there are a number of good features in the legislation. As I have said, there are a number of clauses which to some extent carry out the recommendations of the Viljoen Commission and may make the lot of some prisoners a little easier, although I am very concerned as to the effect of clause 4 on the lot of roughly 100 000 prisoners, which is the daily average number of prisoners which we have in the prisons of South Africa today.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton surprises us every now and then. We almost failed to recognize her today, because we know the hon. member for Houghton as a person who sees red the moment anyone talks about the privileges and related matters in connection with uniformed staff. However, I think, the hon. the Minister surprised her too by introducing such a positive measure. The hon. member was indeed right when she said that it would be easier and more convenient to discuss the Bill in the Committee Stage. Therefore she devoted the greater part of her Second Reading speech to the contents of clauses 4, 10 and 18. I believe the correct place for discussing the questions the hon. member put to the hon. Minister, is the Committee Stage. It is a pity that the hon. member once again had to attempt to find something sinister in it and had to sow suspicion once again, as if the hon. the Minister never introduces a Bill which does not conceal something which enables him to get at—in this case—the prisoners. I wish to assure the hon. member … [Interjections.] … that the provisions of clause 4 certainly do not contain anything sinister. When we discuss the clause in the Committee Stage and talk about the hon. member’s amendment, we shall be able to point this out to her.

The Prisons Act, Act No. 8 of 1959, has been amended 12 times since its implementation. If one takes a look at the amendments effected, one notices that they have consistently been aimed at improving the circumstances of the prisoners and at keeping pace with modern developments in the field of sociology, criminology and related disciplines. One need only to take a look at the upliftment and rehabilitation work which is being done in our prisons. Hon. members are aware of the fact that a fantastic singing and musical performance is given every year by, for example, the Victor Verster prison. Even in Pretoria we have attended concerts given, not by the staff, but by the prisoners themselves. We have learnt from the authorities of that particular prison that such concerts constitute very positive therapy for the prisoners. It is difficult to imagine a more inspiring example of upliftment work.

Why has the Act been amended 12 times? It has not been done because of mistakes and loopholes in the Act, but because one is dealing here with a Government which does not stagnate, but which adjusts to changes and brings about the necessary changes from time to time.

We find that this Bill also entails many advantages for the prisoners—the hon. member referred to that herself. We find this, inter alia, in clauses 8, 9 and 12 and especially in clause 17. I wish to express a misgiving, however, on the amendment contained in clause 8. I doubt whether one should simply reduce the number of strokes from ten to seven with regard to corporal punishment. I could imagine how sorry the hon. the Minister would be if he should succeed in having one of the Prog members as a guest of the State, and having to forfeit the great thrill of three extra strokes! But we do not really have an option here, because on 30 December 1974 a commission, later known as the Viljoen Commission, was appointed and commissioned to investigate the penal system of the RSA and to make recommendations of the Viljoen Commission resulted in radical changes of our penal and criminal procedure system. Indeed, a new Criminal Procedure Act came into being. The recommendations of the commission were so far-reaching that our penal legislation had also to be amended. As an example I could refer to clauses 12, 13 and 14, in terms of which the principal Act is amended to correspond with similar sections in the Criminal Procedure Act.

By means of this Bill an effort is being made to facilitate, to simplify and to streamline the activities of the department.

The hon. the Minister has referred to clause 2, which deals with appointment of people other than officers. The commissioner is afforded the opportunity to delegate his powers of appointment down to the lowest level, whereas formerly he could only delegate his powers down to the brigadier level.

The recruitment of staff has become a very specialized matter indeed, and this amendment is therefore essential. According to the 1975-’76 annual report, approximately 5 600 applications were received by the department. Each of these applications has to be analysed and evaluated in accordance with the conditions laid down by the department itself. Offers were made to 2 845 of the 5 600, in other words to one out of every two applicants, and 2 079 accepted the offer. This gives us some idea of the magnitude of this task.

The improvements contained in clauses 10 and 17 appear to be substantial. I cannot understand why the hon. member for Houghton questions the content of clause 10 in particular. The commissioner is hereby granted the right to give a small reward to a person who in his opinion has furthered the interests of the department in an exceptional manner. The extent of this little reward is very small. The maximum reward is only R30, and is moreover subject to the approval of the Treasury. Let us for a moment ignore the size of the reward: Let us rather see it as a gesture of gratitude and appreciation towards people who act in the interests of the department. As an example I should like to refer to an instance which has occurred in South Africa in the past. A number of very dangerous prisoners escaped from a prison. A farmer spots these prisoners in some remote corner of his farm. They realize that they have been seen and take refuge in the ravines and bush. The farmer takes his airplane and, circling above them, determines exactly where they were, informs the authorities and the prisoners are rearrested. In such a case the commissioner should be able to recommend that a small token of appreciation be given to such a helpful person. I do not think anybody in his right mind could be opposed to the content of the proposed new section. If one were so opposed, it would mean that one was taking the side of the escapees, of the criminals, against the authorities. Events like this take place more often than we think. We must bear in mind that apart from the smaller prisons there are about 250 bigger prisons in South Africa, and that approximately 100 000 prisoners have to be guarded from day to day. It is therefore cause for gratitude that this clause has been inserted in the Bill.

Clause 17 refers to the remission of 90 days which the Minister may grant in meritorious cases in terms of the principal Act. As far as a “meritorious case” is concerned, one can think of many such cases. To mention only two: Take the example of a prisoner who comes up with a new idea, with a new patent, for example, which saves the Department of Prisons thousands of rands.

