Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is an acknowledged fact that all political parties here in Parliament represented are agreed that the existing Constitution of the Republic of South Africa is in need of review and fundamental adaptations to provide for the challenges of the future. It is also a known fact that the Government has for a considerable time applied its mind to the matter.

*During the general election of 1977, the governing party accordingly presented to the voters, by way of its party organization, far-reaching proposals for a new Constitution, after those proposals had been accepted enthusiastically by the four provincial congresses of the party which preceded the general election.

A Cabinet committee has also made a thorough study of proposals for amending the Constitution. In the course of that study the views of many individuals and bodies were asked, not only in respect of the desirability of amending the existing Constitution, but also in respect of the proposals for its amendment and the assurance that those proposals constitute a fair deal for all the inhabitants of South Africa. Negotiations with politicians of the Coloured and Indian groups were also held on various occasions.

†To obviate any possibility that this Government be accused of not allowing adequate time and opportunities for representations, it has been decided not to introduce any legislation whatever in this regard at this stage, but to propose that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider proposals regarding the revision of the Constitution.

In the event of the Joint Select Committee not succeeding in completing its task during the present session of Parliament, it will at the start of the recess be converted into a commission of Senators and Members of Parliament.

*If this motion is accepted by the House of Assembly, the Government will announce, as soon as possible after such acceptance, the proposals it is going to submit to the Joint Committee for its consideration.

It is expected that the recommendations of the Joint Committee and/or commission will be submitted to the Government for its considerations in time for the introduction of draft legislation early in the Parliamentary session of 1980.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has dealt with this matter very briefly, has given us something of the historical background to it and has indicated that once this motion was accepted by the House Government’s constitutional plans would be revealed to both the Joint Committee and the public. We on these benches look forward with interest to seeing what those plans are and how they differ from the previous plans which the Government has produced and put to the electorate of South Africa. At the same time I want to make it clear that this motion does not limit the Joint Committee to the examination of the proposals of any one party or to those of the Government. So, while we look forward to seeing what the Government’s contribution is to the wider debate, let us at the outset understand that the purpose of this Joint Committee is not to examine a particular set of proposals. It is, put very broadly, to consider the introduction of a new Constitution for the Republic of South Africa.

I want to continue in the calm and, I hope, objective manner in which the hon. the Minister introduced this motion and say that although the motion is a short and simple one, none of us, whether in the Government or in the Opposition, underestimate the significance of what is being done today.

I believe that we perhaps stand at a greater moment in the history of our country’s constitutional development than we might realize. This proposal is the first formal step by this Parliament to revise the South African Constitution, and it could be an important occasion which marks an accelerating development of a new Constitution for South Africa. In fact, it represents the third phase of our constitutional development. In 1909-’10 the two former Republics and the two colonies were brought together by the first South Africa Constitution Act. In 1961 this country achieved greater independence and greater self-reliance as a result of our becoming a republic. Now, in 1979, a formal step is taken by Parliament to set up a Joint Committee and to set in motion a train of events which will not only determine for South Africa a new Constitution, but will also determine in political terms, whether we in South Africa in the future are going to live in peace and whether we are going to survive as an orderly and developing society. May I predict that what is proposed today, a Select Committee of this House together with a Select Committee of the Other Place—in other words, a Joint Committee—is going to develop into a much wider conference of the people of South Africa, a conference responsible not merely for the White, Coloured and Black citizens of South Africa, and not taking place merely because this party, that party or the Government party wants a multiracial conference in South Africa, but because the realities of South Africa, with its diverse plural and interrelated communities, demand that Black, White and Brown take joint decisions on our constitutional future.

Because this is an appropriate first step, by what is at the moment the sovereign Parliament of South Africa, in the process of developing a new constitution, a process to which we in the PFP have committed ourselves for some time, and because this motion has been introduced before any Bill was put before the House, and is cast in wide and unrestrictive terms, permitting a full examination of all constitutional alternatives, we in the official Opposition will most certainly give our support.

Hon. members on the other side will nevertheless realize that the hon. the Minister’s action in moving this motion today reflects a dramatic political turnabout on the part of the Government. [Interjections.] One thinks of the reasons given for the previous general election. In that election the Government was asking for a mandate for a specific Constitution. In debates under the previous Prime Minister last year, we called for a reexamination. We called for a multinational conference in South Africa. What did the previous Prime Minister say?

*He said the people of South Africa had already rendered a decision. In the pamphlets I have before me, the decision which was supposed to have been taken on 30 November 1977, is expounded. One also calls to mind the 4 000 posters which were printed by the Government Printer, circulated throughout the country and posted up in post offices and magistrates’ offices. There is also the brochure “South Africa’s new Constitutional Plan”, a brochure which was published by the former Department of Information. This motion, therefore, represents a dramatic turnabout. But we are not complaining about that. I think, however, there are certain factors which should be borne in mind in considering this.

†There are a number of reasons for this. I think that many people are going to claim credit for what is a good turnabout on the part of the Government. I have no doubt that the hon. member for Durban Point, for instance, is going to join me in claiming that the Opposition has had an important part to play over the last two years in getting the Government to abandon its commitment to a particular plan and to appoint a Select Committee with a broad mandate to consider any one of a number of alternative plans. The Coloureds and the Indians have also played their part by rejecting the plan as published by the Government for a new constitution. The urban Blacks, too, have had a part to play by their demand for inclusion in a new constitutional deal. Likewise the homeland Blacks have had their part to play by refusing to renounce their South African birthright in favour of the terms of the Government constitutional plan. As the farmers in South Africa in particular know, one cannot ignore the millions of rural Blacks living on the farms in South Africa when it comes to dealing with what is also their future dispensation.

Undoubtedly there are people within the Government party who have, I believe for very wrong reasons, also caused the Government to take these steps. If one had listened attentively to the debates this session and to the debates of the previous session, one would have found repeatedly that in the Government there were people who were attacking the concept that racial communities should take joint decisions and accept joint responsibility within the framework of one constitutional structure. That was a concept that was fundamental to the previous scheme. We are, of course, delighted because this turnabout is a victory of pragmatism over hard-line ideology. It is a victory of plain common sense over the “kragdadigheid” to which we have become accustomed from the other side.

To return to the motion and the reasons why we believe it should be supported, let me say first of all that the appointing a Select Committee to form a Joint Committee with a Select Committee of the Senate is the appropriate procedure through which the House can start the whole process of constitution-making. It was the procedure adopted in 1961, and we believe that it is correct procedure for the House to initiate this step now. Secondly, the mandate is wide, open-ended and unrestricted. The mandate does not bind the Joint Committee or Parliament to any preconceived ideological concept It is devoid of any ideological connotation. Furthermore, it does not commit the Joint Committee to examining any particular constitutional model. Indeed, it invites and enjoins that committee to examine the whole process of constitution-making. Thirdly, it does not restrict the exercise and the study that is to be made to Whites, Coloureds and Asians. It does not restrict it to any one of the racial communities which make up the South African people. Indeed, I believe that the phrase in the motion “in considering the introduction of a new constitution for the Republic of South Africa” engenders a feeling of oneness. Reference is made to “the Republic of South Africa” and “a new constitution” for that Republic. It certainly has a ring of inclusiveness, both in the territorial sense and from the point of view of the population. Fourthly, the motion does not prescribe the proceedings the committee must adopt in the execution of its mandate. It has an open mandate to consult whom it wishes. Fifthly, the mandate does not preclude the Joint Committee from making recommendations to the House in due course on the preparatory steps which should be taken in order to get support for a new constitution from all sections of the South African community.

What does appear from the hon. the Minister’s action this morning is that the Government has learnt at least one important lesson, and that is that in spite of a majority of 135 to 30 in this House no Government, however strong, dares steamroller a constitution for the Republic of South Africa supported by one party through the Parliament of this country. If that applies within the White community, I believe the lesson also applies within the wider, the total South African community.

Let us realize that, in supporting the hon. the Minister’s motion, the House is taking the first formal step along the road of constitution-making and that the successive steps are going to have to be taken in such a way that the constitution which emerges and is finally adopted by the sovereign Parliament of South Africa will enjoy the respect and the support of all the peoples of this country. This is vital. If we think this is the last step or merely the transitional step for a White Select Committee talking to a White Parliament, I believe we will be making a fatal error.

[Inaudible.]

We would be making a fatal error if we were to believe that the future constitution for the Republic of South Africa in respect of which this committee is being given a mandate is going to be fashioned, worked out and agreed upon by White South Africans only.

It is against this background that we in the official Opposition support the motion. It is against this background that we, when we serve on the Joint Committee, are going to use the opportunities given to us by that machinery of Parliament to make our own positive contribution towards the shaping of a new constitution for the Republic of South Africa.

You have never made a positive contribution!

What is more, we will use that opportunity to recommend to Parliament certain essential preparatory steps including the calling of a national convention… [Interjections.] Sir, listen to that hollow laugh from the other side! I want to say that, whether one calls it a convention or not, the Joint Committee is going to have to examine ways and means of bringing representatives of all sections of the community into the discussions, the negotiations and the final decision-making. That is a positive first step. It is an initiative. It moves in the right direction. Let me say that if the Joint Committee does not act in a way aimed to ensure that the new constitution will enjoy the respect and support of all sections of the population, we will within five years of introducing the new constitution have to pull it apart and introduce a further one at that stage.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to deal at length with what will flow from this motion, but rather with the motion itself and the background to its introduction in this House. The Government will forgive me if I say that this is a moment which is of particular significance to my party because the drawing up of a new constitution means that we are moving forward to a new Republic. [Interjections.] Yes, if one has a new constitution, one will have a new Republic of South Africa, and that is the very purpose for which this party was created. [Interjections.] I am not pretending that we are going to create a new Republic, but what we are doing is participating in the creation of a new Republic. That is why I particularly welcome the introduction of this motion.

The hon. the Prime Minister will remember that in the first public speech he delivered in Kimbzrley just after he was elected, he called for the co-operation of the Opposition in seeking a new dispensation for South Africa. Immediately thereafter, the following day, I accepted his invitation and offered the cooperation of the NRP. It was therefore a moment for regret when the hon. the Minister of the Interior announced that proposals for a new constitution would be introduced, passed through this House and only referred to a Select Committee after Second Reading. I immediately appealed to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government to reconsider that and to do what is now being done. In fact, they have gone further than referring the Bill to a Select Committee before Second Reading. They have therefore made the position even more open for full co-operation on the part of the Opposition.

That shows you how magnanimous we can be.

That is right. It also shows how correctly and how much in the interest of the country the Government can act when it listens to our advice and suggestions. [Interjections.] Hon. members may laugh—and I know they will—but this party has a unique contribution to offer in the Select Committee because what we have to offer is the only agreement on constitutional change which has, in the history of South Africa, been negotiated and agreed to between the White, Coloured and Indian communities. This agreement was reached not in theory or academically, but by sitting round a table. After sitting round a table and negotiating for a year, the NRP administration in Natal reached agreement on a fundamental change in local government practice, a part of the machinery of government. So we shall not come to this committee with idle theories, but with a contribution of practical experience and practical achievement on how the different races in South Africa can talk, consult and negotiate together and, starting from position poles apart, ultimately agree on something acceptable to them all. It is known that the Coloured community has insisted that there must be a unitary Constitution with a common roll and “one man, one vote”. When Natal started to negotiate it started with the Whites adopting one view and the Coloured and Indian communities demanding just what they had always been demanding, namely municipal Government with a common roll and majority rule. After a year of negotiations, however, both parties moved away from their rigid starting points, moving together and finding agreement on a system for local Government which was acceptable—though it did not satisfy all their requirements or desires—to all three communities. I therefore welcome the opportunity of repeating that experiment of negotiation and consultation, of talking to communities, talking to their leaders, even though we start poles apart, and seeking to move together to obtain for South Africa, at national level in a new Constitution for a new Republic, the same sort of agreement which we were able to achieve at the lowest level of Government by the same procedure. I therefore welcome the motion and give it the full support of this party.

Finally, I want to say that in the year that lies ahead we, and I believe all South Africa, will look to this Joint Select Committee of both Houses, pinning on its work all our hopes and all our faith that South Africa has a future ahead of it. That committee can give South Africa one of two things, either a peaceful future of co-existence and harmony or a future which will be a series of destructive conflicts and confrontations. I therefore see in this committee a new hope for a new South Africa and, although hon. members may argue, a new Republic of South Africa which will grow from its work.

Mr. Speaker, while listening to the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition and to the hon. leader of the NRP, I have come to the conclusion that both the Opposition parties would like to claim the kudos for this motion and see their policies implemented.

No, not necessarily.

I merely want to say that the SAP welcomes this motion because as early as 1977 there was a Cabinet constitutional committee to which the SAP made representations early in that year. As far as I am aware, ours was the only party, at that time, which did make representations to that committee. So if the kudos belongs to anybody, it belongs to the SAP.

And those representations were rejected.

No, they were not rejected. They were listened to, and the result is this motion before us today. This is an historical occasion. This motion indicates that the Government has adopted an open-minded attitude towards the new constitution. In other words, the Joint Committee will start de novo and is not bound by anything that has happened before or by anything that has been said before. We also welcome the fact that all persons may give evidence before the committee. Thereafter the committee or commission can deliberate in an atmosphere of calm, and in an objective manner present a report.

We in these benches shall therefore support the motion as it stands on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Durban Point in his capacity as the leader of the NRP, and the hon. member for Walmer for their support.

