Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since I presented my Budget last year there have been many significant developments affecting the South African economy. Not all of these developments have been favourable. Nevertheless, it affords me particular satisfaction on this occasion to be able to report to the House that, on balance, economic conditions in South Africa have shown a considerable further improvement during the past year and that the prospects for the year ahead are promising.

Balance of Payments

The outstanding economic development in South Africa during the past year has been the impressive performance of the balance of payments on current account. Instead of declining as might have been expected in view of the economic upswing, the surplus on current account increased from R465 million in 1977 to R1 412 million, or about 3½% of gross domestic product, in 1978. The reasons for this favourable development include the increase in the price of gold, a substantial and sustained rise in other exports and the discipline which has characterized the handling of our financial affairs. Although there was a small net outflow of long-term capital of R37 million during 1978, the “basic balance of payments”, i.e. the current account plus long-term capital movements, also showed a marked further improvement, namely from a surplus of R761 million in 1977 to one of R1 375 million in 1978.

This basic surplus was partially offset by a net outflow of so-called “short-term capital not related to reserves” of R896 million, which among other things reflected “switching” by importers from foreign to domestic sources of finance in response to widening interest rate differentials. Nevertheless, the final outcome was still an increase in the net gold and other foreign reserves of R479 million.

This demonstration of underlying balance of payments strength contributed to the further improvement in South Africa’s credit rating overseas during the past year. A clear indication of this is the success the Government had towards the end of last year in raising new foreign loans amounting to $250 million from a number of leading foreign banks. Our balance of payments policies and performance have also drawn favourable comment in a report on the South African economy presented to me a few weeks ago by a team of experts from the International Monetary Fund.

Monetary and Financial Conditions

The behaviour of our balance of payments in recent years has been closely linked with domestic monetary and financial developments. It is well known that one of the causes of our earlier balance of payments difficulties was the excessive rates of increase of the broadly defined money supply of 23% in 1973, 22% in 1974 and 17% in 1975. Subsequently, however, we succeeded in reducing these rates to as low as 9% in 1976 and 7% in 1977. During 1978 this rate increased moderately to 12%, which was fully in accordance with our policy of avoiding “overkill” and promoting growth.

The increase in the money supply during 1978 was largely the counterpart of increases in the net gold and other foreign reserves and in bank credit to the private sector. Net bank credit to the government sector, which in some previous years had shown excessive increases, actually declined by R260 million or 7½% in 1978. Total domestic credit expansion, i.e. to both the government and the private sectors, increased by only 8% during 1978, which in the circumstances was clearly not excessive.

Apart from the usual marked seasonal fluctuations, money and capital market conditions tended to ease during the year and both short and long-term interest rates declined noticeably. Except for minor temporary relapses at certain stages, share prices and stock exchange turnover generally maintained a rising trend.

General Domestic Economic Conditions

On the domestic economic front, conditions in general have also improved noticeably. The cyclical upswing which began towards the end of 1977 has continued throughout the past year. After declining from 8% in 1974 to an annual average of about 1½% during the next three years, the real rate of growth of the gross domestic product increased to about 2½% in 1978.

This recovery was largely due to the expansionary effects of the substantial increase in the value of exports and the net gold output. It also manifested itself in an increase in real gross domestic expenditure of 2½ in 1978. This increase was, however, mainly the result of moderately rising consumer spending, as real fixed investment actually decreased further by 7½% and the level of real inventories also continued to decline.

The seasonally adjusted number of registered unemployed Whites, Coloureds and Asians declined somewhat during the past year to a figure of 28 490 in February 1979, which represented only about 1½% of the comparable labour force. Recent studies by the Office of the Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister suggest, however, that the actual unemployment among these groups, as well as among Blacks, is considerably higher.

From all these figures it is evident that the present economic upswing has not yet gained adequate momentum and that the rate of real economic growth is still not satisfactory. One of the main problem areas is clearly the continuing decline in real inventories and in private fixed investment in plant, equipment and construction. This, in turn, is related to the weakness of consumer expenditure and the continued existence of substantial surplus capacity in secondary industry.

Another area of concern is the continuing high rate of inflation. Between January 1978 and January 1979 consumer prices increased by 11,2% and wholesale prices by 10,5%. It is clear that these price increases were not caused in the first instance by excessive government expenditure or undue money creation. Aggregate demand was clearly too low rather than too high during this period and did not exert undue pressure upon available labour and other resources. The real causes of the inflation must therefore be sought in such developments as further increases in administered prices, the introduction of the general sales tax in July 1978, wage and salary increases in excess of productivity, and the substantial further increase in fuel prices.

Economic Prospects

Looking to the future, I believe a good year lies ahead for the South African economy. This assessment is not based on any expected improvement in world economic conditions. On the contrary, I share the widely held view that there might well be a decline in the rate of economic growth in the United States and in some other countries in the year ahead, with unfavourable consequences for the growth of world output and trade.

My optimistic expectations for the South African economy in 1979 are based more on domestic considerations. As I interpret the facts, the South African economy is now poised to move ahead more rapidly in the months ahead. The scope for such expansion is there—in the balance of payments, in the financial system, in the enlarged infrastructure and in the surplus productive capacity and unemployment still existing in the economy.

Much, of course, depends on fiscal and monetary policy, which has now become of crucial importance and to which I shall devote considerable attention to-day. However, given appropriate policies, I would expect real private consumption to rise by more than 3% in 1979, compared with an increase of 2% in 1978. At the same time, it is probable that the downward tendency in real fixed investment and inventories will be reversed. Merchandise exports should continue to rise significantly, although probably not to the same extent as in 1978, while present indications are that the value of the net gold output should exceed the figure of R3 863 million reached in 1978. If these expectations are fulfilled, the rate of growth of the real gross domestic product should accelerate significantly and might well reach 4% in 1979.

If the present upswing were really to gain momentum in this way, it must be expected that imports, particularly of capital and intermediate goods, will in due course rise substantially and that the surplus on the current account of the balance of payments will then decline if not disappear. There are sound reasons, however, for believing that any such development would also be accompanied by rising interest rates and a favourable turn in the capital account of the balance of payments, partly as a result of the increased foreign trade credits which would normally accompany an increase in imports. For these reasons, the balance of payments is not likely to become a serious constraint on more rapid economic development in the year ahead.

Conclusions for Financial Policy

I now turn to the implications for financial policy of the analysis I have presented of the state of the economy.

In last year’s Budget Speech I announced a shift of emphasis in policy in the direction of encouraging sound economic growth. I suggested that this shift could be viewed as a movement from Phase I to Phase II of the same broad economic approach. During Phase I we had applied restrictive monetary and fiscal policies in order to improve the current account of the balance of payments and to reduce inflationary pressures emanating from excessive spending. The success of these policies, together with other favourable developments, enabled us in Phase II to adopt a more expansionary stance and a policy of “growth with financial discipline”.

I believe the time has now arrived to move into Phase III of our broad economic strategy by putting more emphasis on economic growth. The facts speak for themselves:

The conclusion to be drawn is clear: The South African economy has reaped the rewards for financial discipline and is now well placed to add momentum to its current upswing and to move into a phase of accelerated economic growth.

The importance of attaining a higher rate of economic growth must be underlined. We must generate adequate employment opportunities and a rising standard of living for all sections of our rapidly increasing population. This means among other things that our total production must rise at a higher rate and that we must generate increased profits and increased real wages and salaries. As part and parcel of this process there must, of course, be an appropriate increase in total consumer spending and investment. Only in this way will the South African economy provide adequate government revenue and an adequate supply of savings to finance essential projects in the years ahead.

It is in this light that the higher priority now being given to economic growth should be viewed. Phases I and II were essential prerequisites for Phase III. Now it is imperative that we use the available scope to attain a growth rate more in keeping with our long-term potential. Financial discipline will remain a vital part of our policy—to my mind this is basic. But in present circumstances there is no reason why such discipline could not be combined with a more vigorous growth policy. Our new policy in Phase III can therefore be described as one of “disciplined growth from a position of basic strength”, or, more briefly, “growth from strength”.

During the past year various fiscal steps were taken to stimulate certain hard-pressed sectors of the economy, and these measures have clearly contributed to the increase in our growth rate. However, from the figures I shall present to-day, it is evident that we were more successful during the past year in raising funds from non-bank sources than we had anticipated, and that, mainly for this reason, fiscal policy as a whole turned out to have been more conservative and less expansionary than we had planned in last year’s Budget. In retrospect, it might therefore be argued that we could have afforded to provide somewhat greater fiscal stimulus to the economy than, in fact, we did. Be that as it may, our conservative approach has certainly strengthened the Government’s finances and contributed significantly to the remarkable further improvement in the balance of payments. By consolidating our gains in this way, we have created an even sounder basis for the policy of more rapid economic growth we now intend to follow in Phase III.

Another development which helped to pave the way for Phase III was the acceptance by the Government on 24 January 1979 of the Interim Report on Exchange Rates of the Commission of Inquiry into the Monetary System and Monetary Policy in South Africa. In the two months which have elapsed since I announced this decision, considerable progress has been made in implementing the Commission’s recommendations. The rand is no longer pegged to the US dollar and is therefore no longer floating with the dollar in terms of other currencies. The rand-dollar rate is now increasingly being determined by supply and demand in the South African foreign exchange market. The Reserve Bank still participates actively and continually in the market as a buyer and seller of dollars, and thereby not only eliminates unnecessary exchange rate fluctuations but also exerts a large measure of control over the movements of the rand-dollar rate. In other words, as recommended by the Commission, we now have a system of managed and not free floating.

The Reserve Bank still continues to market South Africa’s gold bullion and to sell the dollar proceeds into the foreign exchange market as and when necessary. However, the proceeds from sales of Krugerrands by the Chamber of Mines are now being channelled directly to the banks and not indirectly via the Reserve Bank as formerly. This has the effect of improving the balance between supply and demand in the foreign exchange market outside the Reserve Bank, and should therefore contribute to the determination of realistic market exchange rates. It is possible that at least a part of the foreign exchange proceeds of diamond sales, which at present still accrue to the Reserve Bank, will in due course be dealt with in similar fashion.

The new system of managed floating is working well. In the initial stages there was a measure of uncertainty in the market, and some banks competed so actively for foreign exchange business that the margins between buying and selling rates declined to abnormally low levels. Although this was of considerable benefit to business enterprises and the general public, it did create problems for the banks by unduly reducing their profits on foreign exchange transactions. However, these problems have largely been ironed out and the margins have already returned to more acceptable levels. It will, of course, take some time for the foreign exchange market to develop to the required degree and for the Reserve Bank to develop market intervention techniques suitable to a system of managed floating. But in general the new system has had fewer teething troubles than we anticipated and has got off to a good start.

Significant improvements have also been effected in the forward exchange market in South Africa. The Reserve Bank is now quoting forward rates which take into account interest rate differentials between South Africa and other countries. In due course it is expected that a proper forward market will develop outside the Reserve Bank and that a better balance will be attained between forward purchases and sales, which should serve to reduce the burden on the taxpayer of any losses made by the Reserve Bank on forward transactions. Forward cover is now also being provided to private enterprises in South Africa in respect of their foreign loans, which was not previously the case.

A further change was the transformation of the old “securities rand” into the new “financial rand”. The old securities rand could only be used by non-residents to purchase quoted South African securities. The new financial rand can also be used by non-residents to make other capital investments in South Africa. As in the past, there are therefore two rand-dollar exchange rates at present, one for the “commercial rand”—formerly the official rand—and one for the new financial rand. Since the rate for financial rand normally stands at a discount in relation to the commercial rand, non-residents now have a much stronger incentive than formerly to invest in South Africa in assets other than quoted securities, as they are able to use the relatively cheaper financial rand for this purpose while still remitting their dividends at the commercial rand rate. They will also be free to repatriate their capital at any time at the financial rate.

In initiating the financial rand system, it was decided, as a transitional arrangement, to confine the use of financial rand to nonresidents—as was the case formerly with securities rand—and to require non-residents to obtain Reserve Bank approval for financial rand investments in South Africa other than in quoted securities. The Commission’s recommendation to open the financial rand market in an evolutionary manner also to capital transfers by residents, has not yet been implemented. There has also not yet been any intervention by the Reserve Bank in the financial rand market It remains the intention of the Government, however, to develop the financial rand system further along the lines recommended by the Commission.

Exchange control has performed, and still performs, an essential function in South Africa. But in South Africa, as in most other countries, exchange controls cannot be relied upon to protect the official reserves against substantial erosion at all times and under all circumstances. Controls are effective up to a point, but experience all over the world has shown that they can be circumvented both legally and illegally in various ways. If applied to non-residents, they often also serve as a deterrent to the inflow of foreign capital.

Our firm objective is therefore to move in the direction recommended by the Commission and to reduce our reliance on exchange control as we go along. Our eventual aim is the abolition of exchange control over non-residents and the merging of the commercial rand and the financial rand into a unitary currency.

Although the new exchange rate system has only been in operation for two months and has not yet been fully implemented, it has already yielded favourable results. In the first place, the managed floating of the commercial rand now affords the authorities more independence in domestic monetary and fiscal policy. The increased mobility of the rand should facilitate reserve management by the Reserve Bank and help to counter speculative capital movements, thereby also easing the pressure on exchange control. For these reasons it should greatly assist the monetary authorities in reconciling rapid economic growth with a strong balance of payments. In present circumstances it has facilitated the movement from Phase II to Phase III of our short-term economic policy.

Secondly, the new forward exchange rate arrangements have enabled the authorities to deal effectively with the problem of “switching” by importers from expensive foreign to cheap domestic sources of credit. As I indicated earlier, this switching process exerted an adverse effect on the official reserves during most of 1978. By now basing its forward rates on interest rate differentials, the Reserve Bank can effectively counter the unfavourable effect on our balance of payments of such interest rate disparities. The new arrangements have already shown impressive results in the form of a sharp increase in the official reserves.

Thirdly, the new financial rand arrangements have substantially raised the profitability of certain kinds of foreign investment in South Africa, and is already promoting increased foreign participation in the expansion of economic activity in South Africa Of course, non-resident investments in South Africa via financial rand do not directly benefit our gold and other foreign reserves. However, they do create new economic activity, employment and technical advance, which are national objectives enjoying high priority in Phase III of our policy.

The interest shown thus far by nonresidents in new financial rand investments has been encouraging. Several transactions have already been concluded and many more are known to be in the pipeline. This has resulted in a marked narrowing of the margin between the commercial rand and the financial rand—a development which reflects well on the South African economy, particularly as the commercial rand has also appreciated moderately under the new system.

Of particular importance is the fact that these favourable developments on the exchange rate front have opened the door to a more expansionary monetary policy in closer co-ordination with fiscal policy. In recent weeks several expansionary steps have accordingly been taken by the Reserve Bank in close consultation with the Treasury. Interest rates have been allowed to decline further in response to natural market forces, and the Reserve Bank has reduced its bank rate in two stages from 8½ to 7½%. The prime overdraft rate of the major commercial banks has also been progressively reduced and presently stands at 10%, compared with 12½% a year ago. The building societies have not yet seen their way clear to reduce their mortgage rates, but I expect that they will do so at the earliest possible moment.

On 12 March 1979 the Reserve Bank also announced an increase in the credit ceilings of banking institutions of 5% of their base figures as at the end of 1975. At the same time, a substantial reduction was effected in the banks’ liquid asset requirements. Taken together with the early repayment by the Treasury in February 1979 of loan levies on companies amounting to nearly R160 million and the decision to redeem Government stock maturing in February without offering any new issue, these changes add up to a significant shift in monetary policy.

The full pattern of our planned policy for the coming year will, of course, only unfold as I present my Budget proposals today, since fiscal policy forms the key element in our overall approach. As I proceed, it will become clear that our policy is directed at encouraging expansion in the private sector while maintaining strict control over Government spending. My proposals will be directed, among other things, at attaining adequate but not excessive rates of increase in bank credit, money supply and total investment and consumer expenditure. Against the background of the new exchange rate arrangements and in close co-ordination with monetary policy, all these measures are intended to form part and parcel of our policy in Phase III of “disciplined growth from a position of basic strength”.

With these policy objectives firmly in mind, I shall proceed to deal with the State’s Accounts. I start with the financial year 1978-’79.

The Financial Year 1978-’79

On the expenditure side I expect total outlays from the State Revenue Account for the financial year ending 31 March 1979 to amount to a rounded sum of R10 000 million. This amount exceeds the original estimate by about R188 million, or 1,9%. An amount of R149 million has already been appropriated in the Additional Estimates, while the balance, after taking into account expected savings, is due to unavoidably higher statutory payments, mainly in respect of interest on the public debt. I wish to avail myself of the opportunity to thank my colleagues, their departments, the provinces and all bodies receiving moneys from the Exchequer for the constraint they have exercised. I am well aware how difficult it was, but the sweet fruits will be reaped. Was it not Samson who posed the riddle “… out of the strong came forth sweetness”? I shall attempt to offer the solution to this riddle in the course of my following remarks. [Interjections.]

I expect that revenue, excluding loans, for the present financial year will exceed the original estimate of R7 668 million by about R416 million, mainly due to the particularly favourable trend in the price of gold. Particulars of increases and decreases compared with the original estimates will as usual be Tabled and I shall therefore not deal with them now.

As far as loan receipts are concerned the Government has likewise experienced a particularly favourable year: R573 million more than budgeted for is now expected. Investments by the Public Debt Commissioners have more than doubled, while National Defence Bonds and Defence Bonus Bonds have yielded considerably more than estimated. On the other hand, loan redemptions were higher than anticipated, mainly due to the earlier repayment of loan levies to companies, and repayment to the South African Reserve Bank of an International Monetary Fund loan.

The final outcome of the expected expenditure, revenue and loan transactions is that 1978-’79 will close with an estimated credit balance of R136 million, without any need for drawing on the Stabilization Account. I have deliberately aimed at a surplus in view of expected increased demands arising from our defence commitments.

Mr. Speaker, we are all very aware of the dangerous world in which we live. The public has expressed its concern about this by generously contributing to Defence and Bonus Bonds. A new issue of National Defence Bonds will be offered from 1 May to replace the series which was recently withdrawn because of the need for interest rate adjustment. I think it will be prudent to transfer R100 million from the expected surplus to the Special Defence Account to help defray increased expenditures next year, and I propose accordingly. I now come to the 1979-’80 financial year.

The Financial Year 1979-’80

The printed Estimates of Expenditure which I shall Table this afternoon provide for expenditure amounting to R11 034 million. To this should be added my budget proposals involving R156 million with which I shall deal presently. I therefore estimate total expenditure for the new financial year at R11 190 million, that is, R1 190 million, or 11,9% more than the revised estimated expenditure for the present financial year.

This increase in government expenditure includes an amount of R257 million in respect of improved conditions of service for the Public Service and bodies subsidized by the State, and R185 million to cover a 15,2% increase in interest payable on the Public Debt. If these amounts are excluded, the estimated increase in expenditure is a mere 7,5%. I mention this because I do not wish to create the impression that the financial discipline that has been built up over the past few years can now be relaxed. On the contrary, it still remains government policy strictly to limit state expenditure in order to provide the necessary scope for fiscal policy measures and to leave the private sector sufficient means and resources for development.

Full particulars of estimated expenditure will, as usual, be Tabled. I shall therefore highlight only a few of the more important expenditure votes.

Defence

An amount of R1 612,4 million is requested for Defence. In addition to the proposed transfer of R100 million from the Exchequer surplus this year, it is anticipated that a cash balance of R145 million in the Special Defence Account will be carried forward to the new financial year. In total the Defence Force will therefore have at its disposal a cash amount of R1 857,4 million, which exceeds the appropriation for the present financial year by R303 million. However, this year’s appropriation was augmented by an amount of R128 million in the form of credits in favour of the Special Defence Account which became available due to cancelled contracts. Also, substantial increases in regard to defence buildings and official quarters have been incorporated in the Votes of the Departments of Public Works and of Community Development.

Improved Conditions of Service

An amount of R257 million will be required in respect of improved conditions of service in order to improve the salary structure of employees in the Public Service and statutory bodies with effect from 1 April 1979. Full particulars will shortly be made available by the Public Service Commission to the departments concerned. The Government is grateful to be able to express its appreciation to public servants in this way.

Export Trade Promotion

The feasibility of recommendations by the Study Group on Export Promotion Measures, which proposed an amended system of export promotion, is at present being considered by the Government. Sound budgetary practice requires that a limit be placed on the amount which can be appropriated each year.

I am therefore at present considering, in consultation with my colleague the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, the establishment of an Export Promotion Fund. This fund can, if necessary, be strengthened from time to time by Parliamentary appropriations and will be able the more readily to absorb fluctuations in export promotion expenditures.

In next year’s estimates we shall be providing nearly three times as much for export promotion as was originally provided for last year, and although I am aware of problems now being experienced by exporters due to the recent appreciation of the rand in the spot and forward exchange markets, I am confident that these will be gradually overcome.

Other

A number of other expenditure programmes deserve mention.

The allocation to Soekor increases from R20,1 million in the current year to R37,8 million in order to intensify the search for oil. The major part of the increase will be used to finance the programme for a second oil drill. I regard this as a type of insurance premium for our future security in the energy field.

Educational facilities and services for all population groups once again receive priority, as does housing. The contribution to the Urban Transport Fund will increase from R2 million in the current year to R8 million, enabling a start to be made with limited financial support to urban transport projects of local authorities.

I should also like to mention here that I hope to receive by the middle of the year the full report of the Browne Committee, which is conducting an in-depth investigation into the expenditures and financing of local authorities. The delay in the completion of the report is due to an extension of the terms of reference to include the Black Administration Boards. As soon as the report is received it will have our immediate attention.

†Budget Proposals: Supplementary Expenditure

I have already stated that I shall propose that a further amount of R156 million be made available for inclusion in the Supplementary Estimates. The particulars are as follows:

Pensions and other Benefits

The annual Budget is an event which creates expectations also amongst the aged. I am pleased to be able to say that I can once again announce meaningful concessions to pensioners and other social beneficiaries.

Particulars of the proposed concessions are set out more fully in the document which I shall Table this afternoon. The concessions include a R9 per month increase in social pensions of Whites, which means that maximum pensions are being increased by 10,2% to R97 and minimum pensions to R57 per month. To further narrow pension differentials among the various population groups, pensions payable to Coloureds and Indians are to be increased by 13,1%, and those payable to Blacks by 15,8%.

Other forms of social assistance such as maintenance allowances, family allowances, and settlers’ allowances will also be increased. All these concessions take effect on 1 October 1979.

The existing differences between consolidated pensions and other pensions payable in terms of the Military Pensions Act, 1976, will be phased out gradually. Hence consolidated pensions will be raised, with effect from 1 April 1979, by an amount equal to one-third of the difference in each particular case. The concession may in certain cases of 100% disablement result in an increase of as much as R58 per month.

I should also like to propose that civil pensions be increased by 10% with effect from 1 April 1979, subject to a minimum increase of R25 per month for Whites, R17 per month for Coloureds and Indians and R14 per month for Blacks.

Everything possible will be done to arrange for payment during May of the civil and military pension concessions which take effect on 1 April 1979. The total cost of these concessions will amount to R59,8 million for 1979-’80 and R98 million for a full financial year.

Sasol

I have previously referred to the work done by the Interdepartmental Committee for the Determination of Capital Investment Priorities. The object of the Committee is to inquire into and to make recommendations on the guidelines to be followed and the priorities to be set in the use of scarce capital resources in the public sector.

The Committee has found that the present trend of diverting an increasingly higher proportion of investment funds to the public sector does not, generally speaking, tend to promote the country’s economic growth potential to best advantage and that it often tends to place a considerable burden on available capital resources.

The Committee has recommended, and the recommendation is acceptable to me, that we should make every endeavour to reach a stage by the middle eighties where the share of the public sector in total investment is limited to the levels which applied during the more prosperous sixties; that is to say, approximately 40%.

Meanwhile, in view of the repeated oil crises of the past few years and the interruption in regular crude oil supplies, the Government has decided to proceed immediately with the extension of Sasol II at an estimated—escalated—cost of R3 276 million. This is the biggest single project to be undertaken in South Africa.