In the past the hon. the Minister could only grant a 90 days remission of sentence in such cases. One could also imagine the case of someone who, during a brawl or rebellion in prison, comes to the aid of the warders and risks his own life in order to do so. Now, in terms of the amendment of section 70 by clause 17 the Minister is empowered to grant a maximum of one year’s remission on the period of sentence of such a prisoner. This I believe all hon. members will regard as a logical and reasonable improvement on the existing provision.

We on this side of the House wish to assure the hon. the Minister that we shall support the Second Reading because we are convinced that it will only serve to enable a department which already functions smoothly and extremely well, and which we are proud of, to function even more efficiently.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened with interest to the hon. member for Pretoria East, and I must say that we agree with him to an extent when he indicates that the policy of the Prisons Department in recent times has been to lay greater emphasis on the rehabilitation of prisoners, more in line with the modern concept in dealing with the rehabilitation of offenders. We in these benches believe that this amending legislation does contain certain improvements to the existing position, and because of these improvements we intend supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

There are certain matters which we would like to raise with the hon. the Minister, and we shall do so in greater detail during the Committee Stage. However, there are some aspects, generally speaking, on which we should like to make certain comments now. We are fully conscious of the fact that South Africa’s penal system, and indeed South African prisons, are constantly under the spotlights of international thinking and international attention. Therefore it is most important, for the benefit of the image of our country, to ensure that our penal system is one that gives the least rise to criticism. We feel that these amendments, particularly those which incorporate some of the recommendations of the Viljoen Commission which investigated the penal system in South Africa, are most welcome. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he intends introducing further legislation at a future stage to give effect to many of the other important and constructive recommendations contained in that report.

We have studied the Bill and we have listened to the hon. the Minister’s explanation in introducing the Second Reading. We also have a certain degree of doubt with regard to the advisability of clause 4, although we do appreciate the circumstances in terms of which this is now to be done by the commissioner instead of, as in the existing legislation, by the Minister. We are also aware of the fact that the Commissioner, in terms of this clause, may grant certain privileges and indulgences. Consequently, he must also have the power to withdraw such favours and privileges. However, we hope that the hon. the Minister will enlighten us more in respect of the operation of this clause when he replies to the Second Reading debate.

I now want to refer to those aspects dealing with agreements with other territories in Africa on a reciprocal basis. We can see that there are practical reasons why this particular clause is necessary. However, we would also like to make an inquiry in this connection. We would like to know which countries’ or territories’ citizens will be detained in these prisons. We feel that the question of citizenship is one that requires some clarity, especially taking into account the implications contained in that particular clause.

There are various other aspects which, we believe, are important. I refer firstly to the reduction from nine years to seven years of the indeterminate sentence imposed on an habitual criminal. This theme of the Bill, i.e. the reduction of the severity of sentences, is also indicated by the fact that, in cases of corporal punishment, the number of strokes is restricted, and that the age of a prisoner who is to undergo corporal punishment is reduced from 50 to 40 years. We believe that these are all important aspects. We know that the whole issue of corporal punishment is a controversial one. We know that recommendations contained in the Viljoen Report indicate that corporal punishment is indeed a severe punishment.

In the evidence before the Viljoen Commission it was pointed out that a certain judge, in passing judgment, had described corporal punishment as follows: “Whipping is a punishment of a particularly severe kind. It is brutal in its nature and constitutes a severe assault, not only upon the person receiving it, but also upon his dignity as a human being.” We realize that these are matters people feel very strongly about. We in these benches believe that corporal punishment is necessary, but that it must, of course, be inflicted on a specified basis. We also believe that corporal punishment should not be inflicted upon people above a certain age. That is why, if the hon. member for Houghton moves her amendment in the Committee Stage, we will certainly support that amendment. We feel that first offenders should only receive corporal punishment if they are juveniles, which means people under the age of 21 years. However, in terms of the figures given to us in the last annual report of the Commissioner of Prisons, we realize that a large number of prisoners fall within the age group between 21 and 29 years. Indeed, they represent the majority of prisoners. Therefore, when a prisoner is found guilty of an offence, and he is sentenced to corporal punishment it is very likely that such a person will fall within the age group between 21 and 29 years. Therefore, I believe that the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Houghton is a reasonable one, because the amendment makes provision for an age of 30 years.

The whole question of corporal punishment is one which we see as being extremely important. It is undoubtedly one of the aspects of our penal reform system which does require revision from time to time. Indeed, as the hon. member for Pretoria East indicated, one has to have a modern approach to many of these issues. We also believe that it is important to ensure that stringent disciplinary measures are adopted in our prisons. We are fortunate, in South Africa, in that we do not have many of the upheavals that have occurred in other prisons in other parts of the world where there have been riots, where hostages have been taken, etc. The system of treatment in our prisons can, in fact, be commended, and this is particularly due to the high standard we have in our prisons service.

In spite of that, however, we do believe that there are other aspects that require comment at this stage. I should particularly like to refer to clause 16 in terms of which the hon. the Minister may authorize the release of a prisoner on probation. As I understand it, those are prisoners who have been given sentences of two years or more. They are therefore long-term prisoners. We welcome this provision because probation is obviously a very important aspect of the complete rehabilitation of an offender, and this does indeed play a very important role in that regard. There are, however, certain practical difficulties that do exist. I say this with a view to the position of probation and the tremendous shortage of qualified probation officers. With the passing of this particular provision, one can envisage more persons being placed on probation. Although we do not doubt the merits of that, we nevertheless have to see to it that there are the facilities available to ensure that a proper probation service is offered to those people once they are released on probation from prison. I consequently believe that it is very important for the hon. the Minister to ensure, with the co-operation of welfare organizations and the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, that adequate probationary services are available to those persons once they are released on probation. I believe that the present situation is such as to require the urgent attention of the Government as a whole, particularly in view of the fact that the relevant hon. Minister is taking steps to allow further persons to be released on probation. He must ensure that our probation services are adequately provided for. If anything, the position of the probation services has perhaps deteriorated even further since the publication of the report of the Viljoen Commission of Enquiry into the Penal System of the Republic of South Africa.

