Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, we in the New Republic Party are not happy with this clause as it stands. I want to reiterate that this clause gives power to the Minister to impose a levy on certain oil products which are manufactured, distributed or sold to the public throughout South Africa. It also grants powers to the Minister to use these funds in the operation of the Equalization Fund and for any other purposes that he may deem fit. This includes the investment of any surplus funds in the normal manner. These are extremely broad powers and I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that over a period of time this is going to involve millions of rand. We must accept that this is public money, and therefore it is absolutely necessary that certain safeguards must be provided. This is usually achieved through the process of normal auditing, in this case the books of the SFF Association, which although a private company is really a quasi-Government company. The audited accounts would be made public in the normal manner. We, however, find that clause 1 contains a secrecy provision which allows the hon. the Minister to raise these levies in secret and to expend these funds in secret. This is one of the reasons for our concern. At this stage I want to make my party’s position in respect of the secrecy provision clear. We fully appreciate that in the circumstances in which South Africa presently finds itself there is a need for the hon. the Minister to have the powers to carry out his duties in secrecy. We have no argument on that score. We are aware of the strategic value of fuel and the problems that the hon. the Minister is confronted with at present. However, we must try to make provision in this clause to protect the public interest in so far as these public funds are concerned. We believe that this is our duty, not only to protect the public interest but also to protect those people, including the hon. the Minister, who will have to administer this legislation. We consider it to be our duty as an Opposition party to try to ensure that provisions and safeguards are built into this Bill.

So, the hon. the Minister must realize that we are unhappy with the Bill as it is before us at present. He may argue that the SFF Association, being a private company, must comply with the provisions of the Companies Act as well as with the Exchequer and Audit Act. It is also subject, however, to the State Oil Fund Act which also has built-in secrecy clauses. Because of the powers the hon. the Minister has for the utilization of these funds, we believe that the SFF Association, whilst it may comply with the normal provisions of the Exchequer and Auditor Act and the Companies Act, may find that because of the secrecy provisions it is not deemed fit that certain information be made public.

The auditors who may be auditing the company’s accounts will find that within the terms of reference or the articles of association of the SFF Association there are these powers granted to the hon. the Minister in terms of this legislation to allow him, and those working under him and administering this legislation, to do certain things. So the auditors are not going to question their actions. In fact, they are not empowered to do so. All they have to do is audit the accounts. Therefore the auditors will not be bound to reveal any transactions which may, in fact, not be entirely in accordance with the spirit of the legislation we are debating at present. [Interjections.] Therefore we believe that the only way we can be satisfied, and the only way the hon. the Minister himself can be protected, is to have the accounts of the SFF Association made available, after they have been audited, to the Auditor-General.

Why did you not adopt that attitude when that Act was passed?

When that Act was passed, we were not aware of the misuse of secret funds, a state of affairs we have only subsequently become aware of. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister must realize that we are only doing this as part of our duty to ensure that we have good legislation in this country and to ensure that the hon. the Minister and the public are protected in this regard. I therefore move as an amendment to the proposed new section 1A—

I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister by saying that we have no axe to grind in this matter. We are only trying to ensure that legislation passed by this House gives adequate protection to the public of South Africa and to the hon. the Minister himself.

Mr. Chairman, when we debated the Second Reading yesterday, it was made clear to the hon. the Minister that whilst we supported the general purposes of the legislation before the House, we were not happy with the way things had been done. If we disagree with legislation on the grounds of inaccuracies or incompleteness, or for whatever reason, we oppose the legislation. We do not first vote in support of the Second Reading and then subsequently come along with fundamental amendments. I think the hon. the Minister took great pains yesterday—and we thank him for this—to deal with the shortcomings in section 1 of the Act which he believed might be adequate, if amended, to achieve the purposes envisaged by the Bill at present before the House. Because the hon. the Minister gave us certain assurances, and took great pains to explain what his difficulties were, we have given due weight to his arguments, having examined them with some care. The hon. the Minister pointed to a first deficiency in section 1, a deficiency he believes can be remedied by the addition of the proposed new section 1A. He argued that because section 1 of the Act deals with excise, there could be differential treatment of various groups, sections or sectors. He gave, as an example, diesel, in respect of which 80% of consumers are exempt from the excise duty. The Minister has said, however, that the proposed new section 1A does not allow for this differential treatment and has said that he intends to impose the burden evenly on all sections and sectors of the population. We accept readily that it is not the hon. the Minister’s intention to operate in a differential manner, but on reading the Bill we find that it does in fact permit differential treatment. As an Opposition, we obviously have to consider the wording of the Bill and not merely the hon. the Minister’s stated intention. We find that the Bill provides for the possibility of differentiation, although that differentiation may not be deliberate. It provides for that possibility firstly in that the levy may be imposed on manufacturers, on goods distributed or on goods sold.

May I just explain that?

I understand it. I fully understand what the hon. the Minister’s intention is. I am merely saying that the way in which the proposed section has been drafted does allow such an interpretation. With the practical imposition of a levy, the Minister may in fact have to consider the position of a manufacturer, a distributor or a seller. If one looks at the proposed subsection (2), one sees that the Minister is to be granted the power to exempt one or other of these. He may exempt certain persons. If the Minister may at his discretion impose …

To which subsection are you referring?

I am referring to subsection (2) of the proposed new section 1A.

Where do you read that I can exempt persons in terms of subsection (2)?

I am sorry: The exemption is found in subsection (3). The Minister may publish a notice in the Gazette stating that certain persons, be they manufacturers, distributors or sellers, shall pay a stated levy, while in terms of subsection (3) he may exempt some of them from that levy. Without questioning the hon. the Minister’s good intent or his motives, I merely wish to point out that his argument yesterday that the old section 1 permitted discrimination or differentiation and that the new section is necessary because he does not want to discriminate is really not a valid argument.

I did not use that as an argument. I used that in reply to the hon. member for Parktown when he raised that as an issue.

That is correct. The hon. the Minister said he wishes to have provisions in the Act as amended whereby he will not discriminate as is possible in terms of the original section 1.

No, please, that is not the point.

Well, Sir, whichever way one argues it, it does not really stand up. A second argument he introduced was that in the original section prices were fixed in terms of mass or volume, i.e. on every litre of petrol or on every kilogram of liquid petroleum gas. If we look at the proposed new section 1A, we see that it provides that, by notice in the Gazette or by serving a notice personally, the Minister may impose a levy per litre or per kilogram on these products. If the objection and the difficulty is that these products are referred to by volume or by weight in the original section, the new levy certainly also refers to the levy in terms of mass or volume. For that reason we really do not think the argument holds a great deal of water.

Thirdly, the hon. the Minister argued that in terms of the original section he could not impose specific levies because this would enable the enemies of South Africa to calculate the total quantity available from the payment of premiums. We agree that it is undesirable to disclose to those hostile to South Africa what quantities are being imported because they might be able to calculate these from the premiums imposed. In the proposed new section, subsection (2) does enable him to impose specific levies and we believe that, unless the full import figures are disclosed, which they are not, it will be impossible for any person, however hostile to South Africa, to deduce merely from the amount of the levy, not knowing the total amount involved, what exactly the import figures are. For example, in the case of uranium exports, where the same problem arose that one did not wish to disclose what exact amounts were being exported, it was found that the very extensive provisions for secrecy imposed by the governing Act could be shown to be unnecessary. A whole number of factors were ruled out as secret and could not be published by the producing companies. However, on examination it was found that a good many of these factors could in fact be disclosed without any possibility of deductions being made as to the actual amount of uranium exports from the country. I believe the same sort of principle applies in this case. I think it is taking it too far merely to refer to security as a reason for not disclosing the amount of the levy. A great deal more information is required by an enemy of South Africa in order to be able to use it as a dangerous weapon against South Africa than merely the knowledge of a levy of X cents that is being imposed on a product I think that if secrecy is necessary, that secrecy should be applied in places where it does not affect the public so much and simply excludes from the public domain those items of information which are of strategic value. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as my hon. colleague has already said, we do believe that the Second Reading debate fulfilled a useful purpose. If the hon. the Minister’s patience was to any extent strained, I hope that he will console himself with the thought that he made a little progress with us in the arguments he used. At Second Reading I particularly asked the hon. the Minister why it was that he could not leave the question of supply and demand largely to the operation of price mechanisms on the free market. I think I paraphrase it fairly if I say that he was at pains to explain to me that we do not have a perfect market here, that there are pronounced interferences with the supply and that therefore the supply was irregular and subject to strange circumstances from time to time. In regard to price structure he said that if the whole matter were left to the operation of supply and demand, price fluctuation might be of such a magnitude that it would be very difficult to control matters. I think that was the gist of what he said. One can appreciate that there must be considerable truth in this. I do not know how far the hon. the Minister feels he ought to go in giving explanations. If he does feel willing to go a little further, I should just like to put the thought to him that the companies which deal with this commodity, are not financial light-weights and that the banks are looking for business. I would have thought that bank finance via the companies could have accounted for at least a good portion of what is required, depending always, of course, on where the hon. the Minister and his department fixed the final price—in other words, on what is coming in on the revenue side of the equation.

The things that still bother us—as I have said, we have come some way towards an understanding with the hon. the Minister—are the clear provisions in the Bill for a differential basis in the imposition of the levy, and the very wide powers granted by the proposed section 1A(4)(a)(ii). I do not propose to make any references which might be of an irritating or offensive nature, but I simply want to say that we have a clause before us which stipulates in effect that the hon. the Minister, after consulting his colleague, can as a last resort do precisely what he likes with the funds he receives from this levy. We do not consider this to be good legislation. While we perfectly appreciate that there is a situation in which something has to be done by the hon. the Minister and his department, we remain, I am afraid, unconvinced that this clause is a provision we ought to support.

Mr. Chairman, I want to continue to deal with the points which were raised in our discussion with the hon. the Minister yesterday. A further difficulty the hon. the Minister had with the existing legislation is that it imposes fixed levies, levies which cannot be altered except by recourse to Parliament. The hon. the Minister says he needs a more flexible mechanism here. This is entirely understandable, but we believe that fixed levies, as in the case of the Strategic Oil Fund, can also be made more flexible if Parliament agrees to do so. The fixed levies as imposed in the case of the Strategic Oil Fund could be made flexible if Parliament agreed that they should be flexible. Here I can quote the hon. the Minister of Finance, who pointed out a year or two ago in respect of certain customs duties that he needed flexibility because of the uncertain economic situation.

That is what I am doing now. It is exactly the same principle.

He was given authority by Parliament to do this in certain specified cases. It has also been the custom, for example in the case of dumping by a foreign country, that the Minister should have the right to alter the customs duties in South Africa in order to cope with that difficulty. If the hon. the Minister had come to us under the old Act and had said that he had difficulties with certain things and that we must give him discretion for certain specific purposes, I think Parliament would have had less difficulty in giving him that discretion than accepting a new principle in terms of the new legislation. A further point which the hon. the Minister mentioned yesterday as a difficulty is that if a general premium were to be imposed, it would not provide the necessary incentive to oil companies to compete on the market for cheaper products or for low-premium products. The hon. the Minister says that the oil companies have no freedom to pay any premium. He said that yesterday, that the oil companies have in any event in terms of existing arrangements no freedom to pay any premium they please. He said that there was a committee to look into this and to approve premiums that are paid. If they pay higher premiums it is then to be determined by the committee what part of it may be debited to the Equalization Fund. Some would say that already the degree of risk is absorbed under existing arrangements without the present Bill.

No. That is why the Bill is being made retrospective to 1 January, in all fairness.

Very well, Sir. We shall accept that. We have looked at the hon. the Minister’s difficulties, we have considered the arguments which he raised yesterday and basically we still remain troubled, firstly, by the need of a new Fund which discounts the price mechanism—as the hon. the Minister conceded yesterday—and the valuable role it can play, and which can be differential in an arbitrary fashion as may be determined from time to time by the executive, without reference to Parliament, which can be secret as well, which may reduce rather than increase the incentive to oil companies by reason of the fact that the State is absorbing some of the risks and some of the possible problems; and, secondly, because of the provision that the hon. the Minister can utilize the Fund for any purpose he pleases. The hon. the Minister said yesterday that he reads the new proposed subsection (4)(a)(ii) as being restricted by (i).

You are becoming so involved now that you have lost the thread of your own argument.

You have lost the thread, not me.

You have lost it completely.

Paragraph (ii) starts off after the word “or”. It is therefore open to other interpretations. For the hon. the Minister to give us the assurance that he interprets paragraph (ii) as being dependent on paragraph (i) and to be read in conjunction with (i) is one thing and we accept his assurance, but we do not believe that the legislation necessarily says that or that another Minister who may succeed him will necessarily read it in the same way. We are dealing here with legislation and not with the undertaking or the promises of a Minister.

We agree with the hon. the Minister’s objectives and we shall continue to support them. However, we do not like clause 1 and we remain unpersuaded that it really provides the best mechanism and the best statutory safeguards for its purpose. Our job as an Opposition is not to judge in terms of the hon. the Minister’s assurances—assurances which we fully accept—but to look at the Bill as it stands in cold print and then to decide whether it should be supported by the Opposition or whether we should say to the hon. the Minister that we like the aims of the Bill, we like the objectives, but that he must go back and bring us a better Bill.

