Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, at this stage it is unnecessary to repeat and reconsider all the arguments. [Interjections.] All aspects have been brought in their entirety to the attention of the hon. the Minister and of the Government. If they continue with this measure they will obviously have to endure the criticism which will undoubtedly follow. I just want to make one thing very clear, something which some hon. members do not seem to understand very well. [Interjections.] We are not dealing here with a court of justice, but merely with an administrative tribunal, which is something quite different from a formal court of justice. The hon. the Minister and other hon. members as well have repeatedly referred to court procedures and court proceedings. It is an inappropriate description of what takes place at an inquest. From that follows that nobody is bound by any finding of this tribunal. If the matter should fall within its jurisdiction any court in South Africa—a lower or a Supreme Court—could reach a different conclusion and issue a different verdict to that of the magistrate and his assessors at an inquest There is nothing binding about it. The rule res iudicata does not apply in this case. Consequently, we are faced with the problem which even the hon. the Minister, the man who handles this matter, could not solve. It is the question of when these proceedings take place. Where exactly is the starting point of the proceedings at an inquest?

The hon. the Minister made the astounding statement that it was not necessary for the legislator, or for him personally, to indicate in the legislation when the proceedings start and when the penal provision, therefore comes into effect. To me this is an astounding statement, for one task which is very clearly that of this hon. House, is to indicate to the courts that have to implement the Act as clearly as language permits the precise implications of the measure it has passed. As a subterfuge the hon. the Minister offered the excuse that the courts should decide the matter. Not only is that an extraordinary statement, but the question also arises how the courts are to determine it. It presupposes that a newspaper should take the risk of doing something which could be an offence. If that newspaper is charged with it, it must stand trial at its own expense, run the risk of losing the case and incur a fine for itself, and only then is the court afforded the opportunity for the first time to determine what Parliament in its wisdom forgot or failed to provide for clearly in this regard. Consequently we are dealing with something which is not clear. As soon as a death occurs as a result of seemingly unnatural causes, it can be said with some measure of justification that the proceedings start at that point As soon as an autopsy takes place, it can be said that the proceedings of an inquest have started. Therefore, if a newspaper should be so unwise or impetuous as to publish anything about the alleged causes of death at that stage—in the case of an obvious suicide for example—it can, in terms of the Act be charged with anticipating the ultimate findings of the inquest. This creates some measure of insecurity of justice, therefore, something which is really inappropriate in the case of a Bill introduced by the hon. the Minister of Justice. It is inappropriate to retain such insecurity of justice in spite of a lengthy debate in this House.

For that reason, apart from other considerations, I am afraid we are compelled, as a result of the unsatisfactory situation created by the present formulation of the legislation, to oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is still the attitude of the hon. Opposition that because an inquest is allegedly not a court case, the legal rules contained in the Bill under discussion should not apply. That theoretical approach of theirs is perhaps correct as a purely legal and fine-drawn argument. However, there is no doubt about it that inquests form part of the legal processes of this country. One need only ask the man in the street where a suspected murderer is brought to trial. He will reply at once that it is in the Supreme Court. Just ask him where someone is brought to trial for alleged theft. His reply will be that it is in the magistrate’s court Ask him where an inquest into an allegedly unnatural death is held and he will reply that it is held in court. As was repeatedly done by the hon. member for Durban North, one can perhaps call it an “inquest court”. The fact remains that an inquest conducted by a magistrate is in the minds of the general public just as much an integral part of the legal process as the ordinary criminal case before a magistrate and the ordinary criminal case in the Supreme Court. For that reason it is essential that our whole legal process be treated in the same way. Important rules which obtain in criminal cases should also obtain at inquests. In this way confusion and uncertainty among the public can be prevented, for if they are uncertain about the process they could perhaps take the wrong action.

Requests have repeatedly been made to show why clause 2 was essential. No examples have been furnished, and I do not believe they are necessary in any case. Nevertheless, as far as examples are concerned, I could point out that there are only two possibilities. For argument’s sake we can assume that there has never been a case amounting to an influencing of the findings at an inquest. Two possibilities now present themselves. The first possibility is that there will never be such a case, and if that is the case, why are hon. members on that side of the House complaining about it? Why are those hon. members complaining when something is prohibited which, in their view, will never take place?

We can take an extremely theoretical case as an example. Suppose hon. members on this side of the House decide to pass an Act which will forbid the hon. member for Houghton to be excessively friendly towards the hon. the Minister of Justice. The hon. member could now submit that she has no aim or intention of being extremely friendly towards the hon. the Minister of Justice. Consequently it is unnecessary to pass this Act. If such an Act is passed, she is not deprived of any of her rights and thus has no cause for complaint. [Interjections.]

The second possibility is that circumstances might in fact arise in future where interference in an inquest takes place. When that happens, we must surely prohibit it. All the hon. members who spoke on that side of the House indicated that they were opposed to an inquest being influenced. They are opposed to anticipation of the findings. If that could happen in the course of time, surely they cannot complain if there is a law to ban such conduct. Examples in this regard do not clear up the matter any further.

Furthermore, hon. members on that side of the House insisted on motivation for this provision. I believe the matter has now been adequately motivated. The hon. member for Krugersdorp expounded the motivations so well and so clearly that any hon. member who is still uncertain about it, is advised to study the speech he made at the Committee Stage. Only those hon. members who do not want to listen, will not understand it.

It is a simple matter. We are already making progress in South Africa. We have a live, vigorous and dynamic community and legal procedure. For the development of this legal procedure, it has become essential for us, as far as inquests are concerned, to take two steps. In the first place, assessors had to be appointed, and hon. members on that side of the House agreed to that. They concede that the process is now so important that assessors should be present to assist in making a finding. On the other hand, the importance of inquests called for the sub judice rule to be made more clearly applicable. The hon. members cannot accept one principle and complain about the other. The fact of the matter is that it is the evolution of our judicial procedure that necessitates this measure.

I believe one can conclude that hon. members on that side of the House are in their hearts of hearts not really convinced that there is really a logical and well-founded objection to the legislation. For that reason they catch at straws in their arguments against this particular Bill. I do not want to elaborate on it much further. As an extreme example I could perhaps just refer to the argument of the hon. member for Green Point. He tried to build his argument around the fact that an inquest itself might cause further legal processes to be influenced. To me this is an absurd argument because it is not relevant at all. Surely one cannot object to a legal procedure as such where such a procedure is in progress. If he wants to take his argument further in a logical way, then I say, just to show how ridiculous it is, that he objects to an ordinary law suit. According to the argument of the hon. member, one can also say that the ruling of a lower court could influence that of an Appeal Court. His argument makes no sense, therefore, and the fact that hon. members raised such absurd arguments, forces me to only one conclusion, viz. that once again to the detriment of South Africa, they want to use this matter to harp on the same old string by telling the world that the Government is not prepared to uphold the freedom of a responsible Press. In the light of this it is a pity that they are adopting this standpoint, because their own approach—I do not know whether I may use the word credibility—in respect of other matters that they oppose, becomes suspicious the moment a matter like this, which is of so much merit, is opposed on such ridiculous grounds. I am glad, therefore, to be able to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the last argument used by the hon. member for Albany is, to my mind, an argument that should not find any place in a House of this nature. He suggests that the reason why we are opposing the Bill, is to demonstrate to the outside world that the Government has not got the freedom of the Press at heart. That is not our intention in any shape or form. Our intention is to try to prove to the hon. members on that side of the House that this is what they could be doing. We do so in an attempt to change their minds and in an attempt to end up with better legislation. If we cannot put forward our arguments in that regard here in the House, where else on earth can we do so? I therefore believe that the hon. member for Albany’s argument is indeed a laughable one. The Bill before us is now in its Third Reading stage. We have objected to the Bill during the Second Reading stage, we have objected to clause 2 of the Bill during the Committee Stage, and so I think we have exhausted all the arguments that we can possibly use to try to persuade the hon. the Minister that we believe that this clause is a restriction on the freedom of the Press. But despite all our arguments, we have obviously been able to make no dents whatsoever in his armour plate. He actually went so far as to tell us, at an earlier stage in the debate, that whatever we said of whatever we thought, it would not make any difference as he was going ahead in any case. We do not believe that the hon. the Minister has made out any sort of case whatsoever. He has not told us why he considers this particular clause to be necessary. He has not pointed out to us any examples as to where, over the many years that this provision has not existed, he has come up against any problems. He has not been able to cite any cases whatsoever, in any shape or form. So we remain with our unaltered viewpoint that this clause is restrictive of the freedom of the Press. As such we should by far prefer it not to be on our Statute Book, because as I have said also in terms of the Police Amendment Bill, this will supply the outside world with just another stick with which to berate us, and we certainly must realize that we must not hand out any more weapons that can be used against our country.

It is not only we in these benches who believe that this clause is restricting the freedom of the Press. That is also the belief of the Press themselves, and not only of the English Press, but also of the Afrikaans Press. That hon. Minister and that party’s own Press, which favours most of what they do, are also not happy about the situation that is currently unfolding in this House. They are not happy about the situation that is currently unfolding in this House. They are not happy about the fact that Press freedom is being whittled away bit by bit in terms of these pieces of legislation. All by itself, and looked at in relation to no other legislation, it could be said that this particular clause is not all that important. If one compares it, however, with what is also coming up in the Police Amendment Bill, which is the next item on the Order Paper, and look at it in the light of the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister in the short session of December 1978, that he was going to put an end to all gossip, etc., we remain with the unaltered viewpoint that this clause is restrictive, and we shall consequently vote against it at Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, this measure does not, as is alleged by the official Opposition, constitute a restriction on the freedom of speech and the freedom of the Press. I believe it would have been better if the hon. member for East London North, like the hon. member for Johannesburg North, had said that he did not want to repeat all his previous arguments. The hon. member for East London North complains that the arguments he raised at the Second Reading and at the Committee Stage of this Bill made no impression on the hon. the Minister. He is also complaining that his arguments could not penetrate the armour of the hon. the Minister, but in my experience one has to have proper ammunition to penetrate sound armour. Arguments lacking merit never make an impression on anyone.

The effect of this legislation would be to enhance the respect for our administration of justice. I find it strange that the hon. member for Johannesburg North argues that the measure which the hon. the Minister introduced, would cause insecurity of justice. He added that it was unbecoming for an hon. Minister of Justice to bring such a measure before the House. I want to react to that by telling the hon. member that it is not appropriate for him as a legal man not to take up the cudgels for the high esteem in which our courts and judicial institutions in this country are held.

This measure elevates the status of proceedings at inquests, because a magistrate is the presiding officer at such proceedings and in terms of clause 1 of the Bill he will be assisted by other experts. It is as well, therefore, that such proceedings also enjoy the protection of the sub judice rule. This Bill serves as a further guarantee of the independence and high quality of our judicial institutions. Quite rightly we are all proud of the administration of justice in general in this country and we should guard it very jealously. I want to maintain that this Bill makes a splendid contribution to the promotion of these find judicial institutions of our country.

It is certainly improper to prejudice, influence or anticipate either the proceedings or the findings at an inquest. One cannot get away from that fact. It remains an improper act. If it is conceded that such conduct is undesirable in respect of civil and criminal cases—and Opposition speakers conceded this point—it is equally undesirable at inquests. Anyone who opposes this Bill, opposes a basic principle of our legal system, viz. the principle that our legal officers should be able to reach a decision on a matter before them, independently, impartially, objectively and without pressure from outside, however subtle or unknown.

What are the responsibilities of a judicial officer? It is his duty to do what he has been appointed to do, viz. to see that justice is done in a proper and impartial manner and only with reference to the facts that are properly offered to him as evidence. By means of this Bill, magistrates and their assessors charged with conducting such inquests in terms of the Inquests Act, are being protected in the execution of then-duties. In this way not only the interests of our administration of justice are being served, but the public interest as well, because the general public surely has a very real interest in the proceedings in our courts and quasi-courts not being prejudiced, influenced or anticipated. For those reasons we on this side of the House take great pleasure in supporting the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to react briefly to what the hon. member for Ermelo said. He said that it was an indisputable principle that the presiding officer and the assessors at an inquest should be protected against influencing and anticipation of the findings of such an inquest. Here the sub judice principle is being extended to this type of inquest. This type of action, however, does not enhance the status of the administration of justice in South Africa. It rather cheapens it, because it now makes principles which should only be applicable in the judicial system, in the stricter sense of the word, applicable to all kinds of other situations. Does the hon. member not want to take it further and make it applicable to a departmental disciplinary investigation as well? Would he then not be able to use the same arguments to justify his standpoint in that type of case? The hon. member for Simonstown might have a point when he says that in this case a reflection might be case and that protection is, in fact, not given, because in this case protection is definitely not necessary.

†During the Committee Stage debate the hon. the Minister, in reply to a question I put to him, made a remarkable statement, and my colleague, the hon. member for Johannesburg North, has already referred to it. The hon. the Minister said that this House cannot and will not decide precisely when inquest proceedings actually commence because this is a legal matter for decision and interpretation by the courts. This is, first of all, a remarkable statement for a Minister of Justice to make and, secondly, a remarkable statement for a legal man to have made. Surely it is the duty of this House, and the hon. the Minister more particularly, to see that legislation introduced by him is clear. It is quite understandable if unexpected questions of interpretation crop up at any later stage. When a Minister, however, is unable to give even a prima facie interpretation to legislation he himself introduces, this creates an intolerable state of affairs in our system of legislation.

Not “cannot”, but “will not”!

The hon. the Minister was given a specific opportunity to say what his view is about when the proceedings actually commence, but he did not do so, presumably because he was unable to do so. I say this because the legislation is completely and utterly vague.

The hon. the Minister’s attitude in this regard, as revealed in his reply to my question, simply does not take cognisance of the basic rule that Parliament makes the laws and that the courts interpret and apply them. The most disturbing aspect of the deliberate vagueness in this legislation, however, is that nobody is going to know where he stands as far as this clause is concerned. How can we create a situation, in this House, that will make it impossible for a journalist to know what is prohibited and what is allowed in terms of this provision? What the Minister has said, in fact, is that somebody must first be charged. More than likely quite a number of people will have to be charged, and possibly even charged completely unjustifiably, before the courts will have the opportunity of interpreting the law and gaining certainty over a period of time. The courts are left with the job of drawing a clear distinction between what is allowed and what is prohibited in terms of this provision. If ever something was calculated to inhibit and in fact intimidate the Press, it is this kind of vagueness in legislation. It is unforgivable to have such vagueness in respect of a legal prohibition which may result in a fine or imprisonment for the journalist involved.

*When an unnatural death has taken place and it is reported in the newspaper, one sometimes reads beneath the details and in a quite obscure place that no crime is suspected. Sometimes, in an obscure way, an opinion is also ventured as to what actually led to the death of the person. Even in that case the journalist, or any other person who publishes such a report, exposes himself to prosecution purely as a result of the uncertainty in regard to the prohibition imposed here.

Hon. members also mentioned the fact that the general public has just as high a regard for an inquest as for our normal legal procedure because it also takes place in court. This is probably an argument to which one can attach some importance. However, if there is a test that can be applied universally, it is surely the test whether the decision of such an institution is binding, whether it has any binding effect. Then it is very clear that there is no question of such a binding effect at an inquest.