The commission commented on the probation services and drew the attention of the country to the fact that aspiring probation officers should, of necessity, study further and obtain further qualifications so as to achieve a high degree of competence. I should like to quote from the report because I believe that this is important. I refer to paragraph 5 on page 133 of the report, which reads—

1. (a) training more probation officers as specialists in the task of preparing proper pre-sentence investigation reports and undertaking the duty of exercising control over offenders who are assigned to their charge by a court;
2. (b) arranging with a university or universities to offer a condensed course for the purpose of paragraph (a) above for aspiring probation officers so as to achieve, in view of the desperate shortage, the rapid establishment of a nucleus specialist task force of probation officers;
3. (c) creating new posts for these probation officers who should be attached to the courts;
4. (d) making statutory provision for a probation officer to be an officer of the Supreme court as well as of the Children’s and Magistrate’s courts;
5. (e) building up, with the aid of welfare organizations and welfare orientated institutions a voluntary auxiliary probation force.

I think these are important comments emanating from the Viljoen Commission’s report, and I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give some indication—perhaps when he replies to the debate—that the probation service will be adequate to cater for the additional persons who are going to be placed on probation in terms of the provisions of this clause.

There are several other clauses which we should like to discuss further in the Committee Stage, but as far as the Second Reading is concerned, we in these benches support this Bill in principle because we believe it is an improvement. We shall seek further information from the hon. the Minister, as far as the details of the Bill are concerned, in the Committee Stage debate.

Debate adjourned.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

On 15 February the hon. the Minister of Agriculture was asked in this House, at question time, whether the National Parks Board had given permission to anybody to survey, prospect or drill for coal in the Kruger National Park. The reply delivered by the hon. the Deputy Minister stated that the National Parks Board had not given permission, but that the hon. the Minister personally, in discussions with the hon. the Minister of Mines, had agreed that a geological survey be undertaken in the Kruger National Park by the Geological Survey Division of the Department of Mines in the course of its normal activities.

Subsequently, on 24 February, I asked the hon. the Minister a further question. I asked him whether this survey involved prospecting or mining of any nature, and if it did, whether the National Parks Board was contemplating any action under section 20 of the National Parks Act, 1976, which expressly forbids prospecting or mining of any nature on any land included in the park. The reply was that the survey comprised the sinking of a number of stratigraphical boreholes and that these activities were not of the kind for which action under section 20 of the National Parks Act was intended. At the same time I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, who had given the reply on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, whether he could explain to me the difference between drilling for coal and prospecting. He was unable to answer. Therefore, still the questions remains: What is the difference between drilling for coal and prospecting?

I think it is necessary to establish what is apparently not at issue. We should establish what we agree on before I proceed further with my argument. I think the hon. the Minister would agree that nine or more boreholes of approximately 10 cm in diameter were sunk in an area of approximately 40 sq. km. I think he would agree that these boreholes were sunk in the Punda Milia area of the Kruger Park and in that area of the park only. I think that he would also agree that these boreholes revealed the presence of high-grade coking coal in the area. I do not think that these facts are at issue.

Where I think we begin to run into points of difference, is when we decide whether or not the sinking of these boreholes was in fact prospecting and therefore illegal in terms of section 20 of the National Parks Act. During the debates on 27 February in connection with the Additional Appropriation, the hon. the Deputy Minister found an occasion to tell me that the sinking of the boreholes which had been sunk was not prospecting, but merely examining the crust of the earth. He quoted to me a definition of prospecting as it is contained in the Mining Rights Act No. 20 of 1967 and claimed that, according to that definition, the Geological Survey Section had not been busy with prospecting at all. I think for the information of hon. members it might be useful to repeat this definition. It reads as follows—

That is the definition according to the Act and the contention of the hon. the Deputy Minister was obviously that when the Geological Survey Division was sinking boreholes, they were not in fact intentionally searching for base minerals—they just happened to be doing this stratigraphical survey which involved sinking boreholes as part of their normal activity.

Perhaps at this stage I should ask the hon. the Minister where else in the Kruger National Park have similar boreholes been sunk. Are these normal activities, taking place all over the park? Is the earth’s crust being examined in this manner in other sections of the park as well? His Deputy would have us believe that the boreholes were sunk there purely by chance and had nothing to do with any assessment by any person that it was likely that the deposits of coking coal which had been found in Vendaland might well extend into that section of the park.

I am afraid I cannot believe this. I believe those boreholes were sunk with the express intention of establishing whether or not coking coal was to be found there and I believe this action was a direct contravention of the Act. I believe it was a criminal act and I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister misled the House when he tried to tell us otherwise.

I may say that I have taken legal opinion on this and it was made quite clear to me that whether one uses the definition of “prospecting” as laid down in the Mining Rights Act, 1967, or any other definition in a dictionary, the action of the Division of Geological Survey was undoubtedly prospecting and therefore ultra vires.

I have heard that legal opinion obtained by the department differs from this viewpoint. If this is so, I cannot believe that they were in full possession of all the facts when they gave that opinion.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to say that the Deputy Minister intentionally misled the House?

He did not say “intentionally”.

Intentionally or deliberately, whichever.

Order! Did the hon. member say that?

No, Mr. Speaker, I did not. I said the Deputy Minister misled the House …

You said “deliberately”.