Lastly, we have considered the possibility of trying to improve this provision by amendment, but because of its comprehensive nature and because of the impossibility in the amount of time available to consult all the interested parties, it is really quite impossible for us to bring any constructive amendment which would meet the case we have in mind, and we therefore have no option but to say to the hon. the Minister that we support his general objectives, but we do not like the proposed new section 1A and shall therefore not vote for it.

Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset that the hon. member for Constantia obviously did not understand what I tried to convey to him yesterday evening. I also want to make a second observation. That is that I should like to suggest to the hon. member that one cannot have the best of two worlds, in the first place professing one’s support for the objective and then opposing the method that has to be applied in order to achieve that objective. Talking to the official Opposition now, I want to state it quite candidly that I think their major problem is that because of the attitude they have adopted towards another matter concerned with the confidentiality of certain things, they are now in the position where, notwithstanding the fact that they support the objective of this legislation, they cannot support me in it, because if they do they will be accused of having associated themselves with a measure providing for certain things to be kept secret. Once they have adopted that attitude, I submit there is nothing that I could possibly put forward as an argument that would convince the hon. members to support me in the method that I am using.

That is not the reason.

That is quite obviously the reason. Notwithstanding everything I have heard this afternoon, I submit that that is essentially the basic reason why the hon. official Opposition is not prepared to support the Bill itself although they profess to be supporting the objective I wish to achieve. Allow me to deal with this and to point out the fallacies in the arguments used by the hon. member for Constantia.

*In the first place the concept that a levy may be changed is not a foreign concept in terms of our legislation. The hon. member for Constantia has argued that I could have done what the hon. the Minister of Finance can do in given circumstances in terms of the Customs and Excise Act. But that is precisely what I am doing. In given circumstances and for a specific purpose we can impose a levy which is not classified in the legislation. But where there is a further contradiction in the hon. member’s argument is that I am dealing here with a tax. I am not dealing with a tax here or with anything in the form of a tax. The hon. member says that it is public money. But on the other hand he argues that the price mechanism should rectify this matter. These are two propositions in direct conflict with one another.

What are we seeking to do? There is a price, if I may use the word, for oil which is determined by the oil exporting countries and which we, for the purposes of my argument, can describe as the official price for crude oil. In the light of the circumstances I sketched when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill, and also when I replied yesterday to the Second Reading debate, I pointed out that notwithstanding the fact that there was an official price, there was a shortage on the market because of the fact that one particular country—inter alia—was not producing at present and would not soon reach the level of production necessary to meet the demand.

International oil companies also have certain contracts for the supply of oil to them at official prices. As far as certain quantities are concerned, purchases are also made at official prices. But because there is a shortage now, because of the difference in what they can obtain there is also a difference in the price. We live in a world—and the hon. member knows this or should know it—where the major oil brokers first try to obtain the largest possible quantity of that oil and then place a premium on it over and above the official price.

But this can differ from company to company and it would therefore not help to build a premium into the general price structure because the premium would then go to the oil company concerned, irrespective of the premium he paid on the international market. I have therefore to find a method to obtain a uniform price for the consumer and to establish a fund to which I can debit any differences. All that we are trying to do here in the first place—and that is what is contained in this particular clause—is to establish a fund which will be fed from a levy on the price. It will benefit nobody but the consumer who has to buy the products manufactured from oil. That is the whole purpose of the legislation.

The second point about which hon. members have argued concerns the question as to why I have inserted an undetermined or unqualified amount in the legislation. I have done this for the same reason as the reason given by the hon. member for Constantia as to why the hon. Minister of Finance needed to do it I have tried to argue on the facts and not on grounds of speculation. I have indicated that even the factor we have built into the price since 1 January 1979 is inadequate to pay the premiums that are now payable.

Agreed.

Give me a chance. I am convinced that it will change again tomorrow or the day after either one way or the other. That is why I cannot in the circumstances lay down a fixed amount here as is done in the legislation in respect of excise levies.

I did not say that.

I am arguing the point. I want it to be flexible. That is the reason why I cannot make it rigid. When the hon. member says he did not say that, then I think he accepts the fact that I cannot lay down a fixed amount in the legislation, and I need not argue further on that. It is not possible to put it in legislation. But I must do it in some way or another—by way of a decision—and then I must publish it. There is no other method. This is contained in the proposed subsection (1), that from time to time after I have come to a decision I must blish it in the Government Gazette, and when I have published it in the Government Gazette it is legally enforceable. Therefore the only argument I have with the hon. member—or that he has with me because I have no argument with him—on this particular aspect can only be over the alternative I have proposed to publication in the Government Gazette and that is, namely, that I can serve it by way of notice on the manufacturer or distributor or whoever it might be.

With great respect, the hon. member is arguing wrongly. He says that people do not know what quantity I am importing and, even if I were to make the levy known, they would still not be able to determine the amount. If the hon. member would look at a report which was drawn up recently by economists in another country and compare it with the facts at my disposal—I cannot take that any further now; he will understand why—he would not use that argument.

Let me stress this today. I think it is necessary to do so because peoples’ resourcefulness today is more sophisticated and more co-ordinated than ever before. As far as this specific matter is concerned, I cannot take risks. I must, if possible, limit risk to the absolute minimum. If I were to do it by way of a notice various people would be aware of it. In the second place I said that I was quite prepared to furnish the Opposition with the information from time to time on a confidential basis. There are only two arguments that can be used against this. In the first place it could be that the Opposition would not want it or in the second place they would not care if it fell into the possession of unauthorized persons.

Oh, nonsense!

Oh, yes. It is no good the hon. member for Pinelands saying “Oh, nonsense!” The hon. member for Pinelands has not the vaguest idea of how difficult it is to govern a country in the circumstances he is helping to create. In the light of this I want to say with the fullest conviction to the hon. member for Constantia that I myself—and I think he should know this—would not come to the House with this type of proposal if any other method were possible. I have discussed the situation with the parties and we have agreed that this is the best procedure to follow. Should another method become feasible in the meantime and which indicates that there is another path we could follow, I myself will alter the legislation. I give that undertaking to the hon. member. But at the moment there is no other method. The mere fact that the legislation became operative from 1 January, again proves the fact that I could not act in terms of the provisions of any other legislation; I simply had to have new legislation in terms of which I could do it. The legislation had to be operative so that my actions could be authorized when it was necessary for me to act.

The hon. member for Constantia has referred to the provision contained in the proposed section 1A. The hon. member will see that the levy is applicable in respect of every litre of fuel. In this connection I just want to say that I intend to move an amendment in line 14 on page 2 of the Bill, to omit the first “or” and to substitute “, base oil, products of’. The provision will otherwise remain the same. I propose to insert the words to make the meaning more clear. Therefore I move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 2, in line 14, to omit the first “or” and to substitute:
   , base oil, products of
2. (2) on page 2, in line 15, after “of” to insert:
   grease or

While I am dealing with this, I want to say that the reason why the levy is being imposed at a manufacturer or distributor is that it may happen from time to time that the same company is the one or the other. Let me give an example to illustrate this: From time to time it is necessary for us to import not only crude oil through the companies but to import the manufactured product, thereby restoring the balance between the various products. The company is then not the manufacturer of the product but the distributor. That is why the legislation has to refer here to both.

I said yesterday that it was not our intention to treat various people in different ways. The proposed new section 1A(3) reads—

I am quite prepared to change this provision in the Other Place. I want the authority to allow differentiation in treatment with regard to certain groups. If a certain product has to be exempted, it must be exempted for everybody, for all consumers. I cannot rectify it at this stage but I am quite prepared to do so in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to comment on the provision in the proposed new section 1A(4)(a)(ii).

I am coming to that. This is linked to the point made by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. We want to set up a fund to handle a certain section of our energy situation. Where the Bill provides in clause 1, subsection (4)(a)(ii), that the money may be used for another purpose which I can agree to in consultation with the Minister of Finance, the extent of that purpose must be limited in its interpretation.

It does not say that there.

It need not be included there. There is an Interpretation Act which provides how it should be interpreted. I maintain that Z cannot use it for a purpose which is not related to the oil situation in our country. If the hon. member is going to advance that as an argument, I expect him to move an amendment to the effect that the money can be used for any other purpose related to South Africa’s energy situation. If the hon. member will move such an amendment I shall accept it Why does the hon. member now argue against a provision if—to sustain his standpoint—he can move an amendment to achieve his object? If the hon. member does not do so, he must not blame me if I draw the conclusion that he really has another object in view. I am prepared to accept amendment which do not hinder the implementation of what I want to achieve and which are in accord with good legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have great problems with the argument of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

Oh, no!

Yes, Sir, I do. The hon. member is arguing from the angle which questions the right to secrecy. [Interjections.] Hon. members have not listened to what I said. The hon. member for Durban Point can rest assured. I am sorry he has become excited. He was calm just now, but things have changed.

Mr. Chairman, I come now to the amendment of the hon. member. The hon. member suggests that we refer a portion of the funds of the company to the Auditor-General for examination. Once the Auditor-General has examined them, what then? The hon. member is supposed to be such an exponent of good legislation! He says that I must refer that portion of the funds of the SFF Association to the Auditor-General for examination.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must look at his amendment. I must do so not for audit, not for a report to Parliament…

It is his duty to report to Parliament.

His duties are set out in terms of an Act. The hon. member for East London North should know this as he sometimes has the audacity to discuss finance in this House. Even if I accepted the hon. member’s amendment—quite apart from the practicality of it—there is no duty imposed on the Auditor-General to audit the books. He must merely examine them. That does not make for good legislation.

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

Please wait a moment. There is another flaw in his argument. How on earth is it possible to examine or to audit part of a Fund? That will create the iniquitous position that there will be two auditors examining or auditing the books of the same company. The basic concept and objective of the Companies Act—I think the hon. member knows this—is disclosure. This Bill does not automatically exclude the publication of the statement of accounts of this company. If the hon. member would refer to section 300 of the Companies Act, he would find that the responsibilities involved in the auditing of the books of a company are fairly onerous responsibilities. If he wants me to, I shall quote them for him. Because of the fact—and this is the gist of the argument—that the publication of certain statements of accounts, and the publication of certain information relating to companies, could hamper companies in the hostile world in which we live and in which they have to operate, provision is made in the Companies Act for exemption from certain of the provisions of that Act. What is the reason for this? There is one reason and one reason only, and that is to keep certain information confidential, because publishing it could be detrimental to our activities. Now, in all fairness …

We seem to have heard that one before!

Of course the hon. member has heard it before. He supported it. [Interjections.]

And what happened?

Nothing in terms of the Companies Act.

*I shall not allow the gossip syndrome which has affected that hon. member to hinder me in carrying out my work.

Nonsense!

What is the essence of the interjection the hon. member made a moment ago?

You want to Wear a cap, you wear it, but that is nonsense.

I am not going to allow the hon. member and his party to place impediments in the way of my doing my job. [Interjections.]

There is an admission!

No, it is not an admission. Stop talking now. The hon. member is either in favour of certain things being kept confidential or he is not in favour of it. But that does not apply only to this particular legislation. It also applies to the Companies Act in respect of other companies. If hon. members continue with this argument, I shall repeal the exemption from the provisions of the Act that I granted to certain companies. That hon. member often speaks about the sugar industry. He should know that there are various industries that have to function under confidential circumstances. I am sick and tired of the suspicion in regard to everything we try to do to administer this country under difficult circumstances.

Why are you scared of the Auditor-General?

I am not scared of the Auditor-General.

That is your whole argument. [Interjections.]

The only good thing about that hon. member is that he is not teaching any more.

*This provision in the legislation does not after all imply that the books must not be audited. What then is the basis of the comparison which the hon. member has dragged in here by its hind leg? These books are audited in terms of section 300 of the Companies Act. Perhaps I should refer to this more fully because presumably he does not understand it I want to quote from section 300 of the Companies Act in which the duties of the auditor in regard to the annual statements of account and other matters are dealt with. The auditor cannot be relieved of this duty. It is the auditor’s duty—

1. (a) to examine the annual financial statements and group annual financial statements to be laid before its annual general meeting; …
2. (b) to satisfy himself that proper accounting records as required by this Act have been kept by the company and that proper returns adequate for the purposes of his audit have been received from branches not visited by him;
3. (c) to satisfy himself that the minute books and attendance registers in respect of meetings of the company and of directors and managers have been kept in proper form as required by this Act;

And so it continues up to paragraph (1). Is it not also a practical fact that the Auditor-General very often makes use of private auditors in the exercise of his duties? It is now being suggested here firstly, that the private auditors who practise under this Act and the Act which relates directly to them …

To whom does he report?

He reports to the annual meeting which is public, unless it has been exempted.

To the Minister?

No, Sir. The hon. member speaks from ignorance. I am not a shareholder in the SFF.

Who is?

There we have it again! The hon. member asks: “Who is?” He has a question on the Order Paper. Why does he not wait until I have replied to that?

I did not ask that question.