There is another question which has been put repeatedly and to which we have not yet received a reply from the hon. the Minister or from any of his colleagues opposite. As yet there has been not a single example to indicate why, after all these years, we suddenly find ourselves in a position which necessitates the introduction of this measure. There has been no indication that this type of influencing or anticipation of a decision has led to an untenable situation in our administration of justice or in our whole society. The hon. member for Albany went so far as to say that if the hon. member for Houghton is forbidden to be friends with the hon. the Minister of Justice—let me say that that is an excellent example of unnecessary legislation—it would make no difference, because it does not infringe on anyone’s rights. Is the hon. member, as a lawyer, not ashamed of himself for having such nonsense put on the Statute Book? It is a very good thing that he has used that example, because it reflects the needlessness, the ridiculousness and the negative aspects of the legislation before us.

I still hope that we will receive an answer from the hon. the Minister, if not from another hon. member, to the question which is still in the air, i.e.: If he were a journalist—heaven knows what he would have written then—what would he have done? Where would he draw the line if he had to report on an unnatural death? Surely there must be some idea in this regard. As I have already indicated, one can expect a certain degree of uncertainty, but if one has no idea at all about what to be careful about or what one may do and may not do, we are creating in this House an untenable situation which cannot be allowed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point intimated that he was merely rising to reply to the hon. member for Ermelo. I think the hon. member for Ermelo is still wondering what that reply was. I do not think anyone in the House understood it Then the hon. member made the surprising statement with reference to this legislation that we were placing “rubbish” on the Statute Book.

The hon. member is still a young member in this House, and he must therefore permit me to preach to him a little. I think he should moderate his language somewhat as regards his description of our legislation or else he is going to find out that he can be too clever by half, because this House is the wrong place to rave the way he wants to do, attacking people and passing personal remarks, etc. I think that sort of thing will lead to his fall. I am saying this to him in a good spirit.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Ermelo for his contribution. He has advanced the very valid argument that this Bill would actually enhance the prestige of this legal process. I think he is quite correct. He also associated himself with the hon. member for Albany, who said that the view of the ordinary man on inquests was that it was an important process. Indeed, I do not think even the hon. member for Johannesburg North can argue with us if we state that there are cases where an inquest should take place. I think the hon. member for East London North will surely agree with me that in certain cases it is an extremely important process, a process in which certain findings are made, where cross-examinations take place, witnesses are called, and evidence and findings are evaluated—these are all factors that make it very important.

The hon. members for Green Point and Johannesburg North have referred to my “astonishing” statement on the question of when precisely an inquest commences in terms of the Bill. If the hon. members would go and do some thinking about it, it should soon become clear to them when an inquest commences. When the legislator talks about when such an inquiry commences, he is not uncertain about it.

We are still trying to find out when exactly it commences.

With the prodigious wisdom with which this hon. member is gifted, it is not necessary for him to sit and wonder when an inquest commences. The courts can very easily ascertain when it commences. However, for the edification of the hon. member I just wish to give an indication of when it commences. I could have stated in the first place, just to satisfy the hon. young member, that it commences at the moment of the death of a person. But then I should have heard an uproar not only on the part of the hon. members on that side of the House, but also, rightly, on the part of the Press. In other words, that is not the beginning of the inquest Why is that not the beginning? There is merely an indication that the person concerned has died from unnatural causes. However, the Attorney-General and the Police must also still have an inquiry instituted into the circumstances in which the person died. Thereafter, the Attorney-General has the authority to institute a prosecution. Such a prosecution eliminates the necessity for an inquest altogether. In other words, theoretically the inquest cannot commence before that point of time. However, the moment the Attorney-General says that he is not going to institute a prosecution, the inquest commences in reality. If a person has died from unnatural causes and the Attorney-General states that at that stage he has not sufficient evidence at his disposal to institute a prosecution, the process is set in motion and an inquest will take place. This is one of the points of time at which it could commence. The hon. member will perhaps not agree with me because, after all, I am supposed to bow to the wisdom of youth. I gladly do so. I have told the hon. member before that if he continues quarreling with me the way he is doing, I will get my son to put him in his place.

The hon. member for East London North has charged me with something about which I now want to cross swords with him.

†He said that I did not take account of anything they said. That is just not true. At the end of my speech yesterday I actually thanked hon. members for their valuable contributions. I did say that I had reason to believe that this Bill would become law and I also had reason to believe that the Opposition would be outvoted, and if the hon. member for East London North disagrees with me on that point, then I grant him his disagreement. However, I am still of the opinion, even if that opinion is based on a balance of probabilities, that this Bill will in the normal process become law. But that does not mean to say that the hon. member for East London North is correct when he says that I did not take account of what they said. That, I think, is a most unfair statement, and if it is correct, I would suggest that hon. members do not say anything at all. I have told them on umpteen occasions in this House that I place high value on Opposition speeches, because one must hear every side of the argument and one must hear every portion of it. Their arguments are therefore duly taken into account, but, unfortunately, more often than not, their arguments are of no avail because they have no substance. In this instance it has been well proved by hon. members on this side of the House who argued against those hon. members. I have listened to both sides of the argument and I say quite frankly that I do not think hon. members opposite have enough substance in their argument. Hon. members are aware of the fact that when it comes to the Committee Stage, I am always prepared to have an open mind because one is always keen to have the best legislation. Therefore I do not think the hon. member for East London North was quite correct in his statement.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—100: Badenhorst P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Durr, K. D.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swane-poel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visagie, J. H.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, J. H. Hoon, N. F. Treurnicht, W. L. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Noes—25: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

In section 1 of the Police Act, 1958, we find a definition of a “member of the Force”. He is defined, inter alia, as a commissioned officer, warrant officer, as well as a member of the Police Reserve or of the Reserve Police Force, while employed in the Force, and any temporary member, while so employed. Section 1 is now amended by a provision that a member of the Police Reserve Force is now a member of the Police Force while he is employed. As amendment I only move that while a temporary member is employed in the Police Force, he should be regarded as a member of the Police Force. The reason for this is that a police reservist is only a member of the Police Force while he is on duty for a few hours per month. A member of the Reserve Force may be instructed to perform a certain function, for example to guard property, etc. For that reason he is a member of the Police Force, but only when so employed. However, a temporary member of the Police Force is a person who is again taken into the employment of the police temporarily. As long as he is employed by the S.A. Police as such, he is entitled to the protection of the Police Act.

Mr. Speaker, the arguments of the hon. member for Brakpan are, in my humble opinion, correct and consequently I shall accept his amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister will remember that we opposed this Bill mainly because of clause 9. In fact, that was the motivation for our opposing the Second Reading of this Bill. Nevertheless, I would also like to move an amendment to clause 3. It largely arises out of the hon. the Minister’s explanation that the amendment that this Bill seeks to introduce into the principal Act is in order to bring it in line with the Defence Act. I apologize to the House for not putting my amendment on the Order Paper but it struck me rather late in the day. The amendment is as follows—

In other words, I do not want the amendment which the hon. the Minister is proposing to mean that the police can be sent anywhere in the world. Just as his amendment is to bring the Police Act in line with that of the Defence Act of 1976, so this amendment is to bring our sentiments about this into line with the attitude that we took when the Defence Amendment Bill was discussed. At that time the hon. member for Yeoville proposed an amendment restricting the use of the Defence Force to the areas adjacent to the borders of South Africa. This is not exactly the same situation and I admit that the two clauses are different and so are the circumstances. In so far as the Army is concerned, it is an Army of conscripts, while the Police Force is of course a full-time Force, except that a number of people do their Army service in the Police Force. Therefore, in that respect, they are the same as Army conscripts.

However, we feel that the Police Force is not an adjunct of the Army. It is not a second arm of the military. The Police Force is there in order to maintain law and order within the country, including the areas immediately adjacent to the borders of South Africa. More particularly is it the case as we are in the process of creating a number of independent States which virtually fall within the borders of the Republic of South Africa. Hence the fact that we are prepared to allow the extension of the use of the Police Force in times of emergency or war to those areas adjacent to the borders of South Africa.

But we do not believe in the identification of the Police Force as part of the Army. This is not so in other countries of the Western world. On the contrary. It is very often found, in countries like America and in Britain, that the police are not part of the national force at all. They are either city police, metropolitan police or State police. There is also a federal branch in America, a branch which deals with specific subjects. The maintenance of law and order outside of those specific subjects, however, is essentially the duty of the local Police Force, and we feel that it is wrong to consider South Africa’s Police Force as an adjunct to the military. I was against the use of camouflage uniforms when the police went in to quell the Soweto riots for instance, because that immediately gave all the residents of Soweto and the other townships the impression that they were fighting a war in South Africa against the police. I believe that to be wrong. The police should be treated as that branch of the State that simply maintains law and order. For these reasons I have moved the amendment which, as I have said, is consistent with the attitude that we adopted mutatis mutandis in regard to the Defence Amendment Bill of 1976.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the police would actually do anything else than what the hon. member suggests in her amendment, i.e. to keep law and order within the Republic and in areas adjacent to the borders of the Republic. It is, however, a fact—and I think there are hon. members in this House who can bear me out—that during the last war there was a police brigade fighting in the desert. This provision deals with a situation like that, where the State President might, in a state of war, want the South African Police to go with the troops wherever they go. We certainly hope that such a thing does not happen again, but when it does one should not prevent the police doing so. In the light of these circumstances, I do not think I could possibly accept the amendment, especially in view of what is already provided for in the Act.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for accepting the amendment… [Interjections.] I thought that something had gone wrong somewhere!

I would have been lying in a dead faint if he had accepted any of my amendments! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the position here is that we are asked to agree to omit “but in South Africa”. This will mean, as the hon. member for Houghton indicated, that the Police Force can now do duty anywhere in the world. The hon. member for Houghton further has also said that the hon. the Minister now has the power to take the Police Force and, in terms of this clause, to place it “while so employed, under the orders and directions of such person…”. As the hon. member has pointed out, they are now being attached to the Defence Force. What the hon. the Minister has confirmed, is the fact that the Police Force can now be used as a branch or extension of the Defence Force itself. When this whole issue came pertinently before the House in 1976—prior to my time—the hon. member for Rondebosch put the point of view of this side of the House very clearly in this respect. He said (Hansard vol. 60, col. 633)—

The attitude of this side of the House was therefore very clearly stated. When this clause was introduced by the hon. the Minister he said in his Second Reading speech—

With respect, I do not think the first part of the hon. the Minister’s explanation was quite pertinent to this clause. It is not a question of whether the description of South Africa is redundant or not, because the Republic is still referred to. The gist of the whole amendment is to take out the word “but”. That is the big issue, because as the word “but” stands in the existing law it means that certain functions may be performed only in South Africa. So, with respect, one is not really dealing with the definition of South Africa. One is in fact changing the whole concept and they can now be placed anywhere. Since the clause states that the Force can be placed under the orders and directions of such persons as the State President may for that purpose appoint, it can be conceived, and the hon. the Minister has admitted, that they may be placed under the control of the Chief of Staff of the S.A. Defence Force.

We are therefore now dealing with the Force as an appendage to the Army. Are the duties of a policeman the same as the duties of a member of the Defence Force? I have an example in mind which I remember very clearly that the hon. the Minister has given. We had a very fine fighting force in the police brigade during the last war. They did magnificent work up North. The people who went up North were, of course, volunteers. They had to take the oath and wore the red tabs. They were attached to the Sixth S.A. Division and fought like any other unit, like the Cape Town Highlanders or everyone else. Those members of the police brigade who did not volunteer for service up North did duty here in South Africa. The hon. the Minister is therefore now giving the impression that our Defence Force may not be strong enough to deal with a particular problem and therefore is now bringing the Police Force in as an auxiliary unit in the form of a police brigade to deal with particular problems. I think that is wrong, because a policeman is not trained as a soldier. He may learn how to use small arms, he drills and he may even receive some training in the use of automatic weapons. He is, however, not trained in section leading, map reading and other elements which a soldier has to be trained in in order to engage in actual warfare. Through this clause the police brigade can become an arm of the Defence Force. I think that is wrong. The duties of the Police Force and the Defence Force must not be mixed. If the hon. the Minister says that he deems it necessary that the police enter neighbouring territories but that he is going to restrict the Police Force to police duties and not to the duties of the fighting soldier, then there would be no problem. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton meets that requirement, because we are dealing with the same principle as on the last occasion when the amendment which was implemented in 1966 related to the areas adjacent to the then borders of the Republic. We cannot support the fact that the Police Force can be sent anywhere in the world. The Defence Force can be used anywhere, and at one stage even assisted the United Nations in Korea. The amendment to the Defence Act says “compulsory service outside the Republic”. As the hon. the Minister will remember, the amended provision then read—

This clause does not refer only to the event of war, but also includes other emergencies. The Police Force is therefore being placed in a position to perform service beyond the event of war.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question which I want to phrase as diplomatically as possible. Does he think that it is in the interests of South Africa, having regard particularly to the delicate negotiations now taking place over South West Africa, to allow the impression to be created that the Police Force may well be used as a part of the Army? With the sensitive situation existing at the United Nations at present, there may well be a need for the police to carry out certain duties when troops are withdrawn from South West Africa. If one is now going to give the impression that the Police Force may, in fact, be part and parcel of the Army, is one not creating certain problems for the Government? I wonder if the hon. the Minister has given this aspect adequate thought?

Taking all these circumstances into consideration, I think the problems can only be met by the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Houghton, and I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider his earlier decision not to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to explain the position to the hon. member for Hillbrow. The hon. member will know that at the present moment the S.A. Police are entitled to use certain units of the Army under given circumstances in any internal crisis in order to control riots. Certain parts of the Army become part of the police for a certain period and are also under police command. However, this is only for a certain period. In the same way the police are now also granted the right to act in any capacity in or outside the Republic which may be in the interests of the Republic during times of war.

Allow me to give hon. members an example. I concede to the hon. member that the training of the police differs from that of the Army. The Army’s training is geared to conducting warfare. The police, on the other hand, are trained to maintain peace. The policeman’s whole training is therefore based on teaching him to combat riot situations and to restore law and order. However, there are certain important aspects of the policeman’s training which could indeed be useful to the Army. There is, for example, his investigative function and also his interrogation function. In a terrorist war, in riots and similar situations we have to contend with in modern times, the danger is principally the danger of terrorism. Suppose the Army were to arrive at a place where terrorism is so spread out that the terrorists no longer act in a semi-conventional way. In such a situation the Army could perhaps find that it needs people to institute an investigation in a specific way and to interrogate people. In such a situation I could imagine that the police could serve a very useful purpose.

In the interests of South Africa I ask hon. members—and I put my question to the hon. member for Hillbrow in particular—whether we should not formulate our legislation in such a way as to enable the Army or the police to act in the interests of the country and to act as they specifically know how to act, in a situation of warfare or riots. It is surely clear that we shall not send our people, unless it is in the interests of our country. This is the situation we want to cover with this legislation.