The enlarged Sasol II will provide South Africa with a strategic industry which should render us far less vulnerable to the capriciousness of foreign countries, it will rely on well understood techniques, save foreign exchange, provide employment to thousands, tend to stimulate the economy and make a positive contribution towards the solution of the energy problem. But it is necessary that the implications of the venture be seen in fuller perspective.

The Priorities Committee originally estimated that the public sector would need nearly R45 000 million, at 1977 prices, in capital funds over the next eight years, or nearly 50% of total projected gross domestic fixed investment over that period. When the capital needs of Sasol II-extension are added, this percentage increases to more than 52%, with a peak of approximately 70% in 1979-’80, whereafter it gradually declines.

If, then, the aim is to pursue a policy of the gradual reduction of the public sector’s relative share in the country’s total capital budget, the entire public sector will once again have to make a critical re-evaluation of all new and planned capital projects in order to determine a revised list of priorities. The main task of the Priorities Committee in the year ahead will be to submit recommendations to precisely this effect.

South Africa has found it necessary to invest on a big scale in capital-intensive development and infra-structural projects, especially during the first half of the seventies. Gross domestic fixed investment over the period 1970-’76 amounted to approximately 27% of the gross domestic product, compared with less than 22% in the years 1962-’69. Investment in the Sasol II-extension will temporarily intensify this trend and, on coming into operation, will result in an investment of more than R350 000 per additional job opportunity compared with an average of approximately R10 000 per additional worker in manufacturing as a whole.

Seen from an employment point of view this is not a trend to be encouraged, and from a financing point of view, moreover, we cannot afford a capital commitment of this order of magnitude. I wonder whether the time has not arrived for an in-depth interdisciplinary investigation into the possibilities of gradually moving towards a position of better long-term equilibrium between capital and labour in all sectors of the economy. I am sure the Kleu Committee, which is presently investigating the country’s industrial strategy, can make an important contribution here.

Of course, it must always be borne in mind that the Sasol project provides the private sector with a golden opportunity to expand its activities in many fields. It is estimated that a minimum amount of R500 million, and hopefully much more, will be invested in the Sasol Group by private—i.e. non-Government—interests. The requirement for these funds will be spread over the longest possible period and, accordingly, there appears to be no good reason, in the prevailing climate of higher growth expectations, why potential investors in Sasol need to hold back from participating meanwhile in other investment opportunities as they become available.

As a contribution from State funds, I wish to propose that, apart from the amount of R100 million to be voted in the 1979-’80 Budget as the second of three equal Exchequer instalments to Sasol II, an additional sum of R50 million be provided for in the Supplementary Estimates as a first contribution towards the financing of the extension of Sasol II.

If we carefully and judiciously construct the financing package and succeed in raising a substantial participation from the private sector, I have no doubt whatsoever that for decades to come the oil-from-coal project will establish South Africa as a leader in this important source of energy. Perhaps what Dean Inge once said will be true of South Africa, that “The nations which have put mankind most in their debt have been small states… ".

Agricultural Matters

As a result of a severe drought in the Western Cape, the Government introduced at the end of last year a special drought aid programme of the order of R70 million—maximum—for this area. The aid programme undoubtedly brought much-needed relief, but as a result of a further general weakening of the economic position of the farmer, organized agriculture and other bodies made further urgent representations for relief.

My colleague the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and I decided immediately to appoint a Working Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. A. S. Jacobs, General Manager of the South African Reserve Bank, to investigate the economic position of the farmer, and agricultural financing in general. The Committee recently submitted its recommendations on the short-term problems involved, and will soon submit a report on certain long-term aspects of the problem.

The first series of recommendations of the Committee have been accepted by the Government and the decisions in brief are:

1. (a) Special assistance by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure
   Additional amounts of R2 million for the consolidation of debt and R1 million for production credit have already been included in the printed Estimates for 1979-’80.
2. (b) Subsidy on debt carried forward
   It has been decided to subsidize by 3½% the interest rate on farmers’ debt, carried forward by co-operatives in the Western Cape, in respect of the means of production and fodder acquired for the 1978-’79 season. Since the summer rainfall area is also experiencing severe drought conditions, the carry-over of production credits outstanding from the present season in drought-stricken areas of the summer grain region will also be subsidized at the same rate.
   I propose that the total subsidy of R1,4 million be included in the Supplementary Estimates. The continuation of this form of aid will be reconsidered next year in the light of the then prevailing circumstances.
3. (c) Subsidy for comprehensive crop insurance
   A system of comprehensive crop insurance whereby the farmer can in a single policy safeguard himself against a series of agricultural risks, has for some time been available to maize and wheat farmers, but this scheme is relatively expensive and therefore not very attractive. As a result of the countrywide drought conditions and the fact that such an insurance scheme will enhance the farmer’s credit-worthiness and reduce the State’s involvement, it has been decided to subsidize one quarter of the total premium expense, to the order of R5 million per annum, for a period of five years to enable the scheme sooner to become self-financing. An amount of R5 million will be included for this purpose in the Supplementary Estimates.
4. (d) Interest subsidy on farm mortgages
   In view of lower interest rates, the more accommodating policy of the Land Bank in respect of farm mortgages, as well as the abolition of the interest rate subsidy to home owners, the interest subsidy scheme on farm mortgages will be gradually phased out over a period of five years.
5. (e) Unfair competition between cooperatives and other enterprises
   The liability for tax of co-operatives is already accepted policy. Another important principle, that of differentiated interest rates on capital required to finance the various activities of cooperatives, was the subject of inquiry by the Jacobs Committee. The Government accepts the Committee’s recommendation that certain activities of cooperatives should henceforth be financed at market-related interest rates by the Land Bank and no longer at preferential rates.
   The Government has also decided on a number of other aspects concerning competition between co-operatives and other enterprises, such as the scope and nature of co-operative activities, bonus payments, licence fees, industrial legislation, decentralization concessions and liens.

Details of all the aforementioned aspects will be announced shortly.

Consolidation of Black States

The printed Estimates provide an amount of R43,6 million for the consolidation of Black States. Hon. members are aware that despite its high priority rating, the consolidation programme has not been able to proceed as fast as might have been hoped because of the heavy demands on the Exchequer in recent years. I now propose that a further amount of R20 million be appropriated for this purpose. Together with an amount of R5,7 million which will become available from the resale of vacated land, a total amount of approximately R69,3 million will be available for expenditure on the consolidation of the Black States in 1979-’80, which is 63% more than for this year.

Stabilization of the Price of Bread

As a contribution towards alleviating the effect of the imposition of the general sales tax on the lower income groups, an amount of R20 million was made available to stabilize food prices in the current financial year. Due to cost increases, especially of fuel, the amount included for the subsidization of wheat and wheat products, R50 million, will be insufficient to avert a substantial upward adjustment in the price of bread later this year. I wish to propose that, as temporary bridging assistance, provision be made for a further amount of R20 million as a subsidy on bread prices in order to avoid any undue increase in the price of bread later this year.

The total of all my proposals for increased expenditures amounts to R156,2 million. I should like to deal next with the revenue position for 1979-’80.

Revenue 1979-’80

The printed Estimates of Revenue which I shall lay upon the Table this afternoon, contain particulars of the expected receipts under the different heads of revenue. As is customary, these estimates are made on the existing basis of taxation, before taking into account the taxation proposals I shall make today.

Total revenue—excluding loans and loan levies—is estimated at R8 995 million, or 11,3% more than the revised estimates for this year. Of this, the contribution of Inland Revenue—apart from loan levies—will probably amount to R7 556 million, or 14,6% more than the current year. In contrast, customs and excise duties at R1 439 million will yield about R54 million less than this year’s figure.

On the existing basis of taxation the total estimated expenditure of R11 190 million will therefore exceed estimated revenue by R2 195 million. Before dealing with the financing of this deficit, I wish to make certain taxation proposals.

Taxation Proposals

Surcharge on Imports

As I have said more than once, the import surcharge introduced in 1977 is a temporary fiscal measure which will be phased out as circumstances permit. I now wish to propose that the surcharge be reduced by 5% from 12,5 to 7,5%. This reduction must be passed on by the trader to the consumer in the form of reduced prices at the earliest possible opportunity. In most cases the price reduction to the final consumer should be more than 5%.

The cost to the Exchequer will amount to R160 million in 1979-’80.

Motor cycles

Because of the fuel situation I propose that the 5% ad valorem excise and customs duty on motor cycles, auto-cycles and cycles fitted with auxiliary engines with an engine capacity of less than 200 cc be abolished. The loss of revenue for 1979-’80 is estimated at R300 000.

Wine and fermented apple, pear and orange beverages

Last year the excise duty on unfortified wine was reduced by 3 cents per litre to 4 cents per litre because it became evident that the excise duty of 7 cents per litre tended to have a detrimental effect on the sale of natural wines.

Turnover in the wine industry as a whole still has not come up to expectations and although I do not think that the remaining 4 cents per litre is a material cost factor, especially for the more expensive types, I nevertheless would like to propose, as a gesture, that the excise duty on unfortified, fortified as well as sparkling wines be reduced by 1 cent per litre. In order not to disturb the relative position of each in the overall picture, excise duty on unfortified, fortified and sparkling fermented apple, pear and orange beverages will also be reduced by 1 cent per litre.

I expect of the wine industry that the prices, particularly of the less expensive natural wines, will immediately be adjusted downwards so as to pass on the benefit of the concession to the consumer. The loss of revenue for 1979-’80 is estimated at R2,2 million.

Grain Spirits

The Board of Trade and Industries examined the position of grain spirits vis-á-vis that of cane and wine spirits. To give effect to the Board’s recommendations I propose that the excise duty on grain spirits be increased from 74 579 cents to 80 612 cents per 100 litres absolute alcohol and that an effective duty of 79 222 cents per 100 litres absolute alcohol be payable when grain spirits are used in the production of gin.

The additional revenue from this source is estimated to amount to approximately R1 million.

Diesel vehicles

The necessity for South Africa to use fuel sparingly need not be stressed. My colleague the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and of Environmental Planning and Energy has repeatedly warned that the tendency to change over to diesel-powered motor-cars and light goods vehicles results in an undesirable increase in the use of diesel fuel which in turn creates an imbalance in the optimum utilization of the country’s oil supplies. Available diesel should rather be reserved for heavy goods vehicles and stationary engines.

I therefore propose that an additional ad valorem excise and customs duty of 10% be imposed on diesel-powered motor-cars, station wagons and similar dual-purpose motor vehicles, minibuses, light goods vehicles with a gross vehicle mass not exceeding 2 450 kg, and on certain of the fighter types of vehicles designed to negotiate unusual terrain.

The revenue from this source for 1979-’80 is estimated at R4 million.

Government Notices to give effect to the amendments in respect of the import surcharge, excise and ad valorem excise and customs duties will be published tomorrow. The amended and new duties will become effective on 29 March 1979 and be applicable to all the imported goods concerned which have not been entered for domestic consumption before tomorrow, and on all the excisable goods concerned which by tomorrow have not been removed from the premises of manufacturers and owners of warehouses licensed by the Department of Customs and Excise.

The net loss of customs and excise revenue as a result of all these proposals will amount to R157,5 million in 1979-’80.

Tax Reform

In introducing the Sales Tax Bill last year, I stated that it was the most comprehensive tax measure to be applied in South Africa since the introduction of the Income Tax Act in 1914 and that it heralded the start of what could be termed a major tax reform programme. I explained that it was the intention to bring about a gradual shift from direct to indirect taxation in order to achieve a more balanced distribution of the tax burden over the whole population and a stabilization of the tax flow, which would ensure that shortfalls in one type of tax would not necessarily give rise to tax increases in the years to come.

This year I hope to take another major step forward on this road thanks, chiefly, to the manoeuvrability afforded me by this major new source of revenue, namely the general sales tax, and the underlying position of strength from which we are proceeding as a result of our disciplined approach to financial policy in recent years.

Before I spell out what I have in mind here, I want to refer to two aspects of taxation which are being closely studied at present, and also to deal with what might be called a few “housekeeping” items aimed at tax relief. Machiavelli once said “Severities should be dealt out all at once, that by their suddenness they may give less offence; benefits should be handed out drop by drop that they may be relished the more”. [Interjections.] I shall start with two “severities”.

The first relates to fringe benefits. These are generally resorted to more and more as a method of avoiding taxation and as substitutes for cash payments. The employee is often nowadays more interested in what fringe benefits are offered him than in his cash remuneration. This tendency is not unexpected in any country with a progressive income tax system and a relatively high rate of inflation but by the same token is not a particularly healthy phenomenon. Both benefits are taxable, but whereas cash payments are readily ascertainable and are fully taxed, fringe benefits as a type of remuneration are not always as clearly identifiable or reported, resulting in many instances in them either escaping tax or not being taxed at a value commensurate with the benefit enjoyed by the recipient.

Both the Standing Commission on Taxation and the Department of Inland Revenue have been studying this problem for some time and a report on the matter is expected any time now. The Chairman of the Commission has, meanwhile, given me an outline of the findings and recommendations. I intend publishing this report towards the middle of the year so that comments on the practical application of the proposals can be submitted and considered before any decisions are taken. I want to stress that the Government has not in any way committed itself to any kind of decision here.

The second “severity” I wish to refer to is due to the constant search for new sources of revenue to broaden the tax base and thereby, to a meaningful extent, to alleviate the burden of some existing forms of taxation. The Department of Inland Revenue has submitted proposals for a very limited and modest capital gains tax to the Standing Commission. These were considered by the Commission some time ago already.

Many misconceptions and even fears have arisen as to the form such a tax would take. Its inhibiting nature has been exaggerated out of all proportion, its place in the tax “mixture” is not always appreciated, and sight is quite often lost of the fact that while normal earnings are fully taxed, capital gains which also do add to the wealth of the recipient, escape tax completely. This to me is not altogether fair. I feel we should seek a just balance. As a result I have requested the Secretary for Inland Revenue to publish for comment a draft Bill on this matter in the second half of this year. I am encouraged to invite public debate on these measures because of the good results obtained by the Department of Inland Revenue in the course of its consultations on the general sales tax last year. Once again I want to stress that the Government has not committed itself to this kind of tax in any shape or form.

And now for the “housekeeping” items:

Walvis Bay

Since 1 September 1977 Walvis Bay has again been administered as part of the Cape Province and residents have become subject to the South African income tax laws. South West African income tax rates are lower with the result that residents of Walvis Bay have since been faced with certain transitional problems.

The potential depopulation of the area is viewed with concern by the Government and although taxation is not the only factor in the new situation, I wish to propose that a special temporary diminishing rebate on normal tax be allowed to persons resident in Walvis Bay on the last day of the year of assessment, if they were so resident for a period of at least six months during such year. This rebate will commence from the year ended 28 February 1978, and will be calculated on a sliding scale of 100% of the difference between the South West African and the South African tax for the first year, diminishing each year thereafter by 25% until phased out by 1981.

Provisional Tax

I wish to propose, next, that the threshold at which provisional tax becomes payable be increased from R500 to R1 000. The effect will be that taxpayers with incomes of less than R1 000 per annum from sources other than remuneration will be relieved of the duty of completing two provisional tax forms in addition to their annual income tax return. Of course, all income from whatever source must still be reflected in the annual tax returns and the tax thereon will be reflected in the assessments.

Although this measure does not entail the sacrifice of any revenue, an amount of R10 million in tax and loan levy receipts will be deferred to the following year when it will again be collected on assessment.

Tax Rate: Equalization for Farmers

A farmer’s income is all too often subject to the vagaries of nature. The problem of increased taxation caused by inordinately high incomes in exceptionally good years has been catered for ever since 1968 by the introduction of a system of five-year equalization of tax rates. However, it could have the effect, for example, that when four good years are succeeded by a bad one, the bad year’s taxable income could be taxed at a higher rate than that which would have applied had the actual rate applicable to such income been used.

I have considered the representations of organized agriculture in this regard and would, therefore, like to propose that, with effect from the tax year ending on 29 February or 30 June 1980, as the case may be, the rate to be applied to the taxable income derived by a farmer who has elected to be taxed at equalized rates should be the lower of the equalized rate or the actual rate applicable to such taxable income.

This proposal does not involve any sacrifice of tax revenue for 1979-’80 although for a full year the loss is expected to amount to R3 million.

Estate Duty

Substantial concessions have been made in recent years to minimize the impact of inflation on the taxable values of estates, but the problem remains, as someone reminded me the other day, that “where there’s a will there are relatives”. [Interjections.]

I now wish to propose that the primary rebate and the rebates applicable to children and the surviving spouse of a deceased be increased by R5 000 each. This means, for example, that where a deceased is survived by a wife and two children his estate must have a dutiable value in excess of R140 000 before it will be liable for estate duty.

In addition, I wish to propose that the maximum allowable deduction from the total value of an estate in respect of insurance policy proceeds, local registered stock and Land Bank debentures be increased from R70 000 to R80 000, of which not more than R40 000 may be in the form of insurance policy proceeds. This will enable a testator to provide for the payment of estate duty on an estate of up to R532 000 without the need for disposal of any other assets to meet the tax.

The increased abatements and this enhanced deduction will apply to the estates of persons dying on or after 1 April 1979. These concessions will entail a loss of R1,5 million in 1979-’80 and R4 million in a full year.

Retirement Gratuities

Remuneration, and consequently retirement benefits, have increased substantially in money terms during the past few years. I feel the time has arrived to increase the maximum exemption from tax at present allowed in respect of a gratuity paid to an employee by reason of his retirement or impending retirement, and I propose that the current amount of R12 000 be raised to R15 000.

The loss of revenue for 1979-’80 is estimated at R0,5 million and for a full year at R2 million.

Pension and Retirement Annuity Funds

The Income Tax Act has for years included stipulations designed to encourage people to make provision for their retirement or for their dependants in the event of early death. Whereas the contributions of employees and employers to pension funds can, in most cases, provide for adequate retirement benefits, it is not always the case as far as self-employed persons are concerned.

Many businesses and professional partnerships have been converted into companies for the sole purpose of securing the tax advantages flowing from a pension fund, but this solution, I know, is not possible for all professions. I have considered the alternative of resolving the problem by allowing partners in, or owners of, businesses and professional practices to become members of a pension fund established for the benefit of their own employees, but for a variety of reasons this solution is not considered practical in all cases.

I therefore wish to propose that the present limitation of R3 500 on contributions to a retirement annuity fund by a self-employed person be amended to the effect that from the tax year ending on 29 February or 30 June 1980, allowable contributions to such a fund be restricted to 15% of the member’s taxable income derived from his business or profession—excluding investment income—or R3 500, whichever is the greater.

In view of this new ceiling I also wish to propose that the maximum amount allowable in respect of members’ contributions to a pension fund be fixed at 7½% of the member’s taxable income derived from his employment or R1 750, whichever is the greater.

The loss of revenue—including consequential loan levy loss—for 1979-’80 is estimated at R5 million and for a full year at R10 million.

Transactions in Marketable Securities

In order to redress somewhat the present imbalance in costs between dealing in securities here and abroad and to induce the market to make greater use of local facilities, I am of the opinion that a measure of relief should be given. I feel, however, that the concession should be of a general nature so as to embrace transactions by both residents and non-residents.

I therefore wish to propose that the rate of stamp duty payable in respect of registration of transfers of marketable securities and the rate of marketable securities tax payable in respect of every purchase of such securities by a stockbroker on behalf of a client, be reduced by one-third from 1½ to 1% in respect of transactions in such securities concluded on or after 1 April 1979. The loss of revenue is estimated at R10 million.

While dealing with matters affecting the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, I am pleased to be able to announce that the Exchange will initiate and operate a market in Krugerrand. An open market where prices and turnovers are published daily ought to be to everybody’s advantage.

Workers’ Training Allowances

Flowing from the recommendations of the Naudé Committee, the Department of Labour undertook the implementation of an in-service training scheme similar to that at present enjoyed by Blacks, for all other workers, and I am happy to say that enabling legislation will be introduced by my colleague the hon. the Minister of Labour during the current session of Parliament.

We need a more efficient and more highly skilled labour force in South Africa and I propose to contribute towards the achievement of this aim by amending the present provision for Black workers’ training allowances in the Income Tax Act to embrace the training of all population groups once the enabling labour legislation has been approved by Parliament.

This concession will cost the Exchequer R3 million in 1979-’80 and R10 million in a full year.

Income Tax Surcharge on Gold and Diamond Mining Companies

A differential 2½% tax surcharge imposed on gold and diamond mining companies over and above the normal company surcharge has been levied for many a year purely as a revenue-raising measure.

I think the time has now come for its removal, and I propose accordingly. It will apply in respect of all tax years ending during the 12-month period up to 31 March 1980.

The loss of revenue will amount to R22 million for the 1979-’80 financial year and R18 million for a full year. The higher loss next year is due to the recoupment of surcharge paid at the higher rate in 1978-’79.

Loan Levy

Recently I have agreed to the earlier repayment of company loan levies for the 1973 and 1974 tax years. I am fully conscious of the need for companies to improve their profitability and cash flows in times of lower turnovers and higher costs. By now proposing to lower, for all companies, the present loan levy of 15% to 10% and thus, for example, effecting a reduction in the 48% composite rate of tax and loan levies for non-gold and non-diamond mining companies to 46%, I trust that companies will be encouraged to advance their investment and expansion plans wherever possible.

I propose that this reduction be granted in respect of all tax years ending during the 12 months up to 31 March 1980.

The cost to the Exchequer will be R111 million for 1979-’80 and R94 million for a full year. Once again, the higher loss for 1979-’80 is due to the recoupment of loan levy paid at the higher rate in 1978-’79.

Divorced Persons

I have received representations from divorced or separated persons that they should be treated as married persons for income tax purposes. I am unable to agree to such a general change in the law. However, the position of the divorced or separated parent who wholly or mainly supports children of the dissolved marriage out of his care or her own resources deserves special consideration. At present such a parent is entitled to an additional abatement of R500 but is treated as unmarried for tax purposes. I now propose that he or she be taxed as a married person.

The loss of revenue for 1979-’80 is estimated at R1 million and for a full year at R3 million.

Financing Requirements

Considering the substantial list of concessions I have announced thus far, it is necessary to return for a moment to the Exchequer accounts. Hon. members will recall that after allowing for the proposed increased expenditures, total Exchequer outlay for next year will amount to R11 190 million. Similarly, after allowing for the proposed concessions on the revenue side, customs and excise receipts are expected to total R1 282 million. In the case of Inland Revenue I have proposed various tax concessions amounting to R52 million, excluding consequential loan levy relief, which will reduce expected revenue from this source to R7 504 million.

In sum, the Exchequer can thus expect to collect a total of R8 786 million, which leaves a deficit—before borrowing—of R2 404 million. After adding loan redemptions totalling R1 112 million the financing requirements at this stage amount to R3 516 million.

I propose that this amount be financed as follows:

This leaves me with a deficit of only R16 million before allowing for foreign borrowing or the utilization of any available balances. Nietzsche once said: “Gentlemen, let us distrust our first reactions; they are invariably much too favourable.” I invite you, therefore, to bear with me for another few minutes to see what the final position amounts to.

The healthy state of the Exchequer represents an achievement which I think the Republic can be justly proud of. It probably reflects at least as sound a position as is to be found in today’s world and proves to me once again that in time of need South Africans, as a nation, are prepared to accept the yoke of increased taxation, of higher duties and imposts, and of disciplined expenditure and conservative financing.

I therefore feel duty bound when opportunity presents itself to propose meaningful concessions to the man who has been responsible for contributing so uncomplainingly to the State coffers. I am referring here to the individual income taxpayer. The relief I am anxious to give him is closely bound up with what I earlier called a major step forward in the reform of the tax system. The reform revolves around improvements in the system of taxation of Blacks, more liberal abatements, a more gradual run-down of the abatements themselves, and a reduction in marginal tax rates.

Taxation on Blacks

In last year’s Budget Speech, I mentioned that an Interdepartmental Committee was at that time studying the graduated income tax payable under the Black Taxation Act of 1969 and that attention would be given to the disparities which existed between the tax rates and taxes payable under this Act and under the Income Tax Act, 1962.

The Committee has concluded its work and the Commission for Plural Affairs, after consultation with the Department of Inland Revenue, has made certain recommendations to my colleague the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development. These include:

1. (a) that with effect from the earliest possible date relief be granted to Black income tax payers by raising the threshold from which liability for tax commences from R361 to R1 201, and by adjusting the tax rates to afford relief to all remaining taxpayers;
2. (b) that steps be taken to achieve parity between the income tax payable by Black and other taxpayers; and
3. (c) that the phasing in of these steps be done with due regard to the costs involved and their administrative feasibility, but that the aim must be to achieve parity within the next three years.