You see, Sir, we are really going too far. I am satisfied that the auditing of the books of the company will be done by qualified auditors; that they have to do so in terms of the provisions of section 300 of the Companies Act; that in the specific circumstances there can be no question of a proper audit of the books not taking place; and, apart from any other consideration, it is not possible for me to accept the amendment because it is not possible to have a portion of the books examined by the Auditor-General.

As far as the proposed section 1 A(4)(a)(ii) is concerned, I admit that the hon. member for Constantia could have a valid argument and I undertake to move an amendment myself in the Other Place which will limit the situation to such objectives as are related to South Africa’s energy position.

What about the exemptions?

Yes, we will have no exemptions other than on products as such. We will not permit differentiation among consumers.

Mr. Chairman, as was indicated by the hon. Minister’s last words before he resumed his seat, we are making progress. We are pleased about that and I shall presently suggest something in that regard which could result in our really making progress.

I find it a pity that the hon. the Minister thought fit to ascribe to us as the only reason for opposing him in respect of this legislation that we ostensibly wish to have nothing kept secret which could possibly be let out. Really, that is less than fair. What is true, if we are going to begin with such accusations, is that when we objected to secrecy in the recent past, it became evident that we indeed had far better reasons for doing so than the hon. members of this House would believe at the time. However, I shall leave it at that.

I wish to come to the points about which we argued here and in respect of which we have now apparently moved much closer to one another. As far as the proposed section 1A(3) is concerned—this is the subsection which begins with the words “the notice may exempt, in part or in full, any person from any provision thereof’—I believe that I understood very clearly that what the hon. the Minister said, was that he would arrange this matter in such a way in the Other Place that it would, in fact, be in his power to differentiate between the amount of the levy on the various products, but not between the various groups of consumers.

No, not between consumers.

If the hon. the Minister could accommodate us in that respect, one of our principal objections to this clause would disappear.

I would even accept an amendment to that tenor effect from you.

I have not yet drawn up such an amendment, but we can examine the matter and be of assistance with it if the hon. the Minister so wishes.

The other provision to which we have had an objection up to now, is that contained in the proposed subsection (4)(a)(ii).

†Here I intend to move as an amendment that there be added to the end of the proposed new section 1A(4)(a)(ii) “such directives or purposes to be consistent with subparagraph (i) above”. In other words, I am seeking to limit the hon. the Minister’s right to apply this money to purposes having to do with the procurement and the making available of an adequate supply of petroleum products in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will have to define his amendment more widely, because the proposed section 1A only relates to the Equalization Fund.

*Let me make it easy for the hon. member. It may happen that it is no longer necessary to have such a fund because premiums will no longer be paid. In that case any surplus which may still be in the Fund, could be utilized to cushion any official price increases.

†As the hon. member knows, when we are experiencing a slack in the economy and as a result of over-recoveries and under-recoveries, it is possible to use that money to cushion any official increases in the price. I do not think we should try to do it now. I shall move an amendment in the Other Place. However, I think the qualifying proviso should be that this money should be used for the purpose of procuring oil or to cushion price increases or something like that.

We shall talk about that.

Yes, we shall talk about it. I do not think we should discuss such technical things now across the floor of the House.

Mr. Chairman, naturally we agree that we do not wish to make a drafting committee of this House. It seems that we have agreed quite specifically across the floor about what the purposes are for which we are prepared to see these levies used, namely purposes connected with the procuring of an adequate supply of petroleum products. I simply repeat that for the record.

On the basis of these two agreements, in regard to the proposed subsection (3) and in regard to the proposed subsection (4)(a)(ii), we are prepared to let this clause go through as it is.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the hon. the Minister was angry with both myself and my party for having introduced this amendment earlier on. First of all I want to reiterate what I have already said, viz. that we in these benches are not against a certain degree of secrecy or confidentiality applying to this particular business we are discussing now. As I think I have stated repeatedly, we understand and see the need for it and so we do not oppose that particular aspect of it. We also accept his very kind offer, that he extended at Second Reading and also today, to let the leaders of the Opposition parties know exactly how he is spending his money. We appreciate that very much. However, we have moved this amendment because we believe it is added protection. In our role as Parliamentarians we are trying to create legislation which protects the interests of the South African public. He referred to my amendment and said that it did not go far enough as it just stated “shall be submitted to the Auditor-General for examination”. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that I went into the matter before I moved my amendment Officials of Parliament have assured me that the particular wording I have used, complies with the requirements and will cause the Auditor-General to comply with section 45 of the Exchequer and Auditor Act of 1975, which clearly lays down what the Auditor-General’s responsibility is. I should like to assure him that this particular wording will ensure that the Auditor-General will give the accounts a good going over.

His second contention is that my amendment only deals with part of the Fund. This was a difficulty I had to face. I would have preferred to have seen this amendment covering all the accounts of the SFF Association, but I think the hon. the Minister is wise enough and more experienced than I am to know that I cannot move such an amendment at this particular stage. So I had to be happy just with the auditing of those funds in respect of which the hon. the Minister is now asking Parliament to give him the power to raise from the public through levies. That is why I did not move an amendment that all the funds of the SFF should be audited.

The hon. the Minister says that the Companies Act clearly lays down that all the accounts must be disclosed, but also points out that the relevant Act makes provision for exceptions to be granted to companies.

[Inaudible.]

Public company books need not then be made public if it is in the national interest. The hon. the Minister mentioned the sugar industry. I am aware of it and we appreciate what the position is in terms of the legislation to which he has referred. However, he was referring to concessions made to the private sector. Here we are dealing with a private company which is in fact a quasi-government company and as such it belongs to the public of South Africa. We are not asking that these accounts to be made public to the public in general; we are merely asking that the accounting officer of Parliament, i.e. the Auditor-General should be able to examine the books. That is all. Therefore I do not understand why the hon. the Minister has been so angry with me. We are not even asking in the Opposition to see those books for ourselves; we are asking that the Auditor-General may see them. Quite frankly, I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister cannot concede the point to us, because after all, what are we asking for? We are merely asking that the Auditor-General should examine the books, that is all.

Amendments moved by the Minister of Economic Affairs agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. G. S. Bartlett negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, in his introduction of this Bill yesterday the hon. the Minister was I think a master of Meiosis, of understatement, because this legislation is far more important to South Africa and augurs far more important events to come in South Africa than was disclosed in the hon. the Minister’s speech. It is clear that the main reason for the introduction of the Bill is that the Government anticipates that its constitutional proposals will be enacted within approximately a year to a year and a half. If these proposals are accepted in the form in which they have been publicized, then the Senate in its present form, or in any other form, will disappear. But before the Senate disappears, its participation is required in order to facilitate the legal implementation of the new order, and also in order to facilitate and formalize its own departure from the political stage in South Africa. Therefore, despite the temporary reprieve granted by the provisions of this Bill, we stand on the eve of the demise of the Senate as a part of the political process in South Africa. The hon. the Minister, thought it propitious in passing to pay a very brief tribute to the work of the Senate and to the contribution it has made to the politics of our country over the past decades. Certainly, as an integral part of our Parliament the Senate has performed the functions which have been delegated to it over the years. Some of the greatest South Africans, some of the greatest historical figures in South Africa, have graced the benches of the Senate since 1910.

Traditionally, in bicameral Parliaments the role of the second or the Upper House has been one of review, review of legislation, review of Government actions, a review conducted and debated in an atmosphere calmer than that to which we are used in this Lower House, in an atmosphere more objective and relaxed than is customary in this House. It is traditional—though there are many exceptions—that members of the Upper House are of mature years and rich in experience.

One of the classical advantages, however, of an Upper House in a democratic system is the concept that it should not slavishly represent the identical interests as are found in the political divisions in the popularly elected House. In fact, from its very inception the rigid, fixed and equal representation given to the provinces in the South African Senate reflected the desire of our forefathers to allow of certain regional interests to intrude across party lines. Looking back, however, this role has regretfully not been fulfilled. Year by year the Other Place has moved into a situation where its debates were no more or nor less than a reasonably accurate carbon copy of the proceedings of this House. It has developed into nothing more than a shadow of the Assembly, its hon. members bound, as in this House, by caucus decisions, its votes reflecting the line-up as in this House. Therefore—I will be brief on this—we believe that as a true and objective House of review it has not succeeded. It is our feeling, therefore, that it has in latter years not served a great or tremendous purpose, an important purpose, in the constitutional process. For these reasons, in themselves enough, this side of the House will not over solicitously mourn the passing of that forum, notice of which was given yesterday by the hon. the Minister.

Order! The Bill is not dealing with the abolition of the Senate, but merely with the extension of the life of the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before the House extends the term of office of the Senators. There is, however, a point which you have omitted to mention, Sir. That is that the purpose of extending the life of the Senate is to allow of its demise and not of its continuation. Therefore, the demise of the Senate is …

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss the proposed legislation of which nobody yet knows the contents. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, your understanding of the matter is in conflict with what the hon. the Minister stated yesterday in his Second Reading speech. As I noted earlier, this legislation is before us as a direct consequence of the Government’s stated intention to introduce a new Constitution for South Africa. I realize that it is not the moment now to debate these proposals at length or in any detail, but in fairness to democratic debate in this House it is necessary to elucidate our viewpoint on this Bill, and in order to do that it is necessary to state briefly the background of our attitude to our reaction to what we know up to date of the proposals concerned.

Order! The proposed constitutional proposals are not before this House. The Bill before the House does not deal with any new constitutional proposals, and therefore the hon. member cannot discuss them.

Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to the extension being sought in this Bill. We do not think it is good legislation, for two main reasons. Firstly, the new constitutional proposals are not yet before the House, nor has any in depth White Paper been produced, nor, for that matter, has draft legislation been placed before us for perusal, for study or even for consideration.

Order! The hon. member is not obeying my ruling.

Sir, I am obeying it most studiously.

No, the hon. member is not. He must discuss the Bill and the principle involved in it.

Mr. Speaker, I honestly do not wish to cross swords with you and I am most respectful of your rulings, but you cannot allow me to state an attitude to a Bill and not our reason for that attitude. On the Black Taxation Bill yesterday you allowed discussion to range widely and beyond the actual wording of the Bill. I think it is wrong to limit the Opposition in this way.

Order! The hon. member may not criticize the way I handled the debate yesterday. Hon. members in fact obeyed my ruling that they should not digress too far. The hon. member may proceed.

I did not want to criticize. I applaud your ruling of yesterday. I merely wish you would allow that again today. Nevertheless, I will try to keep what I wish to say brief.

In this Bill the cart is being placed before the horse, because the legislation which gives rise to this Bill is not before us. We have not been able to study it. We have heard about it in the Press, and what we have heard we do not like. Because that legislation is not before us and because we are debating the extension of the life of the Senate in vacuo, we feel that we cannot agree to it and that it is inopportune at this moment to bring it before the House. From what we have heard of the new constitution and being opposed to it, it is logical that we oppose, at this stage, any attempts leading up to its introduction. This legislation is seen by us as one of the first steps in the introduction of a new and so far inadequately conceived constitution, and we are therefore unwilling to support it.

There is another cogent reason for opposing this measure, a reason which I believe must be stated. In November 1977 a general election was held as a result of which a new official Opposition was elected to this House, i.e. the Progressive Federal Party, a party which enjoys the support of the majority of people who voted for the Opposition. With the Senate in its present form, following rigid party lines in its debates— whether this is desirable or not it is nonetheless a fact—the official Opposition is grossly under-represented in that body. In the postelection dispensation, as from 29 May 1979, our lone and valiant Senator—if I may speak of him as such—should in fact enjoy the support of at least two—perhaps three—other hon. gentlemen in the viewpoints that he expresses in that House.

By denying a Senate election the Government is therefore ensuring that the official Opposition will be prevented from stating its case as strongly as it might, or as it should, in that forum’s last and historic year and a half term of activity. Whatever the intention and no matter how convenient this legislation may be for Government intentions—which we are not allowed to debate here—this action of lengthening the life of the Senate adds up to nothing else than an attempt to frustrate the ballot box and democratic expression in that elected body by means of a legislative measure which will stifle the voices of men who should be elected by virtue of the mandate given in November 1977.

My appeal therefore is that legislation of this sort should be shelved until this House has been made aware of the Government’s constitutional proposals in their final form and, furthermore, that it be accepted that the official Opposition be given its full representation in both Houses when these proposals—which we are not allowed to debate today—are in fact debated. I believe that anything less than that would be undemocratic in the extreme. We therefore cannot support the Bill at this time.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Sandton stood up, it was very clear to me that he and his party would oppose the legislation. It was of course expected. The hon. member began by saying that the introduction of this legislation was mainly to serve as a preparation for the implementation of the new constitutional setup. They are assuming things again, something they are always doing. But the hon. member has gone further and has denigrated the Upper House of Parliament. Those hon. members have been engaged in this denigration process for the past few years now. We agree with the hon. member that some of our greatest parliamentarians have come from the Senate. But the hon. member goes further and says that the Senate has become a blueprint of the House of Assembly over the past years.

That is true.

That is a scandalous statement.

Is the hon. member blind?