The hon. member asked whether now is the time to create the impression that the police could now perhaps become a part of the Defence Force. However, surely we cannot just legislate with the outside world in mind. Surely we are not here to sit and look at how the outside world might react. Surely we are here to defend and protect our country with everything we have, should it become necessary. No South African can cross swords with me on that score. For that reason I cannot pass the amendment. It is too limiting. I must give our Forces a little more room for manoeuvre to protect South Africa for all its people.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, this clause has already been very well canvassed in the Second Reading debate and I do not propose to advance all the arguments again that we on this side of the House have already used in order to try to persuade the hon. the Minister not to go ahead with the introduction of a measure which will undoubtedly, despite all his assertions to the contrary, have an extremely inhibiting effect on Press reporting of police matters. In this morning’s paper the hon. the Minister attempted to answer some of the questions that were put to him by the editor of Die Transvaler. I must say that I did not find his answers very convincing.

I did not think you would.

I might tell the hon. the Minister, however, that I read his answers with an open mind—believe it or not. I am always anxious to be persuaded that there is some rationale behind the things that are discussed in Parliament. One of the reasons advanced by the editor of Die Transvaler for his objections to this Bill was that it would be very difficult indeed for the Press to publish any information obtained from some source without ultimately having to reveal that source. Is that not so?

Not necessarily.

No? The hon. the Minister seemed to dismiss that as unimportant. It is in fact very important indeed, because it means that sources of information will dry up. In his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister very piously gave a lengthy example, which was in fact irrelevant to the police case itself, of information that had been published by a journalist in the Sunday Express while that information was based on hearsay evidence, an anonymous telephone call or a telephone call from someone whose name the journalists did not reveal. The hon. the Minister will surely be the first to admit that many a time a crime is solved simply because informers give information. Very often it is through anonymous information received by the police that a crime is solved. The police are therefore justified in following up leads given to them by informers, who are often anonymous. The newspaperman, on the other hand, is not justified in publishing a story given to him either by an anonymous informer or somebody who does not wish his name to be revealed. Information relating to police action may very well come from within the Police Force itself. I wonder whether this has occurred to the hon. the Minister. Very often a policeman who feels that the Force is being badly treated or that ministerial control is lacking will supply such information not only to the Press, but also to members of the Opposition. I myself, believe it or not, receive letters from policemen complaining…

You get them from prisoners.

Actually, I get them from both prisoners and police, complaining about the treatment that is being meted out to them. Sometimes one uses that information or attempts to take it further and sometimes one does not. The onus I personally shall have to bear in using such information is negligible, because I can use my parliamentary privilege. The onus, however, rests very heavily on the newspaper which wishes to use any information like that. Indeed, from now on such sources of information are likely to dry up entirely because nobody, particularly not anybody within the Police Force, is likely to give information if he feels that the newspaper may be forced to divulge its source of information. That is one point I want to make in this regard.

There is no doubt that, after the experience of the Press as a result of the “prisons case”, the Gandar case of SAAN v. The State, newspapers have been very nervous indeed of publishing any information about what goes on in prisons. I pointed out that it was not the small fine that was involved in this particular instance, but the costs involved in fighting a court case which will take many months. Indeed, the newspaper case as far as the prisons were concerned, took between two and three years. As I pointed out at Second Reading, it cost the newspapers over R0,25 million to fight that case. What editor and what newspaper board is going to sanction the publication of any story, true or untrue, about the police once this Bill is on the Statute Book? Because it is very difficult—and the onus of proof is placed on the accused—to prove that he had reasonable grounds for believing the truth of what he was publishing if he cannot divulge the sources of his information. The hon. the Minister may protest that it is not his intention to muzzle the Press in this regard and he may tell us over and over again that he is one of the first defendants of the freedom of the Press, but I can tell him that once this Bill is on the Statute Book there will be very few stories appearing in the newspapers about police actions, unless they emanate from court cases or from Parliament, in which case protection is obviously given to the Press in publishing those stories. But apart from that, from now on there is going to be a blanket silence over police action. I believe that is bad for the police and for the public. The public has the right to know how this important arm of the law is operating and behaving. I believe it is bad for the police, because one of the important restraints on the police against extreme action in their position of considerable power is the fact that they know that the scrutiny of the public Press is upon them. For that reason we are going to vote against clause 9.

Mr. Chairman, it would appear that hon. members of the Opposition believe that the more frequently the same argument is repeated, the more weight such an argument carries.

They say one should repeat it seven times over.

Yes, it looks like it. We have again been told now that this clause will inhibit the Press, that the public has the right to know what is going on and that what is involved here is the onus of proving a case. I think it might be advisable to pause for a while again to consider the question of the onus in this regard and the question of the onus of proof which will rest on the State in matters of this nature. It has repeatedly been stated that the State has to prove in the first instance that a report has in fact been published and in the second instance that that report is untrue. This is the onus of proof which rests on the State. The publisher of that article then has to prove certain things. He has to prove that he had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the report was true. In the past judgments were pronounced on the nature of the onus of proof which rests on the defence in such circumstances. I want to read out two quotations to the hon. member. In the first place, I want to quote from the case Rex v. Difford, a case in which Mr. Justice Greenberg stated (1937 A.D., p. 373)—

I also want to quote from the case Rex v. M. (1946 A.D. 1023 p. 1027), a case in which Judge of Appeal Greenberg stated—

I now want to refer to a case reported by The Argus of 26 March 1979. In this case a woman alleged to The Argus that the police entered her flat in a violent way. She said to The Argus—

Then the Divisional Commissioner, Brig. Ellingworth, sent the police out to this woman and within half an hour the police had investigated the case. Later The Argus was informed that this woman had informed the investigating officials that she did not wish to lay a charge. She said that the detectives had not barged into her flat. In fact, she denied everything which she had previously told The Argus.

She got scared too! [Interjections.]

Suppose The Argus reporter were charged for telling an untruth about the police. Then I want to state categorically that under those circumstances The Argus, if it were to give a similar explanation to the one it gave in this case, would not be found guilty of an infringement of clause 9.

Then the hon. member states that under certain circumstances the Press would be obliged to divulge the name of that person who furnished information to the Press, even if it is a person who may be a member of the Police Force. However, she should always bear in mind that the State first has to prove that the report is false. After that, as the hon. member for Barberton made very clear yesterday, the Press is protecting a liar. Under what circumstances should the Press be allowed to protect a liar? I want to refer, inter alia, to one matter which the hon. member referred to with regard to the Prisons Act. This is the case of the State v. Van Schalkwyk, where Van Schalkwyk received R150 from Mr. Pogrund when he sold his story to the Rand Daily Mail. This is a story which he later admitted to be untrue and which the magistrate described as shocking. The story was about the Cinderella jail where an electrical therapeutic machine was in use which the district surgeon stated was being used to treat patients in the goal. However, the story the accused told was that it was a shock machine. For that he received R150 from Mr. Pogrund who also offered to pay his costs for the hearing. The magistrate stated—

This is what we want to prevent and this is what we have prevented in the Prisons Act of 1959. That section works well.

Does it work well?

It works very well indeed. There are no problems. If there were any problems with the way in which the Prisons Service is being run and if there were corruption or irregularities in the Prisons Service, the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the hon. member for Houghton would have known it and would have dealt with it under the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote. During the seven years I have been a member of this House, no such stories have been raised during the discussions of the hon. the Minister’s Vote. Those sections have been in existence from 1959. I think that the objections being raised here, and to a certain extent by the Press, are wilful. For that reason I think it advisable that this clause be included in the Act.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brakpan started off by saying that we in the Opposition benches are doing nothing but to repeat over and over again the arguments which we have offered before. We have, however, a very good reason for doing this because it is our experience that it is necessary to do so to try to get something into the heads of hon. members opposite. We have to keep repeating and repeating the arguments because they do not appear to sink in. [Interjections.]

Give me a smaller piece of your mind; you cannot afford to give too much!

I think the interjections of the hon. the Minister of Police do him credit. In dealing with clause 9, as the hon. member for Houghton has said, we have repeated our arguments that this is a restriction of the Press. The Press have repeated their own arguments in their own Press. As I have said before, even the hon. the Minister’s Press, the Afrikaans Press, is also completely against this type of legislation. It is against this particular piece of legislation because it construes it as a restriction on the freedom of the Press. There is no doubt about it that, in an attempt to defend the very democracy which we hold dear, the hon. the Minister, in passing this legislation, is in fact doing damage to that very democracy. Freedom of the Press, to an extent, is part of the democratic system. Anything that attacks that freedom, particularly in relation to its dealings with Government or the State, is in fact an attack on democracy as such. I therefore have to repeat that we are very much against this Bill.

In an attempt to try to get half a loaf which, one is told, is better than having no loaf at all, I want to move the following amendment to this particular clause—

The effect of this amendment will be that this particular clause will then not apply to members of the Newspaper Press Union. If this amendment were accepted, we would still not vote for the clause as such. I want to make that quite clear. We will still not vote for the clause even if it were amended as such. [Interjections.] We will not vote for it because we think the whole basis of the clause is a bad one. However, in an attempt to try to cover the hon. the Minister’s argument in relation to the pamphlets and the so-called gutter Press, we have moved this amendment, an amendment aimed at publications of that nature rather than at the news media. In an attempt to cover that argument I am suggesting that the hon. the Minister consider accepting this amendment so that we can then say that at least a section of the Press is not restricted by the provisions of this particular clause.

I am sure the hon. the Minister will be able to bring us examples, as he has done indeed, of instances in which there has been bad reporting on police matters. I have no doubt that these are highly annoying and that they can also be damaging. However, I do not believe they warrant the sort of reaction which the hon. the Minister is taking in introducing this Bill. I believe that this type of mistake does happen. People do make mistakes. Even Government Ministers make mistakes. [Interjections.] They do from time to time. Is it then necessary to introduce this type of legislation? I do not believe that the vast majority of the responsible Press knowingly spread untruths about the police. Perhaps they do not check their sources as well as they should, but I believe that, predominantly, the responsible Press does not knowingly publish untruths.

I have no argument with them at all.

Nevertheless, I would urge the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment moved by us. As I have said, it will at least remove the restriction from some portion of the Press. We can then, at least to some extent, say to the outside world and to our own people that we do have a measure of Press freedom in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for East London North that it is not possible for me to accept his amendment

Why not?

I shall tell the hon. member why, if he will just give me an opportunity. [Interjections.] The hon. member used portions of my argument to support this amendment. He said that I had actually mentioned that we also wanted to stop pamphleteers and other people from uttering remarks and spreading publications which contained lies about the police. I think the hon. member forgets that I tried to explain during the Second Reading debate yesterday why the Press was also being subjected to this particular provision. I can tell the hon. member that we use the Press Council extensively, and every time we have used it so far, we have won the case.

Why then argue?

I have no argument with the Press Council. I have the greatest respect for it. However, I stated yesterday that if people were found guilty by the Press Council, it is the newspaper concerned who either has to rectify the matter or pay a fine, while the person who deliberately writes things that are untrue, does not come before the Press Council.

Secondly, I said that I wanted a criminal sanction, an offence, so that people could be warned that they should be more careful when they deal with reports relating to police matters. The hon. member spoke about a responsible Press. I interjected and said that I had no argument with the responsible Press.

*I stated yesterday that the responsible part of the Press and I had no quarrel with one another. In fact, I have the greatest measure of respect for many reporters, for those who are really responsible.

†However, I am dealing here with the gutter Press and the hon. member agreed with me. Does the hon. member mention that in his amendment?

[Inaudible.]

I do not know. I asked the hon. member to give me a definition of the gutter Press and he said he was with me as far as the gutter Press was concerned. In other words, he agrees with me that there is a portion of the Press which can be described as such. Yesterday I suggested to him a definition of the gutter Press, i.e. the people who deliberately write untruths about the S.A. Police.

What is a responsible Press?

The responsible Press consists of those people who perform their duties in a responsible manner, like a responsible executive of Anglo American. An irresponsible Press, on the other hand, can be equated with an irresponsible executive of Anglo American, who sits in this House and sometimes talks nonsense about something he does not know anything about. [Interjections.] This is what I am trying to get at. If the hon. member will have a look at the Bill, he will find that a newspaperman has merely to have reasonable grounds for believing that a particular statement is true. All I am trying to achieve is responsibility on the part of reporters when they write about police matters. I come now to the hon. member for Houghton, if only she would stop telling hon. members of the PFP what to say during this debate.

[Inaudible.]

Thank you very much. The hon. member posed me two questions. She asked what would happen to anonymous informants who give information, firstly to the Press and then to the police.

We can have a look at a particular case. The hon. member must forgive me for reiterating what I read yesterday. However, this is a classical example of how reporting should not be done, as far as I am concerned.

I have here this statement by the editor concerned in which he says—

This man hears a rumour and then uses that rumour to corroborate a fact. What fact? He states further—

This informant is totally anonymous. He does not know who he is—

On that evidence this newspaper wrote a story. I believe that that is totally irresponsible reporting, and I shall tell the hon. member why. How would the police have reacted to a phone call by an anonymous, grey person whom they do not know at all, and who gives them certain information? They would not believe the informer. They would, however, take down the details of what the informant told them and then start working on those details…

They have the means to.

What does the hon. member mean?

I mean that the police are there to investigate such matters.

And the Press is there to write responsible stories. The police check the details one by one, and if they are found to be true, they start a case quite irrespective of their informant. They never bring the informant into the trial at all.

Yes, but the Press will have to.

They do not have to bring him in. If the Press do their job correctly when they receive information from an informer who refuses to give his name or to reveal his identity, they will never have to divulge the identity of their informant, because they would have checked on the details of the story straight away, before they published it. If the story is reasonably true, in their opinion, they can publish it. They are entitled to do that. They cannot, however, take the easy way out and publish scandalous stories on the basis of this sort of information.

*That is the problem we are confronted with. We want to stop this gossip-mongering about the S.A. Police, the irresponsible, scandalous stories that simply get written. That is also what the hon. member for East London North wants to stop. He agrees with me on this aspect. He has told us that here in the House and also in public. That is what we want to put a stop to, and for that reason it is not possible for me to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to two issues raised by the hon. the Minister. In the first place he referred to the actual reporter in a case which had been referred to the Press Council. The hon. the Minister has said that the reporter himself gets off scot-free. He cannot be brought before the council, but only his newspaper. With respect, any newspaper that is fined a large sum of money because of a very poor and untrue report by one of its reporters, will surely take action against that reporter…

The higher circulation might well have been worth it.

The hon. the Minister says the increased circulation might be worth it. I cannot really agree with that point of view. I believe that if one could demonstrate to a newspaper that it has in fact lied in terms of a reporter relating to the police, then that newspaper’s own credibility will suffer in relation to its reading public. No newspaper would want to have a proven fact laid against it by the Press Council that it has, in its very own columns, told untruths, deliberate lies. In that event the newspaper will surely suffer a great credibility gap in terms of its readers, as in fact the Government is suffering a great credibility gap right now.

The second issue which the hon. the Minister raised related to this anonymous informant, as the hon. the Minister called him. I do not believe the hon. member for Houghton was dealing with an anonymous informer. The point is that in a case of this nature, and in an attempt to prove that it had reasonable grounds for believing what it reported to be true, the newspaper will have to bring its source of information to the court, and thus make it public. If that particular informant is a well known and is a reasonable source of information which the Press had used before, unnoticed by the police or anyone else who is affected, the Press will obviously not want to disclose such source of information, even though it might be a perfectly reasonable source.