I am glad to be able to announce that these recommendations have been accepted by the Government and will be implemented with effect from 1 May 1979 in three phases. The Black States have taxing powers in terms of the Black States Constitution Act of 1971, inter alia, in regard to the income of their citizens wherever resident in the Republic. Approval by Parliament of these measures can affect only those Blacks who are not citizens of one or the other of the Black States. In order that tax relief be as widely based as possible, the Governments of the various Black States were duly consulted and have agreed to grant similar relief to their citizens. The Treasuries of the Black States are, however, unable to absorb this loss and the Government has decided to compensate them accordingly. The position will be reviewed annually in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time.

The loss of revenue to be borne in 1979-’80 is estimated at R33 million for this first phase.

Individual Income Tax

I now wish to deal with personal income tax. I think it was Browning who once said: “The best is yet to be…”! I shall, however, have to leave that to hon. members’ judgment. The amount of tax payable is determined by two factors, abatements deducted from income to arrive at the taxable amount and the rate of tax.

The main abatements have remained fixed for some time now and I propose that they be increased as follows—

At present the aggregate of these abatements is reduced by R2 for every R10 by which taxable income exceeds R5 000. I now propose, in addition to the higher abatements, that their rate of diminution be decreased to R1 for every R10 of the taxable income in excess of R5 000.

The introduction of these concessions alone entails a very considerable sacrifice of tax revenue but I deem it desirable to go one step further at this stage and announce substantial changes also in the tax rates—if only to disprove the saying that “taxes are a good investment because they always increase”! [Interjections.]

The rates of tax which I now propose and which will be Tabled in detail in the form of tax proposals, have the following features—

1. (a) the commencing rate for married persons is reduced from 9 to 7% and that for single taxpayers from 12 to 10%;
2. (b) the rate of progression is evened out and, in the case of single taxpayers the acceleration in the progression on taxable amounts between R4 000 and R8 000 is reduced; and
3. (c) a reduction from 60 to 55% is effected in the top marginal rate of tax, applicable to that portion of the taxable amount in excess of R30 000—previously R28 000—in the case of married persons, and in excess of R22 000 in respect of unmarried persons.

The sum total of these concessions will afford considerable and, I feel, just tax relief to individual taxpayers. Normally one would have considered reducing loan levies on individuals before adjusting tax rates, but I feel it preferable to retain these levies for the time being and to grant relief in the form of abatements and rate concessions for two reasons: Firstly, it affords an opportunity to make substantial progress with our tax reform programme and, secondly, it provides the sort of fiscal flexibility which proved so useful last year in permitting earlier loan levy repayments for the purpose of stimulating consumption expenditure.

It is estimated that the expected yield of income tax from individuals will be reduced by as much as R394 million—including a consequential reduction of R36 million in loan levy—in 1979-’80 and by no less than R516 million—including R46 million in loan levy—in a full year.

Benchley once remarked that “there are several ways to apportion the family income, all of which are unsatisfactory”. With due respect for him, however, I believe I may have succeeded in achieving a more just apportionment of earnings between the taxpayer and the tax collector.

Permit me to quote just a few examples to illustrate the effects of these proposals:

1. (1) The abatements for a married person with two children and with R500 in medical fees and insurance will henceforth only fall away entirely at the R37 000 income level as against the present R18 500 level.
2. (2) The total tax plus loan levy payable by married persons under the age of 60 years with two children will be as follows:

1. (3) In the case of married persons over the age of 60 years with no minor children, liability for income tax will commence at an income level of R2 501 as against the present R1 901.

These proposals will apply to the tax years ending 29 February or 30 June 1980, as the case may be.

More needs to be done in the field of income tax reform but I feel further steps will have to wait for another day. There is an old English saying: “Always put off until tomorrow the things you should not do today.”

Taxation of Income of Married Women

There is, nevertheless, one further concession which I feel should still be made today, one that will apply to the earnings of married women.

Hon. members will recall that in dealing with this matter in the House two years ago I said that I agreed with the conclusion of the Standing Commission on Taxation and the Department of Inland Revenue that the root of our problem is rather the high marginal rate of income tax on individuals and that it would be desirable to lower it as soon as the fiscal situation permitted.

I am therefore grateful that we have succeeded to an important extent in doing just that, but I feel I can go one step further. I wish to propose that for tax purposes the deduction of R750 from the earnings of married women be increased to R900 with effect from the tax years ending 29 February or 30 June 1980, as the case may be.

The estimated loss of revenue—including the loan levy—for 1979-’80 will be R13,5 million and for a full year R18 million.

Foreign Loans and the Stabilization Account

The effect of all the income tax concessions on individuals will be to reduce loan levy receipts by R38 million. If one adds to this the tax concessions totalling R403 million in respect of income tax, taxation on Blacks and the earnings of married women, the earlier deficit of R16 million will now increase to R457 million.

A source of financing which I have not dealt with yet is foreign borrowing. South Africa’s credit rating abroad has improved remarkably during the past year and the borrowing situation in the international market is better than it has been for quite some time. I should therefore like to propose that a portion of this deficit be financed by raising new loans abroad amounting to the equivalent of R200 million. Of this amount a substantial sum has already been secured, leaving only a small balance still to be found. By adding to this the surplus of R36 million carried over from 1978-’79, and by drawing an amount of R221 million as a balancing transfer from the Stabilization Account, I feel confident that we shall be able to achieve the targets we have set for ourselves in the coming year.

Summary

As is customary, a summary of the Government’s accounts is subjoined in the printed version of the Budget Speech.

Conclusion

The Budget I have introduced today, like that of last year, contains elements of structural tax reform and elements of short-term economic policy.

The mam elements of tax reform are the lowering of and adjustments to income tax scales, the increases in abatements, the decrease in the rate of diminution of abatements, and the initiation of a programme of phasing out the disparities between income taxes paid by Blacks and others.

Following upon the introduction of the general sales tax and the reductions in direct taxes announced in last year’s Budget, these new steps should have the effect of shifting the burden of taxation somewhat further from direct towards indirect taxation, which remains one of the long-term objectives of tax reform in South Africa.

In regard to short-term policy, the Budget makes it clear that it is not our aim to stimulate the economy in the first instance through increased government spending. On the contrary, provision is made for an increase in government spending of less than 12%, which is not much more than the present rate of inflation. What our policy is aimed at, is the encouragement of expansion in the private sector. It is to this end that I have proposed net tax and loan levy concessions amounting to R762 million.

Taking the Budget as a whole, the main fiscal stimulus to the private sector will be imparted through the planned increase in the total deficit, excluding borrowing, of 46,5% to a figure of R2 807 million.

This increase amounts to about 2% of gross domestic product and represents a significant addition to the direct income generated by the Government’s fiscal operations. It should have a substantial expansionary impact on private consumer and investment spending, and therefore on the rate of economic growth.

As part of the proposed financing of this deficit, provision is furthermore made for the transfer of the expected balance of R36 million at the end of the current financial year to the new year and a drawing on the Stabilization Account of R221 million. These financing methods should have the effect of moderately increasing the money supply and thereby also promoting economic expansion.

The overriding conclusion to be drawn from this Budget is, I believe, that financial discipline is the key to the success of economic policy. In difficult circumstances, South Africa has responded to the economic challenges confronting it with courage and determination. When the situation called for restrictive action, government spending was curbed, taxes were raised, bank credit and the money supply were restrained and interest rates were allowed to rise. Sacrifices were made by both the public and private sectors. Today we are reaping the benefits of these policies. There can be no question that it was our strategy of discipline and consolidation which laid the foundation for today’s Budget and for our new co-ordinated fiscal and monetary policy of “growth from strength”.

We have every reason to face the future with confidence and assurance.

In conclusion, I wish to pay tribute to Mr. A. J. Pretorius, Secretary to the Treasury, who is retiring on 31 March 1979 after nearly nine years as Head of the Treasury and no fewer than 45 years in the Public Service. Mr. Pretorius’s wide knowledge of banking, acquired through service in the Office of the Registrar of Financial Institutions, and of control over government expenditure acquired over many years of distinguished service, has been of inestimable value to me, to his colleagues in other departments and to his staff. His integrity, ability and immense dedication to the task at hand are a splendid example to the whole Public Service. On behalf of the Government I wish him and Mrs. Pretorius a well-earned, long and healthy retirement.

Mr. Pretorius will be succeeded on 1 April 1979 by Mr. S. J. P. du Plessis, currently Chief: Financial Control of the Treasury, an officer of wide knowledge and experience of the Treasury and Treasury-related matters.

Mr. Speaker, I now lay upon the Table—

1. (1) Estimate of Expenditure to be defrayed from State Revenue Account during the year ending 31 March 1980 [R.P. 2—’79];
2. (2) Estimate of Revenue for the financial year ending 31 March 1980 [R.P. 4—’79];
3. (3) Statistical/Economic Review [W.P. B.—’79];
4. (4) Comparative figures of Revenue for 1978-’79 and 1979-’80;
5. (5) Taxation proposals [A. 1—’79];
6. (6) Proposals for improved social, military and civil pensions.

Mr. Speaker, we watched not only the hon. the Minister of Finance during his delivery of the budget speech, but also the white carnation he wore in his lapel. As the speech progressed, periodically the carnation wilted and then came to life again. But one is, I think, happy to say that by the time he finished his speech, the carnation looked quite fresh. We were pleased to see that. As he quoted initially from the Bible, I also want to quote to him the words from the Proverbs: “Every man is a friend to him that giveth gifts” and also “He that hath the bountiful eye shall be blessed.” Certainly one must grant it to the hon. the Minister today that he did have a relatively bountiful eye. I want to say immediately that, while this is a stimulatory budget—the degree of the stimulation we will debate in due course—it is a budget which is orientated towards the private sector. The stimulation by itself will not be effective if the public generally, and the businessman and the industrialist in particular, do not play their part in the revival of the economy. At the beginning of this budget debate I want to appeal to the public to show confidence in South Africa and its economy. To get the economy going, pessimism is going to get us nowhere. What is now required from the public of South Africa is a decision to be optimistic, to decide to build and to make sure that it will be a good year, because this budget alone is not enough.

There are many things for which we should be grateful to the hon. the Minister. We welcome the announcement in regard to Black taxation, although we need to study them and their implications somewhat. But we certainly welcome the spirit in which they were put. We welcome the tax concessions which have been granted and which are of a stimulatory nature, but we need to study them in the light of the fiscal drag which has already occurred, as the hon. the Minister well knows. At this particular time we also need to keep our eye on the inflation rate. We cannot forget it in the present circumstances.

While there are these positive aspects and while they are real, I want to express some degree of disappointment about some aspects. We appreciate the pension increases, but the hon. the Minister will know that the extent of the increases for the White pensioner is virtually equivalent to the inflation rate. I also want to express my disappointment that nothing has been done about the means test at all in this budget. Here again I want to refer the hon. the Minister to the verse in the Proverbs that reads: “He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth to the Lord.” I also want him to look up Proverbs 22, verse 16, in this regard, because I do not want to throw that passage at him. The possible increase in the bread price is still real and what has been granted by the hon. the Minister is, in his own words, enough “to avoid an undue increase in the bread price”. My side of the House would not like to see any increase in the bread price at all, and we are certainly disappointed that there is not more in respect of subsidies for other basic foodstuffs, because one cannot forget those. I must also warn him that his indication about fringe benefits—a question he has left somewhat open—and his indications about capital gains tax are likely to be controversial issues in South Africa. We shall, however, have more to say about them on a later occasion.

May I also, on this occasion, associate myself with the tribute to Mr. Pretorius, whom I have personally known in different capacities over many years. I believe that Mr. Pretorius has been an exemplary public servant. He has rendered great service to the country, and I therefore join in the tribute paid to him. I also wish his successor, Mr. Du Plessis, well, following as he does in the footsteps of a person who has been a good and great public servant.

As we require more time to consider the proposals in greater detail, I therefore move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The principal aim of this Bill is to provide for the substitution of the name “College for Advanced Technical Education” by the name “Technikon”. The Association of Colleges for Advanced Technical Education, which is made up of the six colleges of this type, made representations to the effect that the name “College for Advanced Technical Education” which was found to be too long and cumbersome, be replaced by a more acceptable, concise name.

It is also considered advisable to do away with the “college” idea, not only to avoid confusion with existing technical colleges, but also so that colleges for advanced technical education could be identified as distinctive institutions.

The Advanced Technical Education Act, 1967, provides, inter alia, that the State President may establish at any place a college for advanced technical education and that some technical colleges can be deemed to be colleges for advanced technical education. Furthermore, this Act stipulates that it shall be the functions of a college for advanced technical education—

1. (i) such advanced technical education and training and such teacher training; and
2. (ii) in the case of students who are no longer subject to compulsory school attendance in terms of any law, such secondary and other education on a part-time basis,
   as the Minister may determine.

I should like to point out that as from 1 May 1979 virtually all secondary education being provided by the colleges for advanced technical education at the moment, will be transferred to new technical institutes so that colleges will largely provide tertiary education in future.

After due consideration and consultation the name technikon was proposed, a name which was derived from the Greek and goes back to the masculine form of the Greek adjective technikos of which the feminine form is technike and the neuter is technikon. In Greek it is customary to use the adjectival neuter as a substantive or noun. In this instance, technikon is a noun which can be used for any matter or thing related to technique or technology as well as to art in any form.

The spelling technikon—with a “ch”—was decided upon because it was acceptable to both Afrikaans and English. The “g” sound in the Afrikaans form “tegnikon” is not easily pronounced by English-speaking people because of its articulation basis. Furthermore, it was decided that the “ch” would be pronounced “k” in English and “g” in Afrikaans, as in “Archimedes”.

In view of the length of the Bill, the question could justifiably be asked why provision could not simply be made for the words “college for advanced technical education” to be replaced by “technikon” wherever they appear. I shall list the reasons for this briefly.

1. (i) Section 4(1) of the principal Act provides that the Cape Technical College, the Natal Technical College, the Pretoria Technical College and the Witwatersrand Technical College shall, be deemed to be colleges for advanced technical education established under the principal Act and under their respective designations, as from the date of commencement of the principal Act—1 January 1968. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for the replacement of section 4 of the principal Act, and the new section 4 provides for the four technical colleges to be deemed technikons established under this Act as from the date of commencement of this Bill. Due to a request by the Association of Colleges for Advanced Technical Education, this section further stipulates that they shall be called “technikons”. Apart from the four technical colleges mentioned, the new section 4 also contains the names of the Vaal Triangle College for Advanced Technical Education and the Port Elizabeth College for Advanced Technical Education, which do not appear in the principal Act because they were established by proclamation. Furthermore, the Bill provides for various references to the six colleges or technikons, for example in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of the new section 4(1), whereas in the principal Act reference is only made to the four technical colleges.
2. (ii) Clause 7 provides for section 7(2) of the principal Act to be replaced and in the new section 7(2) the name “technical college” is deleted and the name “college for advanced technical education” inserted. This was done because it became necessary to indicate in the Act that a “technikon” was the successor of the “college for advanced technical education”. This was also the reason for similar amendments in the new sections 8(1)(f) included in clause 8, 13(2) included in clause 12 and 19(c) included in clause 13.

†Mr. Speaker, the six existing Colleges for Advanced Technical Education, subsidized by the Department of National Education, have accepted the name “technikon”. The Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of Education and Training have informed my department that the name “technikon” is acceptable and that they will take steps to alter the names of their institutions accordingly, as the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs in fact did yesterday. Also the Administration of Coloured Affairs will consider using the name for its college.

The Bill further makes provision in clause 17 that the Minister may delegate to the Secretary or to any other senior officer in the Department of National Education his power to recognize a certificate or diploma which indicates that a person has successfully passed an examination or completed a course of instruction or training at a technikon. The purpose of this recognition is mainly to ensure that the contents and form of the certificate or diploma satisfy certain requirements. I may point out that the Act already provides that the Minister may delegate his power to approve of the creation of a department or course of study at a College for Advanced Technical Education. The further delegation proposed will facilitate the administrative work in connection with the recognition of certificates and diplomas.

*I am sure the name “technikon” will be generally acceptable and will contribute towards forming the correct image of the institutions concerned which perform such an important function in the training of manpower in our country.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to inform this House and the hon. the Minister that this party is very pleased with this progressive step that is being taken to eliminate a whole mouthful of words and to replace them with one word which, although it is of Greek derivation, will nevertheless immediately indicate to the man in the street what he is dealing with. There is only one matter which interests me and that is the person who had the ingenuity to make this find and to create this beautiful word to designate this tremendously important category of institutions for the education of our people. If it was not the hon. the Minister himself, I shall perhaps be able to find out later who it was who made this find.

I want to point out that, according to my information and as the hon. the Minister also indicated, the word “technikon” is not only of a technical nature implying knowledge, skill and proficiency, but also represents the arts. One does hope that these six technikons and those which are still to be added later by proclamation, will not only give attention to the students’ skill and “know-how” as the Americans say, in the technical sphere, but that they will also contribute greatly to the homing and refining of the human spirit of the students studying at them.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this Bill and pledge our full support to the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to convey a word of thanks to the departmental committee which has also been concerned with the change in name of the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education. I also want to thank the Association of Colleges for Advanced Technical Education for their interest in this matter. Furthermore I want to thank the hon. the Minister for introducing this Bill.

A change in name is but a simple matter, but in this case it is not quite so simple. We had to get away from the idea of technical colleges, not only because there was a kind of prejudice with regard to technical colleges, but also because people had the idea in the back of their minds that because universities, which provide tertiary education, were always in the foreground, they were the only institutions that provided tertiary training.

The hon. member for Rissik will not take it amiss of me if I refer to something to illustrate my argument that universities are foremost in the minds of parents, students and everyone concerned in the matter, whereas the technical aspect does not occupy such an important place. Recently we paid a visit to the College for Advanced Technical Education in Pretoria, and the Director, Prof. Meiring, is an exceptionally competent person with a great enthusiasm for education and training. The first thing my hon. friend told me as we were leaving was that that man should really have been a principal of a university. This was not wilfulness. It simply illustrates that universities are in the foreground, whereas the other tertiary level of education in the technical field is not in the foreground to such an extent. I would say that a person such as he, with his great talents and exceptional competence, should, for example, be chairman of the council which I should call the advisory council for advanced technical education.

With the name “technikon” we are, therefore, getting away from the prejudices and we are being afforded the opportunity of more easily giving greater prominence to technical education and training, or the more applied field of knowledge. This morning I received a report from the Vaal Triangle College for Advanced Technical Education, Vanderbijlpark. This is a fine report of a college with a tremendously long name, while in terms of the measure before us now, it will simply be known as the Vaal Triangle Technikon.

Technical education, the development of human material and of human capital has become extremely important and it is necessary to continue to give greater prominence to this technical training on a tertiary level. Under the name “technikon” we shall be afforded the opportunity of moving away from the secondary education idea, because the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education also used to teach on a secondary level, and therefore it was impossible to do what was necessary in respect of propagating education on a tertiary level for technicians. To lay the foundation for developing our manpower we shall have to develop and advance these colleges to the highest rung possible. Differentiated education will also come into its own now that the Technikons, if they are to be known by that name, and the universities run parallel with each other, both on a tertiary level. Then we shall be able to achieve what we want to achieve with differentiated education and, consequently, with the development of our manpower.

I should like to quote what was once said by the Director of Education of the National Education Department, Mr. S. C. M. Naudé, in an address—

He was referring here to the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education—

We are grateful for that and that is why we are all the more grateful that this name is now being changed so that it will be easier to deal with this matter. When subsidies are paid by the State, the technikons, as the hon. the Minister has already announced, will be put on a par with the universities which also provide education on a tertiary level. Therefore, I want to express the hope that this new designation will not only mean a new name, but that it will also have a far greater significance. I want to wish the Technikons everything of the best for the future. May they achieve great success and develop our manpower in such a way that our country will derive the greatest economic benefit from it.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with many of the things said by the hon. member for Hercules. I shall do so in the course of my speech.

†First of all, I believe we should accept that education in South Africa finds itself in a constant state of evolution. While it is easy to think of many reasons why the name of this sort of institution should be changed from that of College for Advanced Technical Education to technikon—the latter being, for instance, much shorter—we must accept that the real motivation for this change is undoubtedly the fact that we also find that education is in this respect going through a change, a change which has caused it to adopt a social character. When considering the changes that have taken place in South Africa over the last decade, it is clear that the whole structure of tertiary education in South Africa is still based on the British model of a few years ago. I have to point out immediately though that the educational situation in Britain is not merely one of social evolution, but that it is also augmented by an element of, what we may call, a socialist revolutionary change. However, be that as it may, the fact remains that we find in both countries that university education, with its emphasis on degrees as status symbols, has in fact directly affected the image of colleges or other institutions for advanced technical education. Hence the constant need for finding a proper name by which to identify such institutions without allowing any inferior connotation to be attached to such a name. I believe we must see this change of name in that light.

Technical schools in South Africa developed into technical colleges and technical institutes. Those, in turn, developed into Colleges for Advanced Technical Education, which are now going to be called “technikons”. In the United Kingdom we found that technical colleges developed into colleges for advanced technology, commonly referred to as CATS. Chiefly as a result of the recommendations contained in the so-called Robinson’s Report of 1963, these CATS were granted university status. Thus we find that the whole evolutionary process in England resulted in the establishment of the very first technological university, the University of Ashton, in Birmingham. Incidentally, this specific university went through the whole evolutionary change. It started off as a technical school. Subsequently it became a technical college, which, in turn, developed into a CAT. Eventually it was granted university status.

Now, the problem facing institutions for higher technical education, irrespective of what we are going to call them, is a threefold problem. Whether we continue to call it “CATS” or “technicons” there is a threefold problem facing these institutes, not only in South Africa, but throughout the world. In spite of all the definitions given of its function and its specific place in the educational structure, there is continued doubts of where it exactly stands.

We can have a look at the South African situation. In 1967 the then Minister of Education, Arts and Science introduced the Bill on Advanced Technical Education in order to establish the colleges. They were then described by the then hon. Minister as strong institutions which can provide education between the secondary and university level. But then one immediately gets a vertical division. In other words, it fits in between the secondary and university level. In 1970 the then Minister of National Education described the two fields of study at university and advanced technical education level as “vertikaal parallellopend, elk met sy eie aard”. It is clear that there was a change of emphasis here. Obviously I agree more with the 1970 interpretation, as something parallel, yet with some sort of vertical link.

As far as the second problem is concerned, the hon. member for Hercules mentioned that a significant percentage of members of the public believe that technical education, whether it is at secondary level or tersiary level, is somehow an inferior type of education.

I taught at a school which at the turn of the century used to be a technical school. By 1922 it was no longer a technical school. Yet, even in the 1960s people were surprised to hear that one could in fact follow an academic course at that particular school. They thought that a school that used to teach technical subjects, could not offer an academic course.

*The third problem confuses matters even more. These institutions fall, according to certain people, somewhere between university and secondary education and is supposedly inferior for that reason. But now these institutions turn out products and offer courses which are not only on a par with a university education, but even higher in some cases. That is why there is confusion. I believe that the name “technikon” will indeed be instrumental in bringing about clarity and in giving a specific identity to these institutions. At an occasion such as this, one should also say, however, that the uncertainty with regard to the exact level and field of even the technikons will not disappear so easily. An answer will have to be found. We must be honest and ask ourselves whether it is the intention to develop the technikons into technological universities, with all the facilities which are found at universities. If the answer is “yes”, we shall have to accept at once that certain other problems are going to be created, problems which I shall deal with at some later stage. We shall then have to make provision for that as well. However, I have to say at once that it will be difficult for me to reconcile that to my traditional idea of the character and nature of a university. If the answer is “no”, we shall immediately have to come to the decision that technikons should no longer do the work which is in the field of the universities. We shall have to decide one way or the other.