In passing, I refer once more to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I think he has been a little confused this morning. He apparently thought he had to deliver a Second Reading speech and consequently, in the light of the tranquil atmosphere in which the motion was moved and received, he was perhaps a little too sharp, in the political sense, at this stage.

I thank all three of those speakers for their support. The Government is eagerly looking forward to co-operation and deliberation during the activities of the envisaged Joint Select Committee.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I now move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In terms of subsection (1)(a) of section 8 of the Publications Act, 1974, no person may produce an undesirable publication or object. Connected with this are the provisions of subsection (4)(a)(i) of the said article, which provides that no prosecution shall be instituted for a contravention of subsection (1)(a) unless the publication or object which forms the subject of the charge is in terms of a decision of a committee undesirable, as well as the provisions of subsection (4)(b). This subsection provides that a notice published in the Gazette stating that a publication or object is in terms of a decision of a committee undesirable, shall for the purposes of the Act be sufficient proof of the undesirability of that publication or object. The words “sufficient proof’ are used in the English text as the equivalent of the words “afdoende bewys” in the Afrikaans text.

This subsection, Mr. Speaker, was recently mentioned in the Appeal Court in the case of the State v. Moroney, S.A. 1978 (4), when the Court was asked, inter alia, to interpret the words “afdoende bewys”. The Appeal Court ruled that “sufficient proof’ in the English text did not mean “conclusive proof", while “afdoende bewys”, on the other hand, had a stronger meaning. In order to bring the Afrikaans and English texts into line, the court ruled that “afdoende bewys” meant only prima facie proof, i.e. refutable proof.

The Appeal Court set aside the conviction in the case by a magistrate which had been confirmed by the Transvaal Division of the Supreme Court. In order to bring the English text into line with the Afrikaans text and to give effect to the original intention of this Parliament, i.e. that the production of publications which are prejudicial to the safety of the State and to the general welfare, peace and good order, inter alia, should be combated in this way, it is being proposed in clause 1 that the word “sufficient” in paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of section 8 be replaced by the word “conclusive”.

Since sophisticated video cassette machines are now on the market and the sale or renting of video-cassettes is already a large industry in the Republic, it is being proposed after consultation with the Government law advisers that the definition of “film” in section 47(1) of the Act be replaced by a definition which takes account of new technological developments in this field.

Mr. Speaker, this particular amendment must be read in the light of section 19(1) of the principal Act. For the interest of hon. members let me say that section 19(1) reads as follows—

1. (a)exhibit to any person any film intended to be exhibited in public;
2. (b)exhibit any film in public;
3. (c)publish any film,

Both the PFP and the then United Party opposed section 19(1) when it was discussed here in the House in 1974. We felt then that the wording cast the net too wide, that it brought within the ambit of censorship, within the ambit of publications control, that which we believed should have stayed within the rights and the discretion of the private individual.

In section 47 of the Act are to be found the definitions, among which there is also the definition of a film. If one reads the definition of a film, as it stands in section 47 of the Act, one finds that it is an all-embracing definition. It reads as follows—

If one reads this one realizes that just about anything conceivably related to the cinema or to films is, in fact, included in this definition. Film cassettes, magnetic tapes, video-plates—to which the hon. the Minister has just referred—are all already listed in the principal Act, yet the hon. the Minister and his department wish to go even further. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister should look to the Opposition for assistance in his efforts to extend the scope of that definition. Hon. members are well aware of the attitude of this side of the House to the concept of censorship. Hon. members are also well aware of our general attitude to the principle of the Act, and in particular to the definitions, especially the one I have just read out. We were against those aspects in 1974 and we still retain our opposition to those aspects. Quite clearly we cannot debate, at this time, the main or basic principles which underlie the whole system of censorship that operates in the Republic. What we can discuss, however, is any extension to that system that is contained in this amending Bill. Whatever extension is envisaged—and I must say that it is by no means crystal clear to me precisely what extension is envisaged—I must point out that within the space of two days there is for the second time brought before us, by the hon. the Minister, a Bill which attempts or purports to plug up gaps in legislation, gaps whose existence one is not even certain about. At best this proposed amendment changes little. At worst it means an even wider variety of visual image devices and their products being brought under the scrutiny of the committees set up in terms of the Publications Control Act, 1974. We believe that this broadened redefining of what must undergo inspection prior to approval again confirms the Government’s attitude of total control over every situation, whether it be public or private. On the subject of publications, entertainments and films, the tenbacles of the central Government are already to be found in every nook and cranny of this country. In so far as films are concerned, this amendment makes those tentacles of the central Government all-enveloping.

This act and attitude of continually wishing to blinker the public has, I believe, done enormous damage in South Africa by stultifying writers, film producers and artists. It entirely goes against the grain of my convictions and those of my party to support any extension of its application whatsoever.

Accordingly, we were going to vote against this Bill. However, before I sit down, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a pertinent question. He mentioned videotapes and cassettes in his Second Reading speech. I have read the existing definition of what a film is, but I do not think that it is at all clear to the House precisely what situation the hon. the Minister is trying to cover. I am not at all certain what the precise mischief is that the hon. the Minister wishes to counteract, and I think that before hon. members on that side of the House are called upon just to vote blindly, this mischief should be clearly identified so that we at least know what we are legislating for.

Only a day or two ago we had a Bill brought before the House which the hon. the Minister himself said he did not think was necessary. He nevertheless asked us to vote for it. The clause then under consideration was inoffensive, however, and there was no squabble. Today there similarly appears to be a lack of clarity in the hon. the Minister’s reasoning and his ideas about precisely what he is trying to do. I therefore believe that the hon. the Minister should tell the House what it is he is trying to curb, precisely what films not previously in the definition are now to be included in the definition and what reasons there are which might persuade us to vote for this legislation. I might just say that on the general principle of an extension to the original Act, something we cannot support, we shall not vote for the Bill, but I nevertheless think that the hon. the Minister owes us an explanation.

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, in which he informed hon. members on this side of the House that he would not support this particular Bill, the hon. member for Sandton concentrated mostly on clause 2 of the Bill. Before discussing that with the hon. member, I do want to refer him to section 1 of the principal Act. I want the hon. member to have a look with me at the reason why we want to amend this particular section. The reason for this amendment is to be found in the court case to which the hon. the Minister referred, the one between the State and Moroney. This particular court case concerned an editor of a specific student newspaper which had contravened section 8(1)(a) of the principal Act. In terms of this, “no person shall produce an undesirable publication or object”. The student concerned was found guilty of the offence in the magistrates’ court after two editions of this particular student paper had been published. In the Appeal Court, however, a ruling was given against the State. I want to draw the attention of hon. members of this House to the tendency we find in South Africa in respect of the contravention of this particular Act. It is not only concerned with obscene publications and that kind of thing, but also with publications in Southern Africa which endanger the security of the State. I want to ask the hon. member for Sandton to look again at the reports of the Director of the Publications Board so that he may see what is taking place within some student communities in South Africa. In his annual report for 1976, the Director of Publications said, inter alia—

I.e., because they were indecent or obscene or offensive or harmful to public morals—

I.e., because they were harmful to the relations between any sections of the inhabitants of South Africa, or were prejudicial to the safety of the State, the general welfare or the peace and good order.

In his annual report for 1977, too, the Director of Publications mentioned the disturbing increase in the number of publications published by student bodies at universities and declared undesirable. I therefore ask the hon. member for Sandton to read those annual reports again. The hon. members of the Opposition cannot just ignore clause 1 of the Bill, therefore. There are things going on in South Africa, specifically among young people, which could cause problems, not only for me and my party, but for everyone in South Africa. Therefore I find it very irresponsible of the official Opposition to single out one small aspect of the Bill and to try to draw attention to that. It is important that the authorities should be very well aware of things which are published in order to influence people. This applies particularly to matters which endanger the State and which are emerging among young people and at our universities. The hon. member for Sandton ought to make a very thorough study of what is going on in student communities all over the world. I want to point out to the hon. member that if his party were to come to power, there would still be students who would want to do these harmful things. I want to appeal to our university authorities, as well as parents, to have a look at the offences which are committed in terms of the provisions of the Act and which are forcing the Government to make these amendments.

The hon. member for Sandton concentrated especially on clause 2 of the Bill and asked the hon. the Minister a question about it. If the hon. member had read this clause properly, his intelligence—which I do not underestimate—would have shown him that there was no reason whatsoever for asking that question. Naturally, I can understand that the hon. member voted against the Publications Act on principle and that he will consequently vote against any amendment of the Act. After all, he does not agree with the Government about the control of publications which are harmful and dangerous to the State and which run counter to the basic principles of the Government’s ethical and aesthetic philosophy. The NP sets great store by these two principles and would be unfaithful to its own principles and ideals if it did not take cognizance of the techniques and methods used by people who do not care for these specific ethical and aesthetic principles. The Government will not allow those people to make money out of new technical devices which have been invented and can be used.

I therefore want to assure the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House are right behind him when it comes to improving and expanding the existing Act, the better to give effect to the basic principles which have already been laid down.

Mr. Speaker, I must confess to being somewhat surprised that the hon. member for Sandton did not approve of the new definition of “film” as embodied in clause 2 of this Bill. I say this because it was very apparent to this House that he had a great deal of difficulty with the pronunciation of the word “cinematograph” and, since the new definition no longer has that word in it, I would have thought that he would have found at least something to praise in the Bill.

This Bill seeks to amend the provisions of the Publications Act of 1974, an Act which, in our view, was and still is a very bad Act.

Hear, hear!

We believe that both of the clauses in the Bill before the House today will have the effect of strengthening the Act or widening the powers in terms of the Act. I shall, however, be extending my argument on that a little later.

First of all I want to say that we in these benches do not approve of the publication of things such as blasphemous, seditious, subversive or pornographic matter. This is something we want to make quite clear. We in these benches do not believe in a permissive society.

Hear, hear!

We have so many objections, however, to the Act that this Bill is seeking to amend that we cannot find it in ourselves to approve this Bill and shall therefore be opposing it. The principles embodied in the original legislation, which this Bill now seeks to extend, were opposed by our predecessor, the old United Party, on four basic grounds. The first objection was that in terms of the existing section 8 of the Publications Act, the very section this Bill is amending, the discretion was removed from the courts. It also abolished the mechanism of appeals to the courts. Even with the amendments brought about by this Bill, the appeal mechanism will still be subject to very arbitrary powers. The final objection was that the legislation demonstrated a very autocratic attitude with which we, in these benches, cannot find any sympathy at all.

Clause 1, as I have said, amends section 8 of the Publications Act and our predecessor, the United Party, was opposed to this very section, even as it was originally published, which states that there has to be “sufficient” proof of the undesirability of a publication or object. Clause 1, however, introduces the word “conclusive”, and this is a hardening of attitude, a strengthening of the legislation. We believe, however, that rather than altering the English version of the legislation, the hon. the Minister should consider altering the Afrikaans version to fit in with the word “sufficient” in the English version. I know that the hon. the Minister did refer to a court case, that of the State v. Moroney, in this regard, but Parliament is nevertheless the highest body in the land, the mechanism for altering laws, and we therefore believe that Parliament has the right, despite whatever court actions there have been in the interim, to alter the definition. We should therefore like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to alter the Afrikaans version so as to make it fit in with the word “sufficient” in the English version rather than to alter the English version by introducing the word “conclusive”.

I do not know whether I can help the hon. member for Sandton with his difficulty in connection with clause 2. As I understand the situation, however, there has been a certain amount of difficulty in connection with videotapes.

[Inaudible.]

That mentions “video-plate”, but I am talking about video-tapes. As I understand the situation, the new definition of “film” is introduced by the Minister to bring any type of film sequence or anything that could possibly be construed to be a film into the overall definition. Thus the powers afforded to the people concerned in terms of the Publications Amendment Bill are in fact widened. For that reason we in these benches will definitely be voting against this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, before returning at a later stage in my speech to clause 1 of the Bill which is now before the House, when I shall also reply to the remarks by the hon. member for East London North, I first want to confine myself briefly to what the hon. member for Sandton had to say about clause 2 of the Bill. With all due respect to the hon. member for Sandton, whom I normally regard as an hon. member with considerable knowledge of the law, I do want to state that I have never heard such a distorted argument from him as the one I heard from him this morning. He himself stated—I am quoting his very words—

He also stated that everything relating to films had already been included in the existing section and said the existing definition was in fact an all-embracing one. On my part I am asking the hon. member what, in his view, is being added or, if the original definition was all-embracing, what possible objection could he have if, by effecting a change to the wording of the definition, it is now being made all-embracing? That is, after all, all that clause 2 entails. I think the intention with the definition in the first place was that it should be all-embracing. We know, however, that technology advances every day and that as a result of the technological development taking place—in the film industry as well—it might transpire within a year or two that what was included in a definition at a particular juncture, is no longer included. It is precisely with the object of making the legislation effective that it is necessary to word the definition in such a manner that it will indeed be all-embracing. That is all that is intended with the amendment now before this House.

However, the hon. member himself let the cat out of the bag when he stated that although it was not clear to him what the proposed amendment comprised, he and his party were nevertheless opposed to it because they had been opposed to the original legislation.

And any extension of it.

Now the hon. member says “and any extension”, but he himself said he did not know what “extension” the clause entailed and whether it entailed any “extension” at all.

We are deeply suspicious of it.

They do not know whether there is an extention at all, nor do they know what the extension entails. But because they are opposed to the original legislation, they are now opposing this proposed amendment. I wish to state categorically that regardless of how the wording might have read, they would still have been opposed to it because, as the hon. member for Sandton has admitted, they are basically opposed to the control of undesirable films.