Blindness has nothing to do with it. Those hon. members are spreading gossip and that is why they are putting the matter in this light. The hon. members talk nonsense here and it is swallowed by their Press. The hon. member says furthermore that it is not good legislation and it cannot be new legislation because we are putting the cart before the horse. The hon. member for Sandton maintains that we have introduced this legislation because our aim is to put through the new constitutional dispensation even though they do not as yet have the final proposals in their possession.

I should like today to give the real reason why the official Opposition is voting against the legislation. At the end of his speech the hon. member for Sandton said that they also wanted their due participation in the Senate.

Of course!

In the Senate, the Upper House, the NRP is the official Opposition. That is so because the PFP has only one man there. Should the Senate be dissolved and reconstituted, they could have three people there at the most. That is why they are opposing this legislation. These people with their big mouths …

Order!

These hon. members are too afraid—I must use the word—to stand in an election against the NRP. When there is an election they want to amalgamate with them and in that way draw votes away from the NP on both sides. The NP does not want to make a political issue of this legislation. If the Senate is dissolved and reconstituted the NP will have another three members in the Senate. Do they know what the eventual state of affairs is going to be? But the hon. members of the Opposition do not think any further. They drag politics into every matter. That is why the hon. members are going to oppose the legislation.

I want to tell hon. members an interesting story. When the Constitution was drawn up in 1909, there were proposals for the establishment of a Senate. People like the late Gen. Hertzog opposed it. It was the Natalians, the people who are the real Opposition in the Senate today, who pushed the matter through so that provision was made in the Constitution for a Senate.

You are making a poor speech.

We take no notice of that hon. member. As the hon. the Minister has explained to us, this Bill is very clear and simple. The hon. the Minister put the object of the Bill very clearly to us and that is to extend the life of the Senate. The question arises immediately as to whether we are all aware of what the work of the Senate comprises. What do hon. Senators do? After having listened to the speech of the hon. member for Sandton. I must assume that the hon. member does not know what the work of the Upper House comprises.

You are talking rubbish.

The Senate is one of the three legs of the legislative power of the Republic of South Africa. Section 24(1) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, Act No. 32 of 1961, is very clear in this connection. It reads as follows—

I want to quote what Norman Wilding says about the Senate in his Encyclopaedia of Parliament—

The term frequently applied to the Upper House of a legislature in the British Commonwealth; it is the name given to the Upper House of the Parliaments of Canada, Australia, Ceylon, Malaysia, Nigeria, Jamaica …

And so he goes on to mention them—

He goes on to say—

Order! I want to point out to hon. members that we are not carrying on a general constitutional debate on the merits of Second Chambers and Upper Houses in the world. The subject before the House is whether the life of the present Senate should be extended to the date appearing in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall abide by your decision.

I am listening. Your speech is stimulating.

Order!

My house was not placarded during an election. If I were the hon. member I would keep quiet. The question before us is simply whether the life of the Senate should be extended. The function of the Senate was originally only that of a house of review which had to take a critical look at legislation passed by the House of Assembly before it was placed on the Statute Book. The function of the Senate was changed later so that legislation could also be initiated there. Standing as we are before this great constitutional development, the contribution of the hon. Upper House is necessary because the new constitutional dispensation in South Africa cannot be brought into being without it. It is very clear that the Upper House shares in the dispensation. In terms of the present Constitution it must be in existence to enable legislation to be passed but it should be borne in mind that this is not the first time that the life of the Senate has been extended.

In 1939, on 2 September, there was a special session of Parliament.

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

No, Mr. Speaker, I am not answering any questions. [Interjections.] I repeat that this is not the first time that the life of the Senate has been extended. I say again that on 2 September 1939 there was a special session and in that special session as well the life of the Senate was extended. There was also a reason for this. It has been said that the reason was not to discuss the question of war, and we accept the reason. If we consider what happened in regard to this matter, we can of course draw our own conclusions as to what the position was. We can speculate but it may perhaps be better to leave the matter at that. We are aware of the momentous decisions that were taken but at this stage that is all history. As I see the matter, the reason for the Bill before the House is that South Africa has reached the end of a certain era and that the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, together with the Westminster system, no longer offers the necessary constitutional machinery which can properly serve our requirements. My submission is therefore …

Order! The hon. member is starting to go into the merits of the proposed constitutional dispensation again. He must confine himself to the fact that the Senate is necessary to bring any new dispensation into being.

Just as you say, Mr. Speaker. We have come to a point where this legislation must be looked at and I want to give the hon. the Minister who has introduced this legislation the assurance that he can rely on the support of all the members on this side of the House. I should therefore like to give my strongest support to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you, Sir, that it is not in the least my intention to discuss the proposed constitutional plans of the Government. Your guidance in this connection is quite correct. That question is not at issue and even if I wanted to discuss the proposals they are not before us at the moment. They have not been placed before us as yet. Yesterday when the hon. the Minister told us what had motivated him to introduce this Bill, he advanced one reason only and that was that the Government intended abolishing the Senate and that that was the reason for extending the life of the Senate. He will appreciate that it is for us to judge whether or not to support the Bill and we must be swayed in our judgment by the reasons and motives advanced. I trust, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to deal with the motives advanced by the hon. the Minister. I say that because when the Bill was discussed in the Other Place the same reason and that reason alone was advanced.

I do not think the Government would lightly come to the House of Assembly with a proposal that its life be extended beyond its five year term of office without giving urgent and convincing reasons for such a step and without some form or other of consensus being achieved with the rest of Parliament. The extension of the life of either House of Parliament impinges upon the provisions and objectives of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa; it affects the status of Parliament; and it affects the political parties in Parliament. Because it affects the political parties in Parliament it also affects the democratic rights of the voters in the country. It has consequently become a tradition in this House that in matters of this nature, matters affecting the rights of Parliament, parliamentary consensus is sought prior to the Government’s introducing the Bill in Parliament. That is, however, not the way in which the Government has set about things as far as this Bill is concerned.

The Senate and the House of Assembly jointly constitute an integrated part of Parliament. In many important aspects they are complementary to one another. One of those aspects is the entrenched provisions in the Constitution which safeguard our two official languages. In this respect the Senate plays a role of cardinal importance because from the nature of its composition it represents the provinces. I do not intend reading sections 108 and 118 of the Constitution; hon. members ought to be au fait with them. They ought also to know that as far as those provisions are concerned the Senate plays an extremely important role.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister, however, that I was shocked by the fact that the Government could calmly announce, as he did yesterday, that the aim of the Bill before us was to abolish the Senate, and that he could ask us for our support without explaining to us what was to take its place and what was to become of the important role that the Senate played in our constitutional set-up.

Those proposals are still to be submitted to you.

Yes, but we do not have them before us today. The Government is asking us to approve of a step that has important implications while we do not know …

We are not asking for it to be abolished but for it to be retained.

The only reason advanced by the hon. the Minister for extending the life of the Senate was its abolition. Surely we can reconstitute the Senate …

But Parliament can vote down proposals submitted by the Government.

But surely it is not necessary to extend the life of the Senate. After all, the Senate can be properly reconstituted. It can then continue to play a part, as you have indicated, Mr. Speaker, in the legislation still to come. The object of the Bill before us today is to extend the life of the Senate but what is the valid reason for such extension? It is because the Government wants to abolish it. Anybody on the Opposition side who supports such a step is simply neglecting his duty. Both Chambers of Parliament, the House of Assembly and the Senate, were instituted in terms of the Constitution of the country and have a function and object of their own.

The Bill before us, therefore, affects deep-rooted constitutional principles. It is quite wrong, therefore, to regard this Bill as an ordinary Bill that can be dealt with in an opportunistic and shallow manner. The democratic rights not only of Parliament as an institution but also of political parties are radically affected by this Bill. The hon. the Minister advanced one reason for the introduction of the Bill. At the appropriate time we shall thoroughly discuss the question of the retention or abolition of the Senate. A case can undoubtedly be made out for its abolition, but similarly, a very good case can also be made out against the abolition and in favour of the retention of the second Chamber. If the present Senate has been ineffectual, I would not so much blame the institution as the Government’s failure to make it the kind of institution we would have liked it to be. But whatever the Government’s present policy may be regarding the future of the Senate, the policy of a political party is still not an act and a resolution of this Parliament.

It may become one!

Of course, but that is not the position yet. Parliament has not yet decided that one of the two components of Parliament should be abolished. There is nothing before Parliament as yet as to the alternative envisaged by the Government. We do not have the faintest idea as to how the Government intends dealing with the entrenched provisions should it carry out its intentions as announced by the hon. the Minister yesterday. Furthermore, if I understood the hon. the Prime Minister correctly, he indicated that he was prepared to negotiate with representatives of the Coloureds and Indians—in respect of matters of principle as well—before submitting constitutional alternatives to this House. There was a meeting of Black leaders over the weekend who directed the same request to the hon. the Prime Minister and I am sure he will comply with their request. The hon. the Minister cannot therefore anticipate matters and then advance probable future constitutional changes that his party advocates as the reason for the introduction of this Bill.

What we have before us today is simply a request that the life of the Senate which expires on 29 May, be prolonged by a year. The hon. the Minister has said that he will move an amendment in terms of which the life of the Senate will be prolonged by one year and seven months. What is being proposed here, therefore, is that the provisions of the Constitution should be overthrown, that the entrenched provisions should fall away and that the democratic rights of the political parties represented in the House of Assembly and in the Senate should be assailed without any valid reason being advanced for so doing. The only reason is possible changes at some or other future stage, something that at this juncture is merely the policy of a party which will not necessarily be implemented.

We cannot allow this Bill to become law without registering our strongest objection to it. When legislation is introduced which radically affects Parliament as an institution, the prescriptions laid down in the Constitution, the rights of political parties and our language rights, we are not dealing with ordinary legislation and so we expect the Government to adopt specific procedures.

We had a general election in November 1977 for the House of Assembly and the provincial councils.

You lost badly.

We are dealing now with matters of principle. At the moment I am not interested in the results of that election as such. The fact of the matter is that the result of those elections changed the composition of Parliament and the numerical ratio among the parties. It does not matter to what extent this occurred; what matters is the principle.

It does matter because your party will in actual fact gain two or three members.

The numbers are not important; we are not arguing about that. The fact of the matter is that Parliament and the ratio among the political parties was drastically changed and that another political party became the Official Opposition, to give only one example. Constitutionally the Government had the right to dissolve the Senate together with the Assembly at the time of the election. Alternatively the Government had the right to dissolve the Senate within 120 days after the general election and to constitute that Chamber of Parliament in relation to the strength of the parties in the Assembly and provincial councils. That happened a year and three months ago. In other words, I think the Government should have done that. So the extension that the hon. the Minister is now seeking amounts to a fairly long period. However, the Government did not do so. It decided that the Senate should serve its full term of office of five years, something which very seldom happens in the case of the Assembly. I concede that the Government acted within its constitutional rights but, bearing in mind the change that took place in the political structure of the Assembly, it was the duty of the Government to dissolve the Senate more than a year and three months ago. It now wants to go even further: Not only did it not dissolve the Senate as it ought to have done but it even wants to prolong the life of the Senate by a further year and seven months after May this year.

It is in this way that the Government is trying to assail and negate the basic rights of the official Opposition. Obviously the position of the Government will also be affected. I agree with what the previous speaker has said: The Government will also acquire an additional three seats if the Senate is reconstituted. In their case, however, that does not carry the same weight, and for a very simple reason. It is obvious that the Government had the consent and approval of its own party but the parliamentary Opposition was not consulted in any way beforehand in this important matter as far as its rights were concerned. No attempt was made to achieve consensus on this matter with the official Opposition. I think it is a wrong and dangerous principle that the democratic rights, however important or insignificant they may be, of any political party in this Parliament can be assailed and negated by unilateral legislation on the part of the Government.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister. No matter how one might differ from his politically, he is the product of a political generation that had a certain feeling for Parliament as institution. The life of either chamber of Parliament should not be prolonged or shortened by unilaterial Government action in conflict with the objects of the Constitution, and for all the reasons I have mentioned. Since the present party came into power, one Prime Minister after another has curtailed the term of office of the Assembly, even to as short a period as three years. Party political strategy has been the only reason for it. Even if a Prime Minister has the right to do so, ethically it remains constitutionally wrong. In a country like Germany, for example, that as a Western country acquired a brand new democratic constitution after the war, when the Chancellor wants to call an earlier election he has to go to Parliament. He has to give cogent reasons as to why he wants an earlier election and he has to obtain a substantial majority before he is allowed to do so. He cannot therefore simply decide on his own to hold an election.

Order! In the course of this debate the hon. member may not go too deeply into matters relating to this House.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am with you. I mention this because I want to make it clear that this is a matter on which the whole of Parliament should decide and that there should be consensus before the life of either Chamber of Parliament is prolonged or shortened. Action should not be taken unilaterally in matters of this kind. My appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister is that it should be traditional, as it has been, that matters affecting the composition of this Parliament and the rights of political parties—in this instance in particular the rights of the official Opposition—as well as constitutional rights, should not be dealt with in a unilateral manner. When matters affecting the Constitution and an important institution like Parliament are at issue, unilateral action that will benefit some parties and be disadvantageous to others should be avoided and the parties should be consulted before such legislation is introduced.