There is probably a third choice. It may be decided, for example, that the technikons should continue doing the type of work which should really be done by universities. I shall indicate later on that it is not only the technikons which cause confusion. The universities, too, sin in this regard. If they are to continue with that, the bonds which exist between the technikons and the universities at the present time, will have to be tightened so as to facilitate the mutual recognition of qualifications. I am aware of the fact that a great deal of research is being done in this field, and it definitely is not just an idea any longer. In my opinion, a larger degree of uniformity should be effected in this regard. It is all very well if, for instance, an arrangement exists between the University of Pretoria and the technikon there. In my opinion, however, there should be a larger degree of uniformity throughout the country in this regard.

†If one wants to be honest, one should note the fact that the universities have also added to this confusion. One does find, for example, that universities train people in certain pure and applied sciences which they should not do. This should in fact be the task of the technikon. Whatever we do, we should always bear in mind that in order to satisfy South Africa’s manpower requirements, we need institutions that will primarily provide for the training of technicians at a level lower than university level. That should be done to satisfy the requirements of commerce and industry. If we therefore allow the technikons to develop into universities of technology, we shall create an unnecessary vacuum in our manpower training. We do not have to make an experiment in this respect, because it has been done for us by certain other countries. In the UK, for example, the CATS—the Colleges of Advanced Technology—were upgraded to university status, in accordance with the recommendations of the Robins Committee. According to a Human Science Research Council study that was made in this regard, many of these ex-CATS promptly sought academic respectability—including the snobbery attached to it—by divesting themselves of those aspects of their work that had distinguished them from traditional universities in the past. If this should happen in South Africa, we shall be back at square one, because the present technical colleges will then have to fulfil the function of the CATS of today. We shall then have to start with a new cycle again. This can perhaps be achieved in countries such as the UK, but I should not like that sort of situation to develop in South Africa. We have, however, a third alternative, and I think we should bear it in mind as well. One could perhaps allow the idea of a comprehensive university to develop in some parts of the country. In this case one could for instance use a German example which, in reality, constitutes the creation of an entirely new institution. In Germany it is an institution of university, polytechnic and college of education combined, within a horizontal or a vertical educational structure. These institutions are therefore being linked up, but there will be an overall control over them.

In regard to a comprehensive university institution like this, the highest degree of flexibility will be achieved and the transfer of students will be greatly facilitated. While one allows for specialist training in particular fields at a university such as this, there will be no narrow exclusion of humanistic values. This is my point. If we merely develop technikons to the stage where they become technical universities, then one is going to exclude humanistic values. Russia is a case in point. In Russia there is approximately 765 specialized institutions that can be regarded as universities. These institutions are all very narrowly specialized. There is only approximately 40 universities where one can receive general theoretical training. Russia has a regimented type of society, and that is not the situation that I should like to see in South Africa. I should like to see a situation here where one does in fact expose even one’s scientists, technicians and engineers to an environment where humanistic values are also being upheld. I sincerely believe that certain existing universities and technikons should seriously consider the idea of developing a comprehensive university, either vertically or horizontally with sufficient depth. Technikons on their own must meanwhile strive at all times to achieve higher standards in those fields of technological training in which they are occupied, even if there is uncertainty in some quarters on whether they should be active in these disciplines at all. Let the American example of institutes of technology always be an inspiration to them because these institutes have developed such a high standard that only their graduates, for instance in engineering, are allowed to be members of the Engineering Council for Professional Development while the graduates in engineering from ordinary universities are excluded.

*I should like to conclude by saying that if a person does not know exactly what a technikon is, he should think of what I recently saw on television. There was a programme which featured a small creature—I do not know whether it was a human being or an animal—called Arrie. The question was then asked: “What is Arrie?” The reply was: “Don’t ask what is Arrie; rather ask who is Arrie.” Then it was said: “Arrie is a warrie. Just as a human being is a human being and an animal is an animal, a warrie is a warrie.” Therefore if a person does not know what a technikon is, he can be told that just as a school is a school and a university is a university, a technikon is a technikon.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central made a fine contribution to this interesting debate.

When it comes to the problem of duplication in the spheres of operation of the universities and the technikons we would be well advised to re-examine recommendation No. 4 at the end of chapter 7, of the principal report of the Commission of Inquiry into Universities, the Van Wyk de Vries Commission, in which it is clearly stated—

Throughout the report emphasis is placed on co-operation and interaction between the authorities in charge.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North has expressed the wish that attention should also be given to the arts at the technikons. I can point out to the hon. member that the daughter of the hon. member for Edenvale—and I have the permission of the hon. member for Edenvale to say this—completed the speech and drama course at one of the technikons and that that young woman is one of the brilliant stage artists in our theatre world today. Therefore, fine work is being done.

I want to say a few brief words about the work being done at technikons. The State is responsible for providing the production structure and economic infrastructure in such a way that all resources are utilized to the maximum. One of the most important resources is human material that has to undergo development to be able to adjust to the times and circumstances in which we live, and to the demands which they make on it. If the word “manpower development” is analysed one arrives at the concept that it entails the planned, gradual increase of knowledge, skills, proficiency and competence of the Student. This is the augmentation of human capital, as the hon. member for Hercules said, and the harnessing of it for the development of the spiritual and material welfare of the Republic.

In this manpower development, the student must be led to a richer and more meaningful life in his particular profession. The Advanced Technical Education Act, Act No. 40 of 1967, makes provision for the establishment of these colleges. The charter in that Act is that provision must be made for the advanced technical education, training and teacher training which the Minister may determine. This is what must be provided. This includes more than just the conveyance of skill and knowledge. It also includes the teaching or education of the students in question.

This brings us to the concepts of manpower needs, manpower provision and the making available of manpower, and in this regard I refer to a further paragraph in the Van Wyk de Vries report where the position is made very clear to us by the commission. This also places us immediately in the field where the technikon belongs. I quote (chapter 7, page 171)—

Let us briefly examine a few facets which indicate to us what the functions of such colleges are. In the first place the college’s function is to strive for the promotion of erudition—this is elementary and correct—the preparation of the middle and top level professional leadership with a strong practical orientation. We need this. I want to mention in all humility that there are sometimes students at our universities who complete their studies and obtain a degree but cannot find meaningful work or occupy a meaningful position anywhere in the labour sphere. Such students are neither useful nor suitable anywhere.

They can join the Progs.

On occasion someone approached me for a teaching post. This was a graduate from one of our universities, but we could not use him anywhere. Where he had been working before, as a personnel officer at one of our banks, he was very unhappy because it was not his sphere of activity at all. Therefore, the people at our colleges have a singleminded purpose to guide the material at their disposal in a specific direction.

In the second place the college’s function is to educate and mould the student and to afford him the opportunity of developing his gifts to their full potential. In this regard I shall only mention gifts such as a scientific approach, honesty, a practically orientated scientific outlook, perseverance, diligence, refinement, a sound outlook on life or, in short, a balanced personality.

The third function is the task of teaching, the conveying or imparting of knowledge.

In the fourth place there is the preparation for a specific profession. The emphasis falls on the application of a specific professional practice. He is led in his specific profession.

Finally, due to the colleges’ specialization in professional courses, the information and guidance function is as important in this sense that the relevant information is conveyed to commerce and industry, to employers and to students and then from those sources back to students in their training.

Let me indicate briefly how these institutions have developed by pointing out the increase in the number of national tertiary courses and the number of students. In 1960 there were 14 courses and these were attended by 1 247 students. In 1977 there were 209 courses and these were attended by 42 500 students. In this regard one can also point out the growth in staff. There were 742 full-time lecturers in 1968 and 1 354 in 1977—a growth of 82%. This gives us an indication of the development on this level. As we in this southern land with our responsibility to the continent of Africa make progress, the importance of these fine institutions, the technikons, will continue to increase.

I want to conclude with this single idea that the department, the officials and the Minister with all the skill at their disposal, will lead our people in order to meet the real needs of our nation and country.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members who participated in this discussion, most sincerely for their enthusiastic reception of this amendment Bill as well as for the support they have promised it In the first place I want to convey my special thanks to the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who also received this amendment Bill enthusiastically on behalf of the Opposition. I thank him for his support. He requested that we announce the name of the person who came forward with the bright idea of calling the colleges for advanced technical education “technikons” in future. As is, unfortunately, often the case in the course of history when a brilliant, outstanding word of the future is conceived, the creator of the word is unknown. Various proposals were made from many quarters over a long period of time, but we really do not know who in fact created the word. Possibly it was the product of a joint effort, the thinking of many people. However, the analysis of the word’s full meaning was carried out by a member of our department’s language services bureau. I too should like to know who the creator of the word is, and I have made inquiries about it, but unfortunately the answer is lost in the past and we have no knowledge of who the creator of this word was.

I am also pleased that the hon. member pointed out that we are not only concerned here with people’s dexterity, skills and particularly knowledge in the technological field, but that the training given there extends over a wider field and also includes the arts. This is important because the human science disciplines practised there, exert their influence as well. These are also disciplines which we should not neglect. While we are already deep into the century of technology, and are entering into it to an even greater extent, we may not eliminate the arts and the human science disciplines at institutions such as these. Once again I thank the hon. member for his support.

I know that the hon. member for Hercules has a special interest in the teaching of technology and what it entails to people. I am also pleased that he emphasized that we are now taking a further step in the direction of true differentiation in education and that, although this is a new terrain, there are still fallow fields awaiting us, that we should not make decisions too quickly and that we should give things the opportunity to develop so that we can determine what they will eventually lead to. I am pleased that the hon. member also referred to the special approach these institutions adopt to the training offered there. I should also like to point out the special skills among the teaching staff we have at those institutions. I believe that this new name change will eventually lead to their being able to attract even more skilled people with higher qualifications to those institutions.

The hon. member for Durban Central made a singular contribution. I thank him for his support. In connection with the hon. member’s dilemma with regard to the place of these institutions and the universities in the whole hierarchy of existing training structures, I want to say that we should accept that further adjustments and changes will continually be made. We shall be making a mistake if we lay down the guidelines at this early stage and demarcate the course of each precisely. We must leave room for manoeuvre so that these institutions, the universities on the hand and the technikons on the other, can work out their particular positions by sound interaction and cooperation with each other. I shall refer to that again in a minute.

I agree with the hon. member that it is unfortunately the case at present that universities perhaps still have too much of a monopoly in respect of tertiary education, that an exaggerated status is afforded attendance at a university and that there are two matters which we do not always give enough attention to, namely the ability and aptitude of the person who has to be trained on the one hand and the country’s requirements on the other. One can probably claim the right to say that one first wants to look after one’s own needs and that one wants to find a place for oneself in life, but after all, I really do not think one should be so selfish as to claim everything for oneself without taking the country’s needs into consideration, too. I believe that we shall also be able to provide the second component in an exceptional way, particularly with regard to the country’s technological requirements, by means of these institutions. I want to confess—perhaps I am boasting of it—that I have two sons. The one had the privilege of going to university because he had the aptitude for it. The other is studying at a technikon at present because his aptitude lies in that direction. One must simply be very realistic about these things. By doing so, one is doing the right thing by that person who has to earn a place for himself somewhere in our country.

I said that the hon. member, like many of us, has a problem with regard to the place of the technikon in the educational hierarchy. The initial intention was that the technikon’s position should be just below that of a university and later, that it should be alongside that of a university, at the same level. I accept that the latter view is the more correct one. Just to point out how important it is that we should provide technikons with the opportunity of orientating themselves by a process of interaction, I want to point out that the Universities Advisory Council is at the moment in fact examining the differentiation between the courses to be offered at a university or technikon. One has to accept that this will be a gradual process because one cannot simply divide each into precise compartments at this early stage. We went so far as to make provision for someone from the ranks of the technikon to serve on the Universities Advisory Council and for there to be the necessary co-operation with regard to this matter. The Van Wyk De Vries Commission also recommended that there be joint consultative committees liaising between universities and technikons and concerning themselves with these very matters. We should be making a mistake by seeking to specify the position too soon and lay down hard and fast rules without leaving room for future development and the creating of possibilities.

I just want to point out that even today one finds the problem that people who were trained reasonably well technically, eventually find themselves in the position, with the development of technology, that they are unable to handle certain sophisticated equipment and certain processes and that it is necessary to retrain them. When retraining, it is extremely important to take note of a person’s background. Here we also have an institution where the background training can be of such a nature that although retraining has to take place in future, the retraining will be facilitated because the background is already so extensive. I think we are going to gain in this regard as well if we finally see these technikons in the correct light.

The hon. member for Standerton made a brief, but powerful contribution. I have already referred to interaction and cooperation between universities and technikons. Another important matter which I have already referred to, is that persons should not be trained in such a way that they ultimately do not know what to do with their training and knowledge and do not fit into the labour field anywhere. They must fit in and we should also examine the needs of this country. It is also an excellent idea that these technikons should produce people who have a practically orientated outlook on life and science, in other words that we have balanced people here. I once spoke to an American who made a particularly interesting remark about higher education training institutions, the quality of their work, but also, particularly, the students on the campuses. These are people who behave well and dress reasonably neatly. Then he complimented us by saying: “This still looks beautiful.” When I look at them in my country I have trouble telling “whether they are animal, vegetable or mineral”. We are in the fortunate position of still producing people who not only have special technical skills, but also character, and are people in the full sense of the word. This we should never lose sight of, even though we are dealing with technical training.

Linked to this is an important matter, viz. the professional guidance we already have in our schools. There our people should already be equipped to such an extent that when determining the child’s skill and his abilities, that child will be channelled in the right direction. We should not have flights of fancy and simply push people in a certain direction. I heard recently—I will not say that it was at a specific school—that at the time of the economic slump in our country when certain engineers no longer had so much work to do and even had to look for alternatives, matriculants were told: “Beware of the engineering direction, for example mechanical or civil engineering. The new thing now is electro-technical engineering”. It is really surprising how many students enrolled for that course at a specific university. There was a staggering increase in the percentage. This once again testifies that the guidance was incorrect, that this new direction was seized on and that everyone was suddenly channelled in the new direction. I think we shall also be making a mistake if we seize on new directions in this way and do not give balanced guidance with regard to these matters. I particularly want to thank the hon. member for his contribution.

In the last instance, and in conclusion, I believe that by means of this name change which we are discussing today, we have really focused in an exceptional way on the distinctive training at the technikons, we have emphasized that it is necessary, and that in this way we must afford these institutions the distinctive status they deserve, because fine work is being done there. I have already mentioned co-operation and interaction. To the best of my knowledge, the RAU already recognizes the fifth-year chemistry diploma of the Pretoria technikon as an admission requirement for enrolment for the M.Sc. degree. This just goes to show what the standard of the work is which is produced there. We are placing them at the level where they belong, with a truly separate status and with a distinctive type of training. However, we shall have to examine—and I have already referred to the fact that RAU is examining this matter—the grey areas which may still exist where university training and the training given at the technikons overlap. This in turn will have to be eliminated by cooperation and interaction with each other. However, we should always bear in mind that university and technikon are not opposed, but supplement and complement each other.

In addition I think it is also essential that in the selection of students by student advice bureaux—whether at a university or a technikon—students be channelled in the right direction. When a student arrives at a university, it is necessary that the university does not simply claim that student for itself and force him into a university direction. Even there he ought still to be given the correct guidance in order, if necessary, to be channelled to a technikon. On the other hand, when a student enrolls at a technikon, and it is found that he would derive particular benefit from full university training, he in turn should be channelled to a university.

The whole question of the recognition of qualifications is something for which guidelines will also still have to be found in future. For that reason one wants to try to lay down those guidelines even at this stage. I trust that the christening ceremony, which we are all witnesses to here today, will have favourable consequences in the future, and that through today’s discussion and discussions still to be held in future, we too shall make a real contribution so that the general public will also begin to understand the distinction between a university, a technikon and other institutions for less advanced education. I believe that we can perform a special task in this regard, by also introducing this institution to the public. After all, this is to the benefit of those studying there, and ultimately to the benefit of the labour force situation in South Africa.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Electoral Act was amended during the first Parliamentary session of 1978, inter alia, to make provision for the registration of political parties for the purposes of the e Electoral Act. The Select Committee on the Electoral Consolidation Act, 1946, advanced two reasons in their report of 1976 for the recommendation that such registration should take place, reasons which were accepted by me and embodied in the Electoral Laws Amendment Act, 1978. In this regard hon. members are referred to sections 35A to 35F of the Electoral Act.

In the first place, the registration is designed to obtain a registered name or an abbreviated name of a political party, a name which henceforth has to be shown on ballot papers under the name of the official candidate of the relevant party in order to obviate confusion on the part of voters as to the party affiliation of candidates. Section 76 of the Electoral Act contains the amended provisions.

Furthermore this registration is also designed, as explained by the Select Committee, to prevent elections which are conducted at great expense to the State, being necessitated by the nomination of candidates who do not even enjoy nominal support in a constituency but who merely make use of the procedure of an election in an attempt to put themselves in the limelight or to cause inconvenience and expense for the other candidate or candidates or party and to the State.

With this in view, it is, inter alia, provided in section 36 of the Electoral Act that in the case of a candidate not certified as the official candidate of a registered political party, and in the case of a candidate of a registered political party which, on the date of the proclamation of the relevant election, is not represented in the House of Assembly or a provincial council by at least one person duly elected as representative of that political party, that candidate should, not later than four o’clock in the afternoon of the fifth day before the nomination day, submit a statement to the returning officer containing the names and addresses of and signed by at least three other voters whose names appear in the then current voters’ roll for the electoral division involved, to the effect, inter alia, that they support the nomination of the candidate.

Doubt exists, however, as to whether these provisions make allowance for a federation of political parties to be registered as a single party under a single name for the aforementioned purposes. In order to eliminate this doubt it is proposed in this Bill to make specific provision that two or more political parties which have mutually agreed to be registered as one political party under one name for all these purposes, to be registered as such and that the provisions become effective retrospectively as from 19 January 1979, the date on which the relevant provisions were put into operation by the State President.

Mr. Speaker, I have always been under the impression that what this Bill seeks to achieve is already possible in terms of the existing legislation. As I read the Electoral Act as amended last year, any political groupings within the Republic of South Africa could in fact join together in one form or another and, subject to the provisions of section 35, could register as a single political party. I can think of no provision in the Act as at present which could prevent this development.

I agree, but I want to be absolutely sure.

I am not certain that the hon. the Minister is not introducing legislation to plug a non-existent gap, to close a lacuna which is not present.

However, the amendment is inoffensive to us. We do not believe that it does any harm at all. If it is felt by the hon. the Minister and by his law advisers that the amendment will bring greater clarity about the intention of the existing legislation, I think it is correct that we do not stand in the way of the passing of that amendment.

I must say that I have tried, within the few hours which I had to study this Bill, to look for some political motive behind the Bill. I was wondering whether this Bill was being introduced for the benefit of possible mergers, amalgamations, and comings together of the Opposition parties. But I honestly believe that the Bill cannot be geared to such a development. If hon. members have read the statements in the Press lately of the hon. member for Durban Point—where he talks of contamination—and of the hon. member for Simonstown, I think the hon. the Minister will agree that there appears to be no chance of any of the Opposition parties benefiting from this Bill at all.

Perhaps the political motive relates to the Government I was wondering whether the Government is not just looking a little bit ahead, worrying about trying to bring under one umbrella, after all the difficulties they have had, the NP of Transvaal under Dr. Treurnicht, the Pik Botha section of the NP of Transvaal and of course the Connie Mulder section which is still to come.

Then of course we also have a difficulty with the Cape NP, which seems to be out of line with the Transvaal NP. Perhaps it is looking for an alliance with the Orange Free State NP to withstand the onslaught of the Transvaal NP. We have, of course, not yet thought of the hon. member for Pretoria Central who might also have a new party which the Government might like to bring under the umbrella. That is why I say that I believe there is a possibly a political motive for this amendment. In order to assist the Government in the difficulties that they are obviously experiencing at present with all the different NPs in one party, and while I cannot join that party, I can at least agree to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, whereas the hon. member for Sandton has looked for a political motive for the legislation on the part of this side of the House, I want to inform him that the actual political motive behind the legislation is that we have read in the papers about how the HNP is experiencing problems in getting itself registered as a political party. We then realized that there were obstacles in their way so that they could not be registered as a political party. Then, last week, we heard they had concluded a “Camp David” agreement with the PEP. [Interjections.] We then decided that seeing that there was such an amicable relationship between the HNP and the PFP, we should make provision for the possibility of the two parties being registered as one for election purposes. That might be the political motive behind this legislation.

The logical analysis is, of course, that whereas all the other political parties pretend that they are either a federal party or a confederal party but actually are not, it is true that the NP, which does not have a federal aspect in its policy, is indeed a federal party. As a federal party, the NP has therefore found it necessary to make provision for the possibility that problems might arise with the interpretation in law. Actually I am in full agreement with the hon. member for Sandton that…

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

The hon. member can take the chance.

I understand the federal aspect of the different provinces, but what are you going to do about the two NPs in one province?

I am not quite sure whether the hon. member has in mind an NP which is not called national, such as Inkatha. Among the four federal parts of the NP, i.e., Natal, the Transvaal, the Orange Free State and the Cape Province there is no question of two groupings within the party. [Interjections.] It is an NP that follows the same policy throughout the country, that adheres to the same principles, and that therefore has no problem whatsoever in that direction.

Before the hon. member for Sandton interrupted me, I was saying that actually I was in full agreement with his view of the matter, i.e. that the original Act already made provision for the possibility that a party linked together on a federal basis, would comply with the legal requirements through a single registration. However, problems have arisen in this regard and the question is now whether it can, in all respects, rightly be regarded in that light. Consequently we have considered it desirable to place that beyond any doubt, particularly with a view to the nominations that have shortly to take place. Therefore it goes without saying that this side of the House supports the legislation, as do hon. members on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, one can plainly see that the hon. member for Klip River is finding himself in a somewhat embarrassing position with regard to this legislation. Yesterday, when I read the long tide of this Bill, I could not help chuckling. If ever there was a case of people being “hoist by their own petard” it is here where the NP has entangled itself with regard to the registration of political parties. After all, we all know that when the question of registration was originally raised, it was one of the measures aimed at the HNP.

Never.

We need merely go back and read last year’s Hansard. We know that the HNP has become a victim. I do not think they are even registered yet. I do not think the hon. the Minister and other hon. members foresaw that the second victim was going to be the NP as the matter now stands. Fortunately for them, they can save the situation because they have a majority in the House. But what about the poor HNP now? After all, they could not save the situation.

Surely the Act makes provision for that.

Mr. Speaker, but for the fact that the NRP is a responsible party, we could easily have opposed this measure, because this Bill is going to save the NP R1 500. They could have registered each one of their parties in the four different provinces for R500 and now of course they need only register one party for R500. We know there are four legally different parties in the NP. For quite a number of weeks it has been quite clear that even in this House the NP has become some sort of coalition of many different parties. The strangest part of it all is that the leader of perhaps the strongest faction, and leading the strongest party in this coalition, is not even a member of the Cabinet.

We give our support to this Bill. We regard it as a very interesting one which deals with a very interesting situation, but perhaps it was less expensive to produce this Bill than the Government paying an extra R1 500.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central has been in this House much longer than I have been, but I do want to tell him that during the year or so that I have been here, I have very seldom seen the NP voting with another party. The only times I have actually seen parties voting together was when his party came across and voted with the NP or when the PFP came across and voted with us, or, as happens more often, when the two Opposition parties voted together. I can assure the hon. member for Durban Central that the consideration of saving R1 500 is not nearly as important to the NP as it is to the NRP.

Are you such fat cats?

No. The hon. member for Sandton need not think that that old slogan of last year is going to achieve anything. It is not a matter of “fat cats”, but the people of South Africa support the NP with their votes and with their money, and not his party or the party of the hon. member for Durban Central. The hon. member for Durban Central must pardon me, however, for suspecting that he is trying to create the wrong impression, because after all it is the NP that is displaying a united front to the country. It is not this party that is running after another one to sign petitions. It is not this party that announces, when there is a by-election in the offing in Natal, that they will not put up a candidate to avoid the danger of them sinking themselves in the face of the great danger. The hon. member for Durban Central must not judge the NP by his own standards.

Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that on an occasion such as this, when a simple amendment Bill is before the House, the political sensitivity of the Opposition would have rather caused them to keep quiet in any sort of discussion on this Bill. On the contrary, we have had the hon. member for Sandton, the chief Opposition speaker in matters of this nature, throwing suggestions across the floor about divisions in the National Party.