Order! Did the hon. member not use the word “deliberately”? I was not listening because I was reading something the Secretary handed to me. Can the hon. member assure the House that he did not use that word?

Yes, I assure the House that I did not use that word.

In that case the hon.

member may continue.

Sir, we now come to the role of the National Parks Board. In The Sunday Tribune of 26 February Dr. Knobel, the chairman of the board, is quoted as saying that the board had requested the geological survey unit to do the survey as it was necessary that the board know what the geological make-up of the National Park was. This, of course, is different from the story told by the hon. the Minister who claimed that he had agreed to the survey after discussions with the Minister of Mines and that the board had not given their permission. They seem to be falling over themselves to take the credit for allowing boreholes to be sunk. Perhaps if, contrary to the hon. the Minister’s claim, the board actually did request the survey, they might well have been able to say they were merely carrying out their duties in terms of section 4 of the Act which states, inter alia, that—

Perhaps these boreholes were needed for the preservation and study of the coking coal deposits, but frankly I doubt it. I think the hon. the Minister’s version is in fact the correct one, viz. that he and the Minister of Mines cooked this up between them. I hope it was not the National Parks Board, because if it was, they failed miserably in their duty in allowing actions which, in spite of all semantic arguments, are clearly against the spirit of the National Parks Act and probably illegal into the bargain.

Now we come to the most sinister aspect of the whole nasty episode, and that is the involvement of Iscor. Dr. Muller, the chairman of Iscor, really let the cat out of the bag when, in his address to the S.A. Institute of Mining and Metallurgy in Pretoria on Friday last week, he admitted quite openly that Iscor took a keen interest in this coal deposit and that by around 1983 they might well want to mine this coal. Right from the start Iscor seems to have been involved in the whole affair. A number of interested people actually visited the area, according to a Press report, at the invitation of Iscor to examine the implications should mining take place. My question to the hon. the Minister is this: If this was simply a geological survey, what was Iscor doing there? Of what concern is this to Iscor?

Do you think Anglo-American should have been there?

Has the Geological Survey Division of the Department of Mines now become a prospecting company for Iscor?

Company before country.

When Iscor calls the tune, do hon. Ministers do what they are told, do they dance to that tune? And why are Iscor the only people interested in this? [Interjections.] What about other people who might be interested? What about private enterprise? They might well want to join a free for all to get this coal out of the ground.

Creeping socialism, that is what it is.

Sir, I have to say that the whole affair has a very nasty smell to it, and particularly the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attempt to mislead the House.

Where is he now?

He attempted to mislead the House into believing …

Order! In the sense in which the hon. member has now used the word, he must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir. We were led to believe that this was part of a national survey while all the evidence points to the fact that this is not true and that there was definitely an ulterior motive, which seems to have been fostered by Iscor. Dr. Muller, the chairman of Iscor, has actually outlined what steps were likely to be taken when serious coal mining eventually began in the Kruger National Park. He laid down the following steps for mining: He said that it was necessary to limit the area to be mined at any one time to between 50 and 60 sq. km; he also stipulated that the mining company would have to offer an exchange of suitable and acceptable ground; he also stipulated that royalties would have to be paid and doubtlessly ploughed back into conservation; he required disturbance to the environment to be kept to a minimum; all dumps would have to be covered with soil and be revegetated; all surface structures would have to be removed and the restored ground would then have to be handed back for incorporation into the reserve.

Mr. Speaker, with every respect to Dr. Muller, he is jumping the gun. It is in the first instance for Parliament to decide whether or not any mining at all is to be allowed. As the Act stands, no mining can take place. As the Act stands, not even prospecting should have taken place. What is disgraceful is that these boreholes were sunk without the people concerned even bothering to submit the matter to Parliament. I think it shows an arrogant contempt for the law almost amounting to a belief on the part of certain hon. Ministers that they are above the law. How dare they do it? How dare they? Whatever the case may be, whether they acted in the public interest or not, that does not affect the situation at all. What they did was against the law and if they wanted to change the law they should have come to Parliament to do so instead of telling a cock-and-bull story which is, as far as I am concerned, manifestly untrue.

I would like to mention in passing that, in terms of section 26(1) of the Act, the burden of proving any fact which would be a defence to a charge under the Act shall rest with the person charged. The onus of proof rests upon the accused to prove his innocence. Perhaps certain hon. Ministers might take note of that as well. I think the hon. the Minister owes it to this House and to the public to tell us the full story instead of giving us the run-around. He should take us into his confidence and explain what actually took place and what his intentions are for the future. Perhaps he can also explain how it is possible to flaunt the law with such impunity, evidently without any form of prosecution being contemplated.

At this stage I would like to make a plea for the Kruger National Park itself and, in doing so, I would like to pay tribute to the vision or foresight of our forefathers who established the Park. [Interjections.] For example, I would like to pay tribute to President Paul Kruger, a great conservationist, whose proclamation in 1895 established the old Sabie Game Reserve. [Interjections.]

Order!

This in turn became the Kruger National Park in 1926 when the original National Parks Act was piloted through this House by the then Minister of Lands, the hon. Piet Grobler. I think that I could do not better than to quote the words of the hon. Paul Sauer who, during a debate on national parks in 1961, said the following—

I would also like to pay tribute to such men as Lt.-Col. Stevenson-Hamilton, the first warden of the Kruger National Park, who created the circumstances which have enabled the park to become what is today a priceless and irreplaceable asset to our country.