Then they can say they had reasonable grounds for believing that it was true.

Mr. Chairman, they may have had reasonable grounds, but they still have to prove it, and in order…

Mr. Chairman, will that person still be regarded as such a reliable informant once it is proved that the story he told to the Press, was a lie?

Mr. Chairman, I believe that in an instance of this nature if the Press has to produce that particular witness to try to prove that it had reasonable grounds, then it is going to lose a valuable source of information, even though that source of information might indeed have been mistaken on that particular issue. I do not want the interpretation put on it that the hon. member for Brakpan is now trying to put on it. If, in fact, they have a good informant they are most certainly not going to want to disclose the identity of that informant. The informant himself might not want to be disclosed. There have been many cases and court action in regard to people who did not want to disclose their sources of information. As I recall, a year or two ago, the hon. the Minister had a case on the go with the editor of the Daily Dispatch, who was then Donald Woods, about the disclosure of his sources. South Africa is not the only country in which this happens. In the late 1950s—I think it was—two reporters in England were put on trial for not being prepared to disclose their sources of information. The provisions of clause 9 are going to put the Press in that very unenviable position, of either having to produce their source to prove that they had reasonable grounds, in which case they will have to disclose his identity, or they might even take the attitude that it would be better not to disclose their reasonable source and take their punishment on the grounds that ultimately it might do them the most good.

Therefore, I do not believe that the two arguments that the hon. the Minister used can be regarded as valid ones in any shape or form.

Mr. Chairman, I want to clear up one point with the hon. the Minister, a point which is worrying me in relation to the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London North. The hon. the Minister stated that he had no problem whatsoever with the responsible Press. May we take it that the members of the Newspaper Press Union are counted as members of the responsible Press?

Not necessarily.

Could I then put it to the hon. the Minister that the problem is that there are reporters who are operating under the auspices of the NPU and who undertake the activities the hon. the Minister is now trying to control. As I understand the situation, there is a fairly close and careful relationship between the members of the NPU and the hon. the Minister, and indeed the Government as a whole. Surely, then this is something that can be handled in another way altogether than the way in which the hon. the Minister is proposing to do it. I am indeed interested to hear from the hon. the Minister that he does not automatically count the members of the NPU as being responsible members of the Press. I would like the hon. the Minister to elaborate on that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brakpan referred to the story which appeared in The Argus last night and then said that when the police went to investigate, the person involved changed her story. Is that correct?

She changed her story.

I wonder whether it has occurred to the hon. member that that story was published in perfectly good faith by the newspaper. Why should a newspaper run the risk of losing its credibility, its good name as a reliable newspaper by deliberately publishing an untruth?

But the newspaper would not have been convicted even under this clause.

If the hon. member will wait a moment I will come to that The police, when informed about a story which does them no credit, go and investigate, and I can tell the hon. member from experience that I have had with people who come to me with complaints about the police that the minute I suggest that they must lay a charge they run away from the whole thing because they are dead scared of being dragged into court, they are frightened of the expense involved, they do not want their names in newspapers and are frightened of being victimized. I must tell the hon. member that this is a very real fear on the part of ordinary members of the public. I had just such a case, not too long ago, when a woman in my constituency phoned to tell me that the police had raided her garden, taken away her gardener, assaulted him, etc. I told her to lay a charge, but she said she was frightened and did not want to go into court. Unfortunately that is the case. People shy away from going to court. I absolutely deny, however, that The Argus or any other responsible newspaper would deliberately publish a story knowing it to be untrue. It is going to be very difficult, if The Argus is taken to court in terms of clause 9 of this Bill, to prove that what it said was said in good faith, because the woman is going to deny it. She may say, particularly if she has told the police another story…

She did not deny that she had talked to The Argus.

No, but she denied the story that she had told The Argus, and that is precisely the point. With the onus of proof resting on The Argus, she is going to come into court and is going to say she did not tell The Argus anything of the kind, maintaining that The Argus had printed a lie.

The Argus would be acquitted.

The Argus would not be acquitted. There is no guarantee whatever that The Argus would be acquitted. Let me also say that knowing how frightened the public is of being dragged into court in such cases, I can see all the more reason why The Argus would not publish stories of this kind, however true they may, in fact, be. Has that not occurred to the hon. the Minister? [Interjections.] So the paper would not print this story, although it may well have been true. I cannot imagine someone giving this lying story to a newspaper out of the blue, and the newspaper, knowing it to be a lie, then publishing it. That is absolute nonsense!

I should now like to bring another example to the hon. the Minister’s attention. Even if The Argus may be fined only R150, as the editor of the Rand Daily Mail was fined R150, The Argus would bear in mind the fact that the case could cost the newspaper thousands of rand and so it would not publish the story. The hon. the Minister quoted from a very naughty document which he should not have in his possession. That was very naughty indeed of the hon. the Minister! There is a Minister breaking his own law! I have news for him, however. I also have that document, but seeing that both of us have it, I am all right! That is a document which it is an offence to have in one’s possession.

You have all kinds of illegal documents!

Of course I have. I have many, and so has the hon. the Minister!

Helen, did you send it to the Minister?

No, it was sent to all of us. That hon. member probably has it as well. [Interjections.] In fact, I think we probably all have it. Some of us pack it away under something, however, whilst others keep it openly amongst their papers. The hon. the Minister quoted from that document which is a document supplied by Rev. David Russell about what went on in Langa and Nyanga over Christmas during the riots a year ago.

As a result of that, I know that the Cillié Commission went back to investigate. The members of the commission are probably going to find some things true and some things untrue. I have not seen the Cillié Commission’s report yet, though the hon. the Minister may well have seen it The point is, however, that these stories were published in the Press, and of course the hon. the Minister takes umbrage because the reports put the police in a very bad light.

Right now there is a case in court about a man who was killed during those riots, and a witness, who is an educated man, is giving evidence in this case…

Order! I think that is still being dealt with by the court.

Yes, I am not going to reflect on the case or its outcome. It is the effect of publication that I am talking about.

Order! The hon. member must not discuss that now.

All right. All I am going to say then is that the hon. the Minister, or at least the State, is not using “truth” or “untruth” as the point of argument. What is, however, being used? The indemnity provision! Is that not an interesting thing! I wonder why? Let me just ask the hon. the Minister to ponder that question. If it is a question of untruth, that would surely have been the thing to use. The thing to have done would surely have been to have thrown it out, but I shall leave that aspect in deference to your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

I do not think the hon. the Minister has convinced anybody about this aspect of the Bill. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he thinks the Association of Law Societies is a responsible body.

It is a ridiculous question.

The hon. the Minister says it is a ridiculous question.

It is a rhetorical question.

Right. Can I then assume that he does think it is reliable?

You can assume what you like.

He says I can assume what I like and that it is a ridiculous question. I may say, Sir, that that is a more ridiculous answer. In any event, I just want to point out that the Association of Law Societies—it keeps on changing its name, by the way, like our party—has very strong reservations about this Bill and the impact it is going to have. Does that not have any effect on the hon. the Minister?

You should not gossip behind my back.

The Society of Journalists—and the hon. the Minister will probably say immediately that he does not consider that to be a responsible body, but I do…

You are being prejudiced.

Anyway, that body, too, is voicing its objections. Will the hon. the Minister not ponder a little longer over this? Does he not think he ought to have second thoughts about this, seeing that a lot of people are very worried about this indeed, including virtually every newspaper in the country, bar none and even the newspapers that support the Government?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to the impression created by the hon. member for Brakpan when he said that we wanted the Press to be able to protect liars.

Do you want that?

Can hon. members not realize that in terms of the clause in its present form the police can be placed in the position that they can, in fact, protect the guilty? I just want to quote one more example to the hon. the Minister—various examples have already been quoted today. Recently a number of policemen in Pretoria kicked in the front door of a woman’s flat because they believed…

Those people have already appeared in court.

Wait a minute! They believed that there was an Indian or someone with that woman. Very well! Let us place ourselves in the position of the newspaperman who gets that information immediately afterwards.

But it is the truth.

Wait a minute! The hon. the Minister should not get so panicky about that. Let me first try to put the problem to him. Suppose that in a case such as this the journalist phones the nearest police station to inquire into this. The police station can be put in the position that they can only say “no comment”. What should the journalist do in that case? Should he write the story or not?

Of course he can write it. Why not?

Does the hon. the Minister then want to say that every time a journalist contacts a police station in connection with a case, and they tell him “no comment”, he may write his report, knowing that there is such a provision in the Act? [Interjections.]

He can also write that the police said “no comment”.

Now hon. members say that he may write his report.

He can always write the truth.

They do not realize in what an invidious position this legislation is going to put the journalist. The journalist, knowing what is in this legislation, will in future, when the police tell him “no comment”, not be in a position to write his report This is what the hon. the Minister is actually aiming at. This is in fact the purpose of this provision.

That is a scandalous statement.

I cannot understand it: Now it is a scandalous statement.

It is a ridiculous conclusion.

Now it is a ridiculous conclusion. However, if one introduces a ridiculous and scandalous provision in legislation, surely that is the result. It is not we who do scandalous things.

You are drawing a ridiculous conclusion.

We are the people who perceive the true position.

†I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I cannot see why he is not in a position to accept the amendment of the hon. member for East London North. In fact, it is meeting all the requirements hon. members on that side of the House motivated at Second Reading. We are prepared to co-operate in this particular respect. I think the argument that he wants to get hold of the individual, has been adequately dealt with. No organization or newspaper will continue making use of the services of a particular journalist if it finds that time and time again such journalist puts it in an awkward situation. I want to urge the hon. the Minister to accept at least that amendment. At least it will make the situation not as laughable as it is now. [Interjections.] The amendment will render this clause less disgraceful than it is at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal briefly with the question of the role of the Press Council in cases this Bill is supposed to cover. In my opinion there are two reasons why the Press Council could in fact act more effectively with regard to any untruths that are published. I concede that this only applies to members of the Press Union. The first reason is that the Press Council can deal with any untruth and not only of necessity with a bona fide untruth written by accident, or a mala fide untruth written deliberately. That immediately makes the Press Council more effective.

Did you not learn at university that there is always an element of deliberateness in an untruth?

No. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister’s statement that there is always an element of deliberateness in an untruth is a very interesting legal argument. I hope that he will put it to other lawyers at some stage or other just to see what they think about it. However, I shall leave it at that.

I should still like to refer to the second reason why the Press Council could be more effective. This legislation is aimed at retribution. In terms of the intended legislation any person who writes or publishes an untruth may be fined or imprisoned, but it does nothing to ensure the rectification of any injustice brought about by incorrect reporting. It brings about no rectification, while the Press Union can force a newspaper to publish a correction as prominently as the untrue report, and surely this is as close to the rectification of an injustice as one could possibly expect. For those two reasons the Press Council is, to my mind, eminently suited to deal with untruths which may be published accidentally or deliberately.

I should now like to refer to the hon. the Minister’s reaction to the whole question of why the Press Council supposedly cannot deal with the situation. I want to quote what he said yesterday in his reply on the Second Reading of the Bill and what he confirmed in a statement to the Press, more specifically Die Transvaler. I quote (Hansard, 26 March 1979)—

Is this not simply what applies in this regard as well? A complaint can only be lodged after the harm has been done. The hon. the Minister went on to say—

Surely this also applies in the case of a criminal trial and a trial of a person charged in terms of the intended legislation. Surely the Press can report such a trial as freely as they can report any Press Council hearing. The hon. the Minister then said—

I should now like to ask the hon. the Minister to what he gives priority. Does he prefer the rectification of an injustice which was done accidentally or deliberately or does he prefer retribution? Is this to get at someone and take revenge on some individual? Or is his first priority to rectify the untruth that was blazoned abroad and which was prejudicial to the police?

Have you never learned what the considerations are as regards the imposition of punishment is?

I shall not react to what that hon. member said.

Yes, you are unable to.

The point the hon. member for East London North has already made, is that no newspaper can tolerate a journalist on its staff who has repeatedly allowed gross untruths to creep into his reports, with the result that the newspaper’s circulation suffers and that he has to appear repeatedly before the court or the Press Council. Surely no newspaper can afford that as far as its credibility or financial position is concerned.

The matter of deliberate untruths has already been mentioned. The hon. the Minister said, inter alia, that he would define the “gutter Press” as those newspapers who deliberately insult the police. Deliberate untruths are not such a big problem, because few people have sympathy with a deliberate untruth that has been written, but the big problem lies with an untruth that has crept in by accident. Yesterday I put certain questions to the hon. the Minister and asked him to give specific examples, in the first place of newspapers belonging to the Press Union which have published untruths in regard to which complaints were lodged, and also to give examples of cases where no proper action was taken. The hon. the Minister mentioned one example and spoke about a fine of R500 which had been imposed. It seems he was not satisfied that the fine had been high enough. In that specific case Mr. Justice Galgut made it very clear that that fine should not be regarded as representative of the type of punishment he thought appropriate to that type of offence. Therefore complaints have been lodged with the Press Union. So far he has only given us examples where complaints were lodged with the Press Union and action did follow. Now I should like to know whether that action taken against that specific newspaper was, to his mind, unsatisfactory. The other matter is with regard to nonmembers of the newspaper Press Union; in other words, publications published by people who are not members of the Press Union. That is another question I put to him. The only example he mentioned was that of a pamphlet.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to digress considerably. He must now return to the details of the clause.

I shall now return to the clause. I should like to refer to the question of the pamphlets. The only pamphlet the hon. the Minister mentioned was a case which led to action on the part of the Publications Board. The Publications Board banned the pamphlet. Therefore I repeat my question: Give us examples of pamphlets which disseminated untruths about the police and in respect of which it was impossible for the hon. the Minister or the police themselves to act in terms of existing legislation. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us sufficient examples to state this case convincingly.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to come back to the amendment of the hon. member for East London North. When the hon. member moved the amendment, I asked him across the floor of this House whether he would vote for the clause if I accepted his amendment. His reply was that he would not vote for the clause. Am I right?

That is correct.

That, then, is the type of amendment that is moved here. The hon. member moves an amendment and he himself then votes against it. [Interjections.] The hon. member moves an amendment and dramatically presents it to you, Mr. Chairman, and even if I had accepted the amendment, he would still have voted against it.

I would have voted for the amendment, but not for the clause.

What kind of amendment would that then be?

I merely did it to see the hon. Minister’s reaction.

When one moves an amendment, the assumption is that if it is accepted, one will also support the amended clause, or will move sufficient other amendments to make the clause acceptable. [Interjections.]

I did it to see what would happen.

How can I accept an amendment if the person who moved it is going to vote against it? I do not want to make a fool of the hon. member.

†I do not want to make a fool of the hon. member. I would rather see that the hon. member makes a fool of himself.

*The hon. member for Mooi River asked me “whether all members of the Newspaper Press Union are irresponsible”. Is that what the hon. member wanted to know?

No, I said “responsible”.

I put it quite clearly yesterday—I do not think the hon. member was in the House when I made that categorical statement—that on the staff of every newspaper there are responsible journalists. I added they could ’phone me at any time and I would willingly give them the answers to questions they put to me. I also said there were numbers of journalists on the editorial staff of certain newspapers to whom I would not speak, people I would not like to come within a mile of me, because they could not write anything straight, even if they fried. This is my view. Just as here in Parliament, in any business and anywhere else in the world, one has the good and the bad intermixed.