The hon. member for Sandton, however, surely knows more about divisions in political parties than anybody sitting on this side of the House. That hon. member, for example, was a young Turk on one occasion who broke up the party to which he belonged. The very party he belongs to now is not even a party because it has consisted—and probably still does—of three different constituent elements. First there was the Prog element and then there was the Federal element, and now it has become the PFP simply to comply with the wishes of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. And they call themselves a party!

Now I come to the hon. member for Durban Central. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban Central supports the hon. member for Sandton, and he is the one who suffers because of the activities of gentlemen like the hon. member for Sandton with all their political manoeuvrings.

To what group do you belong? Are you a Connie-man or a Treurnicht-man?

I would have thought that they would have had more sense than to have…

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

Mr. Speaker, I am merely trying to indicate that the Opposition’s political sensitivity should have kept them silent about a Bill of this nature.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank hon. members on the opposite side for their support. I just want to state, however, that frankly as I said in an interjection to the hon. member for Sandton, I personally do not think that a change to the Act was necessary. Misgivings were however expressed, and we merely wanted to make doubly sure. However, it is not only members on the opposite side who have treated me and the NP leniently. Statements have appeared in the newspapers about the Opposition Parties that are going to sign petitions together. So I thought perhaps this new provision in the legislation might be able to accommodate the two Opposition parties.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we come now to the Third Reading of a Bill about which we have debated long and strenuously, although there are only perhaps two clauses—one in particular—that are contentious. I am afraid, however, that we have not really got any further with our arguments. The hon. the Minister remains adamant that the attitude he adopted originally is correct, his original attitude being that there is no incursion into the freedom of the Press in terms of the Police Amendment Bill. There is the old saying that 50 million Frenchmen cannot be wrong. In the light of that, I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that absolutely nobody appears to agree with his point of view. I do not believe that the hon. members on the other side have even bothered to study the Bill, except perhaps for one or two who participated in the debate.

I have evidence of what I say because I have here a formidable collection of Press cuttings about the Bill. I have cuttings from practically every newspaper in the country, and they are responsible newspapers—and the hon. the Minister is prepared to admit that there are such things as responsible newspapers in South Africa. Every one of them agrees with the point of view we on this side of the House have adopted, viz. that there is no doubt whatever that, once this Bill is on the Statute Book, there will be very little reporting on police matters in South Africa. The reason is that the penalties for an offence in terms of the Bill are enormous: A fine of up to R10 000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

What is much more important than the fine, which could be a very small amount as we have seen, for instance, in cases involving the Prisons Act, is the fact that it is a very expensive procedure indeed to be hauled into court and have to defend the point of view that what was published, was published with the genuine belief that it was the truth. This is very difficult to establish in a court. It is not as simple as the hon. the Minister said in his reply to the several questions put to him by the editor of Die Transvaler, viz. that the onus rests with the State to prove that the report is untrue and that the only onus that rests with the defendant to establish his innocence is that of proving that he believed that what he published was true. In court this is a very difficult matter indeed and I do not believe that the hon. the Minister’s explanation has satisfied any one of the newspapers that have protested against this measure.

I want to read out an excerpt or two of what different newspapers had to say about the actual Bill when it was published—not about the debate, because that is forbidden in terms of the rules of the House. They are all reputable newspapers and not the gutter Press the hon. the Minister referred to, although he has not told us exactly who he believes the gutter Press to be.

The member for East London North first spoke of the gutter Press, not me. [Interjections.]

Well, shall we settle for the fact that we all agree that there is no such animal as the gutter Press in South Africa?

He first spoke of the gutter Press. [Interjections.]

Pamphlets are sometimes published that go further than the truth, but the newspapers are responsible organs of public opinion and should be treated as such. I shall quote from some of them, not seriatim, but as I happen to pick them up. A newspaper of the Argus group said—

The writer went on to ask—

That appeared in The Star. The Eastern Province Herald said—

Then we have the Pretoria News which said—

I am reading only a few lines from the many leading articles strongly protesting against the Bill. I read further—

We have the Rand Daily Mail voicing similar criticism and saying—

It went on to point out that lies are covered by the laws of defamation—

I could go on and on, but I do not wish to bore the House. The Evening Post had the same thing to say. The Eastern Province Herald further made the point that—

There was a similar article in The Cape Times, and in The Citizen which published a long leading article entitled “Handcuffing the Press”.

When it suits you, you quote The Citizen.

Well, let me then say that even The Citizen, the Government’s own organ, voiced criticism. There were others that pointed out that—

That is The Citizen, itself, in fact—

It goes on to say—

So one can go on and on. I can also refer to The Star.

I now come to organs outside South Africa. There is world anxiety about this Bill, as is evident from statements made by the Secretary-General of the International Federation of Journalists, the Secretary-General of the International Commission of Jurists and the editor of the International Press Institute.

I now want to refer to important organs other than the Press inside our own country. Most important of all is the Association of Law Societies. Yesterday I asked the hon. the Minister whether he did not consider this to be a responsible body. His response was that it was a ridiculous and rhetorical question. Let us assume it is a ridiculous and rhetorical question. Then I still want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will give this House some information about the manner in which he responded to the protests made by the Association of Law Societies, which stated that in their opinion clause 9 of the Bill might inhibit free and open discussion and criticism of police conduct. They further referred to the severity of the penalty provided for, the casting of the onus on the accused and the wide connotation of the word “publishes”, something which was yesterday mentioned also by hon. members on this side of the House. The statement further reads—

This report states that the executive committee of the Association of Law Societies met with the hon. the Minister of Justice on Sunday.

On Sunday?

Yes, on Sunday. That is what it says.

That is why I have to introduce the legislation. I must do so because one cannot ever believe the Press.

Is the hon. the Minister going to sue the society for stating this?

One cannot believe anything the Press says.

No, the hon. the Minister would not dream of meeting them on Sunday. [Interjections.] Some of the nastiest little Bills the hon. the Minister introduces on Mondays, have been cooked up silently on Sundays. Perhaps the hon. the Minister met them Friday, Saturday or Monday, but whenever he met them, I wonder whether he would tell us how he responded to the representations made by that association.

Did he meet them?

Yes, he did. The S.A. Society of Journalists has also issued a statement believing that the new Bill represents a further major restriction on the activities of a free Press in South Africa and that it believes in the highest degree of accuracy and openess in the reporting of crime and other police matters and in a policy of maximum co-operation between the police and the Press in informing the public.

Then I see that the Newspaper Press Union, which, after all, already deals with all those newspapers which fall under the Press code, stated on Wednesday last week that it was going to meet the hon. the Minister of Police to discuss the controversial Police Amendment Act.

When? On Sunday?

No, not on Sunday, but on Wednesday. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister met the representatives of the NPU. Did they not also convince him that just possibly he may be wrong? Is nobody ever to convince this hon. the Minister? Every newspaper in the country is against this measure. I have not even quoted from three of the newspapers that support the hon. the Minister’s own party. I have quoted from The Citizen. I can also refer to the long series of questions put by Dr. Willem de Klerk, the editor of Die Transvaler. Rapport and Die Burger also object to this Bill. What else can I quote? I have quoted outside sources, the Press throughout South Africa right across the board, the Newspaper Press Union and the Association of Law Societies, but nobody can convince the hon. the Minister.

What about the public?

The public is not aware of the implications of clauses in a Bill of this nature. Is the hon. the Minister perhaps going to read to us out of an anonymous letter which says how sensible it is for him to introduce this Bill?

Anonymous phone calls to the Press.

Well, anonymous phone calls have very often provided very interesting and useful sources of information. However, I do not expect an hon. Minister of this House to use that as a reason for introducing a Bill when everybody else objects to it.

We have not changed our attitude towards this Bill. We voted against the Second Reading when we moved a very strong amendment. No amendments were accepted in the Committee Stage; therefore we shall vote against the Third Reading as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that we are aware of the attitude adopted by the newspapers and I do not want to enter into a dispute with her about the attitude of the newspapers. I think she put her case by quoting a number of cuttings here. We expected that. However, the matter goes much further than just the attitude of the newspapers. I think it would be a very good thing if an opinion poll could be conducted in the country to test public opinion on this matter, but then it must be put to them correctly. I think there is no one of us on this side of the House who has not had the public coming to him in his constituency to ask when we are going to clamp down on the newspapers because they are always publishing misleading and untruthful reports, confusing the public and doing South Africa no good. I think that is the feeling that should be tested, and not the feeling which is revealed in every newspaper cutting which the hon. member for Houghton quoted to us here. I could have quoted the same cuttings, because we expected it.

The newspapers are an interested party.

Yes, the newspapers are an interested party in any case, as the hon. the Minister says. They are involved. Their bread and butter is involved. The more sensation they can create, the better they can sell their newspapers and the bigger their circulation will be. Surely that is obvious. We need not even argue about that point.

I would like to point out to hon. members that we are living in a time of increasing crime and increasing unrest; unrest on our national borders through terrorism on our borders and those of our neighbouring States. We also have internal unrest and we have urban terrorism. The public is very sensitive about both of these matters. They are sensitive about the rising crime rate and the increasing unrest in the country. That is why the work of the police is so extremely important. That is why their work is so complicated and very often so delicate. These are the matters one should look at, especially because we are all so sensitive about the increasing unrest in our country. I think it is also one of the main reasons why the Police Force should enjoy our highest esteem and protection. They deserve the co-operation of every member of the public in this country, especially in the times to which I have just referred. I think this legislation should perhaps have been introduced sooner so that no damage could have been done to South Africa.

The result of this legislation will be that only the truth will be published in the future. We have emphasized over and over again during the Second Reading stage and in the Committee Stage that the measure is only concerned with the publication of the truth. No one minds if all the activities of the police are published in the newspapers, as long as it is the truth. The reading public will gradually come to realize that they can depend on reports about police activities and about activities of other departments, and the newspapers will benefit from that. I am sure that this amending Bill will have a beneficial effect on the newspapers and not a detrimental one. However, what I consider particularly important in these times of increasing unrest is the friction and troublemaking we find in this multiracial country of ours.

I myself and some of my colleagues have quoted several examples of untrue statements published in the newspapers, and each one of those examples was to the effect that the police had meted out harsh and unlawful treatment to non-Whites. Surely this is deliberately calculated to cause friction in South Africa, something for which there is no need. This is the type of thing one would like to eliminate. Hatred is stirred up, and it is no use trying to apologize later and perhaps paying a fine of R500. By that time the harm has been done. One example I quoted was about untrue statements published in November 1978. Only in February this year was a correction published in the newspaper concerned. By that time, three months had elapsed, during which the harm had spread throughout the country, and especially among the non-White population. Only then was the matter rectified. By that time it was too late, however.

It is unfortunately true that there are irresponsible reporters. In my opinion, this legislation will help to teach such reporters to behave more responsibly, to make sure of their facts first, to do research first in order to establish that their information is correct before they publish it. What is also important is that a considerably wider field will be covered by this legislation. Newspapers are not the only publications which will henceforth have to be careful not to publish any untrue statements. The same will apply to printers which publish pamphlets containing falsehoods. These are also covered by this legislation. Formerly the Press Council had no say over that aspect. Even people who publish untrue statements in their personal capacity can now be dealt with in terms of this legislation. Formerly, the Press Council had no jurisdiction over such people either. Therefore the Press Council does not quite meet the needs with regard to the elimination of this kind of untruth. The reason for that is that the Press Council can only act against its own members. Moreover, the Press Council follows a very slow process. The example to which I referred a moment ago illustrates my statement. In that case, three months elapsed before an apology was published. Therefore the process is much too slow.

Furthermore, I also think the penalty imposed by the Press Council is far too light. In terms of the new provision in the Bill, a more appropriate punishment will be meted out to people who commit this kind of crime. Even our libel laws are inadequate in this respect. People are often not mentioned by name, which means that libel laws cannot be used for combating this kind of offence.

The freedom of the Press is not curbed in any way by this Bill. The Press remains as free as ever. Its freedom is only subject to one condition: that the Press must publish the truth. I also want to refer again to the Defence Act. I have already referred to it. In section 118 of the Defence Act, we find a similar provision. It expressly provides that before any information about the Department of Defence may be published, the permission of the Minister concerned must first be obtained. In the present case, exactly the same is being asked for. The hon. the Minister wants the Police Force to be treated in the same way as the Department of Defence. He is not asking for anything more, only that the police should be treated in the same way, that journalists should first make sure of the reliability of their information before publishing anything which affects the police. They must therefore make sure that they publish the truth.

As far as the penalty provision is concerned, I believe that it is appropriate to this kind of crime. The penalty laid down in the new legislation—a fine of R10 000 or five years’ imprisonment—will be the highest penalty that can be imposed for offences of this nature. However, the penalty can also be much lighter. When one considers that untrue statements of this kind amount to absolute character assassination of the police, a fine of R10 000 is perhaps even too light. It is too light a penalty for character association of our police and of our country. Therefore I think this penalty is not too harsh.

As far as the onus of proof is concerned, this has already been debated. Surely it is clear that the onus lies with the State throughout. The onus on the person who published the untrue statement is very light. He must only be able to prove that he believed the report he published to be the truth. If he goes to a court and shows reasonable grounds for his belief that it was the truth, the court will most probably exonerate him.

This clause will certainly do much to present the S.A. Police in a more favourable light to the public inside the country as well as overseas. For that reason we welcome this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member for Potgietersrus has said, reminds me to a certain extent of a donkey in so far as a donkey is reputed not to be able to see further than the carrot which is dangled in front of his nose. I believe that hon. members on that side of the House are guilty of the same thing, because they are like the hon. member for Potgietersrus, clutching at the straw that what is in fact being dealt with here is a matter of truth or of untruth. However, they cannot see beyond those blinkered facts; they cannot see the wider version, that just about everybody else can see, that this will in fact restrict the freedom of the Press. Their own Press, the English Press, the law societies and hon. members on this side of the House tell them this. Yet they cannot see beyond that little carrot dangling in front of their noses.

The hon. the Minister reminds one to some extent of the story of the mother who was watching her son marching in an army. He was out of step with the rest. Yet she remarked that her son was the only man in step in the army! This is what appears to be happening with this Bill, because, as I have said, just about everybody is telling the hon. the Minister that this Bill is restrictive and not democratic. However, the hon. the Minister insists on remaining out of step with the rest of the community in this regard. One must not forget that the hon. the Minister is a very powerful figure in the South African society. He has very great powers, powers of restriction, of banning and of detention. These are powers that have been conferred on him by this House. He is now in fact extending these powers.

One must remember that here he is restricting the freedom of reporting about the department for which he is responsible. There already is a similar restriction in connection with another department for which he is responsible, namely the Department of Prisons. Obviously, the hon. the Minister likes what that restrictive clause in the Prisons Bill has done regarding reporting on prison matters. He is now extending it. He knows perfectly well what the effect of this clause is going to be and he likes the idea. So he is going to press ahead in extending his powers. We believe that he is causing harm to that very democracy which he says he believes in. He is destroying Press freedom, which he also says he believes in. I believe he is causing damage to South Africa in acting in this way.

The hon. member for Houghton has already quoted extracts from the Press and from opinions in the outside world, opinions that are damaging to South Africa. Yet the hon. the Minister insists on putting through this legislation, despite the fact that it has been amply demonstrated to him that he is putting yet another stick and another weapon into the hands of South Africa’s enemies.

Whatever we say from these benches, is obviously not going to affect what will happen. This piece of legislation is going to be pushed through. Yesterday, during the Third Reading of the Inquests Amendment Bill, the hon. the Minister took me to task in suggesting that he had said something in the House to the effect that he was going to push through with this legislation, irrespective of what the Opposition did or said. Since then I have been able to get hold of the hon. the Minister’s Hansard. I should like to quote to the House what he said during the Second Reading of the Inquests Amendment Bill—

The way in which this was said certainly left me—and I have a good idea that this applies to most of us—in no doubt that the hon. the Minister was simply saying that regardless of any arguments that could be brought forward by this side of the House, or whether we supported it or not, he was going to push ahead and force this legislation through the House. I do not deny that he has the power behind him to do it because, as I have already said, he is one of the most powerful men in this country today. Therefore we regret that as long as we have the opportunity—I believe this will apply to our members in the Other Place as well—we shall speak against the Bill and we shall continue to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill which is now being considered by the House during its Third Reading stage has a bearing on several aspects of the South African Police Force. As I understand the legislation in the first place, it is intended to clarify and eliminate uncertainties which have existed up to now and also to give a definitive interpretation to matters which have been construed in various ways up to now.

In the first place, the legislation seeks to clarify the situation of members of the Reserve Police Force. I am very pleased about this, since problems often arose in the past when a member of the Reserve Force acted as a member of the true Police Force. This uncertainty has now been eliminated once and for all, and it is very clearly stated that he is only a member of the Force when he is in the service of the Force.

Another provision to which I would like to refer is one which I mentioned during the Committee Stage. It relates, inter alia, to the distance from our country’s borders within which a person may be searched without the documents required for this. I cannot help repeating this, because when the recent bomb explosion took place in the Carlton Centre, I reflected seriously on what we were going to do to counter this problem of an apparently innocent suitcase which actually contains a time-bomb and which is left at a strategic place. I believe that as a result of this extension of the distance, we shall yet have to pass legislation in this House to the effect that the contents of a person’s suitcase may be examined at any place in the country. We believe that the provisions of this Bill are a step in the right direction.

The fact that the police may perform war service is one I regard as important. I know how careful the hon. member for Houghton is about the amendments she moves to legislation in this House, and the fact that she moved no written amendment to this clause goes to prove, I believe, that she never intended to move an amendment.

Where were you?

The PFP simply accepted that this clause was right and that it could be accepted. Then the hon. member for Houghton discovered that on a previous occasion, when the Defence Act was before the House, they were opposed to the extension of South Africa’s borders for purposes of war service, so she produced her amendment yesterday.

That was when we had the Committee Stage.

Precisely, but the hon. member did not give any prior notice of her amendment. I am glad that this clause has been accepted, for after all, the Police Force consists of people who specialize in certain directions, and we shall henceforth be able, in times of war, to use their specialized knowledge outside the borders of South Africa as well, because the people who serve in the Defence Force do not always have this specialized knowledge.

There are various clauses dealing with departmental trials.

Furthermore, the Bill also contains this “marathon clause”, clause 9. This clause has led to a marathon debate. It reminds me of a marathon race between what can be called the lie and the truth. Fortunately, there is an Afrikaans saying which reads: “A1 loop die leuen ook hoe snel, die waarheid agterhaal hom wel.”

I therefore want to dwell for a while on clause 9, in reaction to the many quotations from newspapers made by the hon. member for Houghton. As the hon. member for Potgietersrus rightly pointed out, we were aware of the attitude adopted by the Press on this matter. We know that this attitude has also been adopted by newspapers which support this side of the House. I have no objection whatsoever to this. I believe, like all other members in the House, that we should have Press freedom in South Africa. We believe that freedom of the Press is essential. Therefore I respect the Press if they feel that they are opposed to the passing of this Bill.

However, the matter must be viewed in perspective. We must examine why the Opposition is alleging here that the freedom of the Press is being violated by this legislation. A close reading of clause 9 will reveal that there is no reference whatsoever to the Press and nothing to imply that “publication” means “a report published by the Press”. Publication can take place by means of an ordinary pamphlet or by means of verbal disclosure. The Press is not mentioned at all, and therefore I ask the Opposition, and especially the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who discussed this point at some length, why they want to read a meaning into this clause which does not exist. Why do they want to give an interpretation to this clause which it was never intended to have? The whole matter…

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who is making interjections at the moment, would look at the marginal note—this is always important in studying legislation—he will see that it is concerned with the publication of untrue statements. The hon. member will agree with me that the truth is after all the pivot on which our legal system hinges. No ruling is given on a matter without the question being asked whether it is the truth. A witness takes an oath to speak the truth. That is what this is all about. The point is that the Police Force has been disparaged in the past, has been crushed, figuratively speaking, by irresponsible remarks which have been made about the way in which the Police Force in South Africa performs its duties. The Police Force of South Africa has built up a special image for itself in the world. I have the greatest esteem for the members of the Police Force.

In this connection, I think of an incident which I witnessed a year and a half ago. A police officer told me that he had sent two of his men to bed because they had been working on a case for 37 hours at a stretch. After the two men had slept a few hours, they awoke to find that an article had been published meanwhile which would hinder and prejudice the good work they had done. What enthusiasm are those policemen going to have in the future to do their work efficiently in the interests of law and order in South Africa? The men were simply stunned by some irresponsible remark that was made after thy had done their very best to solve a case.

To the Press I want to say that we have nothing against responsible reporting. What newspaperman wants to make a living and achieve something in this country through irresponsible reporting? What newspaperman wants to say, on the basis of indirect lies which are being spread, that he was a good reporter? I do not think there is anyone who would want to do that. I believe that newspapermen also want to rise to the top in life, in their particular field, through responsible reporting and not through sensational reporting. We all know about the kind of innocent little report which is published, and immediately afterwards one hears people whispering: Have you heard, have you seen, what the newspapers are writing? Then people think that there must be some truth in it. You think it must be the truth.

It is true that there is a Press Council which can be approached about the matter, but by the time one goes to the Press Council, the harmful ideas have already taken root. The general argument is and remains: No smoke without fire. And afterwards one simply cannot put out that fire. One simply cannot extinguish it completely. That is why it is essential that we should go to the root of the problem to prevent any irresponsible reporting from taking place. That is why this legislation has been introduced. That is also why I consider it to be such fine legislation.

I now want to deal briefly with another aspect. The hon. member for Houghton produced some important newspaper cuttings here. In the light of the cuttings she quoted from, it must be clear that the legislation is not very popular among Pressmen. However, if we had to make popularity the criterion for the legislation we have to pass in this highest Assembly in the country, where would we end up? What kind of legislation would we pass here then? Would this be the so-called popular legislation which can be very closely associated with popular justice? The legislation we pass in this House should be aimed, in the first place, at solving problems which have arisen.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout admitted yesterday that enormous problems were caused by reporting that was not quite accurate. What are we doing on this side of the House but deciding to face that problem? Is that not the reason why we are proposing this clause and want it passed?

As regards inaccurate reports—and remember that the State first has to prove that they are inaccurate—we are placing a light onus on the accused. He must only be able to say that he had reason for publishing the report and for believing the information in the report to be the truth. If he can prove that he had reasonable grounds for believing this—and remember, this is not a question of proving something beyond all reasonable doubt, because the ruling of the court rests only on a balance of probability, a much lighter test—he has only to furnish his reasons for this. Then he will never face the fine of R10 000 and the five years’ imprisonment. Therefore I cannot understand why hon. members on that side of the House are so very sensitive about the penalty which is being laid down here. I admit that it is a deterrent. That is quite correct. However, a responsible man will never regard it as a deterrent, because he will know that what he publishes is correct and responsible. Therefore, we must pass this legislation fearlessly. We must ask ourselves whether the drafting of this legislation was essential and not whether it is popular. Once we have replied as to the necessity for it, we must also ask whether the legislation is effective enough to combat the problem. I maintain that the legislation will be effective. Our Police Force will no longer be subject to the humiliating publications to which they have been subject up to now and which sometimes left them feeling absolutely powerless after they had worked hard and had reached the peak of efficiency in order to solve a case.

I want to conclude by congratulating the hon. the Minister on this legislation and on taking a firm stand. I know that the hon. member for East London North is making a terrible fuss about the fact that the hon. the Minister said that the legislation would be passed after we had voted about it. It must give him pleasure to wrest something out of context and to keep harping on it. However, the hon. the Minister was only indicating the normal way in which legislation is passed in this House. If that side of the House had ever enjoyed the honour of being in power, they would have done the same and the same would have happened to them. I do not believe that the hon. member can prove in any way that his remark that we are dealing here with undemocratic legislation is true or accurate, except if that side of the House understands by “democracy” that one simply has to follow a laissez-faire policy and let matters take their course. We on this side of the House gladly support the Third Reading of this Bill and we look forward to passing it by an overwhelming majority soon.

Mr. Speaker, in replying to the hon. member for Aliwal, let me say immediately that I am amazed that he sees this as a marathon between lies and the truth. We on this side of the House, the Press and the whole of South Africa do not see it as that kind of marathon, but rather as a marathon struggle between the freedom of the Press and the muzzling of the Press. I think the hon. member harbours a misconception in this regard.