I want to conclude by suggesting to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior that a Standing Constitutional Committee of Parliament representative of all parties in Parliament, be appointed, a committee to which proposed changes affecting Parliament and the rights of the political parties in Parliament, as required, can be referred for consideration before such steps are taken.

Therefore, on behalf of this side of the House I object, most strenuously, to the way in which this Bill has been introduced and dealt with because, apart from the other reasons I have mentioned, in principle it affects the basic rights of political parties in this House. In principle therefore I reject the Bill now before the House.

Mr. Speaker, the House has just listened to what I would describe as an astonishing exercise in sophistry, political sophistry. How the hon. member can argue that a simple measure of this kind, a straightforward measure with a single principle, involves the entrenched provisions, the right of political parties, the composition of Parliament as such, is something which must have left most hon. members of this House just wondering. In so far as concrete reasons were given for a Bill which does not abolish the Senate, but very simply extends the life of the Senate, the issue before us is very simple. That is in fact the issue with which we are concerned. There are two clauses in this particular Bill. The one simply provides for the extension of the life of the present Senate, while the other simply describes the name or the title of the Bill. That is all with which we are concerned. We are not concerned with the abolition of the Senate. In so far as a spokesman for the official Opposition—because the other Opposition parties have yet to express themselves—in the person of the hon. member for Sandton, gave reasons for their opposition to this Bill, these reasons are twofold. He said first of all that the new constitutional proposals are not before this House, that there are no draft papers, and that that is a reason for opposing this legislation. Again one comes back to the fact that we are dealing here not with the abolition of the Senate, but with the extension of the life of the present Senate, the term of office of which expires at the end of May of this year. That is the specific concern of this particular bit of legislation.

The second reason which the hon. member for Sandton gave is the one relating to the composition of the Senate, and in particular the representation by the political parties. Now, with respect, that is a rather pathetic argument. If one takes the composition of the Senate as it is at the moment and as it would have been had the then Prime Minister decided to reconstitute it after the November 1977 elections, one sees that the composition of the Senate immediately after the election was: NP, 40 Senators; NRP, 9 Senators; PFP, 1 Senator and 1 Independent Senator. The reconstituted Senate after the November elections would have been: NP, 43 Senators; NRP, 5 Senators and PFP, 3 Senators. As a matter of fact, if one looks at these figures it appears that Opposition membership of the Senate would have declined from 11 to eight.

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

No, I am not answering any questions. [Interjections.] This is the big issue. This is the big ground of opposition. As a matter of fact, when one analyses the figures, when one looks at the facts, there is an actual decline in the Opposition representation in the Senate from 11 Senators to eight Senators. That is if the Senate had been reconstituted.

The fact is that this is a constitutional measure and not a political one. It is a constitutional measure for the very simple reason that the life of the present Senate expires at the end of May, and for reasons which lie with the prerogative of the hon. the Prime Minister, that its life should be extended, as the hon. the Minister of the Interior has indicated, to the end of 1980. That is the one reason. The other reason is the fact that the Senate forms an integral part of the workings of Parliament and is essential for the passage of legislation. These are the two fundamental constitutional reasons why we have this legislation. The attempt, in particular on the part of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, to involve entrenched clauses and the rights of political parties, is therefore so much eyewash. On behalf of this side of the House I support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say at the outset that in supporting this legislation to extend the life of the Senate, the NRP is in no shape or form expressing any support for the new constitutional proposals of the Government.

All you want to do is to hang on to the Senators you do not deserve.

The hon. member for Orange Grove talks about Senators we do not deserve, but I shall be coming to that particular point.

What we have before us is a straightforward Bill which aims at extending the life of the present Senate. It contains nothing about the future constitutional proposals and, as has been said quite correctly, nothing about the abolition of the Senate as such. When the Government comes with a constitutional Bill, obviously we will decide on what our attitude is to the principles and details contained in such a Bill. What is being sought in this Bill is the extension of the life of the Senate for another year, or possibly a year and a half. The extension is certainly not being sought for an indefinite period. We realize that promises have been made about a new constitutional dispensation. We have no quarrel with that, and neither do I think any opposition party has any quarrel with the fact that a new dispensation is being sought. However, I must state that the NRP has a clear-cut approach to this Bill. The NRP is an opposition party, and as such it owes some loyalty to thousands of opposition voters in South Africa at this particular moment, especially at a time like this when those opposition voters, for the sake of South Africa, have a very deep-seated and justifiable desire to teach this Government a lesson. The NRP as an opposition party, and I as an NRP representative, will do nothing which would, in fact, strengthen the National Party. If I were to do that, I would be betraying the trust put in me.

After the 1977 election the previous Prime Minister or the Government had the opportunity, within a period of 120 days, of dissolving Parliament and reconstituting the Senate. The previous Government, however, did not do so. As has been correctly stated— and this is the cardinal consideration which every single member of the Opposition should bear in mind—if the Senate had been dissolved and reconstituted, the National Party would have increased its total representation from 40 to 43 Senators. I have also heard talk about frustrating the will of the people. Even in a newly reconstituted Senate, the NRP would still be the official Opposition. The previous government or the Prime Minister did not elect to reconstitute the Senate, and that was his decision, not the NRP’s decision. By declining to do so, they perhaps forfeited the right to weaken the Opposition forces in South Africa even further. Let me say that I am the last person who would want to act as Father Christmas to the Nationalist Party, saying: Here are presents for you. The mind boggles at the very thought of an Opposition party even contemplating such a thing. Surely—and I am certain hon. members of the official Opposition must concede as much—if a new Senate were now to be elected, the Nationalist Party would be the party to benefit by it. This is the cardinal issue. The membership of the PFP in the Senate will be increased from one to three, but they will still not be the official Opposition there. They have nothing to gain, because they cannot even become the official Opposition there.

The one they have got is no good anyway, so why do they want two more?

They will really gain two Senators in addition to a Senator whom they have had for four years as a “pasella” from Natal and who in fact has no moral right to represent them in the Senate. We have heard it said that the will of the people is being frustrated, but he has no right to that. [Interjections.]

Order!

If there were to be a reconstituted Senate, let us just think about this and be fair about it: The official Opposition are claiming that an injustice has been perpetrated against them, but let us just take the measure of this point of view. Let us take one year of service by a Senator or a member of Parliament as one unit. We then find that what they would gain would be two additional Senators for 1½ years which amounts to three years of service. This is what their opposition is about. However, they have already had the service of Senator Winchester for four years without having been entitled to that. In addition to that, based on the 1974 election results and the theory of the lifespan of the present Senate, they have also received their hon. Chief Whip as a gift from the old UP. [Interjections.] He has provided them with another two years of free service. The hon. member for Sandton said in his speech—and I wrote it down—that “this would frustrate the ballot-box”. Since 1974 and in the lifespan of the present Senate, the hon. member for Sandton also fell into the lap of the PFP cause like a ball of manna from heaven. He has given them two years of service. Then there is also the service of three of his colleagues so that, altogether, using their argument that it should be based on the election results, they have since the 1974 elections provided, free of charge and against the will of the ballot-box, eight years of service to the PFP cause, i.e. two years each. They got four years of service from the hon. Senator Winchester; three years from their hon. Chief Whip; and eight years together from other hon. members here. That means that they got a total of 15 years of free service. Then they still want to fight about the fact that they will possibly be done out of three years of service which two additional Senators could give them. The moral of my story is that these hon. members should not come here pretending that they are the Cinderellas of South African politics in this regard. In so far as representation is concerned, they have in fact been over-represented if one looks at it historically. Every argument they have used can be used against them.

I am very sorry indeed that the official Opposition has taken this line knowing full well that by doing so it would weaken the forces of the combined Opposition. They should have made better use of this opportunity, because there are people in South Africa who have become intolerant about unnecessary squabbling and embarrassment of political parties. I am very sorry that they have not made better use of this opportunity.

I want to conclude by saying to the hon. the Minister that, by extending this—and I accept it—what will happen in the next 1½ years is that…

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member why, since we are talking about dividing the Opposition forces, the NRP poked their noses into Swellendam? [Interjections.]

I must of course abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker: We are now debating the Senate Bill. The hon. the Minister has asked for an extension of the Senate’s life in this Bill. We do not know what the outcome of that extended period of 1½ years will be, but I want to plead that, for the sake of South Africa, we should make the best of negotiations during the extended time of 1½ years and then come back with fully negotiated constitutional proposals accepted by the majority of people in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, with the exception of a few remarks, the hon. member for Durban Central said so many things with which we agree that the words of the psalmist—“How good and how pleasant it is for bretheren to dwell together in unity”— come to mind. [Interjections.] In the light of the newly-found consensus between the NRP and ourselves it will certainly be very un-brotherly of me to say that in my support of the Bill I am being far more generous than the hon. member for Durban Central. We are supporting this legislation even though we lose a great deal thereby. The hon. member for Durban Central supports this legislation, otherwise he would lose a great deal.

This Bill envisages an amendment of the constitution. A constitution is not static but a dynamic, living organism. New circumstances entail new needs and demand new solutions. Since 1910, profound and drastic amendments of our constitution have been effected. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to conduct a constitutional debate at this point. I promise that my conduct will be impeccable. I want to mention in the course of a few sentences what major amendments to our constitution have been effected since 1910. The first amendment I want to stress was effected by the Status Act of 1934; Act No. 69 of 1934. After that the Republican Constitution, Act No. 32 of 1961, came into being. Now we are on the threshold of what is probably the most drastic amendment of our constitution caused by the envisaged new constitutional dispensation. Although the Bill only deals with the extension of the life of the Senate, it is a preparation, as the hon. the Minister put it, for that constitutional dispensation.

Over the years the constitution has been much amended. Since 1961 we have had 26 amendments. This does not include the envisaged amendment which is now before us. Over the years there have been a number of amendments directly relating to the Senate. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana referred to the historic sitting of 2 September 1939, another occasion on which the life of the Senate was extended. The first legal amendment which affected the Senate took place as long ago as 1926. In that year Parliament took two very important decisions. In 1926 it was provided for the first time that 120 days after the dissolution of the House of

Assembly the Senate, too, could dissolve for its reconstitution. The second decision which is not always realized was that the Senate may be dissolved when there is a change of government. The Act of 1926 defines a change in government as when a new Prime Minister takes office. Theoretically, therefore, it was possible for the Senate to be dissolved twice last year, viz. 120 days after the general election of November 1977 and again after the acceptance of office by our present hon. Prime Minister. Under normal circumstances the Senate would have been dissolved on 29 May this year. Within the period of 18 months there were three opportunities to dissolve the Senate and reconstitute it. If we had only thought in terms of political expediency and the advantage of the NP, the temptation would probably have been strong to dissolve the Senate on one of the three occasions which I have mentioned because the NP would have been stronger after the reconstitution. We in Natal would have been directly affected thereby. Of the eight elected Senators in Natal, only one is an NP Senator.

As it ought to be.

If the Senate was reconstituted that would have given us eight Senators. As far as representation in the House of Assembly is concerned, the NP is in the majority in Natal and we should have been able to claim four Senators and the NRP could also claim four Senators. In the Transvaal the PFP would be able to get two Senators and one in the Cape and if the NRP could reach consensus with the SAP, one would probably have a Senator here in the Cape who would be three quarters SAP and one quarter NRP. This would have entailed a joint Opposition of at most eight, but probably seven.

A year has passed since this Bill was introduced in the Senate, a year in which a very great deal has happened in the political field, but whatever has happened, there has been nothing which has detracted from the necessity for this Bill which is being reintroduced. It is significant that this Bill was initiated in the Senate. Usually we refer to the Other Place, and a time will probably come when it will be among the forgotten expressions in our political vocabulary. It is significant that this Bill was initiated in the Senate in the knowledge that it was a prelude to the abolition of the Senate. The hon. Senators in the Other Place, with one exception, supported this Bill. In other words, 98% of them supported this Bill and they did so graciously. That, of course, is how we have come to know the Senate, as a dignified, responsible and noble institution in the best spirit of our parliamentary tradition.

In conclusion, I feel it as a heartfelt need also to pay tribute, on this occasion, to former colleagues in the Senate. It was a privilege for which I can never be too grateful, to have started my parliamentary career there.

Why did you not just stay there.

What I experienced and learnt there and the friends I made there were for me a constant source of enrichment for which I wish very humbly to express my thanks. It is a privilege to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, owing to the very correct ruling you have given in this connection you confined the debate very strict limits. I have therefore listened with a great deal of sympathy to them while they tried to remain within those strict limits, but as a result there is not much for me to reply to. I say this because the debate was extremely limited in accordance with your ruling.

In the first instance I want to point out to the hon. member for Sandton that we came to this hon. House with a proposal which has a very good precedent, and that precedent has been mentioned repeatedly. On 2 September 1939 Parliament did not convene—the notice did not put it in those terms—in order to consider the declaration of war. Notice was given of the convening of Parliament for one specific purpose, and that was to extend the period of office of the majority of members of the Senate. That is the precedent that exists.

There was another reason as well.

No, there was no other reason.

… to give attention to a legal problem in connection with the Senate.