No, we are opposed to this system of control.

That is basically what they are objecting to. Hon. members on this side of the House have never made any secret of it—and the hon. member for Rissik has just spelled it out again—that we are definitely opposed to the showing of this type of undesirable film—films that undermine the morale of our people and are harmful and dangerous to this country.

We are definitely opposed to them as well.

Now the hon. member for Johannesburg North is saying that they are also opposed to them. Then why do the hon. members imply that it is only we who are opposed to them?

You are misconstruing my words.

By their opposition to this clause those hon. members are merely betraying their inherent unwillingness to take action against the distribution and showing of this type of film, or to adopt measures that will enable the authorities to keep this type of film away from society.

What sort of film?

As I stated at the outset, I want to return to clause 1 of the Bill. The hon. the Minister has already outlined the background to this proposed amendment. He has referred to the decision of the Appellate Division in the case State v. Moroney, S.A. 1978 (4), pp. 389 et seq. As the hon. the Minister has stated, in that case the Appellate Division held that the word “afdoende” in the Afrikaans version of the Act had a wider connotation than that of the English word “sufficient” in the English version. According to the rules applicable to the interpretation of statutes, this now means that the joint effect of these two words must be ascertained. In other words, the common denominator of these two words must now be found. According to the Appellate Division, the common denominator of these two words means that the findings of a committee as published in the Government Gazette will merely be prima facie evidence and not, as indicated by the Afrikaans version of the Act, “afdoende” evidence, and will not have the same effect as “conclusive” evidence. In the case of State v. Moroney, Advocate Gey van Pittius, who acted for the State, dealt with the considerations applicable to the interpretation of statutes. He stated, inter alia, that the following rules of interpretation should also be kept in mind (p. 395 of the report)—

I believe that if we apply these considerations to the existing legislation, it becomes clear that the terms “afdoende” and “sufficient” in subsection (4)(b) are actually intended to mean “final and conclusive”. All that is now being intended with the amendment before the House, is to put it beyond all doubt that the relevant evidence should indeed be “final and conclusive”.

Returning now to the allegations made by the hon. member for East London North in respect of the standpoint of his party, I want to point out that he has stated here that “the Publications Act, 1974, is a bad Act”. He said “we cannot approve of the principles in the existing Act”. He then mentioned the “principles” on the grounds of which the predecessor of his party, namely the old UP, opposed the legislation in 1974. One of these “principles”, one of these sacred cows, is that “the legislation seeks to remove, or removes, the discretion of the courts and abolishes appeals to the courts”. I wish to refer the hon. member to the standpoint our courts of law have adopted on this very matter.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member that I allowed the hon. member for East London North, the hon. member for Sandton and the hon. member for Rissik some latitude but that I cannot allow a full-scale debate on the principle of the subject and related matters if these are not covered by the Bill. The hon. member may proceed, but he must deal with this point very briefly.

As it may please, you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for East London North argued further that we were dealing here with an extension of a principle that was unacceptable to them. Well, if he has any objections to the extension of that principle, he must remember that this principle is indeed in line with what the courts themselves have requested. In the decisions in the Publications Control Board v. William Heineman Ltd., S.A.L.R. 1965, vol. 4, p. 156, and Brandwag Pers Beperk teen Die Road van Beheer oor Publikasies, S.A.L.R., 1975, vol. 2, p. 42, the learned judges expressed themselves very clearly opposed to administrative functions being entrusted to courts of law. All that was done in the existing legislation was that the administrative function was removed from the courts of law; in other words, in 1974 the request of the courts of law themselves was acceded to. Now it is being implied that the role of the courts of law is being eliminated entirely. Surely this is not true, and in this regard I can do no better than to quote once again the argument put forward by Advocate Gey van Pittius on p. 398 of the report of the State v. Moroney case, where he stated—

All that is therefore being done with this legislation is to relieve the court of the administrative function, but the legal function still remains completely in the hands of the court. The reason given by the hon. member for East London North as to why he and his party are opposing this legislation therefore does not bear examination at all.

There is the argument that the committee concerned is not made up of legal experts and is therefore not competent…

Who said that?

What clause does that relate to?

Who raised that argument?

It is implicit in what the hon. member for East London North said. [Interjections.] I shall quote the words of the hon. member once again—

What else does that mean than that the application of the legislation should be placed in the hands of the courts? It is implicit in what he said. I pointed out to him that the courts themselves had requested that they should be relieved of the administrative function, because a court of law does not judge on considerations as different as the size of the hon. members’ feet, for example. A court of law has to judge in accordance with fixed legal rules and principles, and for that reason a court of law does not want to be placed in a position where it has to decide administratively basis according to its own judgment.

If the hon. member argues that the Act concerned is removing the application of the present legislation from the courts of law, then surely he wants to place it in the hands of people with a legal background and training. If this argument is followed through to its logical conclusion, there will also be justification for stating that since the members of the committee are not legal experts, they are not competent…

What has this to do with the amendment?

It has everything to do with it. If the hon. member does not realize that, he is not fit to speak on this Bill.

Hear, hear!

What else can one expect from a sea-lawyer such as the hon. member?

*The members of the committee are not being asked to express a legal opinion. They do not serve there to perform a judicial function. They serve there to evaluate the desirability and the propriety or otherwise of a particular work. Once they have arrived at a finding, the court of law should be bound to uphold that decision. A court of law cannot tamper with that decision afterwards. In fact, section 38 of the existing Act very plainly provides that a finding of a committee is not subject to appeal to a court of law. That is very expressly provided in the Act. The whole argument of the hon. member for East London North and other like-minded persons that we are dealing here with an encroachment on the powers of the courts of law, that we are removing the right of an accused to appeal to a court of law, is sheer sophistry. To advance that as a reason why the NRP should vote against this proposed amendment, does not hold water at all.

But the hon. member for East London North said very piously: “We are not in favour of a permissive society. We do not believe in a permissive society.”

Order! The hon. member for Mossel Bay is really digressing very seriously from the Bill now.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am merely replying to what the hon. member for East London North said. [Interjections.] I shall not enlarge on that. It is of course one thing for the hon. member now to come here and state very piously: “We do not believe in a permissive society.” But when legislation is then considered here in the House, legislation that has no other aim but to create effective measures for the prevention of a “permissive society”, the hon. member for Sandton, for example, states: “We do not want an all-embracing provision.” What is the sense in having legislation if it is not all-embracing?

Are you against embracing?

No, I am not against embracing. However, I do not want to embrace the hon. member for Mooi River or any hon. member of his party. [Interjections.]

You will never be given the chance. It is not my day for grand-daddies. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Mooi River can rest assured I will never make use of any opportunity of embracing anyone belonging to his party. [Interjections.]

*Mr. Speaker, hon. members entice one into digressing from the subject and as soon as one does that, they complain. [Interjections.] However, they will not entice me into digressing from the central theme.

Order! The hon. member for Mossel Bay is allowing himself to be enticed all too easily. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to confine myself to the central theme of my speech. [Interjections.] I wish to repeat the statement that to state piously that one is not in favour of a permissive society—and we must not forget that those hon. members have themselves admitted that they also opposed the original legislation—and then remain opposed throughout to the principle of the original legislation, surely amounts to mere lip-service to any form of control over publications or whatever. I wish to suggest one thing to those hon. members.

That is old Magaliesberg piffle.

It might be old. But an old truth still remains a truth. What I wish to suggest to them, is this: I was once in a constituency which used to be an Opposition constituency but which is now an NP constituency. A faithful supporter of the Opposition in that constituency told me at the time: “I do not support your party’s policy. I have been a member of the Opposition party all my life. However, I have no option but to vote for your party, because of the strong stand that you take on permissiveness.” That constituency is now a National Party one owing to the fact that people who have voted for the Opposition all their lives, no longer tolerate this hypocritical attitude they are adopting…

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I shall substitute the word “pious” for “hypocritical”.

Mr. Speaker, on quite a different point of order: I want to direct your attention to Standing Order No. 110 and ask for your ruling in that regard.

Order! The hon. member for Mossel Bay must now return to the Bill. If he does not, I shall have to take other steps.

Mr. Speaker, I shall do so if it pleases you. However, I am concluding by merely stating that this pious attitude on the part of hon. members on that side of the House is just not being accepted by the voters any more. For that reason, their numbers here will continue to dwindle.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. members for Mossel Bay and Rissik have dealt fully and effectively with the hon. members on that side of the House. Their replies were, in fact, “conclusive”. [Interjections.]

I just wish to state that when the Act was originally introduced, there was opposition on the part of the Opposition, to section 8 as well, for the very reason that at the time and throughout, the view was held that in terms of section 8(4)(b) a decision by a committee was final and absolute. That was the view held throughout by a magistrate’s court and even by the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, and this was only amended on appeal. It is unfair to state now that we are asking for more powers. If that was the assumption in the ranks of the Opposition and on the part of the Government throughout, viz. that the decision of a committee on the desirability or otherwise of a work should be final, then it is now merely being laid down in law.

I wish to state frankly that from an administrative point of view, it creates an impossible situation if every decision by the committee can merely be regarded as prima facie evidence and committee members can be subpoenaed ad nauseam to strengthen the prima facie evidence with the aid of proof or evidence in the courts. It is absolutely essential for the smooth functioning of this Act that this amendment should be passed so as to establish clearly what the legislature intends.

With regard to the definition of films, which we are seeking to change in clause 2 of the Bill, the answer is very clear. When the original Act was passed we did not have television sets and video cassette equipment in this country. For that reason we were not 100% familiar with the techniques, and there was reference to video plates. It should surely convince hon. members on that side of the House, or give them the impression that we now want to rectify in the Act what we meant at the time. Because, as a result of technological developments that have taken place since then, television sets have been introduced and also video cassette machines which one can play back through a television set, we feel that we should define “film” to include video cassettes as well.

If a private person brings a videotape which was taken from a television programme abroad back to South Africa, does that mean that he must submit it to the committee for approval before showing it?

Mr. Speaker, the answer is of course “yes”. Let us now ascertain what the hon. member for Sandton has in mind. What he has in mind is that one should be able to watch a nice pornographic television film overseas, record it on videotape and then show it to people in South Africa through a television set.

Are you not aware of the provisions of the Indecent or Obscene Photographic Matters Act, No. 37 of 1967, which covers all pornography? It is not necessary that this Bill cover that aspect.

I am fully aware of that Act. It is not exceptional that there is parallel legislation. This type of provision belongs specifically in the Publications Act in order to make it quite plain to the public of South Africa that we shall not allow video cassettes of blue films in this country and that these also come under control.

Mr. Speaker, now that the hon. the Minister has indicated that private persons who have taped television programmes overseas have to submit them to a committee before showing them, could he tell us how he intends implementing this?

That is an administrative matter which my staff will clear up. I am not prepared to talk about that now. However, I want to put a question to the hon. member which he can reply to later if he wishes. I think the hon. member will agree with me that in the field of good literature or good works of art, I have exerted myself to see under what circumstances one could make such works available. Why, when we are dealing with the field of pornography, are hon. members on that side always so intent on looking for loopholes? Surely it is in the interests of their children and my children that we should close all loopholes.

I think I have now said enough about this matter.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—87: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetsee, H. J.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Janson, J.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, P. S.; Morrison, G. de V.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Uys, C.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. H. Hoon, N. F. Treurnicht, H. D. K. van der Merwe and V. A. Volker.

Noes—21: Aronson, T.; Bamford, B. R.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Wood, N. B.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House I should like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the Opposition for the support which they, along with us, accorded this Bill. In the Second Reading debate no objections were raised to the principle of the Bill and in the Committee Stage there were no serious differences either. The differences that there were, were also discussed in a sound and very responsible way.

Mr. Speaker, we are on the eve of the historic development of our being the only country in Africa which is enfranchising its Indian population to elect their own representatives in their own delimitated constituencies to a representative council of their own. On this occasion I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister with reference to the appeal which emanated from the Indian community itself, i.e. that it be guaranteed that they will, in fact, be able to hold an election in November. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether the Indians will, in fact, be able to go to the polls in November. Throughout Africa the Black man has driven out the Indian. The Indian no longer has any say anywhere in Africa about his own future, language, religion, culture or any other thing which is sacred or peculiar to a people, whereas the Afrikaner people, which is decried as being racists, the people which is presented throughout the world as Nazis, and the people which the world intends to boycott, is the very people which is placing the Indians on the road to full independent authority over themselves. It is this people, the Afrikaner people, which is allegedly threatening world peace, which is placing the Indians, an absolute minority group in South Africa, on a road to self-determination and political independence which will enable them to decide their own destiny. This Bill is the precursor of that. I challenge any country in Africa or in the world to do what the NP is doing now and that is to give a minority people the right to decide its own destiny. It would have been wonderful if America, which always waxes so lyrical about human rights, would do to the Red Indian in America what we are doing with regard to the Indian in South Africa, because then this would have been a much better world and we should have been in the position to believe the American again. In conclusion I want to say to the Indians, who are now on the point of obtaining these rights, that I hope that they will be politically responsible and mature from the very beginning, so that they together with us, the Whites, and the Coloureds, may enter a totally new South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Kimberley South for his contribution to this brief discussion. It was refreshing to hear his point of view. I should like to reply to the questions he put to me. The one question which he put, was whether we should be able to meet the request of the Indian representatives on the Indian Council to hold an election for the Indian Council during the present year. I am very pleased to be able to tell him that we shall have completed the voters’ rolls, the delimitation and all the work involved in holding an election in November 1979, as we have been requested. We regard this as particularly important, because when the Select Committee that was announced today and the commission which is to be appointed at a later stage, negotiate with the Indians, we should like those bodies to be sure that they are dealing with the elected representatives of the Indian people. The problem which the Indian Council has at the moment—they say so themselves—is that they are not really an elected council. Fifteen of the 30 members were nominated and the remaining 15 were elected by an electoral college comprising the local councils, something which is not entirely democratic either. Thanks to this Bill, and the principal Act, it will now be possible to hold an election in November 1979 so that we may be able to have real Indian representation. I think the hon. member for Musgrave has already pointed out that at present there are as many as 283 000 Indian voters on the voters’ roll from an estimated maximum of 392 000. Therefore, 72,5% of the Indians have already had themselves registered and there may possibly be other opportunities for the rest to have themselves registered.