He wanted to know why the hon. member for Houghton had not moved an amendment to clause 3 with regard to service outside the Republic. Where was the hon. member when the hon. member for Houghton spoke and moved her amendment? It was discussed here by several hon. members. I think the hon. member was asleep. He does not even know what happened in the debate.

You do not understand Afrikaans.

When hon. members on this side of the House by way of interjection told him what a fool he was making of himself, he referred to what was said yesterday.

I spoke about written notice.

Written notice? We gave notice and put our arguments very clearly. In fact, I myself, when I took part in the debate, quoted the hon. members for Rondebosch and Yeoville with regard to the amendment of 1965.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he was present in this House when the hon. member for Houghton stated apologetically that she was sorry she had not given written notice of her amendment? [Interjections.]

There is no rule in the House to the effect that notice must be given in writing beforehand. She was perfectly entitled in terms of the rules not to give written notice beforehand. Therefore, with respect, the hon. member’s point is quite useless.

I want to tell the hon. member for Potgietersrus that we have very great respect for the police. We value the work they do. That matter is not at issue in this debate. What is at issue is the freedom of the Press. The question is to what extent the Press is to be muzzled. That is the issue before us. I can say to the hon. member for Potgietersrus that we gladly accept his challenge to have an opinion poll taken with regard to this particular measure. However, if we do so, we must approach all South Africans, the Whites, the Coloureds, the Blacks and the Indians. Let all of them have a say. We will be quite happy to have that done. We hope the hon. member will go back to his caucus and ask them to provide sufficient funds for this opinion poll to be taken, because we support the idea fully. We hope it will be done.

Mr. Speaker, we are indeed sorry that, although we are now already into the Third Reading debate, the hon. the Minister has as yet made no concessions whatsoever; he has not conceded to a single argument raised by this side of the House. The hon. member who spoke last referred to the Press cuttings from which the hon. member for Houghton quoted today, Press cuttings which show that every section of the Press, the English-language Press and the Afrikaans-language Press, the Press supporting the NP and the Press not supporting them, is against this measure. What more proof can one want to show that this measure is unacceptable and should not be introduced? In this Third Reading debate we must determine what effect this Bill is going to have when it becomes law. There are really two issues at stake. The first involves clause 3 which deals with the service to be rendered by the Police Force outside the borders. The hon. the Minister referred to the role of the Police Brigade during the last war and I think that he accepts that the Police Force will be attached to the Defence Force under some or other army commander. They will therefore become a fighting force. We say that they must carry out their police duties, so the hon. the Minister must now tell the House whether the Police Force is going to be a combat force operating outside the borders or whether they will carry out police duties outside the borders. I think we are entitled to ask the hon. the Minister one question. Will he or the Cabinet give an undertaking to this House that should it become necessary for the Police Force to operate outside the borders of South Africa, in a state of war or emergency, this Parliament would first be consulted before such steps are taken?

I now want to turn to my main line of argument and refer to the famous clause 9. In the debate on this clause yesterday I raised an argument about persons publishing untrue statements. When I raised the argument, the hon. the Minister would not concede my point and said that he would leave it to the courts to interpret what the word “publishes” means. I submitted that the word “publishes” does not only refer to the publication of statements in newspapers, pamphlets or leaflets, but that it has a wider meaning. The word “publishes” actually means “to make known” and therefore it also relates to verbal statements. He wanted to leave it to the courts, however, to interpret its meaning. He does not, of course, have to leave it to the courts to interpret the meaning because they have already done so. The word “publishes” has already been interpreted in the case of Ciné Films v. The Commissioner of Police, so perhaps the example is doubly appropriate. In this case the learned Judge of Appeal said (S.A. Law Reports, 1972, Vol. 2, page 255)—

If the hon. the Minister checks the Police Act, he will find confirmation of the fact that the Police Act does not provide for a definition of the word “publish”. I want to give another example and refer to the judgment in the case State v. Film Hire (Pty.) Ltd. This case involved a contravention of the Publications and Entertainments Act. This case is significant because the word “publishes” was also at issue. I quote (S.A. Law Reports, 1972, Vol. 3, page 701)—

Reference is then made to the case of Rex v. Brindi in 1967 which I shall come to in a moment. Reference is also made to the meaning given to the word “publish” by Webster’s Dictionary, viz.: “to make public; to make known, either by words, writing or printing, what before was private or unknown; to notify publicly; to divulge as a private transaction; to promulgate or proclaim as a law; to be caused to be printed, offered for sale, etc.”. From this judgment it becomes clear that one can publish something orally as well. The point is also upheld by the case Rex v. Brindi. (S.A. Law Journal, 1967, Vol. 1, page 619, paras. (d) to (g)). This was a Rhodesian cse involving a contravention of their Publications Act. I quote—

The last case I shall mention is that of the State v. Kiley (S.A. Law Reports, 1962, Vol. 3, pp. 320 and 321). I think the hon. the Minister might well be influenced in his thinking by this case, though perhaps it is already known to him. This case involves the contravention of section 8 of the Prisons Act, 1959. The accused had sent a cablegram overseas which was alleged to be untrue. On page 320 it is stated that what is important is the emphasis to be placed on the word “publishes” in its context. It actually shows that the offence was the publishing of “any false information concerning the behaviour or experience in prison of any prisoner…” That was the actual offence. Then, on page 323, the judgment goes on to show that publication, though verbal, is nevertheless an offence against the Act. It is therefore very clear that what we have not considered in regard to this Bill is a further example of what can happen, and that is that any person who makes a statement, be it at a public meeting or elsewhere, is in fact rumour-mongering. The hon. the Minister must therefore concede that this could be seen as a rumour-mongering clause. Perhaps he is trying to do what he has previously threatened to do, and that is to stop people from rumour-mongering. This is certainly a further implication.

Let us now come back to the question of the onus of proof. The onus is clearly on the State to prove that the publication—whatever it might be—is untrue. The onus is then on the accused to show that he had reasonable grounds for believing that it was, in fact, true. However, had the hon. the Minister introduced words to the effect that any person, knowing it to be untrue, had published something, the whole question of mens rea would come into effect and the prosecution would then have to discharge the onus that the accused “knowingly” published untrue statements. That is the sort of thing that would have improved the clause and made it more effective, but instead the hon. the Minister has chosen to place the onus on the accused. I am surprised that the hon. the Minister did not mention—as was referred to by the hon. member for Houghton—that members of the Association of Law Societies brought this very difficulty to the attention of the hon. the Minister. According to a report in The Cape Times this morning, they queried the wide connotation of the word “publish”. Why did the hon. the Minister not take us into his confidence about this matter? Why did he not mention the fact that the Association of Law Societies had raised this matter and why does the hon. the Minister not deal with the question of publishing as such?

I just want to demonstrate the impossible position in which the hon. the Minister has placed the newspapers. Let us consider the newspaper reports of the last week. I want to submit to the hon. the Minister that if the reporting had been about the police, the SABC, SATV, every English-language newspaper and every Afrikaans-language newspaper in South Africa would have been guilty of an offence. Why? I shall tell hon. members why.

The simple reason is that the week’s reporting involved conflicting statements, for example by Dr. Connie Mulder, Dr. Rhoodie and Gen. Van den Bergh on the one hand and by Mr. Vorster, the previous Prime Minister, on the other, and the statements made by the conflicting parties were published simultaneously. The normal practice of a journalist is to take a statement affecting, say, Mr. X. He then telephones Mr. X and says: “Look here, here is a statement about you.” Mr. X, however, says it is totally untrue. Now, whose version is to be published? In the example quoted by the hon. the Minister, and in terms of this legislation, it will not be possible for any newspaper to publish a statement and, simultaneously with that, a denial, as has happened during the last few days in connection with the Information scandal, the very issue under which we are suffering at the moment. It would simply not be possible to do that.

You are talking utter nonsense!

I am not talking nonsense. A journalist is expected to act in a reasonable manner in establishing the truth of information communicated to him. Should it happen that a second statement issued contradicts the information already in possession of the journalist, what then? What must he believe? He cannot believe both sources, because one of them is evidently not true. Who is telling the truth and who not? So, what does that journalist publish then? Should he publish both he will not be able to claim that he has made reasonably sure of the truth of his information. It is evidently impossible to claim that one is reasonably sure of the truth of two contradicting statements. That is what makes it so difficult. This is the impossible situation in which newspapers will be placed now by the hon. the Minister. That is the effect this particular legislation is going to have. I believe we have a responsible Press controlled by the Newspaper Press Union. Furthermore there are the defamation laws and courts of law where aggrieved complainants can seek relief. This particular piece of legislation is utterly unnecessary and we on this side of the House will remain implacably opposed to it

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Hillbrow is trying to ignore the crucial aspect. That is that this legislation is concerned mainly with the publication of untrue statements. It has nothing to do with truth. In the light of that, I wonder what his comment would be on what is said in Die Vaderland today, for example. I regard it as true, but I do not know whether the hon. member has had an opportunity to read it and to comment on it. I must say that I had to hold the earpiece pressed against my ear to stay awake while the hon. member was speaking. Therefore, I regard the view which Die Vaderland has of the hon. member as quite true and correct.

What does Die Vaderland say?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow alleges that this Bill will result in a muzzling of the Press. Surely that is a generalization of the worst kind. I believe that when this legislation has become operative, we will not have empty newspapers, but newspapers which will still be full of news items. However, it will be possible then, I believe, to have more confidence in what is written in the newspapers, especially with regard to the police. In that regard, I respectfully want to suggest that the Press has a very important task to perform. The relationship between the public and the Press is very important. A very large part of the public regards the things said in the Press as absolutely credible. Similarly, a very large part of the public is influenced by the Press. As far as the police are concerned, therefore, I believe that the Press must realize that what it publish is extremely important and must be handled with great responsibility.

In the times in which we live, times in which the police have a very important task to perform, I believe that we must also realize that unnecessary attacks on our Police Force, people who have a very thankless task to perform, are not at all the correct procedure. I also believe that in the times in which we live, the attacks on the S.A. Police will become more subtle by the day. In their role as the upholders of law and justice, of law and order in this country, they should not be unnecessarily obstructed.

The objections made against this legislation by the Press, objections quoted here by the hon. member for Houghton, are objections which we expected, of course. They are a completely interested party, and I cannot imagine that they would just accept this type of legislation without any protest. It was to be expected that they would object to this legislation.

Mention has also been made of the question of penalties. I want to make it quite clear that I have confidence in our administration of justice and in responsible presiding officers. The maximum penalty will only be applied in very flagrant cases. In less serious cases, I believe that a minimal fine will be imposed. Imprisonment will not be considered. The attitude adopted by hon. members on that side of the House in this connection shows that they do not have that basic respect for and belief in the people on the Bench that they deserve. I believe that the hon. member for Johannesburg North in particular should pay attention to this.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must try to understand. The hon. member for East London North said “this Bill is restrictive”. Of course this Bill is restrictive, so the hon. member is right. It is restrictive, but it only restricts people who are not telling the truth, nothing else. It has no bearing on anything else. The hon. member for East London North also said that it would be a weapon in the hands of our enemies. If this House had to drop all legislation which would lead to an outcry in the outside world and in certain newspapers, some of the best legislation ever passed in this House would not have appeared on the Statute Book.

I just want to refer briefly to a letter which was published in The Citizen of 28 March 1979 and which I find very interesting. A New Zealander wrote in connection with the legislation—

So it is not only a weapon in the hands of our enemies. Where I have spoken to the public and discussed this legislation with them, I have found that there is support for it from all quarters. For that reason, I shall certainly support the Bill at the Third Reading as well.

This Bill does not consist only of clause 9. It contains other clauses as well, but they have received virtually no attention, except from the hon. member for Aliwal. The hon. member for Aliwal referred, inter alia, to clauses 4 to 8. These deal with the question of the powers of officers and the Commissioner’s position in connection with inquiries held by police officers.

I should like to break a lance in connection with the enormous task performed by police officers in conducting such inquiries. These people perform an enormous task, and I have had the privilege of appearing before these officers on many occasions. I want to pay tribute to the high quality of their inquiries and the fine work they do in that respect as well.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, with regard to the many senior policemen who have to spend a great deal of time on these inquiries and who at the moment take down minutes in longhand, which is time-consuming…

Order! The hon. member is now discussing a matter which does not form part of the Bill.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended for dinner, I wanted to know from the hon. the Minister whether investigating officers, as referred to in clauses 4 to 8 of the Bill, could possibly be given machines so that the records may be taped. These are senior police officers who conduct these inquiries and a great deal of their time is wasted in writing out these records verbatim.

I should also like to raise another matter which has not been mentioned at all. Clause 11 seeks to amend section 34A, and in the proposed subsection (14), the provisions of the Moratorium Act are being made applicable to members of the Police Reserve as well. In my opinion, this is a great improvement, and I want to welcome this amendment.

The hon. member for Houghton enjoyed considerable publicity in today’s newspapers because of some aspects she mentioned. The hon. member said, inter alia, that if this measure became law, “it would cast a blanket of silence over police action in South Africa”. This is yet another typical example of absolute generalization, and I cannot agree with that view. In terms of this piece of legislation, the Press very clearly retains the right to comment fully and to report on matters as long as it is the truth. In this connection I want to confirm what was said by the hon. member for Aliwal, when he remarked that because the onus of proof which is placed on such reporter rests on a balance of probability, it is not a heavy onus. The reasonableness of the belief of that reporter is of specific importance and I have every confidence that our Bench, which will hear such cases, will accept the correct implications and will give the correct interpretation, so that no unnecessary convictions will be made. In that respect I have the fullest confidence in our Bench.

A further absolute generalization which the hon. member for Houghton made in this connection was about the question “that the public has the right to know what goes on”. The public will still have the right to know what goes on, because full reports will still be published, but the only difference is that the reporter will have to make sure that the facts he is going to publish in the newspaper are correct and true. In this connection, I want to repeat what I said earlier tonight, i.e. that the Press has a very great responsibility to report properly and responsibly, because there are many members of the public who accept what is written in the Press without a moment’s reflection or hesitation. When such reporting refers to our police, it is of the greatest importance that those facts should be true and accurate. I want to repeat that the misgivings which there are about the penalty which can be imposed are in my opinion unjustified, because our presiding officers will find the correct sentence for every case. I gladly support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by replying to the last question put to me by the hon. member for Roodepoort. This hon. member made a very positive contribution to the debate and asked me whether we could not consider using machines for all the inquiries held by the boards, i.e. the administrative courts which have been instituted to try policemen who have committed administrative offences. I do not know whether the hon. member has seen the extremely bulky records one sometimes has to read. It seems to me that he has seen them, and that is why he has made this interesting proposal. I shall try to see whether it is not possible, especially in the big cities where quite a number of these trials take place, to expedite matters by using machines such as those in the magistrates’ courts.

The hon. members for Houghton and Hillbrow reproached me for not having taken the House into my confidence about the visit paid to me by the Association of Law Societies. Incidentally, this visit did not take place on a Sunday. This was another case of inaccurate reporting, and the Press may be glad that I am not a policeman, because the report about the date of the visit was untrue. They also wanted to know about the Press Council which came to see me this morning. I think hon. members know that when such people come to my office with representations, the conversation takes place in private.

Really?

Yes, really. That is a convention. I do not talk out of my office about matters which people come to discuss with me, unless they ask me to do so.

[Inaudible.]

But I am telling the hon. member what my standpoint is. My standpoint is that when people come to see me about something in my office, I do not talk about it, unless they give me their permission to convey certain information to the House. The Association of Law Societies asked me whether they could say something to the Press, and my reply was that they were free to tell the Press whatever they thought fit. I do not know whether they said anything to the Press, because they spoke to me on a previous occasion, and at that time the Press had a different story from the one that they discussed with me. I am not going to say what the conversation was all about. However, the outcome was that I undertook to give special attention to the representations which had been made to me after the Third Reading of this Bill had been disposed of in this House and before the Bill was dealt with in the Other Place. I have an absolutely open mind as far as this matter is concerned. I should like to protect the Police Force against irresponsible reporting and untrue statements. However, I do not want to do any more than that. I do not want to impose any curbs on the Press in general. I shall look at what has been submitted to me, to see whether any practicable proposals have been made which I can consider incorporating into the legislation in the Other Place. I think hon. members will probably be satisfied with that.

It is better than nothing.

Better than nothing? Then hon. members on the other side of the House have the temerity to say that I shall never change my mind. They say they have the greatest difficulty in making me change my mind. I can only say it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. As far as those hon. members are concerned, one is up against a stone wall. One can explain as much as one likes, but in their eyes, everything is wrong. No explanations are accepted. If the effect of this Bill, if it becomes law, will be to make the Press more responsible in its reporting of police activities, we shall have come a long way. We do not intend, as the hon. member for Hillbrow said in his absurd allegation, to drag a man to court for every inaccurate statement. In the first place, it could not happen. It is quite impossible.

And if the evidence conflicts?

It can conflict as much as it likes. If I say a certain person has said this or that and it is untrue, I have not made an untrue statement, after all. I have only said what the other person said. However, if I repeat that untrue statement on my own account in an editorial, surely I am giving wider currency to it. As a lawyer, that hon. member ought to know this. If one says that what one is reporting is a statement, and one merely states it as a fact, the fact which one is reporting is the statement. No one is telling an untruth by reporting a fact. However, if I report a false statement, an untruth, as a fact and I repeat it as my own opinion in my editorial—for example, if I say that someone has said this or that and I enlarge on that as though it were the truth—I am confirming that untruth and I am telling an untruth about the police. Then the legislation becomes applicable. Surely the hon. member ought to know that.

I am not trying to get at the Press in general. Great emphasis has been laid on the Press in the discussions on this legislation. However, the emphasis should have been elsewhere. This Bill has really been formulated for people who write pamphlets. I do have the Press Council to restrain the Press to some extent, but I have literally nothing for the writers of pamphlets. I do not want to use the Terrorism Act for everything, after all. The people I should prefer to subject to this legislation are the ones who make untrue statements about the police in pamphlets. Most of my objections to the Press will still go to the Press Council. Only a few blatant cases, cases of really hurtful and deliberate untruths and the denigration of the Police Force as State authority, will be brought before the courts.

Reference has been made here this evening to other laws. The Defence Act was mentioned, for example, and all hon. members agreed that it is working well.

[Inaudible.]

In terms of the Defence Act, permission has to be asked before publishing. The Minister’s permission must be asked before anything may be published.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Houghton seems to have had a very pleasant dinner and now she sits there interjecting. However, I cannot hear what the good lady says. If she would only speak up, I would listen, and if she would make a speech, I would sit down. I would gladly give her a chance to say what she wants to say. I would gladly answer her. Does the hon. member want to ask a question, or what is her problem? [Interjections.] I cannot hear.

Order! The hon. the Minister must proceed.

Under the Defence Act—and I am just mentioning this as an example—the Minister concerned has to be asked for his permission. That is what is being avoided here. Hon. members opposite are already criticizing me for allegedly wanting to do everything myself. Here I am referring matters to the courts, because hon. members always want a judge or a magistrate to deal with things. There they have it now! But this is also wrong. Now the hon. member for Hillbrow says we should do as the hon. the Minister of Defence does. He says we should make the Minister’s permission applicable here as well. So it is no use. We do our very best with the legislation, but in the eyes of the Opposition we can never win.

Let us vote!

The hon. member for East London North blamed me for something.

†I take it he will not mind my answering his speech.

Not at all. I would appreciate it.

The hon. member spoke along the lines that their opposition means nothing to me, that I take no notice of it at all.

Quite right.

We know. You take no notice of anybody.

The hon. members have no idea what the function of an Opposition is. That goes for the hon. member for Durban Point too. They have no idea. All the Bills that are introduced here are introduced with the intention of having them passed by the House. That applies to every single one of them.

Yes, irrespective.

Of course! Even if the Opposition opposes a Bill, it must still go through. That is why it was brought before the House.

Why is there a Parliament?

I’ll tell the hon. member why.

As a rubber stamp! [Interjections.]

It is not a rubber stamp, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order!

Hon. members on the other side should rather make constructive proposals! Where are their amendments to this specific clause? They did not move a single amendment. Then they ask me to withdraw the clause. Why should I do that? After all, I have submitted it to the House for the specific purpose of having it accepted.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he would accept it if the Opposition were to propose a constructive change?

Oh, Sir, surely that is not a question. What does the hon. member mean by “constructive change”? What does he really want? Now he tries to ask a trick question.

Mr. Speaker, may I put it in a better way? If we ask the hon. the Minister…

Let me say how I see the task of the Opposition. If the Bill which is before the House is a good one, they usually support it. However, when they oppose the Bill, they can do one of two things: They can oppose it all the way, and in that case, as I have already said, it will be passed by this side of the House because that is the reason why we brought the Bill before the House; or they can move amendments to it. The hon. members cannot tell me that I do not consider their amendments. I have always considered their amendments. I have always discussed their amendments with them. The trouble with the hon. members is that they have such a lack of propaganda that when they saw that the Press was against this Bill, they decided that the Bill would give them a chance to win the favour of the Press. They then concentrated on this particular provision. They never even looked at other aspects of the Bill. They did not make a single speech on any other aspect of the Bill.

What about my speech on the salaries of policemen?

They only harp on the aspects which affect the Press. However, this has got nothing to do with the freedom of the Press. In fact, we said this at the outset. The hon. member for Hillbrow asked me a question about the definition of the word “publish”. He said, quite rightly, that it did not refer only to the Press. If the hon. member had made a speech about that, I would have appreciated it. “Publish” includes verbal communication. In other words, this provision will also be applicable to people who attack the police by making untrue statements in their speeches. Therefore I want to warn the hon. member for Hillbrow not to make a speech in which he makes untrue statements about the police, because if he did that, he would be in trouble. He is quite right as far as that is concerned. If he had only enlarged on that aspect, we could have conducted a more constructive debate. That is the whole point. That is what I want to bring home to them.

You stand in solitary isolation.

Oh, Sir, one cannot take much notice of that turbulent priest after eight o’clock at night.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to refer to the hon. member for Pinelands as a turbulent priest?

Order! The hon. the Minister must refer to other hon. members of the House as “hon. members”.

Mr. Speaker, may I refer to him as an hon. member who is also a turbulent priest?

No, not in one and the same sentence. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I shall then refer to him in one sentence as an hon. member. Finally, I just want to thank hon. members on that side of the House for the contributions they made. I considered all their arguments, but unfortunately I must reject them all.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—94: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; Delport, W. H.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Marais, J. 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.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); 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.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, J. H. Hoon, H. D. K. van der Merwe, W. L. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Noes—21: Aronson, T.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Miller, R. B.; 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 Rensburg, H. E. J.

Tellers: A. L. Boraine and A. B. Widman. Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, you will not allow me to question the reason for or solve the mustery of the missing Minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs, whose two Bills should now have been before the House. I can only say that I hope that it is not as a result of any conflict in the Indian ocean. However, since we are unable to deal with the two Bills and they now have to stand over by agreement, we now have to deal with the Defence Amendment Bill.

That is an unjustified remark.

The hon. the Minister of Public Works seems to take exception to that remark. After some of the remarks which were passed by his hon. colleague earlier this evening, I do not think my remark was uncalled for.

I want now to deal with the Bill before the House and I want to say immediately that if this Bill had come before the House for the first time without any prior discussion or consultation, I would have tended to agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that the Bill should have gone to a Select Committee. However, in the event I do not agree with him, because this Bill in its original draft form was discussed last year in November in Pretoria by the defence groups of the various parties. It was discussed again this year, during the session, between the hon. the Deputy Minister and representatives of the political parties. It was discussed with officials of the department as well. I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister, because if the Bill had still been as it was originally drafted, the NRP would have opposed it. However, as a result of long consultations, of give and take, the removal of a number of clauses that were in the original draft Bill—reducing the Bill to only four clauses from the original eight or ten—I believe this House should now deal with the matter and try to finalize it. The issues which are relevant to the Bill, I believe, do not need any further negotiation or consultation. Nothing like that will, in my opinion, achieve any final or better solution or agreement than can be reached by us here in this House.