I want the hon. members who have been making such a noise on the other side to ask themselves what sort of value they place on the Kruger National Park which was put aside for us by past generations. I think we are running the risk of doing tremendous damage to this irreplaceable asset. I think I would have the support of all scientists and ecologists when I say that the Punda Milia area of the park is ecologically unique. It is the last piece of virgin sandveld left in South Africa. It is tremendously valuable, ecologically, because three distinct geophysical areas meet there in the Mapani Plains—the arid South-West region, the broken mountain land and the Mozambique Plain. I think the same scientists would also agree with me that any coal mining operation would virtually destroy the natural ecology of the area. Coal mining does not only involve sinking a few shafts into the ground, but it also involves dams to provide water for washing the coal. It also involves roads, perhaps railway lines, towns in which to house workers, amenities for those people, schools, offices, workshops, mine dumps and dozens of other types of surface structures. Once that area has been mined, it will never be possible to restore it to its virgin state in spite of the steps Dr. Tommy Muller considers would have to be taken, like covering dumps with soil and revegetating them. There is no doubt at all that disturbing the environment will have a lasting destructive effect. It would never be possible to restore the original veld and I believe mankind would be the poorer as a result.

At the very magnificent international Wilderness Conference, opened by the hon. the Minister of National Education, held in Johannesburg towards the end of last year— the conference was attended by conservationists from all over the world—South Africa, as the host nation, was able to hold its head high as a country which is a leader in the field of conservation. South Africa could prove to the world that the vision of Paul Kruger and Piet Grobler was being carried through by this generation of South Africans. We were able to project ourselves as an example of what should be done as regards the protection of the environment.

What are we going to leave for future generations? I believe that we have a very clear choice before us. As the population explosion puts pressure on available resources of land and mineral wealth, are we going to decide that the short-term advantage to the economy of getting the coal out of the ground outweighs the long-term advantage of keeping the park intact? Does the national interest demand that we use the coking coal to produce steel or does it demand that our parks should be inviolate? I think it would be worthwhile to quote from a speech made by Co. Laurens van der Post to the World Wilderness Congress last year. He said—

He added—

When the original National Parks Act was passed in Parliament in 1926, it included provisions which banned prospecting and mining in any area included in a national park, and these provisions have remained in the Act ever since. The reason for the banning of prospecting was quite clear. The people who drafted the Bill did not want us even to be aware of any mineral wealth which might be contained in the park. They did not want temptation to be put in our way and one of the most reprehensible aspects of this so-called geological survey is that, in contravening the Act, inevitably the temptation to mine is with us. There will be those who demand that coking coal is vital to the national interest and that this source cannot remain untapped.

The Parks Board has obviously been subjected to pressure already. Dr. Rocco Knobel is quoted in the Press as having said that he was not prepared to oppose the mining operation and that he maintained that it could be in the best interests of nature conservation.

He said that if the proposed mine were given the go-ahead, Iscor—why it should be Iscor I do not know—would have to compensate the Government for the land which would then be deproclaimed. This money would then almost definitely be used to extend other game parks and that is why the operation could, in fact, be in the best interests of nature conservation. I would like to say to Dr. Knobel that of the many environmentalists to whom I have spoken, not one has agreed that this could be in the best interests of conservation. In fact, all of them believed that it would be disastrous. I think that if it is decided to bring a Bill to Parliament in order to change the Act to make this mining venture possible, tremendous pressure will be brought to bear, by people from all over the country and of all political persuasions, to reject it. This is not a political matter and I hope there are hon. members on all sides of the House who will join together to ensure that our national parks remain untouched.

In conclusion, I would like to call upon the hon. the Minister to give us an assurance that all prospecting, in any of our national parks, will cease forthwith and that, if he considers it necessary to allow it, he should come to Parliament with amending legislation. If he should do so, I can assure him that he will have a fight on his hands. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member introduced this motion in the House today. I do not think that the hon. member has benefited nature conservation in South Africa in any way by stating this case here. The question arises involuntarily: What is the motive behind this motion? I think that if we listened to the hon. member, we already have the reply to this question. At the end of his speech the hon. member came out with a pious declaration about how strongly he and his party feels about nature conservation in South Africa. But this piety which the hon. member is displaying is merely a peg on which to hang this whole question. What is the motive behind the hon. member’s motion? We know who these hon. members are. They are part of the Anglo American establishment … [Interjections.]

I want to explain what happened in regard to this matter. It is no secret that Iscor prospected beyond the Soutpansberg mountains and in Vendaland and that rich deposits of coking coal were discovered there. When the prospectors reached the boundaries of the Kruger National Park, they could go no further and the Geological Survey Division stepped in. I am speaking with responsibility, being the oldest member of the National Parks Board, and when it comes to the question of nature conservation, I do not take second place to any hon. member sitting there. [Interjections.] The Parks Board told Iscor that they could not prospect in the Kruger National Park because this was contrary to the Parks Board Act. What happened then? The Geological Survey Division of the Department of Mines said that they wanted to conduct surveys in the park in order to establish whether the seam of the coking coal deposit which was discovered in Vendaland, extended further into the Kruger National Park. I want to reject the reflection which the hon. member cast on the Parks Board, viz. that the Parks Board acted illegally, with the contempt which it deserves. The Parks Board is a board which is held in high esteem in this country and in the world for what it does for nature conservation. I think the director of the Parks Board, Mr. Rocco Knobel, is a person who is held in high esteem in nature conservation circles throughout the world. He attends various symposia and congresses throughout the world. I think that the love which these people have for nature conservation is irreproachable.