Why then punish them all together?

The responsible journalist will never even look at this legislation. I can assure hon. members that a responsible journalist will not even have to be acquainted with the contents of this legislation. No one will ever have to explain to him what his job is, because he knows his job. The responsible journalist will always try to check and verify every statement made by him. Where he passes comment he will indicate that he does so. That is responsible journalism. That is what we want, what we are looking for. That is what I am trying to bring about by introducing this legislation. I am trying to get rid of those who are not responsible.

Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. the Minister what happens to the responsible journalist who is given information by somebody who says he does not want his name disclosed to anyone and knows that the journalist has to honour that in spite of the possibility of his being arranged before a court?

I can assure the hon. member that a responsible journalist will not take any such story at face value, in any case. The moment someone says to him he does not want to be identified, that journalist, if he is responsible, would take a little trouble and devote a little bit of time to investigating the matter further. The hon. member cannot tell me that a journalist cannot investigate that type of thing. They are quite capable of doing that, and that is all they have to do. They have to do their job in a responsible way. All we are trying to do is to stop the publishing of untruths. We are trying to get at the type of journalist who gets hold of a rumour and runs with it. Particularly when it affects the Police Force it is dangerous. Journalists acting in such an irresponsible way can only harm the Police Force.

*The hon. member for Green Point has asked me to give him examples. He said I should give him quite a number of examples. Apparently he is afraid that I might only give one or two. Then, of course, he will say that it is not enough, because he wants five. I give the hon. member the assurance that there are a large number of pamphlets which I want to eliminate in terms of this legislation, pamphlets of which I do not have copies with me, although I can assure the hon. member that they do exist. I assure the hon. member that there are quite a number of untruths which we have not even referred to the Press Council, for the simple reason that although they are untruths, they are not serious untruths. We therefore felt that we should simply ignore them. We gained possession of quite a few things for which the editors themselves apologized in writing and made small rectifications. These were never before the Press Council. All we are trying to do here, is to ensure that journalism is of a standard it should be with regard to the police. If they still want to disseminate gossip—bedroom and other stories—let them do so. However, when it comes to matters concerning the S.A. Police, I am of the opinion that the work that these people do for South Africa is too important to allow any Tom, Dick and Harry to write about them whatever he wishes to. They should first examine the facts and display a degree of responsibility.

†I presume that hon. members on that side of the House will vote against this clause. [Interjections.] I remember the time when those hon. members voted for the right to vote again. All I can say here is that they can vote for the right to lie again.

*That is what they are voting for. They vote for anyone to have the right to tell untruths in the Press or elsewhere. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to say that hon. members on this side of the House are voting for the right to lie again? [Interjections.]

I do not think the hon. the Minister referred to hon. members lying. What actually did the hon. the Minister mean?

Mr. Chairman, I said that hon. members opposite are going to vote for other people to have the right to lie again. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I think I have replied now to the question of the hon. member for Mooi River and I hope he is satisfied. I am not objecting to any particular newspaper, I am referring in general to this type of reporting.

I am looking for a note on the speech made by the hon. member for Durban Central, but I only find a blank! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Green Point displayed his ignorance. I asked the hon. member to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg North for an explanation with regard to the meaning of the word “untruth” in a statute. I cannot help the hon. member for Green Point. He will have to look it up himself. He will find the information in the most elementary legal textbooks.

It seems I have now replied to all the questions asked by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, I was not going to speak in the Committee Stage, but the hon. the Minister has, by various comments, encouraged me to take part at this stage.

I refer specifically to the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London North. During the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister made it very clear that he was only after certain irresponsible sections of the Press. When the hon. member for East London North responded by saying that they felt in sympathy with that and used the term “gutter Press”, the hon. the Minister immediately took that phrase up and said that they were the ones he was after. He then asked for a definition of “gutter Press”. The hon. member for East London North then brought an amendment before the House indicating that the Presspaper Union does not belong to the “gutter Press”. The hon. the Minister quite clearly, in his non-reply to our points, indicates that he includes, amongst the members of the Press Union, the “gutter Press”. There is no question about this.

You are talking absolute nonsense.

No. The logic of the hon. the Minister’s argument is perfectly clear. He asked for a definition of “gutter Press” in so many words. What we have done is to say that it is that section of the Press which does not belong to the NPU. We did this in an attempt to improve the clause. The hon. the Minister, however, now even refuses to accept that amendment, and therefore he is telling the House—that is virtually what he said to the hon. member for Mooi River and I think the House and the public should take note of what he is saying about the Press—that members of the NPU…

I can say much more if you want me to.

Yes, we should love to hear more. Let us have all the cards before us.

I am going to say something about you as well.

Very good. I should like to hear the hon. the Minister saying something about me. He can say anything he wants to, provided he substantiates it, something he has never been able to do. [Interjections.] We know that this hon. Minister has a short fuse, and we also know that he does make all sorts of remarks that he regrets afterwards. It is quite clear in this regard, however, that he has branded certain members of the NPU as the “gutter Press”. We take this as being offensive. What is more, he also branded the hon. member for Parktown as equivalent to the “gutter Press”, because by the analogy he used, he put him in exactly the same situation, and we regard that as offensive. We cannot understand why the hon. the Minister has got his knife in for the Press. It is very clear, however, that that is the case, and nothing he has said has persuaded us to believe otherwise.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that I should really reply to the nonsense that has come from this hon. member of Parliament. This is the type of speech he should be making at the leftist rallies he is always addressing. He is doing his very best to make a little bit of propaganda. He may even hit the headlines with certain journalists. Does the hon. member realize that?

I know.

Good! That is the very type of person I am trying to get at with this law.

Exactly.

I want to get at the sort of fellow that writes the rubbish that is spoken by that hon. member.

That is anybody that is against you.

Order!

This is what I aim at with this legislation. I want to get at the people who write this type of nonsense just because this man has said it. This is the type of reporting to which we object, the gutter Press to which I referred. As far as my remark about the gutter Press is concerned, I want to make it clear once again, as I explained to the hon. member for Mooi River, that there are certain members of the Newspaper Press Union whom I regard as bad journalists. They are the ones who should be afraid of the provisions of this legislation. There are other journalists who need never look at the provisions of this legislation. This applies to the whole Press, members of the Newspaper Press Union and non-members of the Newspaper Press Union, etc. To me it does not matter where they are. A good journalist will not have to pay attention to these provisions, while a bad journalist will have to be careful!

Mr. Chairman, there are just a few fresh points I should like to put to the hon. the Minister.

I wonder if there can be any more fresh points?

Wait and see. When the hon. the Minister referred to the publishing of statements, was he referring to the Press only? I ask this because the hon. the Minister, as a learned colleague will know that publication does not always have to be in writing. Publications can be verbal. Defamatory matter can be uttered or printed. In dealing with defamatory matter, the law provides that such matter must, in publication, be conveyed to a third person, and that does not have to be done in writing. Is the hon. the Minister therefore also including under this umbrella TV, the radio, verbal statements that may be made at public meetings by various people, in fact all verbal statements that required confirmation? I ask this because there is no definition of the word “publish” in the Police Act. I should therefore like to know whether the examples mentioned above are included. If they are not included under publications, the hon. the Minister should let us know that we are dealing only with newspapers. I believe that in the normal legal definition “publish” means “to make public”. It therefore means that a publication does not have to be in writing.

Secondly I should also like to know whether the hon. the Minister intends that anybody who commits an offense in terms of these provisions should be subjected to double punishment. If persons happen to be members of the NPU, is it the hon. the Minister’s intention that they should first be tried and, if necessary, punished by the Press Union, and then be tried by a court and again punished?

Thirdly, in regard to taking the necessary precautions when reporting in a newspaper, does the hon. the Minister not visualize newspaper journalists having to obtain affidavits to cover themselves? I take it that an affidavit of what a person says under oath, would, if published in a newspaper, remove from the newspaper the onus of having to prove reasonable grounds for believing that it is true. If so, does the hon. the Minister really think that people are going to make statements on affidavit and give it on that basis? With regard to those newspapers who are not members of the Newspaper Press Union—and one wants to exert some control over them—is it not possible that those newspapers would fall under a code of some kind so that some form of control could be exercised over them if deemed necessary? Lastly, does the hon. the Minister not believe that, if a newspaper publishes a lie and the person who suffers damage as a result sues that newspaper, the ordinary civil courts of the country can take care of the matter and that damage can then be exacted from the offending newspaper and its publishers? Would that not be sufficient to meet the situation which might arise? In any event, as far as the responsible Press is concerned—and I am sure the hon. the Minister will share this thought—if a newspaper publishes anything which is incorrect and you phone that newspaper immediately to point out that a report is incorrect it will immediately publish a correction. If this is the case, and you are dealing with a responsible Press, we cannot support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to reply briefly to the hon. member for Hillbrow. I can answer his first question by requesting him to read the Bill once again. That is all he needs to do. Then the hon. member, as a lawyer can decide what the scope of this legislation is. It is not my task to spell it out for him. I said during the Second Reading, and I repeated it today, that the matter does not concern newspapers only. It also concerns people who write pamphlets and other types of irresponsible untruths published about the S.A. Police.

Not verbally?

That is a matter of interpretation. I told the hon. member to read the Bill. The hon. member can interpret it as well as I. He asked, furthermore, whether I cannot place the other writings under some kind of code. What better code is there than putting them under the courts? They are placed under the code contained in clause 9. There is a very simple onus of proof on the newspaper while there is a very heavy onus of proof on the State. The State has to prove that the report is indisputably and beyond any reasonable doubt untrue. The accused only has to give a reasonable explanation of why he thought that it was true. The word “think” contains something subjective which the State cannot determine and which the accused has to come and say. In reply to the hon. member’s third question, I told him yesterday at the Second Reading that the answers can be legion. The source does not have to be made public, but there are many ways in which the accused can satisfy a court that he really thought that he was publishing the truth. It depends on circumstances, as well as on the facts given. This is not a very difficult onus of proof. If the State proves that it is an untruth, the accused must, on a preponderance of probabilities, explain why he has done it. I do not think that that is unfair.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—106: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treumicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visagie, J. H.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, J. H. Hoon, N. F. Treurnicht, W. L. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Noes—23: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Myburgh, P. A.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.

Tellers: A. L. Boraine and A. B. Widman.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The amendment seeks to relax the hold which the Public Service Commission has on the police as a whole. It is really intended to give the Commissioner himself more power.

†I think you will agree with me, Sir, that it is intolerable that the Commissioner of Police is not in a position to recommend or introduce certain ad hoc salary improvements for members of the Police Force without first consulting the Public Service Commission. At present he must in respect of every little detail obtain the approval of the Public Service Commission. Once my amendment has been accepted—and I am quite sure the hon. the Minister will be reasonable in this regard…

He is not even listening!

No, he is not even listening, though it is for the benefit of his own people.

I am listening.

Once this amendment is accepted, we will still have the position that the Commissioner will be required to get the approval of the Treasury. It would have been unfair to propose an amendment to cut out the Treasury as well. After all, the Commissioner will not be footing the bill, but the money in fact comes from the Treasury. On that basis I believe this is a very reasonable amendment.

*The way the provision reads at the moment, one really cannot understand how a comparison can be drawn between an ordinary clerk and a policeman. If the Public Service Commission draws comparisons between similar posts, I can accept it, but surely one cannot draw any comparison between the work done by the police and the dangers they have to face and the work done by a clerk in an ordinary Government department. Unfortunately, this is the position throughout the Police Service at the moment. I fully realize that even if we accept this amendment, the overhead salary scales and cost structure will still fall under the control of the Public Service Commission. However, I believe it would be a good thing if we could reach the stage where we accept in principle that the hold which the Public Service Commission has over a department such as the police, over which they should not have any influence at all, should be relaxed. That is why I am moving my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to indicate that we will support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.

Oh!

Just let me finish my argument before the hon. member starts sighing. Of course, I have some sympathy with the hon. member when he says that one would like to adjust salaries and similar matters without first referring them to the Public Service Commission. However, when one is concerned with a service organization which receives its money directly from the tax-payer, one has no choice, and one has to have a controlling body, whether it be the Public Service Commission or any other body. There must be a controlling body outside the Police Force which exercises control over the salaries. In this case, the statutory body is the Public Service Commission. The proposed section 34D(1A) reads as follows—

The hon. member for Durban Central should pay some attention to this. Section 34D(1) of the Police Act reads as follows—

It falls under the Public Service Commission, and that is where the problem lies. If I accepted the amendment, it would mean that it would conflict with the provisions of the Public Service Act. I know that was not the hon. member’s intention, and I think, therefore, that he will understand my argument. One cannot tamper with salaries without taking the other salaries into consideration. There is a general law which provides that we fall under the Public Service Commission, and we must observe that law. It is a popular idea—and I know that hon. members are always propagating it—that this department should be independent of the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission is not unsympathetic to the demands and the needs of the S.A. Police. It does its best and it is just as sympathetic as the hon. member himself. However, the Public Service Commission has an overall task to perform, and I must respect it.

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pity that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept my amendment. I realize that he faces problems. I said in my speech that if the amendment was accepted, one would still have a problem with regard to overhead salary scales and cost structures which are controlled by the Public Service Commission. However, I just want to bring it to the hon. the Minister’s attention that we consider it essential that he should advocate a situation in which the police would be separated from the Public Service Commission. I really believe that members of the Cabinet, and not only hon. members of the Opposition, should fight for that cause. We are not doing this in an attempt to be popular, but because we are convinced that as a result of the tremendous expansion which is taking place in the Public Service today, one really cannot compare the various departments.

I must now refer to another aspect. The hon. the Minister said there had to be a central controlling body. That is precisely what I took into consideration and that is why I said that the Commissioner could only act in this regard with the approval of the Treasury, which really has to bear the responsibility. I do not want to say that the police should be removed from the control of the Public Service Commission. If my amendment were accepted, there would still be a third party which would decide about the matter, and that is the Treasury. The Treasury would still have to give its approval. There should be mutual consultation and co-operation between the Public Service Commission, the Treasury and the Police. If the hon. the Minister thinks that our amendment would mean that there would be no controlling body, he is wrong. My amendment would still allow control, but the control would not be in the hands of the commission as such, but in the hands of the Treasury, which is ultimately responsible for the way the money is spent. Therefore I regret that the hon. the Minister cannot accept it

Mr. Chairman, I regret to differ with the hon. member. I must try to explain something he did not notice. I do so because it would appear that the hon. member moved the amendment in good faith. If the hon. member would just look at the Bill with me—it is no use arguing without looking at the Bill—he would find that the words “salary, wage or allowance” occur in the clause. The reference is to a higher salary, wage or allowance. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I accepted the amendment. What would then happen? The words “Public Service Commission” would then be deleted. This would make no difference, because the provision contained in this clause is already embodied in section 34D of the Police Act. Section 34D says that all salaries, wages and allowances are determined by the Public Service Commission. Therefore, even if one deleted the words “Public Service Commission” from this clause, it would still fall under the Public Service Commission. [Interjections.]