Clause 3 deals with compulsory insurance involving deductions from the salaries of national servicemen. I must state that the NRP is totally opposed to this particular clause. We are not opposed to the insurance concept, but to the principle of deduction from pay. We believe that if a man or woman risks his or her life fighting for the country, the responsibility for compensation rests with the Government of the country for which he or she fights. We believe it is totally wrong that a person should be told to fight for his country, that he should risk life or limb and even become a permanent cripple, but that the Government is not prepared to accept the responsibility for compensation to which such a person is entitled, and that the Government is therefore going to approach an insurance company with a view to obtaining a group scheme insurance to which, compulsorily and by legislation, without any choice at all, every young South African who is called up for military service will be compelled to contribute as a member of the particular insurance scheme. We believe it is wrong for the Government to deduct, without consent or option, premiums for that policy from the remuneration paid to national servicemen. I believe the principle is utterly wrong. Apart from the fact that I would have thought the S.A. Defence Force would have enough experience of group insurance schemes, I still regard the principle as totally wrong. One insurance scheme that I know of issued policies in terms of which members of the Defence Force who had contributed their premiums expected to receive protection when they retired. Then, within the confines of the small print of their policies, the contract was changed unilaterally, resulting in the protection becoming so meaningless that those of the Defence Force—the Army Fund—concerned, cancelled its membership of that scheme. Some servicemen were told by the insurance company that the amount for which they thought they were insured was drastically reduced, or otherwise they would have to pay such an inflated premium that they could no longer afford it.

In this Bill it is asked of us to approve of another group insurance scheme. It is not defined, but is entirely left to the Government to determine, with no assurance whatsoever that this group insurance scheme will not suffer the same fate as the group insurance scheme to which the Army used to subscribe. I accept that that was a voluntary association, but the result led to its cancellation in the end.

I believe that it is the responsibility of the Government to protect those who serve South Africa and thereby make it possible for us to sleep easy at night. [Interjections.] We do not want to join a Government who is not prepared to accept responsibility for compensating those who risk or lose their lives for their country or are permanently incapacitated. If the Government cannot afford to give decent, real and proper protection, they should pay the premium on any policy. I think the principle is wrong, irrespective of the argument that national servicemen have had an increase in pay. I would rather have seen a smaller increase than the breaching of a principle by saying to a man that he must belong to the scheme whether he likes it or not and that the Government would deduct from his pay a certain amount. I still want to know what the amount is. I asked for this over and over again and I have been promised that I would be told how much the deduction will be. However, I do not care, even if it is 1 cent a month…

What is the point in telling you?

If the hon. the Deputy Minister at least told me what the amount was, I would have been able to weigh up how much he was going to deduct in total. However, I do not know the amount. It might be R1 or R2. However, the principle is that even if it is only 1 cent a month, the Government should pay that. If it is too much for the Government to afford to pay the premium, it is too much also for the national serviceman to pay. One cannot have it both ways. It is either a insignificant amount which the Government can and should pay, or it is a premium which is too much for the Government to pay.

Let us presume that there are 30 000 or 50 000 people involved. If the amount that is going to be paid is going to be a few cents a month, it is merely a drop in the ocean in the defence budget. But instead of accepting responsibility for that amount, the hon. the Deputy Minister now introduces a totally alien principle in legislation, i.e. that a person will be compelled to contribute to a specific private enterprise scheme for the profit of a private company who is offering a policy with the object of making a profit. The Government may pick one company, and I do not care whether it is Sanlam or Old Mutual that is going to get this contract, or a consortium of companies. We do not know how it will be tendered for or on what basis it will be granted. However, some company, or companies, whose object it is to make a profit, are going to be given a contract out of which they can make a profit to which, by law, every national servicemen will be forced to contribute. If that is going to be the case and if the Government itself cannot provide protection, it should pay the premiums itself.

However, despite the objections to this clause—it is only one clause out of four clauses. I believe the other clauses are in the interests of our Defence Force and we support them. We will thus support the Second Reading, but will oppose clause 3, which deals with the compulsory insurance policy. We believe that clauses 1, 2 and 4 are important enough to justify support of the Bill at Second Reading. It must, however, be clear that our support of the Second Reading does not imply support of clause 3.

Let me now deal with clause 1 of the Bill. In regard to the provisions of this clause the hon. member for Yeoville raised a genuine problem, i.e. that of the small firm who employs one or two people and may find itself in difficulty if it is forced to make provision for the volunteer. Two reasons make me disagree with that basis for opposing the clause. In the first place, the firm is not obliged to pay normal wages. It would not lose any money by making it possible for its employees to render voluntary service. Therefore there would be no financial loss to such a firm. I accept the fact that there will be inconvenience, but against that one has to balance the fact that the Citizen Force, and to a large extent the commando organization, is totally dependent upon the voluntary leadership group which guides it, and if we lose the volunteer leadership of the commando and Citizen Force organization, then the backbone of the S.A. Defence Force is destroyed.

I believe that it is our duty as Parliament to make it possible for the volunteer, who is so vital to the Citizen Force, to be able to play his part. On balance, therefore, we accept that the volunteer should be granted the facility which the conscript must be granted in order to make a contribution to the security of South Africa. It might mean that some firms might not be able to grant or provide that facility, but these are volunteers and can resign, and it would therefore be between the firm and the employee to decide whether it is possible for the employee to continue his service. The number of people who will be affected is nothing compared to the number of volunteers who work for major organizations, organizations whom we believe should provide the opportunity for its employees to serve voluntarily.

That leads us to the second principle. In this case I want to emphasize again the importance of the commando organization to South Africa’s security. Had it not been for the undertaking that the hon. the Deputy Minister gave in his Second Reading speech—to which I shall return in a moment—we should have opposed this clause. At the moment I want to say frankly to the hon. the Deputy Minister—I feel he must know this—that the professional leadership group sometimes look askance at the volunteer commando. They regard it as a bit of a nuisance, as a bit of a joke. According to them it does not fit in with the rigid pattern of discipline, control and command which they see as essential to a military force. I accept the fact that the professional soldier, the man who counts figures and says “I have X thousand men”, does not want people under his command over whom he does not have total control. It is natural that the command will want to have greater control. That may be the position now. It may now be a nuisance to take chaps out for weekend camps, give them uniforms and shooting practice. But if the balloon goes up, if anything hits the fan, those are the men to whom South Africa is going to look and to whom our wives at home, particularly in the rural areas, are going to look for their security. Whilst there may be some contempt for and antagonism towards this “Grand Dad’s Army”, and I speak as a member of a commando myself…

Oh dear!

I wonder if the hon. member who said “Oh dear” is a member of a commando? [Interjections.] I wonder if he has ever had to face a bullet that was aimed at him with the intention of killing him. [Interjections.] There are commandos in Natal and all over South Africa. In one case a recruitment campaign gained 1 700 volunteers to a commando, mainly in the midlands of Natal. They are the boys of the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg South and Mooi River. They go out on week-end camps and they go out on marches. They may not be what the traditional picture of an Army is, but I promise, if the balloon goes up, those are the men at whom hon. members on the other side are laughing, but who will protect our wives. [Interjections.] Therefore I want to say that any action which will inhibit volunteers from joining the commando organization is, I believe, totally wrong. I want to have it specifically on record that the hon. the Deputy Minister has said clearly—I am not going to deal with the detail of the regulations; I am hoping that we will get the specific regulations—that there will be two categories of commandos. There will be an offensive one that can be used anywhere and a defensive one that will only be used in the commando area.

In the commando group area.

I accept that. In other words, they will not be required to go to the border for six months or anything like that. I accept from what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said that the conditions under which they serve will not be changed, except in one respect and that is that a man cannot resign and simply walk out in the middle of an emergency or in the middle of a camp. If he wants to resign he will only be released when an official release is handed to him. But I want to establish clearly that he will not lose his right to resign other than that it will now be in the discretion of the unit commander when to grant the discharge.

The other conditions under which they join—and let me deal now with the Natal commandos with which I am familiar—are that they will do four days’ continuous training. The rest of their 19 days will be week-end camps. I want an assurance that they will not suddenly find that they are going to be called up for a continuous period of one month. The present wording is: “Subject to the conditions as may be prescribed.” The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that the conditions will remain the same. I ask him to confirm that the present conditions, the present signed contract under which the volunteers serve, will remain unaffected, except in regard to their right to resign immediately and the need to wait until they receive their formal discharge. If that is the case, as I understand it from the discussions and the negotiations, then we on these benches believe that this clause is right and we support it on that understanding.

The last clause, clause 4, we accept. There is no argument or problem in that connection. However, if we are to maintain enthusiasm for the commandos and the high rate at which people are volunteering for service in them, it is necessary for us to make it clear to employers and volunteers that this Bill is not designed to turn the commandos into a Citizen Force by changing the whole concept of the volunteer commando. The concept of the volunteer commando embraces his training, serving and protecting the area in which he is based, and as long as we have that clearly and unequivocally established, we can regard this as a fair, reasonable and a supportable provision.

We shall therefore support the Second Reading, but we shall oppose clause 3. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will confirm that this will not change the character, the scope or the obligations of volunteer commandos other than in regard to the limitation of their right to resign.

Mr. Speaker, I found it very interesting to listen to the hon. member for Durban Point, and especially to draw a comparison between his approach and that of the hon. member for Yeoville on behalf of the official Opposition. The hon. member for Durban Point made use of a situation created by the hon. the Deputy Minister to make a study of this matter, examine the facts and draw a conclusion on the basis of the facts of the matter and the assurance given by the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is, however, clear to me that the hon. member for Yeoville raised certain objections on behalf of the official Opposition because he has not made a study of the matter or because he has objections in principle for other reasons. Therefore we should take a look at the specific arguments advanced and weigh them against the facts of the matter.

The hon. member for Yeoville said that clause 1 was only applicable to compulsory military service in the Defence Force. In his Second Reading speech, however, the hon. the Deputy Minister pertinently pointed out that this clause was specifically worded in such a way as to include volunteers. It is stated plainly and unequivocally that the volunteer is included, and this had to be said because there was to some extent the false impression that the volunteer was not included.

If he is included, this legislation is unnecessary.

No, that is only the hon. member’s interpretation of it. If the hon. member for Yeoville had listened to what the hon. the Deputy Minister said, and if he had studied the legislation, he would have seen that a misinterpretation was possible. And he walked into the trap by being guilty of exactly this type of misinterpretation. [Interjections.] I am still going to reply to the hon. member for Yeoville on that specific point.

The hon. member for Yeoville also made another statement. He said he wanted to protect the small businessman. He might have had a point there had it not been that he is already provided with such protection in certain clauses. This can be applicable to the small businessman who has an employee who presents himself for voluntary service and is then called up. It might, however, also be the small businessman who has to present himself for voluntary service. If the hon. member looks at the Act—and I accept that due to their small numbers, the members of the official Opposition have to deal with a great deal of legislation and therefore do not always undertake a thorough study of the matter—he will see that provision is in fact made for the small businessman with regard to a number of matters. I want to refer to the hon. member to sections 68, 74bis(1)(a)(ii) and 98 which deal with the appointment of exemption boards, the manpower board and the functions of the exemption boards respectively. Section 74bis(1)(a)(ii) provides that a manpower board can be appointed to—

It is therefore clear that provision is in fact made for the exemption boards to grant exemption in certain circumstances to certain categories of person. It is for the person concerned to apply to the exemption board and then his application, depending on its merits, will be approved or rejected. This is the principle of the matter. The hon. member said specifically in his speech that the hon. the Deputy Minister should provide in section 4 of the Act that he will have the right to grant such exemption. However, provision has already been made in the Act for the appointment of a manpower board to grant exemption. If one makes a speech in the House, surely one should ensure that one’s facts are correct.

I want to say that the section concerned is only applicable to compulsory military service. The amendment specifically provides that the volunteer will enjoy the same benefits as the person performing compulsory service. In this regard there are two possibilities one has to consider. The question is whether one should make an exception in the case of the volunteer and not allow him to enjoy the benefits the national serviceman enjoys with regard to his work. That is the basic question one should ask oneself. The question is whether there should be a distinction between the employee who performs voluntary military service and the employee who performs compulsory service. The second aspect one should clarify for oneself is whether the service the national serviceman renders differs from the service rendered by the volunteer. If one looks at section 3, one sees that it relates to the service rendered by the person concerned in the Defence Force. Section 3(2)(a) refers to “service in defence of the Republic”, paragraph (b) refers to “service in the prevention or suppression of internal disorder in the Republic” and paragraph (c) refers to “service in the preservation of life, health or property or the maintenance of essential services”. Nowhere is it stated that the service rendered by the volunteer and the service rendered by the national serviceman actually differ. One asks oneself whether the introductory words of the hon. member for Yeoville were correct. I quote (Hansard, Tuesday 20 March 1979, col. 2895)—

It is very striking that it always happens recently that to start with, many fine sentiments are uttered in regard to principles, whereas one finds, if one takes note of why they oppose it, that they are in fact breaking down the principles of what they initially held up as sacred and indicated that they advocate it. He says that he wants to protect the national serviceman because it is necessary in the interests of the country, but from his reasoning, it seems that he is not prepared to protect him.

What are you insinuating?

I am insinuating that the hon. member makes out that he wants to protect a principle while at the same time, because he does not want to support this clause, he is prejudicing this principle. This is exactly what is happening in this case. I should like to know whether the hon. member for Yeoville denies this, because if he does not want to protect the volunteer who protects his country in the service he renders, he is in point of fact discriminating against him. He wants to afford further protection to private and small businessmen who already enjoy a certain degree of protection in terms of the Act, in the sense that they can apply for exemption to the exemption boards. Surely that is undermining the system of compulsory military service in our country. This is the principle at issue.

He also said that this matter should be referred to a Select Committee. I think, however, that he and his party should reach clarity among themselves as regards this principle. Surely this is something about which one should decide in principle and, when one has decided about it in principle, one does not have to refer it to a Select Committee. They could decide on this today, but they want an extension of time. Why do they want to postpone it? We are aware that discipline is not always a very strong characteristic of hon. members opposite. In the Defence Force, however, discipline is essential and has to be maintained. We must take this into consideration. I think I have now made my case with regard to the proposed section 4, as contained in clause 1 of the Bill, very clear. The request that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee has no merit at all. We want to give the volunteer and the compulsory serviceman the same benefits in terms of the Act. I think this matter deserves the support of all the hon. members in the House.

I now come to the proposed section 36, as contained in clause 2 of the Bill. In essence, all the proposed section 36(1) amounts to is a change in the wording to bring it in line with provisions applicable to the Citizen Force. Essentially there is no real difference between the existing provision and the proposed provision. The proposed section 36(2) is actually an addition which provides that a person who binds himself to service in the commandos is compelled to serve therein until he has obtained his official discharge. A similar provision is applicable to the Citizen Force.

The hon. member for Durban Point did not have much to say about this clause. He wanted clarification from the hon. the Deputy Minister in this regard. I think he has already been given that clarification in the course of the Second Reading debate and I do not think there should be many problems in that regard. But the hon. member for Yeoville also said a few things with regard to this clause which were not quite correct. The hon. member for Yeoville states in Hansard (col. 2897)—

But surely that is not how this subsection reads. The subsection does not read that he cannot resign in certain circumstances.

You are talking nonsense.

No.

We are talking about the regulations. You should ask the hon. the Minister to explain this to you. You know nothing about defence.

He may resign, but it is stated very clearly in this subsection that he will remain a member of that unit until he has obtained his discharge. He obtains his discharge after a certain procedure has been followed. If the hon. member for Yeoville has an objection with regard to that specific clause, he should have a similar objection with regard to the corresponding provision applicable to the Citizen Force. The only difference is that it is stated there that he joins up voluntarily. Surely, in the case of a person who joins up voluntarily and belongs to a commando, that commando must have the certainty that the manpower is at a certain strength, because if problems arise, the commando must know what manpower is at its disposal. If a member of the commando resigns and leaves the commando before the procedure has taken its course, this can create certain problems. If it is undesirable or unacceptable for the unit at that stage for him to obtain his discharge at that specific time, he can be granted his discharge later. This is specifically what is applicable in this case.

Let me put the question: What is the procedure followed here? Even with regard to the call-up there are certain steps which must be taken because the provisions also concern the service he has to perform and the conditions that apply. Let us see how this works in the commandos. If such a member of the commandos has problems, he also has the right to be exempted. He can obtain exemption through his commanding officer in the commando from the commandant if certain circumstances justify this. If he is called up for a longer period of service, he can also obtain exemption through the exemption boards when necessary. One wonders whether the official Opposition is opposed to this matter as far as the Citizen Force is concerned as well, because here the point is that the commandos should only be brought into line with the Citizen Force unit so that discipline can be maintained. Again, I accept that discipline is not always acceptable to all people in all circumstances, but in the Defence Force discipline has to be acceptable. I do not think that this will hinder the activities of the unit. It will in fact streamline and put in order the activities of the specific unit. Therefore it is also unnecessary to ask, specifically as far as this clause is concerned, for postponement by referring the legislation to a Select Committee.

By virtue of these few arguments I believe that the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville, as well as the assurance which was and will again be given to the hon. member for Durban Point, are in any event such that the clause concerned, as contained in the Bill, will only be to the benefit of our Defence Force and of our country as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to elaborate at length on the remarks and comments made by the hon. member for Carletonville. However, I do want to point out that if the existing legislation had made provision for a person who engages for service on a voluntary basis, the Bill under consideration would certainly not have been necessary. That is my first point. In the second place the hon. member also referred to certain categories of work which, owing to their national importance, afforded those employers certain forms of protection under certain circumstances, in the sense that those who worked for them, or who worked in that category, would not be called up for compulsory military service or engage themselves for voluntary national service. Yet that has nothing to do with what is being discussed here this evening. We are aware of those categories. What we are dealing with here, however, is an entirely different matter. What the hon. member for Carletonville very clearly does not understand, and does not wish to understand, is the fact that a balance has to be struck between the economy and the expected military activities. It is no use calling up the entire community to wage a war while, at the same time, the economy goes to wrack and ruin. The hon. member for Carletonville very clearly does not understand that aspect. [Interjections.] In any event, the hon. member has never before participated in a debate on defence. Consequently I accept that he does not really have much concern in nor does he know very much about the matter. Possibly it would be better for him to concentrate on the maize industry, of which he does have some knowledge. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville proposed that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee, the Select Committee to have leave to return to this House with an amended Bill. Under the circumstances I thought that that was in truth a fair request. To our amazement, however, this motion by the hon. member for Yeoville was not accepted. I just want to remind hon. members that it has become almost a tradition in this House that legislation in connection with defence matters be referred to a Select Committee. [Interjections.] This was not something that happened merely by chance. There are very good reasons for it. [Interjections.] This refusal and attitude which hon. members opposite are now adopting, under the guidance of the new hon. Deputy Minister of Defence what is more, is an indication to us of a new disposition in this House, a disposition which I think could be very harmful to our defence. [Interjections.] The discussion which has taken place so far is already an indication of that. Consequently I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to change his attitude in regard to defence. I want to warn him that, unless this happens, the goodwill which has always existed is going to be disrupted. [Interjections.] That goodwill is definitely going to be disrupted, not only here in this House, but also among members of the Government and the public. I want to illustrate my reason for making this statement. As an example I wish to quote from the speech made by the hon. member for Ladybrand. He said—

I also say it is commendable. That is how it ought to be and I am pleased about it. He went on to say—

The hon. member for Ladybrand was probably referring to another group of employers who are guilty of these things by not granting leave to people who have to render national service. If that is the case, those employers are guilty of an offence in terms of the Act which we wish to change this evening. No employer has the right to deprive a national serviceman of his leave. There are other obligations as well which employers have to the national serviceman, and they may not deprive the national serviceman of certain things.

I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the hon. member for Ladybrand was correct in this accusation which he levelled at the so-called other employers. Who are those other employers to whom the hon. member referred? I also want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister how many employers were charged with having contravened this Act during the past year. Secondly I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister how many of them were found guilty. Thirdly I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what sentences were imposed on those people.

That is what the hon. member said, and hon. members may ascertain whether it is the case. [Interjections.] If the hon. member lodged an incorrect complaint in this House against those so-called other employers, I want to see whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has the courage to repudiate that hon. member. If this matter had been discussed by a Select Committee, as is normally the case, that would have been the appropriate place to have set the hon. member for Ladybrand, who is ignorant of these matters, straight so that it would not have been necessary for him to charge the other group of employers in public of having contravened the Act.

We are already plucking the bitter fruits of the refusal by the hon. the Deputy Minister to allow this matter to be discussed in a Select Committee, as is normally the case.

Next I want to deal with clause 1 which introduces a completely new principle into the Act. It imposes certain obligations on employers in cases where persons report voluntarily for military service. For the first time obligations are now being imposed on those employers if persons wish to join the Defence Force or make themselves available for military service on a voluntary basis. It will not make any difference if those volunteers work for the State or for agents of the State, or for large organizations who can quite easily afford to meet those obligations. With that I am not suggesting that the salary of such a volunteer should be fully supplemented, because that is not an obligation. But what should happen is that such a person should receive his leave and his promotion, and there are other obligations as well which such an employer has to meet.

But let us consider the situation of a small employer, for example a person in the motor trade. Such a person may own a garage and have three employees in his service. Of these employees two may already have military obligations, but the employer is prepared, to meet this obligations, even though he has a hard time of it financially. If his third employee, who may no longer be required to render military service, wishes to render voluntary service and the provisions of this legislation are applicable, it could ruin such an employer.

What about the exemption boards?

Employees of a garage do not fall into any of the categories to which the hon. member for Carletonville referred. But an employer could be placed in an invidious position in this way. What will the result be? An employer who therefore carries on a business on a smaller scale is going to be very careful about employing young men if he thinks that they may want to render voluntary military service. The result of this is going to be that it is not only going to be to the disadvantage of the employer, but also to the disadvantage of the potential employee. Such an employer is now going to be hesitant to place himself in a position where he falls under the requirements of the legislation which he cannot afford. This obligation is therefore going to be detrimental to the employer as well as to the potential employee.

As far as clause 2 of the Bill is concerned, I just want to say that it seems to me that many of us in this House like to say that we are also members of a commando. In my opinion it is a good thing that so many of us are in fact commando members. But I want to tell this House of talks which took place approximately three to four years ago before a group of farmers in my vicinity joined the local commando. The ages of those farmers varied from 30 to 55 years, and some of them were 60 years old. We discussed the possibility of joining the commando, and certain undertakings were given to those farmers. One of the agreements which were reached there was that they would only have to render service in their own area In the second place it was explained to them that if it should be necessary for them to resign they would be able to do so, and their resignations would then be accepted automatically…

Are you absolutely certain of your facts?

I am absolutely certain of my facts, because I was present there myself. The group of farmers that eventually joined was addressed by many senior officers of the Defence Force. If the hon. the Deputy Minister does not believe me, we could go and talk to those people, because Paarl is not far from Cape Town.

What was the date?

I shall have to look it up, for I do not have it available right now.

Those people joined voluntarily, and we are now, by means of legislation and I believe without the hon. the Deputy Minister having consulted with people such as those, going to effect a change which will mean that they may be dismissed only when it suits someone else. I am not in favour of members of a commando simply being able to withdraw themselves while they are engaged in a struggle, in an action or are fighting a war.

I am not in favour of that, but I would expect the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain under which circumstances a person’s discharge may be granted to him. I think this is very clear, otherwise tremendous uncertainty is going to be created and a situation is going to arise in which commando members are not in future going to join a commando unit as volunteers very easily—and this is important because they did join voluntarily in the past.

A great deal has been said about clause 3 and there is nothing much that I can add to it. The hon. member for Yeoville set it out very clearly. However, I want to confirm once again that if the State is going to introduce compulsory insurance for these young men rendering service the State could at least go so far as to pay the premium itself. In this connection I must associate myself with the hon. member for Durban Point who made this point quite clear. If the State is too miserly to pay this small amount then I really do not know what more I can say about this matter.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg, who is a good friend of mine, has surprised me tonight.

He is no good friend of ours.

I am not talking about his politics, but of him as a person. While in the operational area a few nights ago, I slept in the same room as he did and we had a nice chat about wine. [Interjections.] However, he made a few statements tonight that have really disappointed me. It was the first time that I had had to hear a young member like him address a colleague in this House, namely the hon. member for Carletonville, in such a humiliating way. I do not think that is in keeping with the dignity of the hon. member for Wynberg.

What did he say about the hon. the Deputy Minister?

That was even worse. I made a note of what he said, but I thought I should leave the matter there because the hon. the Deputy Minister would haul the hon. member over the coals in his reply. However, I do find the hon. member’s remarks deplorable.