Yes, but the notice said nothing about the question whether a declaration of war would be declared or not. After the notice was sent out, Germany committed aggression and it so happened that Parliament could also give attention to a declaration of war. What happened then? Whether one was in favour of or opposed to the declaration of war by South Africa at that time, that Senate, the life of which was extended, formed part of a legislative authority which took decisions at that time with which an important part of the population was not in agreement. Therefore there is a precedent for the step now being taken by the Government.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made an interesting speech here but also raised matters which were totally irrelevant. He said that there should be consensus. He also spoke about a standing constitutional committee. When legislation is introduced in the House, in Parliament, legislation which aims, inter alia—I envisaged this in my Second Reading speech—to abolish a specific institution, what could be fairer than to introduce that draft legislation in the first instance in the institution itself? This was done, and what happened then? Apart from the lone dissenting vote of Senator Winchester, that institution unanimously accepted the legislation at present before us.

Were you surprised?

I was not surprised, but can the hon. member tell me whether there is a fairer method one could adopt than to allow the institution whose life is at stake, first to decide on the matter itself? As I said they voted in favour of it with an overwhelming majority.

Yes, but they are getting a present.

Self-perpetuation!

What present are they getting? I deny that they are getting any present.

Let us for a moment abandon ourselves to the wildest possible flights of imagination. Let us go on a wild flight of the imagination and say that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout were to convince the majority in this House tomorrow or the day after that we should rather give attention to his party’s constitutional proposals. That is of course a very wild supposition. In that event we should of course be in the same position as that in which the Government finds itself at present. The Government would then also have to extend the life of the Senate so that the Opposition could convene their national convention and after lengthy discussion …

Could save South Africa.

… could draft a new constitution. In any event they want to recreate the Senate entirely. They do not wish to carry on with the Senate in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister what he and his party have against reconstituting the Senate by way of an ordinary election?

The reason for that is very simple and was clearly spelt out by the hon. members for Durban Central and Cape Town Gardens, namely that a reconstitution of the Senate at this stage would make no significant difference to the practical situation. I do not know why those hon. members lay such stress on this. They could perhaps get two more members but that would make no significant difference.

Two of ours are worth any 10 of yours!

They are now harping so on this matter but it will make no significant difference to the decision-making process in that body.

The hon. member for Durban Central expressed the confidence that the authorization I request to extend the life of the Senate will be utilized to give very careful attention to our constitutional proposals and to conduct discussions on them. That is precisely why we are asking for a postponement. We do so so that negotiations can take place in a judicious and equitable fashion, so that the various opinions may be gleaned and the matter be given mature consideration before a Select Committee or before a commission, as the case may be.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This amending Bill contains proposals for the amendment of various provisions of the principal Act, provisions dealing with various matters without detracting from the principle of the principal Act For this reason, it is actually a Bill which could perhaps be dealt with more fruitfully in the Committee Stage than at the Second Reading. Nevertheless, I want to explain every clause even at this stage.

Clause 1:

In terms of section 55 of the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act, 1972, any police officer or person or member of a class of persons authorized thereto by the Minister, whenever he suspects on reasonable grounds that a person is not a South African citizen, may require such person to produce to him proof that he is entitled to be in the Republic, and if such person is unable to do so, he may be taken into custody without a warrant.

Members of the Railway Police who perform their normal duties on trains and buses of the S.A. Railways find a considerable number of citizens of neighbouring States travelling without the proper documents.

Because members of the Railway Police are not “police officers” as defined in section 1(1) of this Act, and it would be too great a task to provide each such member individually with written authority to perform such functions, they are not competent to act in terms of the above-mentioned section 55 of the Act, i.e. to take such persons into custody if they cannot satisfy those officers that they are entitled to be in the Republic, and to bring them before a passport control officer who will examine the cases further. In addition, members of the Railway Police will also be able, in terms of section 5 of the principal Act, to prevent persons who do not have a right of entry from entering the Republic.

In the light of the present security situation, it is deemed essential for members of the S.A. Railway Police also to be authorized to act in terms of the Act, and for this reason it is proposed in clause 1 that the definition of “police officer” be expanded to include those officers as well.

Clause 2:

Officers of the S.A. Railway Police are being used as passport control officers at the airports of Upington and Keetmanshoop, to act on behalf of my Department of the Interior and Immigration, because in this way officers are released who can be used at other places where there is great pressure of work.

In order to place beyond doubt the legality of such actions and investigations by S.A. Railway Police officers in terms of the Act, it is proposed in clause 2 that section 4(a) of the Act to be amended to provide specifically for members of the S.A. Railway Police to be appointed as passport control officers.

Clause 3:

Subsection (a):

Section 44A of the Act provides that any person (other than a South African citizen by birth or descent) who is convicted of contravening any law relating to exchange control, and who is deemed by the Minister to be an undesirable inhabitant of the Republic, may be removed from the Republic under a warrant.

There is no provision in the Act for someone who has been convicted of a contravention of exchange control measures abroad to be declared a prohibited person in respect of the Republic.

It is obviously in the interests of South Africa and of the protection of its inhabitants that these economic saboteurs be prevented from entering the Republic of South Africa. For this reason, it is proposed in clause 3(a) that anyone who has been convicted in any country of any contravention of any law relating to exchange control may at the direction of the Minister be considered an undesirable inhabitant of or visitor to the Republic.

Subsections (b) and (c):

The present wording of section 13(1)(g) and (h) of the Act is offensive. In this way, for example, the Mental Health Act, No. 18 of 1973, refers to mentally ill persons and not, as in section 13(l)(g), to “any idiot or epileptic, or any person who is insane or mentally deficient”. For this reason, at the recommendation of the Department of Health, it is proposed in clause 3(b) and (c) that the offending words be replaced by the words as indicated, which are now the acceptable definitions in our society. With respect to subsection 1(h) that department also recommended, after being consulted by my department, that specific diseases should not be laid down by regulation, because new and equally dangerous diseases are constantly being discovered, but that the Minister should determine the diseases concerned from time to time.

†Clause 4:

Mr. Speaker, section 43 of the Act provides that any person—other than a South African citizen by birth or descent—who has been sentenced to imprisonment for any offence mentioned in Schedule I or for any of the offences mentioned in paragraphs (b) to (e) of that section, and who by reason of the circumstances of such offence is deemed by the Minister to be an undesirable inhabitant of the Republic, may be removed from the Republic under a warrant.

The modern tendency apparently is to place the accent on rehabilitation rather than on punishment when sentencing a person for certain crimes, even in respect of the more serious offences mentioned in section 43 and Schedule I of the Act Consequently relatively few convictions, especially in the case of first offenders, lead to imprisonment alone. Section 44A of the Act introduced during the first session of Parliament last year, on the other hand, provides only that a person who is convicted of the offence mentioned in that section may be removed from the Republic under a warrant. A conviction is, therefore, the only prerequisite for the removal of a person from the Republic in terms of section 44A if he, by reason of the circumstances of such offence, is deemed by the Minister to be an undesirable inhabitant. It is proposed in clause 4 that in this respect section 43 be brought in line with section 44A. This will enable the department to again deal more effectively with people who emigrated to this country but is thereafter found to be persons whom this country can ill afford owing to their lack of respect for its laws and customs.

Clauses 5 and 6:

The lists of offences enumerated in section 43 and in Schedule I have been revised and the proposals in this respect are embodied in clauses 4 to 6.

Mr. Speaker, it is not the question of the appointment of members of the S. A. Railways—including the S.A. Railway Police—to apprehend people on trains, not the fact that, in outlying places such as Upington and Keetmanshoop, as the hon. the Minister said, persons who are members of the S.A. Railways should be made passport control officers, nor the fact that the euphemistic terms “mentally ill person” is used as a substitution for “idiot or epileptic” which gives us any difficulty. What does unfortunately occasion us difficulty—and this goes to the root of the matter—is the principle of the amendment to the legislation which the hon. the Minister is proposing today. I am referring, of course, to clause 4 of the Bill which amends section 43 of the principal Act. The hon. the Minister has argued that, in terms of section 44A of the Act, persons convicted may be removed from the Republic, but what we are now doing is restructuring section 43. We are now granting the hon. the Minister powers which virtually transcend those of the courts. The hon. the Minister knows that in arguing this case we are not referring to him personally, but to the office of the Minister, which includes all those who will succeed him in future. Therefore it is the incumbent, the powers of the Minister and the principle that are involved. The hon. the Minister himself is a legal man, a man of experience in this learned profession. I am therefore sure he will be the first to concede that every case that comes before a court is different. Even though there may be clearly defined theft or perjury cases, the facts and the circumstances of each specific type of case differ from case to case. It is therefore only after the court has weighed all the evidence and has heard submissions in regard to mitigation of sentence, that it can decide what sort of punishment should be meted out for a specific offence. If the circumstances warrant it and it is justified, a sentence of imprisonment is not imposed by the court. The person who is convicted then merely has to pay a fine. What we are now doing in this Bill is transcending those powers so that the hon. the Minister can, in terms of the proposed new section 43, remove a convicted person who was not born here, from South Africa. The mere fact that such a person is convicted, is sufficient for the hon. the Minister to use these powers. The hon. the Minister also has another string to his bow because he can decide whether a person is an undesirable inhabitant of South Africa. We feel that it is undesirable to place these powers in the hands of the hon. the Minister. Whereas the legislators originally envisaged that such persons should be imprisoned, we are now dealing with a different category of person, i.e. one who has been imprisoned for committing an offence mentioned in Schedule 1 of the principal Act and who, having served a prison sentence, may be thought by the hon. the Minister nevertheless to be an undesirable inhabitant of the Republic of South Africa. The hon. the Minister’s powers should not be so extended that a person who is not even imprisoned can be removed from South Africa.

The proposed new section 43 should be read in conjunction with the proposed new Schedule 1 and the proposed new Schedule 1A which have been revised. One would not quarrel too much about the fact that “culpable homicide”, for example, has been included in the proposed new Schedule 1, nor that “crimen injuria” is being deleted and the charges for kidnapping added. We experience some difficulty, however, in regard to the principle of the proposed new section 43 which is extended by the provisions in the proposed new Schedule 1A. Some of the offences, previously incorporated into section 43 of the principal Act, have now been transferred to the proposed new Schedule 1A. We shall not, for example, argue about the provision regarding the Internal Security Act which deals with communism, nor with the provision regarding the contravention of section 319(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act which can be compared to perjury as it deals with the making of conflicting statements. We also have no quarrel with the provision regarding the contravention of section 36 of the General Law Amendment Act, although it has failed in definitely proving the possession of stolen goods by the receiver of such goods. To my mind, here there could be many border-line cases, and such a person would definitely have to be a receiver of stolen goods before the hon. the Minister could regard him as being an undesirable inhabitant of South Africa.

We then come to the contravention of any provision of the Immorality Act. I think our stand on the Immorality Act is well known. The Bill refers to any provision of the Immorality Act, not only section 16 in respect of which we argued about the relations between Coloured and White persons. As the hon. the Minister is well aware, the Immorality Act deals with other matters as well, such as brothels, procuring, abduction, offences involving persons under the age of 16, owners of premises used for the purpose of committing an offence in terms of any provision of the Act and people living on the earnings of prostitutes. We are going beyond section 16 of the Immorality Act because the ambit of this Bill is broad and covers all the provisions of the Immorality Act. I do not believe that a person merely convicted of such offences should be deemed to be an undesirable person by the hon. the Minister. Schedule 1A also refers to the contravention of section 21(1) of the General Law Amendment Act. This relates to sabotage and we will not argue about that. The next item in schedule 1A refers to the contravention of section 18 of the Price Control Act. This Bill is putting price control into a very serious category. Section 18 of the Price Control Act relates to offences concerning price control. A person who charges one cent more for an article he sells in his grocery store commits an offence in terms of section 18(a) of the Act. He is now exposed to a decision by the hon. the Minister that he is an undesirable citizen. The offences listed in section 18 include, for example, the receipt of notices which a person has not complied with and a person falsely representing himself as a price control officer. These are offences which, quite frankly, even if the hon. the Minister had not taken the additional powers whereby mere conviction and not imprisonment is sufficient to remove a person from the country, are not serious enough to have people sent out of the country if they have been convicted and imprisoned. There is a difference between people operating on the black market and these other less serious contraventions of this Act. Each case must obviously be examined on its merits. This provision in the Bill therefore also causes us great difficulty.

We now come to the matter of indecent or obscene photographs. All that section 2(1) of the Indecent or Obscene Photographic Matter Act states is that: “Any person who has in his possession any indecent or obscene photographic matter shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R1 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or to both such fine and such imprisonment.” One must realize that our moral standards in South Africa are perhaps much higher than the moral standards of other countries. We are dealing here with people who are not South Africans, and what may be taken for granted overseas we may take great umbrage at. They have a different approach to life and to matters of this nature. If they bring a magazine into South Africa which we may think falls under the ambit of this Act, is this really an offence that should be included in this Bill? We submit that even if the offence involves imprisonment, it should not be included. The fact of its merely involving a conviction is even more reason not to have it included in this Bill. We will not argue about the inclusion of contraventions of section 2(1) of the Terrorism Act in this Bill. Those are the reasons why we are opposed to this Bill.