One cannot pay a higher salary without the permission of the Public Service Commission, because all salaries, wages and allowances, whether higher or lower, fall under the Public Service Commission in terms of this specific Act. Even if I deleted the words, therefore, even if I accepted the amendment, the Public Service Commission could still look at increases. In other words, the amendment which the hon. member has moved is a non scriptum; it means nothing, because it does not remove specific increases from the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission. The rest of the section provides that “all salaries, wages or allowances” fall under the Public Service Commission.

The rest of the section referred to, is that subsection 1?

I referred to section 34(1). This clause has a bearing on subsection (1A). Subsection (1) reads—

That is right.

The Public Service Act places it squarely under the Public Service Commission. For that reason, we must bring the increase which is being requested here into line with the requirements of the Public Service Commission and the Treasury. There is nothing we can do about it. It is simply a part of the Act.

Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful that the hon. the Minister has read out the part where it says specifically that salaries, wages or allowances are determined by the Public Service Commission. That is a fact. However, let us look at subsection 1A. It says: “Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1)”. In other words, in spite of the fact that the overhead salaries—I have said this more than once—are determined by the Public Service Commission, a new position arises here which is not concerned with the salaries as such. I have said so from the start. I realize that the existing salary structure cannot be changed, but the Commissioner will now be given the discretion to increase certain salaries, and in spite of the fact that the matter is regulated by the Public Service Commission, we are now only concerned with higher salaries. In this specific, very limited case, it is my submission that the Public Service Commission will be excluded and that negotiations will in fact be between the Treasury and the Commissioner only. I would have been only too glad if we had been able here to change the first part as well. However, I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that it is not correct to say that he cannot eliminate, the Public Service Commission on this level. He can eliminate the Public Service Commission. Surely that is clear from the relevant wording of the original legislation. For that reason, we are in a position to say that the procedure can actually be different. That is all I want to advocate now. I believe that the hon. the Minister will come to understand the value and the motivation of my plea and that he will support us in our struggle to create a better dispensation for the police.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members will remember that when we discussed this Bill at Second Reading, we in these benches expressed our concern about the definition of the word “fisherman”. In our view this definition covered anybody who caught a fish. This was in fact a correct view, as we stated it at Second Reading. The problem we foresaw was that this definition would cover fishermen fishing from the seashore with rod and line, as well as ski boat fishermen and members of ski boat clubs. The hon. the Minister made it quite clear that his reason for doing this was that he wanted to get statistics on record in order to be able to judge whether the position with regard to any particular type of fish was a good one or a bad one. For these reasons, and for research reasons, he particularly wanted to bring the ski boat fisherman into account.

Since then we in these benches have had representations, and there seems to be a fair amount of justification for the hon. the Minister’s point of view in this regard. As far as we can judge from the reaction on the part of ski boat fishermen, this does not appear to be a major problem. I have here a cutting from the Daily Despatch of 21 March 1979, in which it is clearly stated that—and that is also contained in the big headline—ski boat fishermen are not worried about the clause. However, I do feel that I should point that it could in future create a problem. If the hon. the Minister, at some future stage, wishes to change this particular legislation in terms of the genuine commercial fisherman, and yet does not want those particular regulations to apply to the ski boat fishermen, he might have a problem in drafting such legislation. As a point of basic principle I find that to try to put ski boat fishermen, who are after all mostly part-time sport fishermen, under the same umbrella as commercial fishermen, who are doing this for their living and who are catching far greater quantities of fish than ski boat fishermen, can give rise to problems in the future. However, we will leave the matter there.

We do, however, wish to propose an amendment, again on the basis we applied to a previous Bill today, i.e. that half a loaf is better than none. I therefore move as an amendment—

I accept that.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has indicated that he will accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, without taking up the time of the House unnecessarily, we just want to say that the amendment as it has been moved—and the hon. the Minister has indicated that he will accept it—seems to us to be a reasonable solution to the problem which was pointed out during the Second Reading debate. We are satisfied with it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for indicating that he would accept the amendment. I would again like to point out to the hon. the Minister, as we have already done during the Second Reading debate, that the ski-boat clubs are very willing to cooperate with the hon. the Minister’s department. I think it is terribly important that they should figure in the arrangements the hon. the Minister will be making in order to gather this information. I think I am right in saying that the purpose for which the hon. the Minister wishes to gather the information, is basically a research purpose, i.e. the purpose of trying to establish fish populations and whether or not control is necessary over the catching of fish and the numbers taken.

The hon. member for Simonstown mentioned that there should be limits on the number of fish taken. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether it is common cause between us that, where the population of a fish species appears to be in danger of being depleted, it is in order to impose a bag limit. As the hon. the Minister will know, the Natal Parks Board has introduced a limit on the Natal coast of 3 shad per angler per day.

Two shad.

Two? Then it is worse than I thought. What is at issue, is the question of a limit. Therefore, we would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether it is the general trend of his thinking that there should be limits imposed where species of fish are endangered. I would like to have an answer to that from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate firstly that I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for East London North. Let me say immediately that one of the basic factors is that to establish the yield for any particular year depends on the statistics at our disposal. The hon. member will understand that the more accurate these statistics are, the more accurate the decisions can be that are taken on the basis of those statistics.

This is the reason why we are trying to ensure that the information we have is as accurate as possible. The hon. member will understand that, quite apart from the commercial fishermen, a large number of fish are also being caught by other people. If one leaves what they catch out of one’s own calculations, one is obviously ignoring a very important factor in determining what the yield could be. That is basically why we want the information.

In the second place I should like to say that the mere fact of the existence of the definition does not impose a duty upon any particular person. I have to decide afterwards whether I want to impose a duty on the angler or on the boat fisherman, and what the duty should be. That has been accepted by the skiboat owners. Quite apart from any of the definitions in terms of the existing law, we can do in South African waters what is being done by the Natal Parks Board in relation to the waters of Natal, i.e. impose a limit on the catch. This can take various forms. We have not done this up to now and I cannot tell the hon. member what we propose to do, because that would depend on the information that we gather. That is essentially what we are trying to do. I hope I have sufficiently explained the position to him.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to raise one point with the hon. the Minister. By accepting the amendment of the hon. member for East London North as regards the inclusion of skiboat anglers under the definition of fisherman, the hon. the Minister is in fact imposing a limit on the number of fish those people may catch.

No.

Yes, the hon. the Minister is doing so, and I have nothing against it. I shall tell the hon. the Minister why in a moment. I am not against the limit he is imposing in respect of these people, but I think he should publish it. My argument is a very simple one.

What limit am I imposing on them?

I shall tell him. If ten of us, for example, go deep-sea fishing beyond the Knysna Heads and we know where the feeding-ground of the yellowtail is, it will be very easy for us to return with a total catch of 400 yellowtail. When a fisherman starts hitting file yellowtail, there is no way in which he can be stopped fishing. When one is out there, one is going to catch those yellowtail because they are running. Sometimes, obviously, one catches nothing. It is obvious that nobody will have any use for 400 yellowtail at his home. What does one then do with the yellowtail one cannot use? Does one throw them away or does one sell them?

You sell them.

Exactly. The fishermen sell these yellowtail at R 1,00 each to the villagers who are only too thankful to be able to buy them at R 1,00 each. If we are now going to limit the number people may catch to the number they themselves can use, the hon. the Minister will in that way actually be imposing a limit on the catch.

But where do you find it in the Bill?

Reference is made here to any person—

What is the prohibition? You are referring to the definition.

The definition only excludes those people who fish with a rod.

There is no prohibition contained in the definition.

There is. It is contained in the definition of “fisherman”.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to lengthen the debate, but I must tell the hon. member that there is no prohibition whatsoever contained in clause 1 of the Bill. There is simply a definition of “fisherman”; and, irrespective of this definition, I can impose a lot of restrictions on a lot of people. There is no prohibition as such in this definition, and if the hon. member sees a prohibition in it, he must tell me what it is.

You control the fishing.

I can always control it. I can stop the fishing in a particular area without having anybody registered. I do not, however, stop them in terms of this definition. I think the hon. member is misinterpreting this particular provision. In terms of the existing Sea Fisheries Act of 1973, which we are now amending, a person who wishes to use a boat to fish for commercial reasons, has to register that boat. However, the registration of the boat as such does not impose a prohibition on that fisherman. All it does, is that it provides that he must register. During the Second Reading debate I explained the reason why we are changing the wording “for purposes of trade,” to include any person who catches for purposes of sale. This has been done as a result of a decision of the courts. We are not imposing a new duty on anyone. We are merely amending the law in order to attain the original objective we had with the Act of 1973. This is the reason for it, and I should like the hon. member to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned yesterday, I had put it to the hon. the Minister that there was perhaps a small problem I foresaw and that I would like to hear his reaction to it. Unfortunately, I did not have the chance to say what the problem was. As I see the situation, the present law entrusts to the Registrar certain duties, one of which is that he has to sit in judgment on applications made under the Trade Marks Act of 1963. This Bill seeks to provide that certain people can be appointed in the place of the Registrar “to exercise any power or to perform any duty conferred upon or entrusted to the Registrar in terms of this Act”. I imagine that the primary object is, however, to replace the Registrar at these particular hearings.

They can be appointed to perform any function entrusted to the Registrar.

Correct. In that regard, the only problem that concerns me is what rules of court will apply, because the Registrar, who takes decisions on cases of this nature, is a member of the Civil Service and, in fact, a man who spends his whole life dealing with this type of business. Suddenly a retired judge, an advocate or a patent attorney of the Supreme Court is brought in, and the admittedly remote possibility exists that that person may have some interest in a particular case that comes before him. He could have a financial interest in it or be a shareholder in a company which appears before him. The question simply crossed my mind whether there is going to be a procedure applied whereby the people involved in the hearing would be able to object to a certain attorney hearing the case in question because of some connection he may have with it in one way or another. I think the hon. the Minister has got the point I am trying to put across and I would be interested to hear his answer.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that both Opposition parties are supporting this measure. The hon. member for Constantia said that he had one problem, viz. that as far as the appointment of an advocate was concerned, the qualifying words should be added that it should be an advocate with at least ten years’ experience. He referred to the situation under the Publications Act. Surely a person who has ten years’ experience will not necessarily be more capable than one with less experience.

But he is very likely to be!

Well, yes, but it could be that a man with five years’ experience as an advocate had been working in the Registrar’s office before he qualified. Such a man, even with less experience as an advocate, would nevertheless be more capable than one with ten years’ general experience as an advocate. I think we should trust the hon. the Minister to appoint the most capable person. At any rate—and to some extent this also answers the question of the hon. member for East London North—section 63 of the present Act provides for appeals. There is a whole series of those.

That does not answer the question.

It does indeed, to a certain extent. If one is not satisfied with the person, one may appeal.

Yes, but that could cost a lot of money.

If this provision is introduced into the legislation, there will at any rate be fewer appeals, in my opinion, because the hon. the Minister may appoint a capable person to hear a specific case on an ad hoc basis.

We on this side of the House support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to refer to the point raised by the hon. member for Constantia. I should like to explain that I have received exactly the same representations that he has received, representations requesting that we qualify the provision by stating “an advocate with at least ten years’ experience”. Let us, however, be fair in this particular case. We are dealing with a very specialized subject, and the mere fact that an advocate has practised for ten years does not automatically mean that he has had experience in this particular and very specialized field. One may well find that an advocate with lesser experience, as an advocate per se, may have more experience in this particular specialized field. [Interjections.] Therefore I have not seen my way clear to accepting the amendment submitted to me before I introduced the Bill in Parliament. I should, however, just like to assure hon. members that what we should like to do, in this particular case, is to ensure that the man best qualified in this particular subject is appointed to act on behalf of the Registrar in certain cases. If the hon. member would accept that assurance from me, I would be very grateful.

I now come to the hon. member for East London North. Let me explain the situation again. The Registrar of Trade Marks has certain functions of a judicial nature, having to adjudicate in matters involving opposing parties, normally about the ownership of a trademark. In terms of section 55(1) of the principal Act the rules of the Supreme Court apply in that particular case.

Let me, however, take the matter a bit further. I submit that if an advocate or a patents attorney were to accept an appointment to adjudicate in a matter in which he has an interest, either in his professional capacity or in his capacity as an individual, this would firstly make the ensuing proceedings reviewable by the courts.

Correct!

I submit, secondly, that such a person would be conducting himself improperly. I therefore want to assure the hon. member that no attorney or advocate, practising as such, will be appointed before it has been ascertained whether he has such an interest. I think that should cover the problem the hon. member has in this regard.

Before I close off, however, let me thank the hon. member for Malmesbury for his support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, there is just one question which, somehow, has not been asked yet and that is: Why is the hon. the Minister making this Bill retrospective to 1 February? Has something happened which makes it necessary to do that or what is the reason for it?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has got me there. I shall have to ascertain what the position is and inform him later on.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Many hon. members present here today will recall that the Electoral Act for Indians that was passed during 1977 contained more or less the same provisions as the Electoral Consolidation Act. 1946. The one real difference is that the Electoral Act for Indians does not, as in the case of the Electoral Consolidation Act, make provision for the absent voter. In other words, for the Indian voter there is no such thing as a postal vote, only a special vote.

During the 1978 session a number of amendments were made to the Electoral Consolidation Act, 1946. These amendments were the result of an investigation by a Select Committee which went into this matter and made recommendations, some of which have been accepted by the Government.

When the Electoral Act for Indians was drafted, the Select Committee report was already available and many of that committee’s recommendations, but not all of them, had already been drafted into the Act and therefore those particular sections require no amendment.

Because the aim, as far as is practicable, is to cause that which applies to Whites to apply to the Indians as well, it therefore follows that certain amendments have to be made to the Electoral Act for Indians to bring the two into line. It is also true that if the provisions of various Acts which seek to achieve the same object are more or less the same, it is so much easier for the person concerned to implement them. It should be borne in mind that many of the people who act as officials at White elections, will also assist with Indian elections.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that hon. members, having examined this Bill, would have noticed immediately that the proposed amendments are the same as those deliberated on here last year. Of course certain matters had to be eliminated because it would simply not have been practical to include them in the Electoral Act for Indians under the present circumstances. Here I am thinking in particular of the registration of political parties and the requirement that the name of a party which is represented by a particular candidate shall appear on the ballot paper concerned. Associated with this is the question of the deposit to be paid by a candidate, a deposit which is not being reduced as in the case of Whites.

There is also a further amendment in respect of which I do not, for particular reasons, see my way clear to adopting the provisions of the Electoral Consolidation Act in its entirety. I am referring here to clauses 5 and 6 in terms of which documents which a voter may produce as proof of his identity, are being extended. For particular reasons, and in order to facilitate the task of the official concerned, I do not see my way clear to making provision enabling a voter who does not have either of the necessary documents to be identified by two other voters.

Because I am convinced that there is no new principle at stake here and also because the Indian Council went through and approved the proposed amendments, I hope and trust that it will be possible for this Bill to be passed with the support of the hon. members of the Opposition and without having to take up the time of this House unnecessarily.