What else happened? The Parks Board obtained legal advice and according to this advice there is nothing in the Parks Board Act which prevents the conducting of surveys by the Geological Survey Division in order to establish whether or not there are deposits of coking coal. This is precisely what we have done. I have here a very detailed report which was drawn up by the officials of this board concerning this entire matter. The number of boreholes which was sunk in this area is not nine, as the hon. member said, but 12. I have news for him: A further eight boreholes are going to be sunk in order to determine the western and eastern limits of the deposit and to establish whether the coking coal is of the same high quality as that which was discovered in the other boreholes. It is in the national interest for us to obtain this information, and it is the task of the Geological Survey Division of the Department of Mines to obtain this information. This is as far as matters have progressed up to this juncture. Anything else which the hon. member sees there, are harbingers of doom which he himself has conjured up.

It is the task of the Geological Survey Division to map mineral deposits in South Africa, and this is precisely what they are doing here. Iscor was already engaged in prospecting, and all their drilling equipment was on the boundary. After negotiations, it was agreed that Iscor would sink the boreholes in the area. I think it is quite natural that Iscor, who discovered the seam, and has all the options on the areas in Vendaland, should also be in the running to try and obtain the coking coal. If it should ever go so far that mining rights have to be granted, I shall advocate very strongly that they be granted to Iscor. What is wrong with this? Iscor is one of the strongest national industrialists in South Africa and it is therefore in the interest of Iscor for them to obtain the mining rights.

That is why I say that the action which was set in motion by the National Parks Board to have a survey made by the Geological Survey Division, is something which cannot be criticized; it was done legally and there was no contravention of the National Parks Act.

I want to enlighten the hon. member further on the matter. The hon. member is simply presuming that the exploitation of minerals in that area will begin tomorrow or the day after. The hon. member should know—after all there are legal people in his party who can enlighten him—that the Act provides that if any mining should take place in a park, this House has to decide on it. If there is to be any alienation of any ground under the control and jurisdiction of the Parks Board, this House has to decide on it. Therefore, all that is happening at the present stage, is a lawful action for which the Parks Board gave its permission, viz. that the Geological Survey Division of the Department of Mines, may conduct surveys in the area in order to determine which deposits there are and to map them. The House of Assembly will have to give its permission for any activities which may result from the surveys.

It is disgusting that the hon. member drags Iscor into the House in such a covert manner in connection with such a matter. If any other big company had discovered this deposit, for instance Anglo American or General Mining—I am mentioning these two specifically because the one belongs to Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, while the other is an Afrikaner Company—those hon. members would not have said a word. [Interjections.]

Sir, you must see this motion as a continuation of the campaign which those hon. members are waging against Iscor, Escom and the other national corporations which we have in South Africa. Hon. members are committing an unpatriotic deed. The whole philosophy of the PFP came into play once again today. They want to destroy everything which we have built up in South Africa, including strategic industries such as Iscor, etc., and let their work be done by others. I want to state here today that if it should be in the interests of South Africa to mine that coking coal to meet our strategic requirements, I shall vote for it with both hands, because it will be in the national interest.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go into the technicalities as to whether this is a legal act or not. The hon. member for Orange Grove clearly set out the legality or the illegality of this action. I want to deal with the word “prospecting”. In the United States the word “exploration” is usually used. Of course, there is a difference between “exploration” and “exploitation”. But I want to explain and detail is the difference between our National Parks Board and the United States Parks Board. In case the hon. the Minister says: “Wat weet daardie boer van “exploitation” en “exploration”, I would like … [Interjections.] … to mention that I did some study and research in this field while I was in the United States. After completing a degree in geology and then a master’s degree in subsurface geology and exploration in the United States of America, I did exploratory work in the Rocky Mountains for the Parks Department of the USA. This was exploration, exactly as is being undertaken in South Africa, and not exploitation. Their Parks Department have exactly the same problem in that they may not exploit a park, but are allowed to explore and prospect for the reason that one needs to determine, in geological terms, the stratigraphy of an area. One has to know the stratigraphy of that park because it affects the local areas, in our case the areas in Mozambique and South Africa. I have no objection to prospecting in our National Parks.

Even if it is against the law?

I made the qualification when I started my speech that I would not deal with the legal aspect of it as that had already been dealt with.

This is a very clear-cut case of exploration. One could drill a hole in our country or in Mozambique and find an ore body or strata with exploitative value which one could use. That knowledge is important to our country. I see absolutely no reason why the geological survey unit should not do any exploratory work in the parks. I am not raising the argument of mining in the parks. I believe that is the argument the hon. member for Orange Grove used in order to create for himself some kind of image as a nature conservationist so that the Press can hoist him onto their shoulders. I am positive that his action is Press-motivated. I do not agree with the hon. member on the opposite side who said this was an attempt to foist Anglo-American onto our shoulders: It is purely a matter of emotion.

We are all game conservationists and I defy anybody to say that we would not fight to the last point for the preservation of the Kruger National Park.

They said they would vote for mining!

They did not say they would vote for mining. We are talking about game conservation and our National Parks Board.

They were talking about mining.

I am saying that Dr. Knobel—we all know what he is like—will fight all of us here to preserve this park and game in this country. However, what would his attitude be if we were to find, for instance, an oil-well or an oilfield in that park? What would be the attitude of hon. members to my right if an oilfield were discovered?

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

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is not prepared to answer a question.

My point is that if we were to find oil in that park, we would have to consider that in terms of our national economy. I am not trying to say that we need to go mining, but if there happens to be a major oilfield in that park, there is absolutely no reason why we should not take that fact into consideration and do some exploratory work before we start exploiting it. In my view the department should take cognizance of the exploratory work that is done and then approach Parliament to present the facts for our consideration. At that stage we can consider it. I can give the assurance that this House will stand on the side of the game conservationists, but that we will at the same time not wipe out this country.