If one has regard to the fact that the American people on occasion elected its President while only 60% of the competent voters were registered, this is really a remarkable achievement on the part of our Indian population, which will now for the first time also have the privilege of holding a democratic election.

As far as delimitation is concerned, we are now having the maps drawn so that we may publicize the constituencies properly. My information is that only one map has to be completed before the Fannin Commission’s delimitation can be announced.

I want to agree with the hon. member for Kimberley South that this is a great step forward in the history of our Indian population indeed. Historically speaking they have been the stepchildren of the South African community in many respects. I remember Gen. Smuts telling me one day, when I was still very young, that the people of Natal interested him a great deal, but as far as the Black people were concerned, particularly the Zulus, they had a liberal attitude and wanted to improve the lives of the people and see that progress was made. However, when it came to Indians, so he said, they saw only a black spot, were not attuned to the needs of the people and wanted nothing to do with them. In the meantime, however, we have all undergone a change of heart, and I am not reproaching anyone; since that time we have all adopted a more mature attitude towards the Indian population and we all have a deeper appreciation for their exceptionally good qualities, for their diligence, for their love of proper housing and a sound family life. On the basis of the experience I am gaining of them on an intimate basis, I believe that we have a population group here which can indeed be a credit to South Africa and which will assist us in deriving all the benefits from the diverse nature of the South African population.

I should like to thank hon. members for the assistance they have given the Department of Indian Affairs by supporting this Bill so that together we may take the next step on the road of the Indian community in South Africa.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The provisions of the repealed Exchequer and Audit Act, 1956, relating to the recovery of losses and damages, were also applicable to statutory bodies, but the new measures in this regard contained in the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1978 which took effect on 1 April 1976, are no longer applicable to those bodies.

At the instance of the Auditor-General, the Treasury requested that every statutory body lay down its own regulations with regard to the recovery of losses or damages incurred by a person in its employ. The measures in this regard contained in this Bill, have been taken from existing legislation, viz. sections 15 and 34 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, with the changes necessary to suit the circumstances of the Atomic Energy Board and the officials in its employ. Therefore, it is proposed that an accounting officer to the Atomic Energy Board be designated and that this officer be charged with certain duties in connection with the recovery of a loss or damage caused the board by officials in the board’s employ.

As I have already said, this Bill has been introduced at the instance of the Auditor-General, and I trust that the measures will be supported by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to this Bill. We believe it is a sensible and practical measure arising out of a request from the Auditor-General. While the necessity for this Bill does arise out of alterations in the procedure of exchequer and audit, it in no way relieaves a statutory body from the obligation of submitting to audit by the Auditor-General in the ordinary way. It does, however, provide that these statutory bodies will recover moneys which are lost or otherwise mislaid, out of their own administrative resources. That is a procedure which we think is entirely sensible and practical, and we therefore give our support to the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am indebted to the hon. member for Constantia for his support of this Bill. Since this is the first time the hon. the Minister of Mines has introduced legislation since the strikes, I want to convey to him my wholehearted congratulations on his capable action during the recent mining strikes. He acted with great understanding and responsibility, and deserves the praise of each of us in this regard. At the same time I want to congratulate him on his conduct this week as acting Leader of the House. On behalf of this side of the House, I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark on his action concerning and organization of the debates which have taken place during this week. He has acted with dexterity and I am glad to say that we are proud of our senior Transvaal Whip. We appreciate his conduct.

In the old Exchequer and Audit Act, 1956, certain provisions concerning statutory bodies were included to make provision for the recovery of losses which arose as a result of damage which officials or employees of such statutory bodies caused their employers. The provisions of section 34 of the new Exchequer and Audit Act are, however, specifically not applicable to statutory bodies. As the hon. the Minister indicated, the Auditor-General has, inter alia, set the requirement that statutory bodies should provide that the loss and damage caused such a body by an official or an employee, be recoverable from them. It is interesting to note that exactly a year ago, on 29 March, we amended the National Institute for Metallurgy Act to provide, inter alia, for such provisions as are also being provided for in this Act.

In my opinion, the provisions in this Act have been thoroughly and competently drafted, and regulate in great detail the liability of a transgressing or negligent employee or ex-employee who causes the Atomic Energy Board damage. On the one hand the Bill stipulates who the accounting officer is who is charged with the responsibility for all moneys collected and paid out. This then lays on him the obligation to determine the damage, and also the obligation of recovering the damage in a stipulated way. Therefore, the Bill leaves no room for uncertainty as to who the accounting officer is and how he should act.

On the other hand, the Bill explains clearly the ways in which an employee or ex-employee may cause damage or loss by his acts or omissions, and goes on to stipulate exactly how the payment of such a claim may be effected by the employee or ex-employee. The rights of such an employee or ex-employee are very accurately stipulated. I think the provisions are very fair towards the alleged debtor. If the accounting officer has determined the amount to be recovered, he can instruct the employee or ex-employee to pay the amount or a portion thereof within 30 days. If such an employee is still being employed, and if he does not pay within 30 days, an amount may be deducted from his monthly salary till the whole amount has been repaid. However, no more than a quarter of his salary may be deducted at one time. An ex-employee may be summonsed for the recovery of the money, and the normal legal process for the collection of debt is then followed. Such a person may also make an offer to repay the amount owed in reasonable payments, and the accounting officer is authorized to accept such an offer, if he regards it as reasonable. Such a person, having been ordered to pay an amount, may, within a period of 30 days from the date of such order, appeal to the board if he does not agree. The board may dismiss the appeal after an investigation, or uphold it either in part or in full and may even accept part payment as settlement. Instead of appealing to the board, any person who feels he has been done an injustice, may apply to a competent court for an order setting aside any obligation or a part of the alleged obligation. I am absolutely convinced that these provisions are reasonable and will certainly lead to further protection of the interests and the assets of the Atomic Energy Board. I also take pleasure in expressing the confidence that it will never be necessary to utilize these provisions and that those who are employed by the Atomic Energy Board will, as always, look after the interests and the assets of the board with great care and responsibility. Costly and durable materials are used, and the persons employed by the Atomic Energy Board do highly responsible work in the interests of South Africa. Therefore, I believe that the implementation of these provisions will only be necessary in very exceptional cases. We are indebted to these people for the work they are doing. I therefore gladly support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP has no problem with the amending Bill before us. We believe in the accountability and responsibility of officials entrusted with funds and with assets. We will have a couple of questions for the hon. the Minister during the Committee Stage, questions dealing with the wording of the Bill in places. However, we will be supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their contributions. I just want to point out to the hon. member for Berea that I had hoped to move that this Bill be not committed. I am saying this with reference to the fact that he intimated that there were certain questions he wanted to put.

I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Klerksdorp for his friendly references to the strikes. When my Vote is discussed, we shall be able to give meaningful consideration to other matters which perhaps arise out of the strike situation. Incidentally, I just want to point out that on due reflection which arose out of a sense of responsibility in several circles, one could probably say that the best thing happened. This too can be a lesson for us. One should not be too hasty to go on strike. However, I do not think this is an appropriate time to discuss the matter.

Hon. members will have noticed that my Second Reading speech was very brief. The hon. member for Klerksdorp dealt with various aspects of it. I cannot improve on what he has said. This is a very simple situation. The Auditor-General wants due account to be given. If abuses occur, if money should disappear and proper control not be exercised, the normal thing is done, as the hon. member for Klerksdorp also said, and people are called to account. The principle is that the money has to be repaid. If all the money cannot be repaid immediately, it should be done over a period. However, the important principle is that it has to be repaid. Consequently this is provided for in the Bill.

Of course, in dealing with a large organization such as the Atomic Energy Board, a board which, as hon. members know, also deals with secret funds in a certain sense—we do not, of course, discuss every day what is done there—it is necessary that there be the greatest trust in those people working in that organization, both those working with the physical aspects of the development there and those involved in financing. Therefore, I think it is appropriate that I say on this occasion, and under these circumstances, that I have only the highest regard for the people working there. I want to state that the staff of that board are people of the very highest integrity. It is easy for a Minister and for a board to have that confidence if the whole staff—from Dr. Roux, the president, to the most humble official—consists of carefully selected people, people in whom South Africa can place special trust. At no stage do I have the feeling that I ought to distrust them. I should like to state this in the House today.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. the Minister could just indicate the need for the retrospective aspects of the proposed new section 18B(l)(b) and (c). One can appreciate the need for legislation if one is aware of avenues in which misappropriation and misspending could present a problem. However, regarding this legislation I feel that there might be a good reason for the need for this retrospective effect. The hon. the Minister could perhaps indicate to us whether any cases of apparent misconduct have come to light to necessitate this. There might be a perfectly simple answer to this question. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not further indicate how far he intends going back in terms of time span. We should like to know the answers to those questions. I presume that the hon. the Minister has answers to them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member now wants to know why this measure is of retrospective effect. The hon. member stated that I probably have a very simple reply to his questions, and I can confirm that this is the case. This is simply the way it is done. In spite of what I have just said, there is just a possibility that something may turn up and then one will have to look back. There are no ulterior motives. This is the way in which it has to be worded; the Auditor-General is in agreement with this. We should view it technically and clinically. There are no ulterior motives. Moreover, it has been worded in this way on the advice of the Atomic Energy Board and the Auditor-General. That is the reply.

Something could be discovered at a later stage.

Yes, if something is discovered later, and so on. Therefore it merely serves as a safety valve.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The measures contained in this Bill are similar to those of the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill which has been dealt with by this House and which seek to make the provisions based on sections 15 and 34 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, applicable to the Atomic Energy Board.

All that is envisaged with this Bill, therefore, is to indicate who the accounting officer of the Uranium Enrichment Corporation of South Africa will be and to impose certain duties on this officer with regard to the recovery of losses and damages caused to the corporation by persons employed by the corporation.

The reason for the introduction of this Bill have already been elucidated in the case of the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill, which we have just dealt with. I should not like to occupy the time of the hon. members with a repetition of the particulars.

Therefore what applies here is exactly the same and absolutely analogous to the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill. One Bill deals with the Atomic Energy Board and the other with the Uranium Enrichment Corporation. For that reason the legislation, except for the name, is virtually identical.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister said, this Bill is analogous to the Bill which has just been dealt with. The reasons for this Bill are exactly the same, too. The methods which are being prescribed are practical and reasonable. We have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Constantia for the consistent attitude of his party in supporting this Bill as well. I, too, like the hon. member for Klerksdorp, should like to thank the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark for the way in which he “whips” this debate.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to thank him for also having afforded me an opportunity to say something about such an important Bill. [Interjections.] At first sight these measures may seem to be purely administrative measures, but that is not really the case. This is a very important Bill. Before I come to that, I should like to express my gratitude to the officials of this corporation who are doing very important work and who have already achieved very important things in regard to our country as well.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended I was referring to the important work done by the officials of this corporation as well as to the importance of this legislation. Although this legislation is intended in the first place to protect the interests of the tax-payer as far as the negligence and unlawful act of any of the officials is concerned, it definitely has another side and that is to protect the officials as such. I think it is very necessary that this should be done, because if this legislation is not passed, a civil lawsuit is the only way in which action can be taken against an official who merely omitted to carry out certain of his duties or to collect certain fees for the corporation. The process is now being greatly facilitated so that these matters which merely amount to an omission or negligent act on the part of an official may be solved departmentally. In other words, these matters are not publicized or conveyed to the public.

On the other hand it does not refer only to the people who handle money on behalf of the corporation, but also to people who handle documents, instruments, securities and other property of the corporation. We know how important some of these documents and especially instruments are which the corporation handles. Therefore, it is necessary that very clear provision should be made in this legislation to enable proper action to be taken against any person who, by any negligent or wilful act, causes such damage or destroys such documents which are very valuable to the country. Because this act can therefore be dealt with by the department, it is in the interests of South Africa to pass this legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, we in the NRP share the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Losberg who made reference in passing to the importance of the consequences of changes to legislation such as this before the House. We want to identify ourselves with those sentiments. Any legislation dealing with these matters, could be referred to in a certain sense as sensitive, and we on this side of the House have indicated our commitment to an accountability and a responsibility in terms of any of the assets relating to the board. We reiterate this in terms of this second but similar Bill which is before the House.

I want to raise one point with which I am not perfectly happy and I wonder if the hon. the Minister could look at this again and perhaps comment on it. I refer in this respect to the retrospective nature of the proposed section 7D(1)(b) and (c). As a date is not being given to which this legislation becomes retrospective, I feel that it is something of an open cheque and in view of the fact that the original legislation dates back to 1970, the way is being opened for retrospective legislation dating back nine years. I think the normal procedure, when a provision with retrospective action is introduced, is to give a date to which it refers and in this instance in the absence of a date given, we must assume that the hon. the Minister wants it retrospective to 1970. This is a long time. We should like to know why there is a necessity for this open cheque. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give us some explanation for the reason for this unduly long retrospective period.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members for their support of the legislation.