I make this statement because the wording of all the clauses in this Bill is almost identical to the corresponding provisions in the Electoral Laws Amendment Act, 1978, which were passed in this House last session after having been fully discussed. Most of the clauses contained in this Bill were also passed without any discussion last year.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister has indicated this is a measure designed to update the electoral laws relating to the proposed election of the Indian Council and to bring them into line with the Electoral Act for Whites which was amended last year. We have certain reservations about, and objections to, a number of provisions, as we had last year when the relevant Act was discussed. That we can deal with in the Committee Stage, however. Of course, for the record it must be stated again that we on this side of the House are totally opposed to the principle of a separate legislative body for the Indian community, but as this is an amending Bill, I obviously cannot develop that argument or become involved in that sort of debate at this stage.

We are really dealing here with a situation in which the Government is now preparing for the establishment of a fully elected Indian Council in place of the present body which is partially nominated and it is being done within the framework of Government policy. To that extent this Bill is an improvement on the present situation. However, I must say that it is a pity that the hon. the Minister now takes over some of the bad features of the Electoral Act for Whites which was passed last year. Earlier this session, when we were dealing with conditions for Indian teachers, the hon. the Minister proudly boasted, in reply to a point I made, that he was leading the way and said that he hoped that others would follow the example set by the Department of Indian Affairs. In this case I am sorry that he has not led the way and departed from some of the bad features of the Electoral Act for Whites.

The Bill deals, inter alia, with a general registration of voters and provides that a general registration should take place at intervals of at least 10 years instead of 6 years. One wonders why this is so. Last year we heard the explanation by the hon. the Minister in regard to the Electoral Act for Whites in which the same provision obtained. I had hoped that in the case of the Indian voters’ roll the hon. the Minister would not have followed the same course. There is always the fear that the voters’ roll for the election of the Indian Council will be allowed to get in the same sort of mess that the voters’ roll for the election of members of this House very often gets into and still are in at the present time. If one looks at the annual report of the hon. the Minister’s department, one is impressed by the registration of voters that has taken place up to now in anticipation of the election which will presumably take place towards the end of this year. We have been told that up to 30 September 1978 268 188 Indians eligible to vote had been registered. I believe that since then an additional number of Indians has been registered, bringing the total to 283 612 voters who have thus far been registered to take part in this election. This is quite an achievement and shows a good deal of interest on the part of the Indian community. We also know that a Delimitation Commission has been working on delimiting constituencies for the election of the Indian Council. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can give us an indication of when it is anticipated that this commission will actually complete its work, because clearly this has to be done before the election can take place.

I understand the report is ready.

That is interesting, because one wonders what the delay is. We know that the life of the present Indian Council expires on 15 November 1979. One assumes, therefore, that the intention is that the proposed election will take place before that date. However, there is no clarity even on that point. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can enlighten us as to what the answer is to the question about whether an election for the Indian Council is going to take place before 15 November 1979 or whether the life of that Council will have to be extended, as has happened in the past. In dealing with the provisions of this Bill relating to the general registration of voters, I want to say that I think it is a bad principle that this registration should take place possibly at intervals of up to 10 years. I believe this invites untidiness and inefficiency in regard to the voters’ roll. I think it is a pity that at this stage the principle of a general registration, at least every 10 years, is being accepted in this instance, thus departing from the previous provision which stipulated that there should be a general registration at least every six years.

There are other aspects of this Bill on which we have reservations. I refer to matters dealing with the question of treating and the hiring of vehicles, etc. We shall deal with those matters in the Committee Stage. Then, of course, there is the provision which we think is a very bad one indeed, namely the one which restricts the operation of opinion polls. I do not want to repeat the arguments which were used last year when matters relating to the Electoral Act were discussed, but the provision is now, if the hon. the Minister follows the example of the other Act, that no opinion polls will be allowed between nomination day and the election for the Indian Council. We believe that opinion polls play a constructive part and that they encourage interest in an election, and we reject the notion that opinion polls influence voters in one way or the other. We therefore regard this provision which forbids opinion polls after nomination day as being a bad principle and we shall deal with it in the Committee Stage.

With those observations, however, we generally accept this Bill as being an improvement on the existing situation and we shall support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that no country in the world can have any political dispensation without electoral laws. Last year the Electoral Laws Amendment Act was piloted through this House and it is a fact that we succeeded in drafting fresh, new principles into the Electoral Act while at the same time we did away with the old, unnecessary red tape which existed in the electoral procedures. The electoral procedures were made more streamlined. Some sections were repealed, the wording of others changed and provision was also made for additional matters. The same principles apply to the Electoral Act for Indians Amendment Bill which we are now discussing.

I should like to dwell on a few definitions pertaining to non-Whites. I want to quote from the Handboek oor die Wet tot Konsolidasie van die Kieswette, 1946, as compiled by the hon. member for Groote Schuur. Hon. members will realize how difficult it was at that time for non-Whites to register and to be known as voters. I should like to quote from chapter I, paragraph 4(1) of this manual where it is stated under the heading “Kwalifikasies van Nieblankes in Kaapprovinsie”—

1. (a) ’n Unie-staatsburger is wat 21 jaar oud of ouer is en deur geeneen van die in artikel 6 genoemde onbevoegdhede geraak word nie; en
2. (b) in staat is om self sy naam te teken en sy adres en beroep neer te skryf sonder dat sy hand op enige wyse deur enige persoon gestuur word.

This applies to the qualifications of non-Whites in the Cape Province, but then we also have the qualifications of non-Whites in Natal. I should like to mention a few of them too, as set out in paragraph 5(1) of this particular chapter of the manual—

1. (a) ’n Unie-staatsburger is wat 21 jaar of ouer is en deur geeneen van die in artikel 6 genoemde onbevoegdhede geraak word nie; en
2. (b) in die geval van ’n naturel…
   There he singles out a Black—
3. (c) in die betrokke afdeling onroerende goed ter waarde van minstens vyftig pond besit, of sulke goed met ’n jaarlikse waarde van minstens tien pond huur.

I want to leave it at that. These are qualifications which were there to enable persons to register. It was made difficult. Today the legislation is much more accommodating, humane and more streamlined. The definition of “voter” is summarized in legislation which was before this House last year, legislation with regard to the Indian Council. In that legislation a “voter” is merely defined as “a person who is enrolled on a voter’s list referred to in section 6 and who, in respect of a division, has a right to vote at an election there”. Section 6 deals with the preparation of the voter’s list.

Now I want to refer to the franchise as such. It is mentioned in section 3(1) of the Act in question. As opposed to what is presented to us in the manual, the following definition of “franchise” is given in the Act concerned: “Every Indian adult who is permanently and lawfully resident in the Republic or is a person referred to in section 10(4)(a) and who is not subject to any disqualification referred to in section 4, shall be entitled, and shall take the steps under section 7, to be registered as a voter.”

It was made much easier for those people to be able to register. However, allow me to come back to the hon. member for Musgrave. The hon. member had very little to complain about in this legislation. He could complain about nothing as it were. There was nothing he could be dissatisfied about. The hon. member had very little to say in connection with what was purportedly wrong with the legislation. Therefore, he agrees with us in principle, so to speak, except perhaps with regard to the question of opinion polls reports. However, the hon. member stated that this matter would be broached again during the Committee Stage. We shall also refer to this again during the Committee Stage.

As I have already stated, the electoral laws are more streamlined. Clauses in the Bill have been amended in such a way that it has been made much easier for voters to cast their votes. The holding of elections will, therefore, be much facilitated. The counting of votes will also be considerably simplified, and confusion among voters is being eliminated to a great extent, for example by extending the prohibition on the treating of voters and by repealing certain prohibitions. In this regard I should like to quote what the hon. the Minister of the Interior stated in this House last year on the occasion of the discussion of the amendment of the electoral laws applicable to Whites. (Hansard, 1978, col. 8010)—

This is the same provision we also find in the Bill under discussion. That provision is being repealed altogether. This is a matter affecting the Indians in Natal. Now I want to point out the problems caused by this specific provision in Natal. The provincial administration of Natal is in the hands of the NRP.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlanga is really a voice calling in the desert. I resolved to argue this matter calmly today. However, the hon. member for Umhlanga should realize that, if the Natal provincial administration were in the hands of the NP, he would not experience problems in holding his political meetings. I shall tell him why I have made this statement. This is because the provincial administration prohibited the use of school halls for the holding of political meetings. In some Natal constituencies there are no halls available. Therefore, there is no place to hold a political meeting unless it is held in an hotel, and an hotel is normally a place where liquor is sold. This is why we are grateful that this provision has been repealed and that we are now entitled to have meetings at hotels as well. Hon. members of the Opposition can also say thank you for the repeal of this provision. This also reduces their problems greatly.

The provisions in the Act also made it very difficult for the candidate himself. He simply could not do what he had to do because he did not have a place at his disposal. Consequently he had to depend on small house meetings. However, this is a matter which is now being rectified.

Hon. members opposite will probably agree with me when I say that we in Durban probably have some of the most beautiful, the best and the largest halls, the halls of beachfront hotels. Those halls may now be used for political meetings. I see the hon. member for Durban Central is shaking his head. However, I want to point out to him that a large number of those halls are situated in his constituency. The hon. member must just not shake his head too hard. We may hear a noise. As I have already said, we can freely use those premises. Therefore, we want to thank the Minister most sincerely for this accommodating legislation. This legislation now affords candidates in political elections the opportunity of using the said premises.

The matter concerning opinion polls reports is something we shall rather leave at that. I do not want to express any opinion on the matter at this stage. We can again give attention to that during the Committee Stage. Finally, I just want to point out that this legislation is more streamlined, and that we should gladly like to support it, also because it greatly facilitates matters relating to elections for the Indian community in Natal and elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to react to certain statements made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I am sorry that he saw fit to raise the subject of the policy followed in respect of schools by the NRP in the Natal Provincial Council.

We have a very proud record in Natal; better than that of the NP.

I have some bad news for the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. Simultaneously it is good news for us. The NRP and its predecessors have been in power in Natal for many years. The hon. member had better get used to the idea because the NRP is going to be in power in Natal for the next 60 years, and for the next 60 years that policy is not going to change. [Interjections.] In the province of Natal schools will not be used for political purposes. Schools and school halls will be used for the purposes of education; for the education of the child, and not for furthering the purposes of any political party, either the hon. member’s party or our own. [Interjections.] Having that off my chest now, I hope the hon. member for Umhlatuzana now understands exactly where we stand in the matter. I also hope he understands exactly where he stands. [Interjections.] As stated by the hon. member for we also feel there is much in this amending Bill before us that we can support. There are a number of matters, however, with which we will deal during the Committee Stage.

We also look forward to seeing the report and the results of the delimitation proposals which will, according to the hon. the Minister, be available soon. We listened with interest to what the hon. the Minister had to say during his Second Reading speech. We join the hon. member for Musgrave in his concern regarding the fact that there is a span of 10 years between successive registrations of voters. We also believe that this is a highly undesirable state of affairs, because we have seen what has happened to our own voters’ roll. I think our last registration of voters took place in 1971 or 1972. Our voters’ roll is a shambles to say the least. That is the only way in which it can be described. I think it is a shame that this period is being extended from six to 10 years. However, that, as well as the clause in respect of opinion polls, will be dealt with by us during the Committee Stage.

The only thing that remains for me to say, is that we are very pleased to see that there are certain alterations to the Act and omissions in this Bill which will make it easier for the Indian community to control their affairs in connection with elections that are held. One of the alterations is to the effect that the need for the registration of political parties, as is contained in the Electoral Act for Whites, is left out, is also the necessity for having the name of the political parties on the ballot paper. We see this as an improvement; it is certainly an improvement as far as the Indian community is concerned.

I am also pleased to note that it is obvious from what the hon. the Minister told us in the Second Reading that he has discussed this Bill in depth with the Indian Council and that the Indian Council has given it its wholehearted approval.

I discussed it with all sections of the Indian community.

Therefore, I would say to the hon. the Minister that we look forward to a discussion, during the Committee Stage, on the clauses to which we will be registering our objection. We hope that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to meeting our suggestions on them.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to commence my speech in the knowledge that both Opposition parties support the Second Reading of this Bill. However, the hon. member for Umhlanga reminds me of a previous leader in Natal who was also once on the “march”. The hon. member almost created the impression this afternoon that he wanted to “march”. However, we are grateful that the hon. member supports this Bill. [Interjections.] However, it would be interesting to know what the attitude of the NRP will be on the question of opinion polls, and it would also be interesting to see whether they will adopt the same standpoint as last year. Will they agree with the standpoint of their leader or will they adopt a new standpoint this year?

The hon. member for Musgrave discussed the registration of voters. One is grateful that the registration of voters is obviously progressing well and that everyone is satisfied with the registration of Indian voters. No problems were experienced with the delimitation of electoral divisions either. Nor is there any reason why the proposed election should not be proceeded with at the given time, by means of which the first fully elected council will be established.

I am also looking forward to the Committee Stage in which hon. members will probably differ from one another. At this stage I just want to thank hon. members for their support which they have pledged to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon. members on both sides of the House for the fact that they are supporting this measure in principle. In particular, I wish to express my thanks to the hon. members for Umhlatuzana and Kimberley South for the concise but interesting standpoint they adopted with regard to the Bill. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana has given us a historic glimpse of the past, and one could almost laugh at the conditions that prevailed in this regard in the past. One therefore realizes what vast improvement it is that we are now engaged in the development of a system that ensures universal suffrage for all communities that are permanently resident in the Republic.

†I also particularly want to thank the hon. member for Musgrave and the hon. member for Umhlanga for their support of the Bill. I understand their reservations, and I am looking forward to the discussions that will take place during the Committee Stage, where we can go into greater detail about the points that worry them. In regard to the delimitation every 10 years, I think hon. members should note—it might help us to have a more constructive discussion during the Committee Stage—that the Bill does not provide for the fact that delimitation should take place every 10 years. It provides that it could take place every 10 years at the most. There is a difference. The hon. member referred to legislation of 1972 in the case of Whites which has become obsolete, and I can tell him that we are not waiting until 1982 for the next delimitations; we are doing it this year. So, in our case it is also every 10 years at the most. I should also like to point out that the constitution provides that the number of seats in a legislative body, can only be changed, like ours, every 10 years. There are therefore reasons where it is practical, possible and wise to have these delimitations every 10 years so that one can know exactly what the position would be in regard to the number of seats required, and if any changes should be made.

I once again thank hon. members for their support. I think we are approaching a very interesting phase of development in the political history of the Indian community of South Africa. They have shown their interest by their registration. The hon. member for Musgrave referred to the fact that far more than 70% of them have registered, although we did not have the machinery of the Department of the Interior to assist us. This registration was done by the very restricted and limited staff of the Department of Indian Affairs itself. It is a great achievement not only for the Department of Indian Affairs, but also for the public spirit prevalent within the Indian community. I think it bodes well for the future development of the democratic institutions of this important section of our community. I once again wish to thank hon. members, and I do look forward to the discussion that will take place during the Committee Stage. I take it, however, that the hon. member prefers to have the Committee Stage on a later day.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I have no hesitation in submitting this piece of legislation to this House for consideration. I say “no hesitation” because I have not the slightest doubt that there is nothing of a contentious nature in this piece of legislation. Hon. members will probably already have noted that the greater part of this piece of legislation concerns the envisaged alteration of the name of the M. L. Sultan College for Advanced Technical Education to the M. L. Sultan Technikon.