Mr. Speaker, I too am not involving myself in the legal niceties of this matter. I want to take the point he has raised further, viz. whether the speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove would have been in that vein had he known that in fact there was a chance of finding oil in that park. I shall stick out my neck by saying that I am convinced that we would have heard a totally different speech from him today if that was so. He would have looked at the matter from some other angles. We are not looking at the question of whether the holes have been drilled or not—we have heard that they have been drilled and it is no good debating that issue—but perhaps we should be looking at the implications of the drilling work there. I think we should make our position clear. There are aspects of this matter which are negotiable and others which are non-negotiable. In terms of the conservation aspect, which is obviously the one the hon. member for Orange Grove is interested in, there are three non-negotiables as we see it, viz. that there should not be any endangering of any of the species of animals in that park, that there should be no adverse change of the environment in which those animals live and that there should be no question that the area of land available for that park should in any way be reduced. That is the position within the ambit of those non-negotiables. What is negotiable? What are we competent to decide upon when the question arises whether there could be mining and prospecting? I believe that with reasonable, able and responsible people we can come to an arrangement on this matter. I want to put the matter into perspective. This game park has an area of 10 000 sq. miles. Let us be realistic. What area is going to be involved? We must see it in the light of the fact that a small area of the Park is involved, and then ask ourselves how we can accommodate the fact that there is a valuable deposit of coking oil, gold or uranium in that area. Let us look at the principle of the matter. What can we do to exploit that and still preserve the environment there as it is intended to be preserved?

It cannot be done.

Nonsense. It can be done.

Any ecologist will tell you are talking nonsense.

The USA have had problems with all manner of open-cast mining and through their ingenuity they have proved that the environment can be restored and renewed. The hon. member for Orange Grove and other hon. members know it can be done. We should determine how it can be done and how efficiently and effectively it can be done.

It cannot be done in this area.

Do not sit there and chirp so that nobody else can hear. Speak out loudly for all to hear. If restoration cannot be done, then for every rand spent on exploration and mining, an equivalent of money should be spent on the buying of land of a similar nature so that the land which has been excised can be again added to the park. If it cannot be done, as the hon. member for Orange Grove claims, that is an alternative whereby the park can be restored to its original size. If the hon. member for Orange Grove really wants to consider the park as an area for conservation, he should admit that there should not be any roads or accommodation there. However, I am sure the hon. member will accept the fact that there are roads and accommodation there because it encourages the tourist industry. This also is a compromise. However, the PFP does not believe in compromises. They are determined to make an issue out of something which could have been dealt with in another way. I believe they have done themselves a disservice by the way they have handled this issue. There is always a compromise, and the sooner hon. members of the PFP realize that reasonable people can come to a compromise, the better it will be for this country. Day after day we see the sterile confrontation between these people, who believe in their own radical policies, and the Government. There cannot be any constructive debate, because these people do not believe in making any positive contribution.

Mr. Speaker, one will always find a stooge in every party. In the short while which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been the leader, he has not yet called the hon. member for Orange Grove to order. That hon. member has not yet ’phoned me to say that he is going to the Press about certain abattoir matters, for instance. Now I read in the Press about all his objections, and then the Government has to appoint commissions of inquiry at great expense which publish reports demonstrating every time that he is completely wrong. Hon. members on both sides of the House know that they can ’phone me—day or night, whenever they want to.

In the first place, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South used the words “Press emotion” and secondly, asked: “Why Iscor alone?” This is what it is all about. If I were to inform the company of the hon. member for Orange Grove that extremely rich deposits of gold ore have been discovered, he will forget about the Parks Board Act. How will he feel if I tell him that he may not investigate a matter like this? How will the hon. member feel if I tell him that, in one of the 12 boreholes to which the hon. member for Edenvale referred the purest oil in the world had been discovered?

Then you come to Parliament to change the law.

That is exactly what we are going to do. That hon. member is looking for publicity, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not yet been able to discover that that hon. member is a fly in the ointment and an embarrassment to his party. He is wasting the time of the House with the type of statement which he made. Just listen to his language. I have never yet heard such expressions in Parliament as “cock-and-bull stories”. Then he becomes emotional about “our forefathers”. And to arouse the emotions even more, the hon. member asks: “What are we going to leave for generations to come? This Government is destroying its natural resources for agriculture and industries.” Mr. Speaker, can you believe that an hon. member can use words like this? He becomes emotional and then runs to the Press with everything. According to a report in The Sunday Tribune, under the heading “Kruger Park—coal row—may go to court” he says—

[Interjections.] The hon. member alleges that the Government has no respect for the protection of our soil and our animal life. But he does not know what is happening. Even if he wanted to be Paul Kruger Lorimer and share in this type of conservation and protection, I tell him straight to his face that he is not concerned about the protection of what is dear to us, viz. our soil. He is concerned with nothing but materialism here. This is really what it is all about. The hon. member will not rise to his feet in any one of our debates and tell us what the Government has done over the past 10 years. We gave the Transvaal Provincial Administration 10 700 hectares for the conservation of our soil. I am not talking about waste land now. The Free State Provincial Administration received 25 000 hectares. This land was made available by the disposal of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. There are farmers who are dying for a piece of land, but we come along and say that we must conserve nature and that is why we must give the provinces this land. The Natal Provincial Administration received 11 600 hectares. In the Umtamvuna area they are asking us for 3 100 hectares. What was the reaction of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure? There are farmers who are begging and asking: Can we not have it as grazing and arable land? But then we say we must further nature conservation. What did we do in the Cape Province? 13 178 hectares was made available. We received parliamentary approval to exchange 20 300 hectares of the Ntlaveni which borders on the national park. We gave 5 000 hectares of the Riemvasmaak farm to the Augrabies Falls National Park. Can the hon. member tell me whether he has ever been to the Augrabies Falls National Park? [Interjections.]