In the first place I want to come to the hon. member for Losberg who raised a very important point. I thank him for that. He pointed out that one should have legislation aimed at the protection of officials. He also said that the officials sometimes have to be protected against themselves. The officials of the organization concerned are eminently suitable people of exceptional integrity and competence. In spite of the fact that one accepts that what is laid down in the legislation will be done in any case, one nevertheless stipulates such things in legislation because one in that way imposes certain obligations on the officials with the aim of protecting them vis-à-vis each other and the public. I think the hon. member raised a very important point, because sometimes one is inclined to overlook this.

The hon. member for Berea wants to know from me why it is necessary to go so far back since we want to make the legislation with retrospective effect. The hon. member should remember that the Atomic Energy Board and the Uranium Enrichment Corporation are organizations which are closed to the public. Their business is confidential and the matters they engage in are not easily discussed. For that very reason the public should not get the impression that an organization which works in secrecy will not be able to throw open its whole past. That is what we are making provision for with this legislation. I do not believe that this particular provision will have any appreciable effect when it comes to the practice, because what we are doing, in fact, is to provide for examination of the history of the accounts of a company.

One also wants to make the public realize, especially if it is an organization working in secret, that when its history is examined one will not only examine the history of the past year or two, but in fact course of the organization’s whole history if necessary. Therefore I have no quarrel with the recommendations the Auditor-General and the Atomic Energy Board made in this regard, because they also feel that this should be the case. As far as I am concerned, I do not want to shorten the period over which the history of an organization is examined. That is why I agreed that one should go back as far as possible into the past. There is no other reason for this. We do not want the public to feel that we are not prepared to look back into the far distant past. In addition to that I have to say that there is no reason for anyone in this House to suspect that because we are doing it, there is something which made the Auditor-General, myself or anyone else for that matter think that we need the particular provision. We are simply ensuring that certainty really means certainty.

While we are in such a genial mood at the moment, I should like to point out that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has been congratulated today on having “whipped” this legislation and the previous Bill which was discussed so well. I should like to thank hon. members who congratulated him on this, for doing that, because it was probably the last opportunity the hon. member will have to “whip” a Bill relating to this department, because there are indications that the hon. member will not remain a Whip for much longer. I therefore want to convey my appreciation for the remarks, since he cannot respond to them himself. Everyone here—so I believe—really appreciates the way in which the hon. member acted as Whip here over the years. [Interjections.] On my part I thank the hon. member for having “whipped” the two Bills so well. He has rendered exceptionally good service here for a long time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate that we appreciate the explanation given by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech of the introduced changes and the fact that he wishes the measure to be retrospective to the full extent. We accept his assurances that it is not the intention to start a witch-hunt, if I am correct in putting it in those terms. It is also to be hoped that the people selected to fill these sensitive positions will at all times be people who have undergone the most thorough scrutiny. We also hope, as the hon. the Minister does, that these provisions will never have to be applied. We want to make it clear that we do have confidence in the people in these positions and that it is very unlikely that they will ever have to be subjected to this type of legislation. We accept the hon. the Minister’s explanations in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that we are speaking about the present position. However, one should keep in mind that it might become necessary at some stage in future to put the question in this House which has been put today. The present position is that after ten years we can examine the whole period in retrospect. That is the reason why I think it should be open. It is being drafted with a view to the present position as well as the future.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to apologize on behalf of the hon. member for Yeoville since he is not able to be present this afternoon due to unavoidable circumstances. Perhaps he will be back a little later, however.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Yeoville on the Order Paper, as follows—

We have stated clearly that our difficulty with the amendment Bill lies in the fact that it can create impossible financial problems for the smaller employer which, in the long run, could be to the detriment of both employer and employee. We therefore request that the hon. the Minister be placed in a position to exempt a specific employer from certain provisions of subsections (2) and (2)bis on conditions that he himself can prescribe. What this would entail is that an employer could put his problems to the Exemption Board and then, if his case merited it, he would enjoy the exemption we propose in our amendment. Therefore, when a person intends applying voluntarily for service the employer could explain to him that his rights in accordance with subsection (2) and (2)bis would not apply to him specifically. I think it has been stated very clearly from these benches that we should like to see a number of people entering and making themselves available for military service voluntarily. However, it is also true, as we said in the Second Reading, that there are many smaller employers whose interests one cannot simply ignore. It is for that reason that we have proposed this very reasonable amendment. I trust that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give the necessary attention to this and will agree with us that it is a reasonable proposal.

Mr. Chairman, in his reply to the Second Reading debate on this Bill yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister remarked that it seemed as if the hon. member for Yeoville had become a little weak in the knees and that he was training an understudy to take over from him. It seems as if the hon. the Deputy Minister has hit the nail on the head because I cannot believe that the hon. member for Yeoville drafted the amendment to clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill. Looking at the amendment to clause 1 which is now being discussed, we find that it is probably one of the most ill-considered amendments yet introduced here. Looking at section 4 of the principal Act and the amendment in which it is proposed that the Minister make an exception, it is perhaps worthwhile just to bring to the attention of this House that the issue here is one of transgressions, offences and crimes. Section 4(2) provides that—

1. (a)fails to afford facilities as aforesaid; or
2. (b)by dismissing an employee or reducing his salary or wages or altering his position to his disadvantage…

Such an employer is guilty of an offence. I want to ask the hon. member for Wynberg—I hear that he too has a legal background—from which of these offences the Minister must exempt an employer.

I wish to put a further question to the hon. member. The whole principle of clause 1 is that a volunteer must be permitted to enter a commando without obstacles being placed in his way. Surely that hon. member ought to know by this time that the principle of a Bill is agreed to in the Second Reading. Surely one should not then try to get in at the backdoor so as to emasculate the principle that has already been accepted. Surely that is the point at issue.

The hon. member for Wynberg or the hon. member for Yeoville—but I do not want to believe that—is attempting, by moving this amendment, to emasculate the principle that has already been accepted. After all, South Africa is being subjected to attack in every sphere today. A country like South Africa, which has a small Defence Force, should surely be grateful for every volunteer who comes forward. The principle contained in clause 1 of this Bill is, however, to put as few difficulties as possible in the way of such a volunteer. For that reason we also wish to impose an obligation on the employer. However, the amendment goes further. The hon. member for Wynberg cannot listen to me now, because his mentor must speak to him. I forgive him that; sometimes every horse needs a trainer. [Interjections.] Looking at the wording of the amendment, I see that it is not merely a question of an exclusion or an exemption, but also exemption in regard to certain provisions of subsection (2) of section 4. Is the hon. the Minister empowered, in the opinion of the hon. member for Wynberg, to say in regard to a certain category of people that if they infringe these provisions, it is a crime, an offence in terms of the Act, but I—the Minister—am prepared to say to the small businessman, the one whose cause the hon. member for Wynberg is championing, that he can commit certain offences? What is more, the onus is being placed on the Minister. He has to determine which offences may be committed and which offences may not be committed.

I say this, with respect: One can take a lot of things from the Opposition, but I do not want to accept that the Opposition is really so stupid. I would prefer to assume that a few voters approached those hon. members and told them that business was bad. They probably said: If you take these people away, then business will be bad and consequently you must insist that the hon. the Minister make certain exceptions. Surely we cannot say with regard to defence—the hon. member for Rondebosch will agree with me—that we are patriots but that when we really have to decide on which side our patriotism and loyalty lie—whether it lies with the voter, one’s kindred spirits or perhaps the Defence Force—then we run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, as it suits us.

Clause 1 concerns the protection of the employee from the employer so that the employer may not prejudice him because he has joined up voluntarily. The problem raised by the hon. member for Wynberg, viz. that this could sometimes hit a small businessman very hard, was surely dealt with comprehensively yesterday. The hon. member for Wynberg was not present yesterday when it was being dealt with.

Explain it again, then.

Of course! I do so with pleasure. After all, I have much patience with the hon. member for Wynberg. The hon. the Deputy Minister explained it in detail yesterday. Some of us wondered whether it was really necessary to speak to the Opposition as if they were Sub A children. Now we see that it was indeed necessary. When the hon. the Deputy Minister wanted to explain the point, the hon. member for Yeoville ran out and has not yet come back. The hon. the Deputy Minister said yesterday that he wanted to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that the Exemption Board did not exist for the sake of the employees alone. Nor is the Exemption Board there for the sake of the volunteers alone. The Exemption Board is also there

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he heard me propose that the employer should be able to approach the Exemption Board to state his problems? That was in my speech three or four minutes ago.

Of course I heard that. However, I now have a bigger problem. I still do not know whether the hon. member for Wynberg ever read the amendment. If it is true that, as the hon. the Deputy Minister explained, the employer can approach the Exemption Board, then surely the hon. member would not have proposed the amendment. Surely he would have accepted what the hon. the Deputy Minister said, namely that such an employer may approach the Exemption Board and say: This is my problem. I have only three fitters and turners. I have this contract from the Railways. If you deprive me of one of my employees I shall be unable to carry out the Railways contract. Can you grant me a postponement or an exemption? Being a reasonable body, the Exemption Board will agree. Does the hon. member agree with me that if he had known that, he would not have moved the amendment? The hon. member was born negative; I cannot help that.

Suffice it to say that this amendment is pro non scripto in view of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s assurances and consequently we are unable to support it.

Mr. Chairman, the argument of the hon. member for Pretoria East is quite correct this time. A famous poet said, “East is east and west is west.” During the Second Reading debate Koos was “east” and Rex was “west” so far from the point that they almost missed the gist of the Bill. Today, however, the hon. member for Pretoria East is correct, because we cannot support the amendment.

†I am surprised that the hon. member for Wynberg moved this amendment, because if this amendment were passed, it would not only exclude the employer of a volunteer member, but would include a conscript. A national serviceman called up for his compulsory service would then also be excluded from the compulsion placed upon the employer to protect him. I cannot support an amendment which removes from a man called up to serve his country, the protection which the present Act gives him against discrimination by an employer, either by loss of work, in promotion or in any of the other benefits to which he is entitled in terms of his contract of employment. If this amendment were accepted, it would not only make it possible for the hon. the Minister to exempt an employer of a voluntary serviceman, but would also in fact remove the total protection embodied in section 4(2) and (2)bis of the principal Act as also the offence created if an employee is discriminated against, from all national servicemen, and therefore the NRP cannot support this amendment.

The second objection we have to it, apart from the fact that it amends the original Act or limits the operation of the original Act, is that it transfers the power of exemption from the Exemption Board to the Minister. It therefore circumvents the normal procedure. The hon. member for Wynberg said that an employer could go to the Exemption Board, but in terms of this amendment, it would not be the Exemption Board who would have to exempt the employee from service, but it would be the Minister, who would then have to exempt the firm from its obligations. There is, to my mind, a conflict in logic, because either the Exemption Board or the hon. the Minister must handle it. This gives rise to the situation where the employer could go to the Minister and bring pressure to bear for exclusion, under this proposed proviso, whilst the serviceman himself, the employee, could go to the Exemption Board. In that way two quite different decisions could be made. The hon. the Minister, for example, could exclude the employer from his liability, whilst the Exemption Board could refuse to exempt the serviceman. The serviceman will therefore be called up, but he will not be protected, as the Minister has exempted his employer from the obligations which the Act now places on him. We therefore cannot support the proposed amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to one or two statements made by the hon. member for Pretoria East. While we are discussing this amendment the hon. member drags in the issue of loyalty, etc. I do not know by what criterion that hon. member measures loyalty. One can show loyalty to one’s country and one’s community in various ways. For example, one can do so by joining up voluntarily, viz. by making oneself available for military service. One can also do so by working ten, 12 or 18 hours per day as a small businessman, for example, and by so doing contributing one’s share to the economy of the country. The housewife can show her loyalty by making a contribution in her own way. I do not think, therefore, that it is right of the hon. member to regard this preparedness to perform military service as necessarily evidence of loyalty. I think that is wrong. It is also unfair.

Moreover, I just want to refer the hon. member to the amendment as moved. We are not asking by way of this amendment that employers be exempted from all the provisions in subsections (2) and (2)bis relating to any person who wishes to perform voluntary service. We have proposed that exemption be granted with regard to certain provisions of the Act.

How are you going to do it?

It could for example occur that an employer has a specific problem and consequently declares himself to be prepared to permit an employee to perform voluntary service although in the circumstances it will be very difficult for him to continue to grant that employee, on his return, the leave benefits to which he would have been entitled if he had not performed voluntary service.

Read subsection (2)bis again.

In these circumstances this would represent a fair exemption from one of the provisions of subsection (2)bis. In the circumstances it could be a reasonable request. The one who voluntarily joins up or applies for service would perhaps be quite prepared to forfeit one of his benefits in this way.

It is precisely the other way around.

Hon. members must therefore note that we are referring to specific provisions of subsection (2) and (2)bis.

Mr. Chairman, I find it very striking that the hon. member for Wynberg wants certain things included in the Bill which, bearing in mind the wording of his amendment, do not really interpret precisely what he envisages. If this is in fact the case then surely this is not really what he wants to say. Nor can the hon. member expect, in that case, that we should vote on the amendment as moved by his party.