The hon. the Minister mentioned the question of economic sabotage when he referred to clause 3 of the Bill which amends section 13 of the principal Act by adding the words “contravention of any law relating to exchange control”. As the hon. the Minister rightly pointed out, this means exchange control overseas. We would obviously not tolerate economic sabotage against South Africa. The fact that people who are not declared undesirable can remain here, is one thing. However, let us suppose we include in this category people who have committed such offences overseas. What then would the hon. the Minister’s attitude be, for example, to people, living in a country hostile to South Africa, who have perhaps committed offences in terms of their currency regulations, having brought out their currency to South Africa? Secondly, what would the hon. the Minister’s attitude be to people, living behind the Iron Curtain, who have tried for years and years to get out of those countries and who, in attempting to get out, may have been convicted of having committed an offence against the currency control regulations of those countries? What would his attitude be to those people if they have now managed to enter this country? Are we then going to send such people back to those countries? I therefore think that we must be a little circumspect in dealing with the whole question of currency control regulations overseas.

Notwithstanding the amendments to section 24A, previously agreed to by this Parliament, we think the hon. the Minister has sufficient powers, even if the Bill before us were to be so amended as to do away with the Acts to which this side of the House has stated its objections. The hon. the Minister does, after all, have all the additional penalties for offences in terms of other Acts, and it is a fact that we rely on the particular circumstances of each case and on whether the court has found the transgression to be so serious as to warrant a person’s being sent to prison. I say this because one can have a charge of theft which, on the face of it, is a serious charge, but there may be so many concomitant mitigating circumstances as to render the offence far less serious in the final analysis.

In those circumstances, on behalf of this side of the House, I am obliged to announce that we oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, obviously it is the prerogative of members of the Opposition to try to ridicule provisions in legislation. But what the hon. member for Hillbrow has done is to make use of the privilege of members of the Opposition by taking absolutely extreme cases and making them the norm. They make out that such extreme cases would be regarded by the hon. the Minister as the norm when he exercises his discretion. He should remember, however, that the hon. the Minister can deal with every one of these provisions discretionarity and not mandatorily. The hon. the Minister is not compelled to withhold anyone’s right to enter South Africa if he has contravened the price control regulations by 1c or if he has an indecent photograph in his possession, even if he has been convicted of that. It is the hon. the Minister’s right to use his discretion to determine whether the circumstances are, in fact, such as to warrant action. That is the important factor to consider in this matter.

There was another aspect raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow. He objected to the hon. the Minister having the power to decide on such issues. In view of the new constitutional proposals of the official Opposition, I do not know whether he wants to hold a national convention to decide whether such rights should be exercised or whether he wants to have a national referendum to decide whether such Acts should be applied or not. It is, however, ordinary and normal procedure for the hon. the Minister, as the responsible official acting on behalf of the Government, to use his discretion. In fact, in some sections that are not being amended this is made quite obvious. In section 45, for instance, one reads that—

In other words, on the strength of any matter, even if it is not included in the schedule or specifically mentioned in the Act, the Minister may in his discretion decide to withdraw a non-South African’s residence permit or to withhold a persons right from entering South Africa. The Minister has this discretion. It is recognized procedure in every democratic country in the world that the Minister may use his discretion.

The points raised in opposition to this truly amaze me. For instance, hon. members said they objected to the Minister having these powers; they said they objected to this being made applicable to offences such as exceeding the price control regulations by one cent; they said that in view of particularly strict laws in this country relating to obscenity and morals, a person from overseas who might not be used to these norms would therefore necessarily be debarred from coming here. There is no question of that. The Minister uses his discretion and in this Bill we are trying to couch the actual legislation in terms that are more acceptable to the public in general. We are merely extending the measure somewhat. We are in fact taking note of the changed attitude towards the penal system in this country in so far as it relates to cases where persons should not be given permission to stay in this country. It will not be necessary for him to be given a gaol sentence—that decision can be taken on the strength of his being convicted of committing such an offence. It is the normal procedure these days for the courts to try to keep people out of gaol because gaol is no longer regarded as the norm in a penal system. If that is the case as far as the courts’ discretion is concerned, surely when a person is found guilty of contravening certain laws, thereby acting in a manner that is not in the public interest, the Minister should have the discretion to be able to say that in that instance that person’s presence in South Africa is not desirable, especially where that person is not a South African citizen by birth or by descent. If in these circumstances where the South African population is being enlarged quite considerably by people who have come here under unnatural circumstances …

What do you mean by “unnatural circumstances”?

I was going to say: Unnatural circumstances in Africa. I refer to the unrest in other parts of Africa. Lots of people have come here who would not normally have come here, and they have come from other parts of Africa. We are particularly lenient in letting them stay in South Africa, but if such people abuse our good intentions and our leniency, the Minister should be able to exercise his discretion and should be able to say to them: If you want to abuse our leniency and contravene exchange control regulations or commit other acts mentioned in this amending legislation, we are sorry but we are no longer prepared to have you as permanent residents or as potential citizens of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, I support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I still have certain problems with the formulation of this Bill. For example, the proposed Schedule 1A stipulates that a person can be expelled from the country for a contravention of the Immorality Act. We would have liked the hon. the Minister to introduce an amendment Bill at this stage—and this is a golden opportunity for doing so—in which particular attention is paid to this aspect.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we will support the Second Reading of this Bill. We accept that in certain cases there will be justification for merely the conviction of someone guilty of committing a certain crime, being adequate reason for steps to be taken to send such a person out of the country. In South Africa enormous fines can be imposed for certain crimes. There are people who can afford to pay such fines continually and the Government is therefore placed in a position where it cannot really take effective action against such a person. We realize that a great deal of discretion should be left in the hands of the hon. the Minister. We accept that in certain cases where action is taken against people, it may appear as if the action was unfair, but in such cases we want those concerned to have access to the hon. the Minister.

I want to refer to another aspect which, to my regret, is not mentioned in this Bill. Maybe in a subsequent amendment Bill relating to the removal of people, action taken against people and the withdrawal of passports, the hon. the Minister can introduce a system like that which we had before 1972, when people still in fact had greater access to the courts.

A reference to defeating or obstructing the course of justice is inserted in the proposed schedule. This is an offence which, on a conviction, is sufficient reason to put someone out of the country. In this regard one calls to mind the position in which Kallie Knoetze found himself when he was in America. He was convicted of defeating or obstructing the course of justice in South Africa. After a decision was taken in America about him, he had free access to the legal system, but an American convicted of defeating or obstructing the course of justice in his country will not have free access to the courts in South Africa to that extent.

We support this Bill, because we realize that the hon. the Minister is using it to try to solve certain problems. As regards court orders issued in respect of people, court orders which lead to their being put out of the country, I want to say, however, that we should start thinking about reintroducing the system enforced before 1972, because then people had freer access to the courts, while a foreigner does not have such access to the courts today should he feel that he has been done an injustice.

Mr. Speaker, each of the clauses before the House is justified and necessary on reasonable and fair grounds. I should like to give the reasons for this briefly.

Section 1 of the principal Act only provides that members of the Railway and Harbour Police should be included in the definition of “police officer”. In the same way, clause 2 is an extension of the term “passport control officer”, to include Railway officials in addition to civil servants. Therefore it is in both cases only an extension of the source from which manpower can be drawn for the effective administration of the Act.

Clause 3(a) extends the definition of “prohibited persons”, as contained in section 13(f) of the principal Act, with the addition of a person who is convicted of a contravention under any law relating to exchange control, in whatever country. The same section of the legislation also mentions other offences which make the transgressor a prohibited person, i.e. the contraventions mentioned in schedule 1 of the Act, which include crimes like treason, murder, homicide, rape, etc., all of which are serious crimes. The legislature could have achieved the same legislative effect by merely including an exchange control contravention in schedule 1. However, he does not do this, but specifically mentions exchange control contraventions in this section of the Act itself, and this is probably done for two reasons. In the first place it is not possible to have a single name covering all contraventions relating to exchange control. The contraventions mentioned in schedule 1 are specific offences which can be called by their names. In the second place, it indicates the seriousness with which offences of a foreign exchange nature are regarded. By mentioning the specific contraventions in the section of the Act itself, instead of mentioning it in the schedule, this contravention is made more conspicuous and this underlines its gravity. And this is as it should be, because this land of contravention constitutes economic sabotage of the worst kind. During World War II there were even countries which punished contraventions of this nature by death.

Clause 3(b) still refers to prohibited persons and replaces words such as “idiot or epileptic, or any person who is insane or mentally deficient” with the more general and extensive term, “mentally ill person”. This ensures more effective action under the Act. Under the term “mentally ill person” we could, for example, include people with the mental state of a person like Demetrio Tsafendas, and this, linked with his earlier history, could make him a prohibited person.

Clause 3(c) also refers to prohibited persons described in the existing Act with words such as “leprosy, infectious and loathsome”. These words are now substituted by an inclusive term, “communicable diseases”. It is a good thing to get rid of such objectionable terminology.

Clause 4 substitutes the words “sentenced to imprisonment” with the words “convicted of’ specific crimes. It is my submission that this affords the Act greater uniformity. However, it is a fact that different judges and magistrates impose different punishments for the same crime. While the one magistrate will impose imprisonment, another will merely impose a fine.

Clause 5 extends the offences in schedule 1 with crimes of more or less the same degree of seriousness.

Clause 6 creates a new schedule 1A, which actually consists of statutory contraventions, some of which correspond with common law contraventions already mentioned in schedule 1.

I just want to come back briefly to the hon. member for Hillbrow. In the first place the hon. member called into question, or tried to call into question, the discretion of the hon. the Minister by saying that this gives the Minister the same right as the court. In the first place, there is no amendment to the principle of the principal Act. This same principle, as contained in the principal Act, is also contained in one of the British Acts, an Act of a Parliament which is held up to us as the mother of democracy. I should like to refer to a speech made in this House by the hon. member for Koedoespoort. In referring to the hon. member for Koedoespoort I think that I interpret the feelings of all of us here when I say that we all regret that he has not yet been able to take his place in this House during this session as a result of illness.

On 28 February 1978 the hon. member for Koedoespoort referred to this in this House. He referred to the British Nationality Act of 1948, as follows (Hansard, 1978, col. 2035)—

The section I have just quoted here is to a far greater degree unqualified than that which the hon. the Minister is requesting. The hon. the Minister is limited to those specific contraventions mentioned in the Act. The hon. member for Hillbrow also referred to the proposed amendment of section 13 of the principal Act, specifically where it deals with contraventions of an exchange control law. It will be recalled that when these principles were discussed in last year’s session—on the occasion of the amendment of section 44 of the principal Act—the official Opposition also said that they were supporting it, but … Then they come forward with quite a number of objections. Today the hon. member for Hillbrow repeated that his party supports it, but…

That is not true. I did not say that. You did not listen. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, then it makes the position far worse. Does the hon. member for Hillbrow now want to say that he does not agree that a contravention of exchange control is a serious contravention? Then I can only come to one conclusion. That is that the official Opposition, in their censure of contraventions of exchange control, are not as serious as they pretend to be. [Interjections.] Hon. members of the official Opposition, and specifically the hon. member for Hillbrow, should tell me whether I am right.

That is a very bad conclusion!

Oh, is it a very bad conclusion? Mr. Speaker, I will prove to the hon. member why it is a very good conclusion. At the end of 1978 the PFP, that hon. member’s party, held a congress in Durban. One of the resolutions laid before that congress came from the constituency of Benoni. It read as follows, and I quote from a reliable source, Die Burger of 13 November 1978. [Interjections.] Never mind, I shall quote—

Yes, like the Department of Information! [Interjections.]

What will the Van der Walt Commission decide?

Mr. Speaker, this is what the official Opposition hatches out. [Interjections.] This resolution is a manifestation of the dissatisfaction of hon. members of that party with this Act on exchange control. Furthermore they request to be allowed to take money out of the country at will.

Mr. Speaker, I find this attack by the hon. member for Namakwaland on the hon. member for Hillbrow quite remarkable, particularly as he seeks again to throw the dirt at the official Opposition and seeks to twist speeches relating to exchange control in order to serve a political advantage. If the hon. member for Namakwaland is right, then what he has done—and I have listened to him … [Interjections.] Yes, you will have to swallow your words, my friend. [Interjections.] What he has done, is to actually attack the recommendations by the De Kock Commission, recommendations which have been accepted by the Government. [Interjections.] Of course the Government is against exchange control. The Government regards exchange control as undesirable, and the Government is only having a system of exchange control while it is forced to do so by economic circumstances. Therefore, to attack the hon. member for Hillbrow for something which, in the first instance, he did not say, and for something which, secondly, the De Kock Commission said and the hon. the Minister of Finance supported, is, I believe, the height of political distortion one can imagine. [Interjections.]