Even towards the end of 1977 the council of the college began to make representations to me to amend and simplify the name of the institution and various proposals were submitted to me in this regard. The main reason for the request was to get away from the present long name and have something which was short and to the point but nevertheless descriptive. It was also necessary to get away from the “college” idea which caused a degree of confusion with existing technical colleges. In the meantime, the White institutions approached the Department of National Education with a similar request. After due consideration it was decided to accept the name “Technikon”. In the Greek language one gets the term “technikon” which relates to any matter or thing relating to technique or technology, and to art in any form. On the other hand, in Latin one finds the word “technicum” which means a trade school for technologists. The “technikon” from the Greek language is definitely more descriptive, better sounding and comprehensive and consequently this name was decided on. The problem was then the spelling in English and Afrikaans which would normally differ, and consequently the spelling as contained in the Bill was decided on. What this entails is that it is spelt the same in both languages. Because this word had already been raised as a possible new name in previous discussions between the council of the college and myself, the council accepted it without further ado.

Since the Bill is being amended to make provision for this new name, the opportunity was also used to delete a few other sections which, due to changed circumstances since the Act was adopted in 1968, have become superfluous. A few sections are also being amended to a lesser extent.

I trust that because no new principle is at stake and because it in fact contains no contentious provisions, this Bill may be passed with the full support of hon. members on the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have studied this Bill with some concern, because it appeared to be too simple to be true. I was looking for ulterior motives, and I must confess immediately that I could not find any ulterior motive. It is a simple Bill for a change. The situation, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, is simply that the Bill seeks to substitute the interesting word “Technikon” for the name “College for Advanced Technical Education”. The hon. the Minister has indicated that the word “technikon” is a Greek word, which in itself is interesting, because we have always been told to beware of the Greeks when they bring gifts. But in this case one should be thankful to them for giving us one word as a substitution for the mouthful in “College for Advanced Technical Education”. It seems to be a happy choice. As the hon. the Minister has indicated, it overcomes the problems of translation and bilingualism.

I believe that the word “technikon” means something more than just technical education. It goes a little further than that. It is a wider concept and includes sciences and so on. In this respect, too, it seems to give a better definition of what these institutions will be doing.

While we are dealing with this Bill, which deals generally with amendments relating to technical education and allied matters and more specifically with the M. L. Sultan Technical College, I think it is appropriate to make a few comments in regard to that institution and the function which it performs.

In passing I want to mention that clause 2 of the Bill is interesting in that it deals with the functions of a technikon and states that one of these functions is to establish, with the approval of the hon. the Minister, an institution for such education and training as the Minister may approve. I hope that this is a prelude to greater training opportunities for the Indian community in these spheres. The more one looks at the socio-economic problems of the Indian community, the more it becomes clear that there ought to be greater opportunities for participating in technical education. The M. L. Sultan Technical College does a magnificent job in this regard, but it is the only institution of its kind in South Africa. There are two Indian technical high schools: one in Durban and one in Johannesburg. I know that the Indian Council is concerned with the problem and is anxious to ensure that members of the community have greater and expanded opportunities in the field of technical education. While this expansion may be taking place—and I believe it must be the intention because there are provisions in the Bill to provide for the creation of other institutions—I hope the hon. the Minister can be urged to make it easier in the interim period for Indians who perhaps cannot enjoy the facilities at existing institutions to gain a freer admission to White technical training institutions and universities if this need should arise.

It is interesting to note, if one looks at the report of the Department of Indian Affairs for 1977-’78, that the choice of faculties by students at the University of Durban-Westville indicates something of an imbalance between art subjects and the sciences. I think this is something which the hon. the Minister and his department must give some attention to, because I believe greater encouragement should be given to members of the Indian community to study more science and technical subjects. The report of the Department of Indian Affairs contains a breakdown of students registered in the university’s faculties for 1978. The report indicates that 1 332 students were then registered in the arts faculty, 885 students in the commerce and administration faculty, 812 students in the education faculty, and 235 students in the law faculty, giving a total of 3 264 students registered in these four faculties. As against this, only 895 students were registered in the science faculty. This seems to be something of an imbalance. Having noted that, it is distressing to read in the report that last year there was a drop in the enrolment at the M. L. Sultan College. The report indicates that as at 30 June 1978 the enrolment figure for full-time and part-time students was 6 826 as against 7 978 for the previous year. The report goes on to say that the decrease is attributed to the transfer of the Technical High School to the Clairwood High School of the department and to some extent to the general economic conditions in the country. It is a distressing trend, and no doubt the creation of or the transfer to a technical high school would have siphoned off some of the students who normally would have gone to the M. L. Sultan College. But I think that it again indicates, having particular regard to the socio-economic needs of the Indian community, the need to concentrate more attention on the need for and the creation of facilities for technical education.

They also tend to go to the universities.

The fact that they tend to go to the universities may well be a reason.

Generally speaking this is a Bill which cannot be opposed, and we on these benches will therefore support its Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Musgrave will forgive me if I deal a bit later with the three points he made at the end of his speech. In this regard I refer particularly to the question of more institutions of a technical nature for the Indian people, the question of easier admission to White colleges—which will now become technikons—and the “disturbing” drop in enrolment figures. I prefer to deal with these three issues at a later stage.

As the hon. the Minister has indicated, the purpose of this Bill is basically to give effect to a series of discussions and negotiations which have taken place between the old Colleges for Advanced Technical Education and the Minister of National Education since 1968 and also subsequent discussions with the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. I think the purpose of the Bill itself is quite clear, and it is therefore not necessary to dwell on it On this side of the House we obviously welcome this measure. I think this is also an opportunity, like the hon. member for Musgrave, to say a few words about the M. L. Sultan College, which, as yet, is still the only institution of its kind for the Indian community. I think the establishment of this college and its origins constitute probably one of the best examples of the interest and dedication which the Indian community have shown in the education in general of their children, particularly also as regards technical education. The college was named after Mr. Malukmohammed Lappa Sultan, who arrived in Natal in 1890 at the age of 17. He started work as an indentured labourer in Natal. He later moved to Escombe in Natal and became a very wealthy gentleman. He died on 6 September 1953. I think that what the late Mr. Sultan will best be remembered for is the fact that he established the M. L. Sultan Charitable and Educational Trust with a donation of R200 000, at a time when this sum was still regarded as an astronomical one.

That was before we had a Nat Government.

I shall deal with that interjection by the hon. member for Durban Point at a later stage. He will have to agree with me that what has been done in the field of Indian education in general, and Indian technical education in particular, has mainly been done by this NP Government in the last 31 years and not by his party or its predecessors.

However, I want to come back to the late Mr. M. L. Sultan. The very first donation made from this M. L. Sultan Charitable and Educational Trust was an amount of R66 000, one-third of the total grant of the fund, for the promotion of technical education for Indian youngsters. That was in the late ’twenties when technical education was very much in the news. In 1927 the then Indian High Commissioner, the late Mr. Sastri, made representations to the Department of Education; and for the benefit of the hon. member for Durban Point let me say that I am now referring to the then Natal Education Department. The hon. member for Durban Point, having been in Natal for quite some time, will also know that the representations by Mr. Sastri to the Education Department failed. [Interjections.] The Natal Education Department simply refused to do anything whatsoever about technical education for the Indian people. It was left to the Indian people themselves to do something about it. Mr. Sultan gave the money and another Indian gentleman, Advocate Christopher, got a group of private citizens among the Indian people together and they took the initiative in establishing Indian technical education in that province. On 13 August 1929, still without any active participation by, or even encouragement from, the Natal Education Department, the first classes were held in the Carlisle Street Government Indian School, and later Indian classes were held in the Hindu Tamil Institute in Cross Street. In 1930, still without any assistance from the Natal Education Department, an Indian Technical Education Committee was formed under the chairmanship of Dr. B. M. Narbeth, who at that time was the principal of the Natal Technical College. [Interjections.] In 1930 education was still entirely under the provincial authorities. That vociferous party and its predecessor, the United Party, must therefore take full responsibility for the lack of encouragement to the Indian people in the field of technical education.

In 1942 it was left to the late Mr. Sultan again—no initiative having been taken by the then United Party—to make an offer of a further R25 000 towards the erection of a Technical College for Indians on condition that the city council donated a suitable site and the Government agreed to a rand for rand grant. Fifteen years after Mr. Sastri, as the representative of the Indian Government, started urging the Natal authorities to encourage technical education among the Indians, then and only then did the Natal Education Department appoint a committee under Mr. F. D. Hugo. The Hugo Committee then eventually recommended that a Technical College for Indians be established, that the offer of a site by the Durban city council be accepted and that the Government should subsidize the erection of the college. On 3 November 1942 the Government approved a building subsidy of R25 000, and in 1946, two years before the NRP’s predecessor fell from power, the then Minister of Education declared the M. L. Sultan Technical College an institution for higher education.

It took 20 years.

Procrastination was typical of that party. [Interjections.] In 1948 the NP Government came into power. On 7 August 1956 the then Minister of Education, Arts and Science, the late hon. J. H. Viljoen, officially opened the new college building. The administration of the college was subsequently, on 1 April 1963, taken over by the Department of Indian Affairs.

I have tried to show, not only that the M. L. Sultan College has evolved as a result of the efforts, dedication and sacrifices of the Indian people themselves, without any outside assistance, but also that there was a very definite need for technical instruction on the part of the Indian people. Since 1929, when the first tentative steps were taken by the Indian people under Mr. Christopher, Durban and Pietermaritzburg have progressed immeasurably and the need for technically trained people has increased tenfold. The attractions of a modern metropolitan area with the biggest, most active harbour in the country, the proximity of a large consumer market and the availability of raw materials have led to the establishment of large industrial areas in and around Durban and Pietermaritzburg, at Pinetown, Prospector, and now at Phoenix north of Durban. Moreover, the increasingly important role of secondary industry in the Durban-Pietermaritzburg complex has further emphasized the importance of well-trained commercial and technical people. If one further takes into account that in the 12 years, which will end next year, the Indian population will have increased by 50% from about 310 000 in 1968, when the principal Act was passed in this House, to an estimated 460 000—and this in Durban and its environs alone—placing a tremendously heavy burden on the province to provide for housing and other community services, the crying need for good commercial and technical training among the Indian people becomes evident. In other words, the establishment of the first technical institution in 1929, 50 years ago, was not a moment too soon.

Having tried to indicate that the need for technical training existed, I want to say that I think that the Indian people themselves have also shown that they have the interest in, and aptitude for, technical education. The hon. member for Musgrave has quite rightly said that according to the annual report of the department the total full-time and part-time enrolment at the M. L. Sultan College, which will now be called the M. L. Sultan Technicon, at the end of June last year was 6 828. That figure represented a drop of 1 162, or 14,5%, from the figure in 1977.

It is true that the report of the Department of Indian Education attributes that to the transfer of some of the pupils to the Indian technical school at Clairwood and also to the general economic situation in the country. If the hon. member for Musgrave regards that as disturbing, however, let me say that I also have here the report of the Natal College for Advanced Technical Education which will also now become the Natal Technicon, the same one whose principal took such an active part in the establishment of an Indian institution in 1930. On page 3 of the report the following is stated—

That is an 11% decrease. On the following page of the report this is also attributed to considerations such as the economic conditions prevailing in the country during the course of 1977-’78.

With no transfer of students.

There was no transfer of students. In other words, I think the important consideration that must be noted is that if the number of students transferred to the new technical high school is subtracted from the reduction in the enrolment figure, it can be seen that the economic situation in the country, and especially in Natal, has not had the same effect on the Indian students of the new Technikon as it has had on the White students. In other words, it further illustrates that the Indian community of Natal sets very high store by its technical education and does not allow its community to be influenced to the same extent by economic adversity.

Therefore I think it can be said, with complete justification, that there is no doubt about the general interest displayed by the Indian community in technical education. I think there is a further very clear indication of that in the figures released in the report of the Department of Indian Affairs. To digress for just a moment, let me say that if one takes the figures of students at the various White universities in South Africa and compares the number of students who have gained first bachelor degrees in the arts on the one hand, and in commerce and the natural sciences on the other hand—this is for 1977, the last year for which figures are available in the 1978 Yearbook of South Africa—one finds that the human sciences attracted, on average, 42% of the students at all South African universities for Whites, compared with 15,7% in commercial science and 13,2% in the natural sciences. In other words, 42% in the human sciences and in the arts compared with a total of less than 29% in commerce and the natural sciences combined. Spheres of education which are, one might say, on a slightly lesser plain would be those offered by a technikon. If one compares the same figures for the University of Durban Westville, it can be seen that of a total of 4 200 students enrolled, the arts attracted 31,7% compared with 42% at the White universities, commerce 21,1% and natural sciences 21,3%, giving a total of 42,4% compared with a total, at the White universities, of 28,9%. I mention these figures simply to prove—as I think they do prove quite clearly—that the Indian community has a natural flair and a natural aptitude for commerce and the technical fields of study. I have said that the technical education of the Indian people has grown from their own desire and sacrifices. I have shown that there was a need for it and that Indian people have quite clearly demonstrated their interest and aptitude for technical education.

However, when it comes to the opportunities offered to the Indian people in the field of technical study, I think that is where the hon. member for Musgrave and I have divergent views on the subject. If one looks at the opportunities offered to the Indian people in the technical field, this Government clearly comes out on top over the whole period since the advent of Union. I have shown that during the period from 1929 to 1946 the Indian people had to struggle virtually alone for their technical education. Today the M. L. Sultan College for Advanced Technical Education is an institution that offers seven educational divisions offering—and I do not want to go into too great detail—tuition on a full-time and a part-time basis in the fields of technology, commerce and home economics, as an apprentice school and as an hotel and catering school, for general studies for those Indian youngsters who want to improve their school qualifications and in physical education. Despite the fact that this wide variety of courses is being offered, the report of the Department of Indian Education quite clearly indicates that the department is not satisfied that this is enough.

In the field of physical facilities the report refers to the preliminary plans for the multi-storeyed building, which is now on the drawing board, for the M. L. Sultan Technikon. The acquisition of Sastri College, which has been referred to before, is another case in point. Through this, the area of this technikon will be greatly enhanced. The hon. member for Musgrave mentioned the desirability of having further technikons for the Indian community. The hon. member knows full well, however, that a feasibility study has been done in connection with the possibility of establishing a college in Johannesburg and it has been found that it is not yet feasible to do so. The hon. member probably also knows that there is a technical high school and that that technical high school can form the basis of an eventual technikon. The hon. member for Musgrave also raised another matter, namely the question of the opening up of other technikons where there are no facilities for the Indian people themselves. I have here a newspaper cutting in which the Secretary for National Education has stated, within the last week, that technikons are now open to students from all groups—and I am talking about Coloureds and Indians—provided, firstly, that no courses are offered to them at their own institutions and, secondly, in cases where very sophisticated an expensive equipment is being used. In other words, even that criticism of the hon. member for Musgrave has already been met. In the same newspaper interview the Secretary for National Education said that eventually further technikons would have to be provided for the Coloured and Indian people. In every possible field in which the hon. member for Musgrave could hope to raise any objection against the Government’s policy and its application, he has fallen down. Those hon. members have no reasonable grounds for criticizing the department on the expounding of its policy, on the application of its policy and on the fact that it has given the Indian people a better deal in every respect.