It is also very clear to me that in the process the legislation has undergone up to this stage, the PFP has already learnt a great deal. It was clear from the arguments of the hon. member for Yeoville during the Second Reading debate that the PFP had wanted the legislation referred to a Select Committee. They wanted a Select Committee to investigate it further. In the light of all their arguments thus far I take it that they have now realized that it is unnecessary to refer the legislation to a Select Committee. However, it is also clear that in the process they have come up with a new alternative in order to have their envisaged amendments passed. What do they really have in mind? They have in mind certain protective measures relating to either the employer or the employee. However, what are the true facts of the matter? I want to point out pertinently to hon. members once again that an exemption board exists, a board which under certain circumstances can do exactly what they now envisage. There is an exemption board which, in the first place, protects a volunteer.

In the second place we can take a look at regulation 10(1). I want the hon. member for Wynberg to listen carefully, because he will have to decide whether he wishes to continue with that amendment. To me it seems unnecessary. Regulation 10(1) states very clearly—

At the end of that specific regulation it is very specifically stated—

It is therefore very clear that in these circumstances the employer, too, has in fact been accommodated and that measures do exist to afford him the opportunity, when circumstances require it, to make an application to the effect that the member need not necessarily serve. It is therefore very clear that in the process of argument concerning this Bill, the PFP have failed to do their homework properly right from the outset. They have not gone into exactly what the Bill provides nor have they considered what the regulations provide. What is worse, they have now moved an amendment but fail to appreciate the repercussions of the contents of that amendment. That is precisely what is at issue now. There is perhaps one other aspect to be considered.

Regulations 10(3) and (4) state further—

The pertinent question is whether what the hon. member for Wynberg in fact envisages with his amendment is that all the rights of those people with reference to the exemption board, an officer commanding a command or an officer commanding a regiment, be taken away from them and placed in the hands of the Minister. We realize with all respect that the hon. the Deputy Ministers and Ministers of the NP are very capable and that they are well able to consider cases. They will therefore be able to grant deferment in a fair manner. However, I think that there are many other activities which also require their attention, and consequently delegation of powers is essential.

There is one point to which one must give more specific attention. However I cannot see that it is mentioned very specifically in these regulations. To what extent must the criteria adopted for such deferment or exemption in the various categories determine under what circumstances such people are to be granted deferment or exemption? As far as I can see this is the only specific point which could give rise to a certain degree of uncertainty in this regard. I do not say that it leaves a loophole; it perhaps causes a certain degree of uncertainty. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to clear this matter up.

To sum up, I could say that in the process of the Second Reading and up to now, hon. members of the Opposition have made reasonably good progress. They have tried to change in order to get into line with the facts of the matter. However I want to make a friendly appeal to the hon. member for Wynberg, since the amendment as it is worded does not give effect to the aim he expressed, seriously to consider whether his intention is not already contained in the regulations and in the principal Act.

Mr. Chairman, the motivation for this amendment is that the issue involved is the protection of the small employer. As I said in my Second Reading Speech, no one is more in favour of the protection of the economy than this party. However, looking at this amendment, nowhere do I see a reference to the small employer. Nowhere do I see that it is only the small employer who must be looked after. According to the wording of this amendment the large-scale employer is also being protected. I do not doubt the ability of the Opposition to draft amendments, but it does seem to me that the amendment is drafted in such a way that it is also going to protect the large-scale employer and not only the small employer. What is achieved by this amendment? It is not only the volunteer who joins up who is being affected, but also national servicemen. The protection enjoyed by the national servicemen under the section is now being deleted from the Act in its entirety. Is it the intention that the national servicemen should have no protection as regards obtaining reasonable facilities? However, if this is not the intention, then this amendment is incorrect. However, I believe that the Opposition has given due consideration to the amendment and consequently I wish to say that this is an intentional effort on their part specifically to give the national serviceman no protection whatsoever.

The aim of this amendment is simply to clarify the whole situation. We on this side of the House have always been under the impression that the national serviceman and the volunteer should enjoy protection. All we are doing is putting it clearly. However, the Opposition goes further and wants to abolish all protection for all servicemen.

You are surely referring only to the official Opposition.

I should like to apologize to the hon. member for Durban Point. He is correct. I wish to refer to the temporary official Opposition. [Interjections.] I wish to take the matter a little further and consider what is being asked—

What does subsection (2) state? It reads as follows—

What the Opposition is asking is that if any person fails to afford reasonable facilities, he should not be guilty of an offence. That is what they are asking. What they are asking is that even if a man does not afford a soldier reasonable facilities, the Minister must say that although this person has not afforded the soldier reasonable facilities, nothing should be done. What kind of Minister would permit a failure to afford reasonable facilities? Surely that is a ridiculous question. What is more, it is an unfair and unpatriotic question. Section 4(2) also has a paragraph (b), the purport of which is that an employee may not be discharged, his wage may not be reduced and his position may not be prejudiced. Now the official Opposition is asking that although a man be discharged or his salary or wage reduced, the Minister must say: “That does not matter, my friend; you can go ahead and reduce the salary. Do what you like; I shall grant you exemption.”

I mentioned examples.

The hon. member states that he mentioned examples. We are not talking about examples thought out in the heat of the struggle. We are talking about what is stated in this amendment. With respect, my arguments in regard to this amendment are sound. They go on to ask that where an employer has persuaded an employee by words or conduct not to do military training, the Minister must say that although a person has been persuaded by conduct and words not to perform military service, he must grant the employer exemption under certain circumstances. This is an unpatriotic request. It is contrary to the interests of the volunteer, contrary to the interests of the national servicemen and also contrary to South Africa’s interests.

Mention is also made of subsection (2)bis. However, I am totally unable to understand why they even mention that subsection. I do not know whether it has any relevance. However, when I read it I come to the conclusion that the amendment is a very stupid one, but I am not going to elaborate on that further. I see that the hon. the Deputy Minister is laughing heartily, so perhaps he agrees with me. However, he can reply to that. I leave it in his capable hands.

In conclusion, I just want to mention that they want to deprive the soldier who willingly makes such sacrifices, of all the protection he has enjoyed up to now, in one fell swoop. With all respect, I am simply unable to support that amendment

Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to take part in this debate again… [Interjections.]… but I must reject as totally unacceptable the reprehensible way in which that hon. member tried to accuse this party of…

Not “tried”. I did.

… of trying to remove from the Statute Book all benefits to which national servicemen are entitled by way of this amendment Nowhere, either in the amendment or in the debate, did we propose that subsections (2) and (2)bis be removed and that the benefits to which national servicemen are entitled and the obligations in regard to the employer, be done away with. We have said that the Minister himself can decide on specific provisions. He himself can decide which provisions he is prepared to implement under certain circumstances when certain problems crop up with regard to certain employers. What that hon. member really did was to indicate that the hon. the Minister lacked the capacity to decide on such provisions.

You are confusing me with someone else.

That is what the hon. member’s contribution in fact amounted to.

Mr. Chairman, there is one facet of the hon. member for Wynberg’s amendment that I fail to understand—as a matter of fact, I find it completely inexplicable—and that is his sudden burst of confidence in the Minister. I find it difficult to understand because usually the tendency in that party is to want to take powers away from Ministers. In this case, however, they want to confer powers on the Minister.

Only when it is unavoidable.

Let me immediately say thank you for that token of confidence, but there my gratitude must unfortunately end. I have to agree with the hon. member for Durban Point that the effect of this amendment would be to broaden the base for the application of the norms, which are built into the amendment, to the national serviceman, and I think that is wrong, completely wrong! I also agree with the hon. member for Pretoria West’s argument that by removing subsections (2) and (2)bis one is actually encouraging an offence. Not only that, but one is actually making it possible for an offence to take place, even making it possible for the Minister to permit an offence. I do not, however, think that it is the intention in the relevant section that there should be discrimination against any man who renders service to his country. I therefore agree with all those hon. members who argued that this amendment is unacceptable and cannot be considered.

It is a Yeoville Special!

I want to return to a matter which was mentioned by the hon. member for Carletonville, i.e. that we are dealing here with something which can be handled by the ordinary exemption procedure. I think the hon. members of the official Opposition should admit that they have never seen in the legislation or in regulations that an employer may also apply for postponement. The hon. member’s original argument never provided for that. As for the charge of the hon. member for Wynberg, that the hon. member for Carletonville knows nothing about military matters, I think the hon. member for Carletonville has proved that the opposite is true. He also did us a second favour by pointing out that the criteria with regard to exemption are not uniform everywhere. This is an additional matter, but I want to say that it is our intention to strive for uniformity at all levels of exemption so that the criteria applicable to the volunteer and the servicemen will be the same.

I have nothing to add. The amendment is unacceptable to us.

Mr. Chairman… [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the noise is irrelevant because, since I anticipated that I would not be able to be present, I explained to the hon. the Deputy Minister why I did not think I would be able to be present. I am sure he understands the position. Fortunately, Sir, I returned in time to hear at least the material part of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s argument.

So that there will be no misunderstanding, let me say at the outset that I take the responsibility for this amendment upon myself. Nobody else need take responsibility for it. If there is anything wrong with it, which there is not, I take responsibility for that.

I want to explain to the hon. the Minister the essential difference between the actions of the Exemption Board and what we are trying to do here. As regards the Exemption Board, one goes to it for particular individuals, for particular categories of jobs, for particular kinds of activities. All of that is prescribed in the Act, but nowhere does the existing legislation provide that an employer can say to his employee: “I run a one-man show. I can only afford to employ one person to assist me and I need one person to assist me.” He cannot get permission to ask that employee whether he intends volunteering to do service because if he should ask him that he will in terms of the existing law be committing an offence. With the greatest of respect towards the hon. the Deputy Minister, he cannot point to any part of the legislation which entitles the employer to do that. The reason why I want the position to be that permission be obtained from the Minister and not from the Exemption Board, which deals with aspects of labour, is that this concerns a completely different category of exemptions. This kind of exemption is to the effect that, subject to particular conditions, a particular employer will be entitled to ask and do certain things which otherwise would constitute an offence. That permission could then be given subject to such conditions that are prescribed. I would ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to show me where in this legislation provision is made—and I refer specifically to section 4(2)—for a man to do these things or for a board to exempt him so that he will not be committing an offence in those circumstances. That is the answer to the question and not the red herring of the Exemption Board which has nothing to do with this.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Yeoville had only had the decency to be present yesterday afternoon during the Second Reading debate and to be in time for the moving of his party’s amendment, it would have been unnecessary to repeat certain arguments.

It is unnecessary.

I know it is unnecessary, but surely there is such a thing as basic decency. One does expect this of hon. members of the Opposition as well. The hon. member is now trying to capitalize on the fact that he made a mistake.

I did not make a mistake.

Of course.

Of course not.

Having read section 4(2)bis, the hon. member for Wynberg knew that a mistake had been made. In any event the hon. member for Johannesburg North was not able to advise him. One of their Whips tried to give him advice, but he made no impression on the hon. member. The hon. member for Green Point also tried, but his advice was not important either. What did the hon. member for Yeoville try to say? He said that someone had to prove to him, on the basis of the Act or the regulations, that an exception could be made with regard to the provisions of section 4(2) or section 4(2)bis. Surely that is not the point at issue. That is not what we are arguing about.

The hon. member for Yeoville is seeking by means of his amendment—I wonder if he ever drafted it—to emasculate the principle accepted in the Second Reading, namely the principle contained in clause 1 relating to the protection of the volunteer. That is the point at issue. Surely the hon. member knows that is true. [Interjections.] Why is the hon. member arguing about it? Surely it is true that the principle has been accepted.

Section 4 of the Act provides that an employer who does certain things—the hon. member for Pretoria West outlined them—is guilty of an offence. The hon. member for Yeoville can ask the hon. member for Wynberg if he likes, because he has already read it. All that clause 1 entails is that we are including the volunteer in this regard as well. We are also protecting the volunteer so that when he offers his services to the Defence Force and the country, things are not made difficult for him.

However, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that he and the Exemption Board understood the problems of the one-man employer, or the small employer. When the employees of such an employer are called up, he can approach the Exemption Board. These people do not have hearts of stone and they understand that the economy is also important. The Exemption Board then grants the necessary exemption.

However, this is not what the hon. member for Yeoville wants. He wants exceptions to be made to the provisions of section 4(2). Surely, we cannot agree to that. We cannot say that this principle only applies in regard to certain employers employing certain soldiers. Having equated the volunteer and the other soldiers in the Second Reading of this Bill, the hon. member for Yeoville states that he was not present and consequently he very quickly moved an amendment to emasculate that principle. The hon. member is intelligent enough to realize that what I am saying now is true.

Oh, you are talking nonsense.

The hon. member must not say that I am talking nonsense. He asked me yesterday what I knew about the Defence Force.

You know nothing about the Defence Force.

Now that the hon. member has made that remark, I want to ask him what he knows about the Defence Force. How many volunteers has he recruited for the Defence Force?

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

Mr. Chairman, I do so with pleasure. However, the hon. member for Yeoville is so thin skinned when he is wrong, that one can see right through him.

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

I want to come back to this provision and the amendment. The hon. member’s amendment is aimed at undoing what has been done. Consequently he cannot get away from the fact that the amendment to clause 1 of the Bill is pro non scripto. It is as if it never existed. It has no right to exist in view of the principle that has already been accepted.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to know from the hon. member for Yeoville whether his amendment is also intended to apply to the national serviceman who still has to meet the balance of his obligations after the first 24 months of his national service.

That is not stated in the amendment.

Then, I think, the hon. member for Yeoville must withdraw the amendment. That will, in point of fact, be the effect of his amendment as it reads at present. The hon. member for Durban Point pointed that out. As the hon. member worded his amendment, it applies to everyone. If the hon. member for Yeoville does not want that, then he must withdraw his amendment.