The hon. member for Wynberg stated that by means of this measure we wanted to destroy the economy of the country. He said we wanted to harm the economy…

I said we should strike a balance.

… by seeking to introduce an arrangement whereby an employer would on occasion have to be compelled to permit a volunteer to go and perform his military service. If ever there was a Minister who realized how important it is that South Africa’s economy should be strong and remain strong, then it is the hon. the Minister of Defence. He has said on many occasions that he and the Government realize that a strong, prepared, defence force cannot be maintained without a strong economy. The hon. member for Wynberg should therefore have known better than to make such a statement.

That is not what I said.

The hon. member stated, moreover, that it had become customary for all Defence Bills to be referred to a Select Committee. That is not true.

I said it had become a tradition.

That is not true. What has indeed become traditional and customary—and it is a good custom—is that the hon. the Minister of Defence has always tried to take the entire House with him in defence matters, because he felt that it was in the national interest that Parliament should as far as possible be unanimous on defence matters, since he never wanted to drag politics into defence matters and never did so. Consequently I think the hon. member for Wynberg has erred in this regard, too.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I have to devote so much time to the hon. member for Wynberg, because I wanted to discuss a few other matters. However, the hon. member has made the further statement that the public of South Africa do not trust the hon. the Minister in this regard. Surely that is not true. Having regard to the reaction of the public, to the many voluntary organizations in the service of the Defence Force and the millions of rands coming from the pockets of the public for our boys in the Defence Force, I want to state that the public do trust the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister with regard to the treatment of our boys in the Defence Force. Finally, that hon. member has ascribed to the hon. member for Ladybrand words he never uttered. The hon. member for Ladybrand spoke about the volunteer, and not about the national serviceman.

Read what he said.

He spoke about the volunteer who has completed his national service and his 10 years and then joins as a volunteer.

[Inaudible.]

Never mind, I have now dealt with that hon. member.

I have a very high regard for the hon. member for Durban Point, and in particular for his integrity when it comes to defence matters. We know—he has said it here tonight—that it is the custom of the hon. the Minister to convene the study groups of the various parties for discussions. The hon. the Minister then puts forward certain suggestions he wishes to discuss with them and on which he hopes to obtain their co-operation. I therefore do not think it was right for the hon. member for Durban Central to have stated in the House tonight that at such a meeting nine proposals had been tabled and that he and his people had disposed of five of them so that only four points remained in the Bill. That is what it amounts to. I do not think one should do something like that. While he was speaking about the members of the commandos in Natal, by sheer coincidence we laughed at a little joke. The hon. member for Durban Point then said we were laughing while he spoke about those people.

Ask the hon. member for Vasco.

That is absolute nonsense. I have a few things to say about the speech by the hon. member for Yeoville. I have read his speech carefully. I know the hon. member for Yeoville has many political faults, but I give him full marks for his interest in the defence of our country. He is a man who takes an interest in the welfare of our troops, and I give him full marks for that even though we are poles apart as far as political principles are concerned. [Interjections.] No, I give him full marks for his interest in our troops and their welfare. However, in his speech he made a few statements with which I cannot agree. Look at him blushing! I am sorry that I am making him blush, but it is true. When the hon. member for Yeoville spoke on clause 1, he began by singing the praises of the citizens who want to perform extended voluntary service on completion of their national service. We are of course all very grateful that the hon. member agrees with us that this is a wonderful accomplishment. That is all very well. But he also stated—

That is correct. This Government will never discourage anybody from being a volunteer. He further stated—

I agree with him. Then he stated that certain employers could make representations to the authorities under certain circumstances. He further stated—

He said the employer would be ruined if he had to keep open a position for the volunteer who would be away for one, two or three months. However, the hon. member for Wynberg let the cat out of the bag when he stated that there were employers who would not appoint a man in a position if they knew that he wanted to perform voluntary military service.

I said it might happen.

He said it was possible. He said it might happen.

Yes, it might happen.

Incidentally, I have a document here that is perhaps not altogether relevant to the discussion of this clause, but it does illustrate my point. This document was published in January, 1979. It is entitled “Survey of employment prospects—January, February, March, 1979”. It makes interesting reading. I want to make this point to indicate that the hon. member for Wynberg has let the cat out of the bag by stating that there are employers who, in considering whether to appoint a person, on finding that he performs voluntary military service, might perhaps not appoint him. I quote—

Then interesting statistics are provided showing that in the Northern Transvaal, 24% of the businessmen have either created positions or are keeping them open for such people and are encouraging them to perform their military service and then to come and work. I am now talking about the volunteers. In Pretoria, the percentage is 14,4 and on the Witwatersrand, 8,2,—and there are thousands of our young men who have already performed their service as volunteers. Nevertheless, only 8,2% of the industrialists on the Witwatersrand have made provision to employ these people. For Johannesburg, the figure is 9,2% and for the Vaal Triangle, 12,6%. For the Free State, it is 37,5%—a much higher figure—and for the Cape Peninsula, it is 16,2%.

And for Worcester?

Leave my town alone. The hon. member for Yeoville should be much more friendly towards me, because I have made a few friendly remarks about him.

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

No, Sir. [Interjections.] Who is the citizen who performs voluntary service after he has performed his national service and his compulsory camps over a period of 10 years? He is an enthusiastic, motivated person. In the first place, he is an experienced person. He has performed his national service and has also attended the compulsory camps over a period of 10 years. As you will know, Sir, experience is important. Particularly when a person has to act in the operational area, often under very difficult circumstances, it is important that there should be an experienced man with the young men who were perhaps still in matric the previous year.

Secondly—and this has been pointed out before, but I am merely repeating it—many of the leading figures in the Defence Force, the officers, are drawn from the ranks of people who offered their voluntary services after having performed ten to 12 years’ compulsory service. Those men are often leaders and officers. There is no need for me to point out how vitally important it is to us that we should have sufficient leaders and experienced officers in our Defence Force. The leader is the man who has to do the planning and who has to be able to make a quick decision under difficult circumstances. The success of an operation often depends upon the experienced leader at the head of a group of men. Under our special circumstances in South Africa in which we are dealing with young servicemen and are involved in a non-conventional war that is often waged in very difficult terrain, the leader is there to encourage, to lead, to inspire and to motivate.

As regards the employment of the volunteer, the man who voluntarily performs service in the Defence Force, I want to state that the employers can rationalize and plan to make their books balance if they want to do so. It is true that such an employer may perhaps suffer financial losses. We must honour the employer who makes a sacrifice by saying to his employee: “You have to go. You are a volunteer. I grant you the opportunity. Go and serve our country.” But the volunteer himself also makes a sacrifice.

In the first place, he is often a married man. When he reports for service, he may perhaps be sent to the operational area. His wife and children then remain behind, worried and anxious, and he will also be full of care and anxiety about the well-being of his family. Nevertheless, he feels that he has an obligations in that regard. He sacrifices his family life and often places his life in danger. These are the sacrifices he makes. I frankly think we should tell the employers: “We realize that you have a problem, but by proper planning and rationalization, you should be able to overcome it.”

Sir, my time has almost expired. I am grateful for the opportunity that has been given me to say a few words on this matter. I gladly support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that I should not get cross; I shall certainly not get cross. I wish to assure the hon. the Deputy Minister that when it comes to matters pertaining to national defence and national security, he can—and he knows he can—count on the NRP to act in the best interests of South Africa. Likewise we are not going to drag any party politics into or seek short-term political gain from matters pertaining to our security or national defence. However, this loyalty to our country in contrast with party loyalty, does not preclude us from commenting or advising the Government on legislation that may adversely affect the Defence Force or, for that matter, South Africa. In fact, we consider it our duty to do so.

After that introduction, I should like to let the hon. the Deputy Minister know immediately that I am genuinely concerned that this Bill could seriously damage the volunteer rural commandos. I stress “the rural commandos” because those are the boys I am worried about. I hasten to add that I am not specifically concerned with the Bill as such, but with regulations. I shall come to that later. We are concerned about how these regulations could affect the rural commandos, the men in the platteland. We are particularly perturbed about that aspect. I shall tell the hon. the Deputy Minister what type of regulation we should like to see. In this regard I shall lay suggestions before the House and the hon. the Deputy Minister can consider them at a later stage. I believe that this Bill—I refer specifically to clauses 1 and 2—will remove “voluntary” in the true sense of the word from the concept “volunteer commandos”. This is what perturbs our people in Natal—and I speak for a very large number of men I am very proud to be one of. This Bill may turn the volunteer into a conscript and this is perturbing. It may turn a genuine voluntary act into a compulsory act.

Let me just describe and illustrate who this man, the volunteer, is. I should like to discuss his role in the Army and what motivates him to volunteer for the Army in the first place. Before I do this, I wish to point out that the Defence Force has already divided the commando units into two distinct types, namely offensive units and defensive units. This division is based mainly on the factor of age. In other words, the younger men and those who are still required to complete their 10 years’ compulsory service, are normally posted to the offensive units and can be called up from time to time and sent anywhere to do active duty, while the defensive units on the other hand are normally made up of older men and volunteers whose training and duties centre around the tasks of guarding and looking after key points and local inhabitants and of undertaking typical defence of hearth-and-home type of operations.

For the sake of the main thrust of my argument, I wish to differentiate further between the distinct types within the defensive units, namely the “urban defensive commandos” and the “rural defensive commandos”. It is these rural men I am particularly worried about. Most of the problems that could arise would result from the provisions of this Bill and the regulations which are—I want to stress this—integrally related to the Bill. For this reason I want to pay particular attention to the typical farmer, the volunteer soldier from the small rural town. I am not alone in stating that these farmer rural commandos probably constitute the most important first line of defence of the S.A. Defence Force. These commandos are an early-warning system and the most valuable source of information and intelligence the Army could ever have in respect of guerrilla or terrorist attacks that may be launched against our country. These rural commandos are not only trained to defend hearth and home, but also to help their neighbours and local inhabitants of small villages, kraals in the valleys and districts in their area.

These men will have to be called upon more and more not to offer the terrorists any form of shelter, hideout, base, food or support. They are also being trained to stage counter-strikes against small groups of terrorists in the rural areas, thus affording our regular army the freedom to remain in the more important combat zones where major threats are faced. These same farmer commandos, if properly trained, can undertake very important information and intelligence data gathering on the terrorist movement for our Police Force as well as for the Defence Force. That is a service which cannot and must not be underrated or underestimated. It is therefore very important that every farmer be made absolutely welcome as a volunteer commando and be supplied with the available information and data on terrorists’ habits and methods so that he can look for these tell-tale signs and report to the authorities accordingly. It is only the farmer who can get the local rural Black on our side to help us fight against the possible onslaught in the future. I believe it is imperative that the farmers remain on the farms, that they should be offered every possible inducement to remain there and be members of the commandos. Unfortunately, some of our top brass in Pretoria—and I am sad to say this—believe that some of the older volunteers are just not worth the trouble. I speak from experience. They certainly do not at this stage appreciate the real value of the farmer commando. However, I wish to sympathize with them. I realize that seen from the High Command’s point of view and taking into consideration the professional, traditional and conventional type of training in warfare they have had, they are simply not prepared to put up with the difficult and individualistic sort of chaps one finds in “Dad’s Army” today. I readily admit—and I realize that it is so, because I have worked with these men and trained them—that they are very difficult chaps indeed. They are not prepared to “hurry up and wait”. The traditional “hurry up and wait” syndrome of the army is something they are not prepared to put up with. They will hurry up with pleasure, but they will not wait, because then they would rather go home to attend to their farming business. They are difficult to train because they are either not fit enough or they know it all and believe themselves to be generals.

Typical farmers!

To discipline these men is very, very difficult indeed.

That is the Salvation Army.

However, we must not forget that they did volunteer to serve their country and they are not conscripts. What is more, from time to time they are not able to attend training. The old cow had to calve and so the chap had to stay at home. This means that repeat training sessions are the order of the day. One has to keep on repeating these training sessions with these people. I realize that from that point of view the top brass in Pretoria do not like this type of chap. They would like to have him for 19 days and say to him: “Do what you have to do now.” But these men have to stay on the farms. However, we must bear in mind that this same fellow never forgets the fact that he volunteered, something he did not have to do. Therefore one cannot throw the book at him. In my opinion what this legislation is trying to do is that it is trying to make a conscript of him and it is trying to force him to do something. If that happens, he simply will not volunteer again. It is as simple as that. I know these people; I am one of them, and I shall not go back again if forced.

Why did these men join up in their thousands three years ago? They volunteered and joined up in their thousands out of a sense of loyalty and patriotism to their country. They volunteered shortly after the Angola crisis when it seemed that we were going to be attacked by forces from both Angola and Mozambique. We all got stuck in at that stage. Most of us joined the commando forces because we believed it was necessary to defend ourselves against the communist onslaught and also to ensure that our children can live in peace in this country in the future.

There are thousands of men who volunteered for the commandos. They joined in order to allow South Africa time to think, time to rethink and to adjust previous positions in order to change this system we have today for a more just and more honest one. [Interjections.] In Natal men joined in unprecedented numbers. I am quite happy to state this. I am proud of it. In some areas up to 90% of the farmers volunteered. These able men volunteered en masse. I believe these units to be the most highly organized in the country. Their morale and esprit de corps is extremely high. My experience with the commandos made me feel very proud of being a Natalian and a South African. [Interjections.] Another facet of the Natal farmer is the fact that each and every one of them speaks Zulu fluently. He speaks the language fluently, he knows their customs and he is trusted by his labour force. This is an extremely valuable knowledge to have for intelligence purposes. In my farming area and in the Howick community it was anticipated that we might find 20 to 30 men volunteering. However, in my valley alone 250 volunteers joined the commando. They were formed into seven platoons, which now make up one company. What was the reason for this? Why were we so successful in this particular area? I believe it is because it was totally voluntary. I believe that with my whole heart. It is motivated and inspired by the local community and it is supported by local businessmen and by all farmers in the area.

I should like to read out the conditions under which we joined the commando. These are the conditions I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to listen to and to consider very carefully. I know that these conditions, drafted some three years ago, may give some of the top Defence Force officials in Pretoria a fit. However, that is just too bad. It may even get my commandant into trouble. However, I honestly believe it is worth the risk because it worked wonders. It worked wonders for the people in Natal and for our country. Instead of causing trouble for my commandant I would suggest that a medal be awarded to him. I am convinced that South Africa will benefit by his effort and by the attitude he adopted. This man was able to build morale and esprit de corps among volunteers; not a forced morale, but a self-generated and genuine morale. The document I want to read out now was signed by the officer commanding of the Umkomaas commando, a 1 700-strong commando—

1. 1. The unit is pleased that you are interested in becoming a voluntary member of that commando and would like to welcome you to its ranks.
2. 2. In order to comply with the requirements the following forms will have to be completed…

And then a list of forms are mentioned—

1. 3. Provided you attest for a period of four years you will be entitled to a full issue of uniform and an R1 rifle.

I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to take particular note of the next item—

1. 4. You will be required to attend for at least 19 days per year, four days of which will have to be served on a continuous basis at a camp held in the commando area. The balance of the 15 days can be done at Saturday shoots or exercises counting as one day or Friday night-Saturday parades counting as two days. Most of these parades will be on a platoon basis, but you may also have to attend some company parades.
2. 5. You could, if you wish, take a more active interest in the commando and attend one Saturday per month plus a period at the camp. Promotion courses can also be attended by volunteers who desire to do so.
3. 6. Should you at any time find that you cannot fulfil your obligation you are free to resign in writing. Once your kit has been cleared application would be made for your discharge.

This document was signed by the commanding officer.

I should like to refer briefly to a few of the points made in this letter. We must take note that when a man joins this commando he attests for four years. He is morally obliged to remain in the commando for four years. However, in the last sentence it is said he can resign if he needs to do so. Nevertheless, they are under a moral obligation, but very few of them have resigned, in spite of the fact that they could if they so wished.

They have stuck to it. They involved themselves in the first place because they wanted to get involved. They were not obliged to do what they were told other than what they have signed for. They could be called up for a period of four days, which can fall over a weekend in order that they do not miss many days at work. The remaining period is on Saturdays. This is the most important thing I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider when he plans his regulations, which could drastically affect the commando volunteers.

I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to use and implement these same regulations that worked so well for the benefit of the commandos in our area. He should remember that one cannot just force people to become volunteers, because it becomes counterproductive. I am afraid that this Bill will bring about a sense of compulsion in the mind of the volunteer. That is a crucial position. We do not want that sense of compulsion to be brought about. One must remember that he is volunteering on his own, in his own valuable time, and is offering his own money or that of his employer. He is certainly not prepared to become a conscript and be shunted around in the Army like an 18-year old, as he is required to do so. I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister should not pass this Bill until he has carefully looked at the regulations. I am quite happy with the Bill, but it has to be part and parcel of the regulations, which would be crucial to this Bill. He should seriously consider this. It is important to the men in the outlying agricultural areas. They cannot afford to stay away from work for 19 days. My concern about this Bill and the volunteer commandos stems from two sources. Firstly, I am concerned about the employer’s position as affected by clause 1 and, secondly, the volunteer himself, as affected by clause 2.

We can look at the employer’s position first. I immediately want to point out that the employer is completely part and parcel of his employee and his employee’s act of volunteering for commando duty. When this employee volunteers, his employer realizes and normally accepts that the firm would financially be affected by that voluntary act. I want to stress that it is a voluntary act. The employee volunteers and the employer is prepared to accept it for and on behalf of his country. If however he now has to be called up for a period of 19 days at a time, the employer could be under stress. If on the other hand he is required to be away for only a couple of days a year from work, the employer is quite happy and satisfied to accept this. However, if compulsion is applied, I believe a negative response could be inevitable, with the result that far fewer volunteers will show up in the future. I would like to use some examples to illustrate the difficulty that the employer could experience. We can take the farm foreman or farm manager as an example. I suggest that the hon. the Deputy Minister asks any hon. member in this House who employs a farm manager, if he can allow the farm manager to go away for 19 days.

You do not understand this Bill.

Under conditions applicable in some areas of the Transvaal, where the employee is required for 19 continuous days of training, he finds it difficult to join on that basis. [Interjections.] I have been to quite a few areas in South Africa where there are commandos and where farm managers are being whipped out for 19 days. A farm manager just cannot leave the farm for that period. [Interjections.]

We can also use other small businesses as an example. Can a blockman leave his butchery for more than a couple of days? It would be impossible for him to do so. Now this blockman realizes that he cannot go away for more than a few days at a time. He cannot leave his butchery for 19 days. That is what I am trying to say. In the small businesses one can always take a couple of days’ leave, but it is impossible for a man in that position to take leave for a longer period. Under this Bill, these employees will either not be able to join the commandos in the future or they may lose their jobs, only to be replaced by non-volunteers. I am pleading with the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should take a very good look at this when drafting his regulations to ensure that these people are not discouraged, but rather encouraged. I wish to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is desperately trying to repopulate the outlying border areas with farmers and farm managers. I plead with him not to make it any more difficult for the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. These people need to be encouraged to belong to the volunteer commandos. If the regulations are such that he cannot, the volunteer commandos in the outlying districts are going to be destroyed.

I now wish to discuss clause 2 and take a look at how it affects the volunteer who is self-employed, and at the farmer volunteer. This man firstly has a responsibility to his own people, his family and those nearest to him. His duty is to keep the farming community safe and to defend the hearth and home. It is thus essential that he should remain in his own area, is trained there and does his camps in that area. I want to stress it again to the hon. the Deputy Minister that this man must get to know his own area, his own valley and his own district If the man is trained within the group’s area, as the hon. the Deputy Minister suggested earlier on, he could be hundreds of miles away from his home. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the man’s training should be in the group’s area. The whole basis of the rural commando is that the men should be trained in their own areas so that they can get to know the area in order to be able to block off possible terrorist attacks. I speak on behalf of the thousands of farmers who cannot, under any circumstances, leave their farms or the district for more than a couple of days at a time. Remember, the four years have almost expired for those men who joined up directly after the Angola crises. I should hate to see these trained men now pack up and resign because of poorly phrased regulations that might be applied to them. In contrast, I should like to see a massive re-enlistment of these men, that they should encourage new volunteers. By placing force on these men, they will not volunteer. If I can convey that to the hon. the Deputy Minister, he will realize what I am talking about. What we need in this respect is trained men staying in the areas and occupying the farms. We need a farming community consisting of trained men with a complete network of radio communications. I cannot stress the fact of having radio communication strongly enough.

But how do you train them?

That hon. member should come down to Natal so that we can show him how. We shall get the hon. member fit.

In conclusion, I should like to refer to the provisions of clause 3 of the Bill, i.e. the provision dealing with compulsory insurance. In this respect I believe all of us are in complete agreement that every man risking his life for this country should be fully insured and covered. We all agree with this. The difference of opinion is also quite clear, however, as to whom should pay for that cover. We in these benches believe it is the duty of every South African to pay for the insurance on this young man’s life or limbs. I cannot conceive of how it can be rationalized that it is the young soldier himself who now has to foot a cent of that bill. I do not believe that he should have to insure himself while he is in fact in the active service of his country. I do not believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister can rationalize this in any shape or form. I also do not understand why it is necessary to hand over this obviously lucrative massive group insurance policy to any private insurance company. We believe that the responsibility for the insurance of our men’s lives rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government. We in these benches are prepared to accept that responsibility.

I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will consider our contribution very seriously in the light of the importance that we have placed on the possible negative effects that his regulations might place on the volunteer commandos. I stress it that he should go back to discuss these regulations with the rural people and not only with the big brass in Pretoria. He should discuss it with the boys in the “platteland”. Then he will find out that I am speaking the truth. I cannot stress this enough.

I shall discuss it with you.

I should like the hon. Deputy Minister to pay a visit to Natal and to come and chat to our soldiers. He will find a different picture to the one he would get in Pretoria, because we have got good men in Natal. I should hate to see a terrorist try to enter Natal. He will be shot to pieces. Our men are trained and able, but I want to stress it to the hon. the Deputy Minister not to break their morale by forcing them to do something that they are prepared to do on behalf of their country willingly.

Mr. Speaker, I have now listened to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South for 25 minutes. He began by referring to the regulations, which are not under discussion tonight. He eventually ended his speech with clause 2 of the Bill. I shall address a few words to the hon. member later on with regard to the meaning of clause 2.

In this debate we have listened to the hon. members for Yeoville, Durban Point and Wynberg. Surely it should have been clear to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that the hon. member for Yeoville is not concerned about the Bill in this case, but about by-elections. I do not want to call the hon. member for Yeoville a huckster, but I should like to warn him that one does not huckster with the Defence Force, neither for personal gain nor with a view to a by-election. For me, the worst of it, is that the hon. Leader of the NRP allows himself to be led astray. The hon. member for Durban Point, who has always been praised as a patriot and a defender of the interests of the Defence Force, has allowed himself to be led by the nose by the hon. member for Yeoville. Surely that is not the right thing to do. Surely those two hon. members know that their parties will not be able to win the by-elections in Swellendam, Beaufort West and Randfontein by attempting to handicap a Bill in this House.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I come back to the Bill. This Bill deals with the interests of the Defence Force. Now the hon. member for Yeoville comes along with a little honey. He says he is wondering whether they should perhaps support it, but he adds that clause 2 is not quite in order. They want a Select Committee. What do they want to do with a Select Committee? The hon. member wants a Select Committee for just one reason, and that is to prevent the Bill from being passed and becoming beneficial to the Defence Force. The hon. member for Durban Point cannot stand back now. Oh no! Now he will not find fault with clause 2…

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has had a turn to speak. The hon. member for Durban Point cannot find fault with clause 2 now, because he will then be in agreement with the hon. member for Yeoville. Now he is ostensibly having problems with clause 4. I should like to tell the hon. members for Yeoville and Durban Point that, while they are attempting to put a spoke in the wheel of the Defence Force, and while they are advising people not to join as volunteers…

What do you know about the Defence Force?

The hon. member for Yeoville tells volunteers that they should not join, or that they should resign before this Bill comes into effect.

That is a lie.

I challenge him and the hon. member for Durban Point…

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must withdraw the words “that is a lie”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words.

Mr. Speaker, because they are senior members, I should like to afford the hon. members for Yeoville and Durban Point the opportunity to go and examine their consciences.

I therefore move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.