What has that got to do with prospecting?

I am talking about the allegation that the Government has no respect for the conservation of our natural heritage. We have now started work on a new park at Beaufort West which will comprise 7 255 hectares. This has already been approved. There are more examples which I can give. We have 56 km along the Tsitsikama Forest coastline, a wide strip which stretches from the low water mark, a huge area, which is reserved for nature conservation. All this falls under the National Parks Board. I tell you candidly: If the law has to be changed, then it has to be changed. But Iscor is a strategic undertaking, and it costs us millions of rands to import coking coal every year. The hon. member for Edenvale explained it very well. Prospecting has now commenced from Ellisras onwards. The chairman of Iscor said that Geological Survey made surveys and discovered that there was in fact coking coal which can be mined, but that it is uneconomical and therefore it will not be profitable to mine at Punda Milia. The president of the Wild Life Society says—

By that time it will have cost the country millions of rands already. Where does one’s patriotism start or where does it end? There are some people who are like scavengers for the sake of publicity. They look around for a piece of rotten meat like a hyena. South Africa does not concern itself any longer with what the hon. member for Orange Grove says. With respect, this is one of the most ludicrous motions which have ever been before this House.

We shall see.

We shall see! The hon. member will gain a great deal of publicity because he is professing to act here as the father of conservation of the wild animals of our country. However, if we discover oil in that park, we would rather accommodate all the lions in the park in the Carlton Hotel… [Interjections.] The hon. member for Berea … Sir, I am fond of this fellow. He raised the idea: “Let us come to an agreement; Let us come to a compromise.” He knows that there may be an asset for our country here. It may be diamonds or gold; it may be coal, or oil. We do not want to give up one hectare of our land, but if we discover an asset like this, whether it is in the Tsitsikama Forest, in the Kalahari Gemsbok Park or wherever it may be, it may perhaps be time to look at the act and give Geological Survey the right to determine what is lying under the soil of our country. We must utilize this to the advantage of all the people in this country. Then we make an agreement and since we realize that we have so much to gain from this, we establish a better park, to the advantage of everyone in the country.

I should just like to read the following piece quickly. Since the hon. member is talking about court cases and threatening to drag the Government to court, there are of course legal aspects about which he may disagree with me—and I am happy to concede this. However, I am not interested in who is going to win a court case in this matter. The hon. member is quite correct. Section 20 of the National Parks Act—Act No. 57 of 1976—puts it as follows—

However, no one knows what the position is in regard to subterranean minerals in the Kruger National Park. However, I want to refer to the Mining Rights Act—Act No. 20 of 1967—to section 11(1)(a) of that Act. It reads as follows—

On 29 August 1977 the hon. the Minister of Mines issued the Director of Geological Surveys of the Department of Mines with directions in writing, and I quote from this—

I amended that Act here—

Furthermore, I also refer to section 23 of the same Act. I quote from it as follows—

And now I refer to section 23(1)(d)—

Mr. Speaker, on the strength of this legal provision the hon. member may go ahead and go to court. Believe me, he will lose his money. I am very sure of that. [Interjections.] Here we are now dealing with the Act … Very well, now, say we did in fact act erroneously. Suppose we have violated the Act. Have we done so to the disadvantage of the people? Have we not done so to the advantage of a business like Iscor? Is Iscor not part of the Lorimers and the Schoemans and the Paul Krugers? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is this furore all about? [Interjections.] Iscor is one of our big undertakings, one on which millions of rands have to be spent annually …

Why did you not come clean in the first instance? Why was it necessary … [Interjections.]

Well, let it be that we replied incorrectly too. Let us say that we replied incorrectly.

That is the point!

Is this uproar really necessary? [Interjections.] Man, I become simply … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I am nearly finished. Prospecting, with all the implications attached to it, implications to which I have already referred, including mining, will in any event only be able to take place in the relevant part of the Kruger National Park if that area alienated or excised from the national park, as determined in section 2(3) of the National Parks Act, 1976, which reads as follows—

Otherwise, prospecting and mining in the Kruger National Park will only be possible if the National Parks Act is amended accordingly. My standpoint is the following. If one has to go through such a tremendous rigmarole once again when one wants to tackle something positive—something which will be to the advantage of everyone—we shall simply have to see whether we should not amend the relevant Act next year. With the tremendous quantities of land which we have to alienate every year with a view to nature conservation, we can simply not afford to be handicapped by this type of crippling problem any longer. Therefore we shall have to see whether we cannot determine in an easier way what is buried in the soil of our country. The provinces as well as the National Parks Board have already applied for additional land for nature conservation.

I sometimes feel uneasy. It sometimes seems to me as if we will no longer have any land for agriculture. All this is due to the way in which we reserve our land, due to the fact that South Africa is proud of the conservation of its natural heritage and its wild life. We are proud of it. It is part of our fine past.

I repeat that I am delighted at the fact that my ancestors, just like Paul Kruger and the others—of course there were scoundrels amongst them too—saw to it that we established a park like the Kruger National Park. Here we have the hon. member for Cradock, the hon. member for Bethlehem and the hon. member for Edenvale. They are all members of the National Parks Board. They all consider the Kruger National Park as one of our sanctuaries. In fact, they consider all our national parks as sanctuaries. However, I believe that South Africa will understand that everyone in this country—even if they do not vote National—will understand that we did the right thing to start this type of survey. Rightly or wrongly, the people of South Africa will understand. I believe that the members of the Press on whose help the hon. member for Orange Grove depended, will now ask themselves: “Really Mr. Lorimer, you are making a fool of yourself now.” This is what I feel about this whole situation. I do not think there is anything more which I can say about it.