No.

That is what it amounts to. That is precisely its effect. He does not state in it…

Read the last words of the amendment, where it says “rendering voluntary service”.

Very well, let us take it that the hon. member would like to exclude national servicemen. What could the possible effect be? For example, there could be a small business employing only two people. Say for example that one of them is a volunteer and the other a national serviceman. Now the hon. member for Yeoville wants there to be discrimination against the volunteer, although it is not permitted that the national serviceman be discriminated against. These are two people doing the same work and employed by the same employer. Does the hon. member realize what absurdities this could give rise to?

Let us look at the arguments advanced by hon. members on this side of the House. They want the employer to be afforded the opportunity to approach the Exemption Board, as at present provided in the Act, and state his case there, with the knowledge, although not necessarily the permission, of the employee concerned. That is what the Act states. In that case the employer can state his circumstances, and exemption may be granted to such a member. With a view to this such a person is also afforded an appropriate opportunity to state his case to the Exemption Board timeously. That is the practice at the moment. That is the present policy. That, too, is what the existing legislation provides.

I think that the hon. member for Yeoville perhaps has another set of circumstances in mind, circumstances which we cannot discuss today. As the matter stands at present, however, we believe that we are accommodating our employers in every respect. Two of the biggest employers’ organizations in South Africa made representations to us in this regard. Their initial interpretation was that occasional bottlenecks could arise with regard to certain employers. After we negotiated with them, those employers’ organizations were completely satisfied and are exerting no further pressure.

On the basis of the arguments and statements advanced here, therefore, I believe that we have debated this clause sufficiently. I therefore do not accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want only to raise one point which has come to light as a result of the debate which has taken place. We are now extending section 4 of the Act to voluntary service. However, section 69(1), which deals with exemptions and with applications to the Exemption Board, only refers to persons liable to serve in terms of section 21(1) or 35(1). Those are national servicemen subject to their compulsory commitments. As I read this, I do not see how a person serving in terms of section 24bis can be covered by the Exemption Board. It would mean that the volunteer, someone who may voluntarily render service, cannot apply to the Exemption Board. Section 69(1) only covers sections 21 and 35 commitments. Therefore, I think those to whom section 24bis apply should be included in section 69 as well.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that in terms of regulations 9 and 10…

The Act does not provide for it.

The regulations are drawn up under the provisions of the Act.

You are an advocate, and should therefore know that the regulations cannot go further than the Act.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member will look at sections 19, 36, 22(4) and 44(2) he will observe that provision is made in those sections for regulations prescribing service.

That is right.

Exactly. The regulations passed in terms of those sections, I have with me here. Regulation 9 pertains to Citizen Force members and regulation 10 to members of the commandos. The point raised by the hon. member for Carletonville boils down to the fact that the norms applicable to exemption from the 24 months service period or for continued war service, should also be applicable in this case. I agree with him completely, and therefore I think it is proper and fit that we should look at these regulations.

That is not my point. My point is that section 69(1) excludes the volunteer. It is consequential.

I think it is an entirely new matter which the hon. member is raising. I think he is completely wrong…

I am saying that it is consequential to this clause.

We shall look into the matter, although I must say that I am satisfied that we have the power, in terms of other sections, to provide for exemption. I have quoted those sections, and I shall repeat them for the sake of the hon. member. They are: sections 19, 36, 22(4) and 44(2).

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer briefly to the hon. member for Pretoria East. When he asks people to have “ordentlikheid”—and I use the Afrikaans word deliberately—“ordentlikheid”, he should rather check his facts and examine himself before talking of the “ordentlikheid” of the people. I think that hon. member should take a careful look at himself and work it out for himself whether he is the type of person who is entitled to make that allegation.

Order! I did call the hon. member for Pretoria East to order on that issue, and if the hon. member for Yeoville proceeds to discuss the matter, I shall have to call him to order as well.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member said—and I use his words: “As daardie agb. lid die ordentlikheid gehad het om teenwoordig te wees…”

*Mr. Chairman, I am entitled to react to that, because he made the allegation, not I. The hon. member queried my “ordentlikheid”, and I think that is scandalous.

†The contempt that I want to show, I do not have to express in words.

I want to deal with the merits of this matter. I think the hon. member for Durban Point has drawn the attention to another aspect altogether. I want to come back to what I tried to explain to the hon. the Deputy Minister and to what he has in fact not yet replied. There are two situations involved. In the first place an employer or an employee may apply for exemption to the Exemption Board pursuant to section 69 of the Act. That is one situation. I am not dealing with that situation at this moment in time at all. I am dealing with the situation that an employer who has a particular type of business, knows that in respect of compulsory service by his employees, he has certain obligations.

He knows that in those circumstances, if he seeks to ask questions, to discriminate or to do anyone of a number of things, he commits an offence. Let us take the situation of the employer who employs someone who has completed his national service, who has done all his camps and all his training periods, and is now completely free. That person can create a problem to that kind of employer if he decides to volunteer, and as a result of his volunteering creates a serious business embarrassment to his employer. All that I have asked is that in those circumstances, and subject to certain conditions which the hon. the Deputy Minister may lay down, that employer may be granted exemption. I am not asking for a blanket exemption, as implied by the hon. member for Pretoria East when he said that I was trying to frustrate this legislation in its entirety. I should like, however, to see that, in the circumstances and under the conditions I have just explained, exemption should be granted o certain employers, while their possible business predicaments are also taken into account. It can only really affect the small businessman, the businessman who is on the edge between survival and collapse. It will not affect the big business institutions, because they never experience circumstances like these. This is a plea for the small businessman. He may find himself in a situation in which, as a result of the fact that his employee volunteers, he is being placed in an embarrassing position.

The hon. the Deputy Minister asked me why I was discriminating against national servicemen. I am not doing that. In the amendment I proposed I am merely referring to provisions in respect of people rendering voluntary service. Should the national serviceman be in employment, he is completely covered. If he has any problem the provisions of the Exemption Board apply. If the hon. member for Durban Point is correct—and I think he is correct—then there is in fact a tremendous lacuna in respect of this whole situation. That can only be cured by either accepting this amendment or, alternatively, by bringing about an amendment to section 69 of the principal Act.

Nonsense!

Well, Mr. Chairman, when people do not know the facts they always shout “nonsense”. However, the reality of the situation is that I sketched a position to which there has not been an answer.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. member for Yeoville tell us which of the provisions of subsections (2) or (2)bis he believes could be exempted? I fear I have a problem with that.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is a very valid question. In respect of subsection (2)bis the situation may arise that an employer may have to say to his employee: “If you intend to volunteer in these circumstances I should like to alter your position or your conditions of employment in this or that manner.” The employer cannot alter these conditions of employment in terms of the amendment I have moved, without the approval of the Minister. I could have selected individual items from subsection (2) in order to make out a case for why he should not be dismissed and why only the alteration of his conditions of employment should be affected to his disadvantage. However, what I have done, was to put the whole of it into my amendment, so that the Minister will have the complete discretion, not only to exempt an employer from any specific provision contained therein, but also to do so subject to certain conditions. In other words, it may well be that we get the situation to which reference is made here with regard to leave. This may be a factor which may affect the employment of his employee.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North referred to the instance of a one-man butcher with only one blockman. Should this blockman volunteer and go off for long periods of time this butcher will certainly find himself in an invidious position. His whole business may collapse as a result of this. This is the only thing I am seeking to cover. I really do not understand what all the emotion is about. I do not understand what all the excitement is about, because we are leaving things entirely in the hands of the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is for the hon. the Deputy Minister to decide how he is going to go about it and subject to what conditions. Therefore, with great respect, I do not know what all the excitement and emotion is about and why it should be suggested that I am trying to frustrate the whole of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to confirm that the hon. member for Yeoville did inform me he would be absent for approximately one hour. He gave me a reason which was perfectly acceptable.

*I now come back to the hon. member for Yeoville. In the first place I should like to point out to the hon. member for Durban Point that there are three levels of exemption. Provision is made in the Act itself for two levels of exemption. Section 68(2) leaves no doubt about the cases of 24 months. There is also a second level of exemption from war service or border service. That is in terms of section 98. There is a third level of exemption as well. The third level of exemption is at command level, with appeal to the department concerned of the Chief of the Defence Force in terms of the regulations.

Under what clause does that fall?

It is in terms of the empowering provisions that we find in sections 19, 22, 36 and 44. The hon. member may argue that these regulations may be ultra vires. But that is another aspect altogether. As it stands, that is the way it has been done all these years. Those are the three levels of exemption, and it is a different point altogether whether these regulations are ultra vires or not.

*The hon. member for Yeoville does not want to understand that we cannot establish another exemption body for small businesses only. The small business has access to the Exemption Board and is just as much a part of the economy and the criteria laid down in terms of this legislation. Until now this has worked well for the national serviceman. The hon. member for Yeoville has not alleged in the course of this debate that this system of exemption for the national serviceman does not work. [Interjections.] All we are doing now is to apply the same system to the volunteer. It is not in the least complicated and has always worked. Why has the hon. member not told us yet that it does not work? I think that is my best argument.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

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

I want to indicate that this amendment is intended to give effect to the argument which we advanced during the Second Reading in respect of the problems which we believe existed, particularly the problem which existed in respect of the individual who would have to resign from a commando in certain circumstances. While dealing with this, I want to deal with some of the things that were said during the Second Reading. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I agree with him that it is more than undesirable that, if we do have private discussions about anticipated pieces of legislation, those private discussions should be referred to in the House. I want to put a simple choice to the hon. the Deputy Minister. These private discussions must either be regarded as private and as such are not referred to in the House—and that also means that they must not be referred to when it suits people to refer to them as some members of the House have done—or that we make the discussions open so that everybody can refer to everything. There is no half measure in respect of this. I have not referred to any discussions. It is regrettable that other people have done so. I do not want to get involved in the details, but I have the hon. the Deputy Minister’s Hansard in front of me stating what his members have suggested…

I had no option.

Yes, but I want to make it very clear that I object to it. If I have to list the things that we suggested in those meetings, things which have been accepted by the hon. the Deputy Minister, it may well constitute an embarrassment. I think it will destroy the whole concept of these discussions if we were to do this, because the idea of these discussions as I have understood them is that they are to be confidential and that when the hon. the Deputy Minister eventually produces the Bill in Parliament no hon. member should get up and proudly say that this or that was originally his idea. If we would have thought of it we should have put it in this House before the whole thing started. I leave the choice to the hon. the Deputy Minister: Either these discussions are completely open or, alternatively, they are completely closed. There can be no half measures in that certain people regard discussions of this kind as meaning that they can pick the eyes out to suit them on particular occasions. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister must respond to this, because I think this is a fundamental issue in our relationship concerning these matters. Let me give hon. members an example. When an official comes to see me in absolute good faith and we have a discussion on a provision in a Bill and I start referring to the discussion in this House, I would not be playing the game. I think that must be made absolutely clear in respect of future legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to follow the hon. member for Yeoville in his arguments on his amendment. Other hon. members and the hon. the Deputy Minister will deal with that. I should like to associate myself with the idea contained in this clause, i.e. the termination of the service of a commando member. [Interjections.]

As hon. members know, the commandos are voluntary organizations and service in commandos can, therefore, be terminated under certain conditions, which are dealt with in this clause. There is a similarity between membership of a commando and, in a certain sense, membership of this House. A member of this House can also terminate his service voluntarily. I should like to mention this, because there is a similarity with my own position. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to take leave of this House.

On such an occasion one thinks back involuntarily to one’s first appearance here, to one’s maiden speech, as well as the years full of memories which have passed since then. To me it was a great privilege and honour to be a member of this honoured institution. I should like to convey my thanks to the voters of Johannesburg West who made it possible for me to become a member of the House of Assembly. Their wholehearted support and loyalty throughout the years are one of the most pleasant aspects of my years in politics. It is not without some hesitation and, one might almost say, a feeling of sadness that I am terminating my association with Parliament and resigning as a member of Parliament. Parliament is a place which grows on one and which quickly becomes part of one’s system. Therefore I should like to thank everyone who contributed to making my association with this institution a pleasant one. This goes especially for the secretariat of the House of Assembly and all other officials. I also think of the excellent services rendered by those responsible for the catering services of Parliament, the post office, the telephone exchange, the booking office, the library and also the police. I should like to thank all these people sincerely for their constant friendliness, helpfullness and thoroughness. I should also like to convey my thanks to the messengers and especially to Mr. Coetzee, who kept a fatherly and friendly eye on me on the fourth floor, where I had my office.

It was a privilege for me to serve my constituency, Johannesburg West, my party, my country and my nation in this House to the best of my ability. I shall continue to serve my country and its people in the same spirit in my new capacity.

I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the State President and the hon. the Prime Minister for their confidence in me in appointing me to this post. It will entail great responsibilities to which I shall devote myself with dedication. I am looking forward to being completely integrated into the Department of Foreign Affairs in my new capacity and to being able to co-operate with a very able Secretary to the department and the able staff under the leadership of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. His immense capacity for work and general dedication to his task not only make great demands on everyone in that department, but are a great source of inspiration as well.

I should also like to address my colleagues and to express my very sincere thanks for their congratulations and very good wishes for the road ahead, as well as for the sincere friendships we were able to form over the years. I shall miss the companionship, cooperation and friendship of my colleagues, but I know that the friendships are deep and lasting and that they will enrich my life in future as well as they have done until now. The same goes for my colleagues on the other side of the House. Although there are sharp and in many ways unbridgeable differences between us, this did not stand in the way of friendliness, goodwill, courtesy and good relations. I appreciate their good wishes and words of encouragement to me as well.