Let me deal with the issue of exchange control in a slightly different light. If the hon. member for Namakwaland does not know, the hon. the Minister will know that exchange control contraventions are internationally dealt with quite differently from other crimes. Revenue and exchange control offences are internationally regarded as not being extraditable offences. They are not regarded as punishable offences in some countries because of what has happened elsewhere. The reason for it is that, generally speaking, exchange control is regarded as something which is desirable in a particular community. It is only imposed by particular circumstances in particular situations. Therefore, exchange control, for example, is not an extraditable offence. I ask the hon. the Minister to respond to the suggestion that is made of the refugee who flees from Soviet Russia, where the laws on exchange control are of quite a different nature from those in South Africa. In South Africa someone who leaves the country is entitled to a maximum of R30 000 in capital. He is entitled to draw his income, something which, in the circumstances, I believe, is reasonable. In Russia, however, exchange control measures are so stringent that one leaves virtually only with the clothes one possesses. I suggest one should not regard that kind of person who may perhaps take out a piece of the family silver, something which would be an economic crime in Soviet Russia, as an undesirable person in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Come on, no one is as foolish as that!

Mr. Speaker, that is the issue. That is the point the hon. member for Hillbrow made. In those circumstances I have to draw attention to the fact that one cannot look at this in the same light all over the world.

However, that is not the main point I should like to speak about. I should like to refer to clause 4 of the Bill. I am sorry that the hon. member for Klip River is not here at the moment. He provoked my participation in this debate. He provoked my participation by using the most undesirable phrase saying that people were coming to South Africa in unnatural circumstances. [Interjections.] When he was challenged on that point he said there were difficulties in Africa and that was why people were coming here. He said it was an act of grace that we allowed them to come here, that we were doing it very kindly, that we were allowing these people to come into South Africa and that they, therefore, had to watch their step or else they would be in trouble. Mr. Speaker, I venture to suggest that perhaps you would not be in South Africa and hardly would there be anybody here in South Africa if your ancestors or the ancestors of the hon. members here had not come in the main to South Africa due to unnatural circumstances of that kind. Almost everybody in South Africa is here because their ancestors were refugees, whether it was because of the Huguenot situation, of unemployment in Britain or because of religious or political persecution.

Nonsense!

I would venture to believe that South Africa should pose as a haven for people who suffer from persecution elsewhere, whether it be in Africa or elsewhere in the world, for people who are democrats, who believe in religious freedom, and for people who only want to live in peace. Therefore to say they are coming in unnatural circumstances and that this is an act of grace is nonsense.

South Africa has for more than 300 years been built up by the work and energy of people who in the main have been refugees.

Yes, but that is absurd to mention it at this stage.

The matter which I want to take up with the hon. the Minister is why is it perpetuated in the legislation that there should be discrimination against those persons who are South African citizens by choice and not by biological accident Those are people who had deliberately decided that they like and want to be in South Africa. They want to be part of the community. Those people have elected to do so, they consciously made a choice to be here and now they are being discriminated against. For example, it would have been possible, in terms of these provisions, had certain circumstances been different during the war, that the hon. the Minister could have deported Dr. Verwoerd.

That is absurd.

How can one possibly have that kind of situation? [Interjections.]

Order!

I say that a citizen who is a citizen by naturalization, by his own election and choice, is entitled to the identical rights of any other South African. If we talk about punishing him, are we not then in fact imposing a double punishment? Because on the one hand he is, as every other citizen, brought to court, tried and convicted if he is guilty. In those circumstances he is punished. Then, while not punishing the South African born citizen a second time, the one who is not a South African born citizen is punished twice. To my mind that does not seem to be a case of justice.

Let me come back to the case of Dr. Verwoerd. He did not commit any crimes and did not do anything wrong that could have been proved, but if it had been suggested and it could have been suggested … Perhaps we must take another example so that it does not become an emotional thing. Say, somebody who was not born in South Africa, during the war advocated the anti-war cause and that that was regarded as being something that was triable. In those circumstances that particular individual could in fact have been deprived of his South African nationality, and the hon. the Minister will not say to me today that those people should not have been allowed to remain in South Africa. Of course they should have been. Therefore the double punishment which is imposed upon a naturalized citizen is to my mind utterly wrong. Let me say to the hon. the Minister that there are thousands of naturalized South Africans who contribute to the country and play their part in the same way as any citizen born in South Africa. These are, by the wording of this statute, being unjustly discriminated against.

Let me raise another point with the hon. the Minister. When we had the issue of the Information situation and Judge Mostert published certain evidence taken on oath, we had the cries from the hon. the Prime Minister down, in which the hon. the Minister also joined: “Hear the other side. How can you sit in judgment? You must hear the other side.” Yet in this particular instance there is no provision whatsoever for hearing the other side. Here we have the situation where the hon. the Minister exercises his discretion without any obligation to furnish any opportunity to anyone to make representations to him. It has been held in the courts that the audi alteram partem rule does not apply when the statute is phrased in this particular way.

I cannot support a provision where there is a complete discretion without hearing the other side, to use the hon. the Minister’s own words. I think the hon. the Minister should consider very carefully whether the whole Act does not need revision in order to make provision for the fact that one must hear the other side before passing judgment. For example, it might happen that although a case has been tried in court, such mitigating circumstances exist that it becomes necessary to put a case before the Minister. A very recent example is almost incapable of being understood. A man was charged in a Natal court with murder or culpable homicide for having killed a particular individual. He was convicted, but then the victim turned up in court—alive! Surely, in these circumstances, when the right to make representation is taken away in regard to similar crimes, a tremendous miscarriage of justice can take place. I maintain that one cannot even suggest that people should not be given a hearing before the hon. the Minister makes a decision. That is why, as long as this particular provision of the law, i.e. the proposed new section 43—in whatever form it may be—appears on the Statute Book, I for one feel obliged to vote against it. There should be no misunderstanding of the fact that I have used the name of Dr. Verwoerd as an illustration. I have not suggested that Dr. Verwoerd did anything wrong in this respect I merely used him as an example of a person who was not a born South African and who was generally regarded in South Africa as someone who made a substantial contribution.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal right away with what the hon. member for Yeoville has said, since he spoke last He again raised the question of exchange control infringements committed in a foreign country. That hon. member is articulate. In a dramatic way he quoted here an example of someone who was supposed to have committed exchange control infringements behind the Iron Curtain. In my opinion this is not a fair example, because I may review the case of a person who has had to flee from a communist country under difficult circumstances and in the process infringed this country’s laws with regard to foreign exchange control; consider his circumstances, use my discretion and allow him into the country. There is, however, no reason why I should not have at my disposal legal provisions enabling me to keep out of the country people who have committed such infringements. Let me give the hon. member for Yeoville the following example: What, then, of a person in a Western country which stands very close to us—I do not wish to mention names, but the hon. member can use his imagination—who in an unfair way bleeds his own country to death? Should I not have the authority to discriminate against such a person by saying to him that he is not welcome in this country?

They do not have exchange control.

That is their big mistake.

I know the hon. member for Yeoville feels very strongly about—as he calls it—discrimination against people who enter the country while they are not citizens of this country on the grounds of origin or birth. These people come to this country. They are selected on the grounds of their living circumstances, their character, etc. Therefore, they actually come here on the basis of an unspoken contract, because they wish to share with us the advantages and the commitments which this country offers them. The supposition underlying this unspoken contract is that they are in all respects persons who will be an asset to this country. The Minister of the Interior and Immigration is most certainly entitled to tell such a person, if he flagrantly breaks his part of the contract or the confidence which was placed in him, that under the circumstances he is no longer welcome in South Africa and must return to his country of origin. It is not necessary to discuss this again, because when we discussed this matter last year, I gave the House the assurance that we make nobody stateless in this way.

What the hon. member for Hillbrow is opposed to, basically, is the fact that under the proposed section 43 we have made conviction alone a prerequisite before we can take action against a person. We debated this principle extensively in this House last year and I gave my reasons in my Second Reading speech. With the new tendency in our courts only to fine people and not to subject them to imprisonment, we have to examine section 43 and change the Bill accordingly. We get cases of fraud—to name only one crime—which is a very ugly crime in certain circumstances, where large sums of money are involved, and all that happens to the culprit is that he is heavily fined. I most certainly think that in such a case—I shall deal in a minute with the exercising of my discretion—I am entitled to decide whether that person, under the circumstances, is a desirable inhabitant of South Africa.

The Opposition must examine the proposed section 43. In that section the Minister is specifically pinned down. He must examine the circumstances of such a crime. He cannot merely say that a certain crime was committed; he must also examine the circumstances of that crime. In practice it also happens that these cases come before me and I then consider the merits of the case. I think I can state without fear of contradiction that I examine such cases with exceptional compassion. It is not pleasant to uproot a person who has already settled in the country. Where it is decided that someone is to be deported, the person is not usually placed on an airplane or a ship overnight and removed from the country. The department is not overhasty. In practice, that person usually makes a further appeal to me—in many cases it is done by hon. members of the House. I then again examine all the circumstances of the case extensively. In many cases persons go so far as to brief attorneys and advocates and they make extensive representations to me. There have been cases where, upon reconsideration, I have had to concede to those persons that they were correct. They then remain in the country. Even though I have the discretion, I am subject to questioning and criticism in this Parliament. This does not only apply to me, but to my successors in this office as well. There is a reasonable built-in protection to ensure that a particular Minister will not abuse his discretion as far as these matters are concerned.

The hon. member for Hillbrow also referred to price control. It is easy to make price control appear ridiculous by referring to a case where a person was charged one cent too much for an article. I wish to tell the hon. members what type of cases I get. I feel very strongly about the matter and therefore wish to have the power in such cases. I get a number of cases where reckless dealers day after day charge unsophisticated people too much for articles. Against that type of person I act fairly ruthlessly. For that reason I want the power. I regard it as particularly reprehensible that a person who is unsophisticated and illiterate is treated roughly and in the process is overcharged as well.

The question of pornography was raised here. Of course I am not going to take action against the young man in possession of a naughty little picture, even if he is breaking the law technically. I take action against people who make a profession of hawking the most extreme cases of pornography and filth. For that reason I want the power.

The hon. member for Hillbrow also referred to the Immorality Act. The Immorality Act is covered in the existing Act under section 43. All that happened, was that the provisions of the Immorality Act have now been shifted to Schedule 1A. It is not, therefore, a new principle.

It is a new paragraph.

It is a new paragraph, but not a new principle, because the existing section 43 contains provisions concerning the whole Immorality Act.

Why not take the chance and remove it now?

We don’t take chances.

The hon. member for Hillbrow is concerned about section 16 of the Immorality Act, which deals with immorality across the colour bar. As the hon. members know, the administration of the Immorality Act does not fall under my jurisdiction but under the hon. the Minister of Justice. I do not believe it is reasonable to come to the back door in this sidelong manner to force on me a whole discussion on the merits of the Immorality Act or of section 16 of the Act. Hon. members have more than enough time, a platform and the opportunity if they wish to raise the merits of section 16, but they must discuss it with the particular Minister who was responsible for it. Because I have inherited this provision and am merely rewriting it, I do not see my way clear to amending it at this stage, for the reasons I have mentioned.

The hon. member for Durban Central referred to the question of access to the courts. The position is that the provisions of section 45, in respect of which I may remove someone who is not a South African citizen in the public interest without his being able to appeal to the courts, was included in the Statute Book before 1972. The law in this regard has, therefore, not been amended since 1972.

I think I have now answered all questions and I wish to thank the hon. members on both sides of the House for their contributions.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The departure of persons from the Republic is regulated by the provisions of the Departure from the Union Regulation Act, 1955 (Act 34 of 1955). Section 2 of the Act stipulates, inter alia, that no person shall leave the Republic for the purpose of proceeding to another place outside the Republic unless he is, at the time when he leaves the Republic, in possession of a valid passport or a permit. Anyone contravening the provision of section 2, is guilty of an offence and is punishable on conviction to a prison sentence of at least three months and not exceeding two years. In prosecuting someone for the contravention of section 2(a) the State must prove, inter alia, that the accused left the Republic for the purpose of proceeding to a place outside the Republic. In terms of the ruling of the case State v. Brink, 1970 (4) S.A. 89 (N.C.), the place has to be stipulated in the charge sheet, and such a place has to be as stated in the Act, i.e. a specific place. There are two situations which repeatedly occur in practice in respect of which insurmountable problems are experienced when proceedings are instituted due to a contravention of the Act, viz.—

1. (a) a person hides himself in a vehicle, but is discovered immediately before the vehicle is to cross the border to leave the Republic—the appropriate charge is then— attempt to infringe section 2(a);
2. (b) a person hides himself in a vehicle entering the Republic and is discovered immediately after the vehicle has crossed the border and it then turns out that the person was originally not in possession of a valid passport or a permit to leave the Republic.

In both situations I have outlined, the State is virtually always unable to indicate the particular place outside the Republic where that person wanted to go or was proceeding to. The result of this lack of evidence is that exceptions to the charge-sheets are always upheld, and if not, the accused is acquitted because the State cannot prove all the elements of the offence. In order to overcome the problem in connection with furnishing evidence, it is proposed in clause 1 that the words “place outside the Union” be substituted by “another country”. The proposed amendments will enable the State to give effect to the original intention of the legislator, i.e. that control be exercised over departures from the country, because this is of great importance to the safety of the State. Information which is in the nature of things not known to the State and very often not even to the person concerned, will therefore not hamper or impede control over the borders of the country.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with an instruction I have received from my Whip, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.