†I should also like to thank the Press for the very sympathetic and positive manner in which the announcement of my new appointment was received. Let me say the same for members of other population groups. I sincerely appreciate their good wishes, because I shall be representing the Government and all the peoples of South Africa in the United Kingdom. The words of encouragement and the good wishes I have received from people of widely divergent political convictions, from people of different colour groups, have convinced me that South Africans are more united, when it comes to our position in the international arena, than we seem to appreciate. There is a growing spirit of unanimity when it comes to issues involving our economic and political security and stability and those involving the peace and prosperity of all the people in this country. I hope that this attitude will grow stronger with the years.

I leave South Africa hopeful and optimistic about the future. We do have problems, in fact tremendous problems, but we shall overcome them. The Government has committed itself to a realistic course of evolution and change in order to ensure a peaceful and prosperous future for all the people of South Africa. Although we stand ready to work towards peaceful solutions, we should not overlook the fact that there are forces at work which seek our downfall and destruction. What is apparently demanded of us is to sacrifice our right to exist on the altar of world opinion. Our answer to these demands is clear. South Africa can be encouraged, but it cannot be driven.

*In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, to you and all the hon. members of this House once again my sincere thanks and best wishes. My prayer is that the hon. the Prime Minister, his Cabinet and all other hon. members of this House may receive the insight, wisdom and grace to lead South Africa properly and well to enable our beautiful country and all its people to go from strength to strength.

Hear, hear!

Order! I allowed the hon. member in his special circumstances to deviate from the discussion of commandos. In fact, he said very little about commandos. I am not going to allow other members to do that as well.

Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest an alternative. I think that even if you had not made this concession, a person who is being sent abroad for national service could still have participated in this debate. Therefore it is not irregular in any case. In order to defend the hon. member for Johannesburg West, I should like to point out that section 95 specifically provides for national service outside the Republic. Our best wishes accompany the hon. member and we want to assure him that we have taken his words to heart What is more, we know that the enormous task he will perform overseas will be to the credit, advantage and honour of the Republic of South Africa. A few years ago we had the privilege of observing the hon. member for Johannesburg West in the office in London where he is going to take up his responsibilities, and I can assure the House that the decor the hon. member for Johannesburg West had with him was the most beautiful picture I had seen on that day. I can assure him that it will fit in perfectly.

We should also like to ask him not to sever his ties with the Defence Force, but to remember that he is still part of the national reserve. If he does not want to accept that, I want to tell him that we are quite prepared to put him on the reserve of officers and very competent men. We wish him everything of the best.

Mr. Chairman, I have already moved my amendment, but perhaps you will grant me the indulgence to say a few words on this subject. I think that to some extent many of us see the parting of the ways between Parliament and the hon. member for Johannesburg West with a degree of sadness. There are, however, precedents of people who have left here and have in due course come back to very high office. So in that sense he perhaps follows the example of others and, certainly, we on this side of the House wish him well. He is a member who has not made enemies in the House. When required, he has put his case soundly, and I think he has the qualities of a diplomat. I saw him at work last year in Germany to which I had the privilege of accompanying him, even though it was for a front organization, a fact I was unaware of at the time. In any event, I saw him acting as a diplomat in the true sense of the word and I am satisfied that in the turbulent situation in which Europe finds itself today and with the difficulties any representative of this country has overseas, South Africa has in the hon. member for Johannesburg West a man “wat sy man kan staan” as it is put in Afrikaans. I think we will find that he is a person who will hold the flag of South Africa high in the United Kingdom. We wish him well.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me as if the debate has cooled down a little. As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned—let me say apologetically “the respectable hon. member for Yeoville” because I think he took exception to a few previous labels I attached to him—he saw fit, when he introduced it, to take issue with other hon. members whose names he did not mention. Since he did not name them, I think we should leave it at that. I do not believe that I was involved and I believe that we should rather confine ourselves to the amendment as such.

As far as the amendment is concerned, I should like to point out two things to the House. In the first line of the amendment one sees that it deals with “such citizen or person”. Subsequently one sees in the middle of the amendment that it has to be a written resignation and that the period involved may not exceed ten days.

What is of cardinal importance, in the fourth place, are the words “waived such right”. I should not like to refer to this ill-considered amendment again by means of adjectives. The hon. member for Yeoville told me as the member for Pretoria East that that was not the way to do it. I now say in all decency that I wonder whether the hon. member for Yeoville knows what is stated in regulation 22 of chapter 4 of the General Regulations. After all, he knows everything about the Defence Force. I am convinced of the fact that the hon. member does not know it, but I do not expect it from him either. I should like to tell him, however, that a volunteer in the commandos also has to give three months’ notice of his retirement from service. Then he introduced this absurd amendment that in spite of the existing right, the period should be 10 days. His amendment reads as follows—

In other words, in spite of the fact that there are existing regulations and in spite of the provisions of section 46, he moves this absurd amendment.

Who are the people to whom he is referring? It was explained during the Second Reading debate already that a commander may find himself in the middle of a camp or a bivouac. What does the hon. member now want to propose? Let us now take a look at what an intelligent amendment the respectable member for Yeoville proposed.

You are sick.

I should like to assure the hon. member of the fact that I am very healthy and that I am feeling very well.

For instance, a commander may have organized a three week course, bivouac or camp and on the first day one of the voters of Yeoville comes to the commander and tells him that he unfortunately cannot attend the course. The commander then tells him: “No, wait, you are the RSM of this camp and therefore you have to attend it,” whereupon the voter of Yeoville shows his resignation and says that his MP has obtained parliamentary approval for it. In spite of the fact that the duration of the camp is three weeks, he may therefore hand in his resignation and obtain his discharge after ten days, because the MP for Yeoville, the great patriot who is so fond of the Defence Force has been responsible for it. Can one imagine anything like that?

I should like to go further and analyse the amendment a little further. What is the hon. member proposing as a provision in his amendment? This provision reads as follows—

Well, I like that! Have hon. members ever heard anything more absurd than the fact that a man volunteers for service, but then waives his right to resign in writing? Does the hon. member for Yeoville know who these volunteers are? Does he know that Coloured people, Black people and women can also be numbered among the volunteers? What does the hon. member propose? He may not be aware of the fact, but in previous years we were familiar with the legal principle of the indenture system under the Master and Servants Act. The hon. member is returning to the time of the indenture system. However, it is different in this case. It is no longer a question of being able to indenture a Coloured person of 16 years. It is something completely different. It is now a volunteer of 21 years of age who is of sound mind and who now waives his right to resign. The hon. member for Yeoville is shaking his head. I do not blame him: I cannot believe that he could have done that either. It appears clearly in his amendment: “unless he has in writing… waived such right to resign”. Can the hon. member for Yeoville be serious when he expects the hon. the Deputy Minister to go so far as to have volunteers sign a statement that they will not resign? I am convinced of the fact that there is not a single volunteer in the hon. member’s constituency. That was why he was able to introduce his amendment. I am, however, concerned about my constituency, because I have large numbers of people who have joined the commandos voluntarily. [Interjections.]

If we look at the amendment, I should like to ask whether one can imagine that any person in his right mind can draw up such an amendment in the first place and present it here—it was, in fact, not presented here, because hon. members heard themselves what it dealt with—and in the second place expect that other people in their right mind to accept it? We are really very sorry, but we are unfortunately unable to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to state that the NRP, too, will not support this amendment. I do not think that it is realistic to lay down a 10-day period, particularly as it is not limited solely to normal peace-time camps. There could be an emergency for which a commando unit was called out which was then actually on operational duty. To my mind it is unrealistic to say that in the middle of operations—it could be a serious operation, it could be real warfare—a person should be able to hand in his resignation and be released ten days later. Therefore we cannot support the amendment. One has to have some confidence in the commanding officers who would have to take the decision and who would have to determine the date on which the discharge was to take place. To limit them to a nominal and arbitrary period of 10 days would, I think, be unrealistic.

I want to refer to an article in Paratus of November 1978 dealing with a visit to a commando camp. According to the article, the platoon sergeant concerned—

Where that is the spirit—and I could quote further from the record of this commando to substantiate that—I do not think we need to go looking for ghosts and say that we are going to remove their right to resign, that we are going to limit the period for which they may be retained to not more than 10 days after the delivery of their written resignations, and, in fact, that we are going to make it impossible for a commanding officer—and I think the hon. member for Yeoville must accept this—to even know what his situation is going to be with regard to a 30-day camp or a 19-day camp. He would go to a camp or start on an exercise not knowing whether after 10 days he might have only half or a quarter of the force he started with, because in terms of the law they could all hand in their resignations. If they perhaps got cross with the sergeant for shouting at them, told him where to go, and handed in their resignations, it would create an impossible position if they then had to be discharged after 10 days. Therefore we cannot support this amendment.

While I am on my feet, I want to deal with the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville referred to the question of reference—and I too am guilty in this regard—to prior discussions that took place in respect of this Bill. I checked my Hansard twice, and I want to make it clear that I did not refer to any specific discussion or to any subject that we have discussed. I referred to the discussions purely as a reason why I did not believe we needed a Select Committee…

The hon. the Deputy Minister referred to it.

That might be, but I was the first to do so. I used the argument that there had been negotiations and consultation over a long period as my reason for not supporting the appointment of a Select Committee. I regret the line the hon. members for Pretoria East and Pretoria West—the east and the west who never meet—took in trying to play politics with this issue. I at no time implied that the Opposition had by these discussions achieved improvements or amendments. In regard to this clause, and also other clauses, I was simply praising the value of consultation and negotiation, which the hon. the Deputy Minister reaffirmed during the Second Reading debate. I thank him for the calm and responsible manner in which he replied to the debate, and also for the fact that he did not try to exploit the argument that had taken place. I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that details of private discussions should not be raised in a debate. I did not do it in that context, but simply in the context of the benefits that could be deprived from such discussions.

The hon. member for Johannesburg West has left the Chamber, but finally, I should like to go on record that the NRP wishes him luck in his new soldiering, in the new uniform he will be wearing at the Court of St. James. I believe he will do a good job there. He goes with our congratulations and our best wishes.

Mr. Chairman, we are basically concerned here with the clause and an amendment, and in my opinion the hon. member for Pretoria East shot down the amendment in flames and therefore it is unnecessary for me to discuss the amendment any further. The principle which is involved here was discussed very thoroughly during the Second Reading debate. In my opinion, three objections to it have remained on the Opposition side. Firstly, they believe that the rights of volunteers are being affected by the legislation. This objection is unfounded, because in terms of regulation 22(1)(c) of chapter 4, the position remains unchanged, viz. a resignation with three months’ notice. Furthermore, there was also criticism to the effect that the obligations of the volunteer are affected. This criticism is likewise unfounded, because in terms of regulation 9(1) of chapter 7, the position also remains unchanged, viz. that there is compulsory training over a period of 19 days, for which exemption may in any case be granted.

What is, however, a very sensitive matter to me is the question of the attack which was made on the attitude of supreme command of the S.A. Defence Force. I should like to refer in this regard to what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said about it. I asked the hon. member for Durban Point where the hon. member was, because I could not find him here.

He is in Natal.

I shall then raise my objections with the hon. the leader of the NRP. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South referred in a derogatory and sneering way to the so-called “top brass” of the S.A. Defence Force in Pretoria. In his absence, I wish to ask the hon. member whether he realizes that this “top brass” to which he made such sneering reference consists of Gen. Magnus Malan and the general officers of the S.A. Defence Force.

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

With respect, Sir, we are here dealing with the attitude of the S.A. Defence Force to volunteers. You will notice that the marginal note…

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

My argument is based on the fact that in as far as the clause refers to volunteers, attacks are being made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South on the attitude of the S.A. Defence Force in this regard. The sneering way in which the hon. member put it convinces me of the fact that the hon. member for Durban Point owes the S.A. Defence Force an apology, particularly in view of the situation with regard to the volunteer commando members. Since I shall not be allowed to give the information again, I should like the hon. member to re-read the speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I should like him to pay special attention to the sneering remarks, one of which I should like to read. He invited the hon. the Deputy Minister to pay a visit to Natal, and he said the following, amongst other things—

The implication is very obvious, i.e. that we do not have good people in Pretoria. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South implies, and in no uncertain language, that the supreme command of the S.A. Defence Force consists of bad people. That is how it is printed in Hansard, and I think that the hon. leader of the NRP should apologize for it. [Interjections.]

I should now like to refer to the aspect of training. It has been alleged that the continuous period of training is not effective. It has been alleged that a commando member, particularly in Natal, can also receive only three or four days continuous training and that that would be effective. To my mind, that is not effective training. Longer periods, for instance, 14 or 21 days, are necessary. There are numerous disadvantages to an untrained soldier. As far as I am concerned, it is a good principle that someone should indeed undergo continuous training. The statement made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, that a person can receive proper training by being called up for periods of only three or four days, is not valid. For that reason, I support the principle.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to confirm, for the benefit of the hon. members for Yeoville and Durban Point, that the spirit of our negotiations which precede the drafting of Bills is indeed confidential. I am convinced of the fact that hon. members on the Government side have dealt with the matter in that way, and will do so in future too. As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed. I shall leave it at that.

I am sorry that I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville. The reasons for that were explained very effectively by the hon. member for Pretoria East, the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Pretoria West. The explanation of hon. members on the Government side is quite correct. The amendment is in conflict with present regulations in which provision is made for a period of 19 days interrupted or continuous training. That is the first inconsistency. The second inconsistency is the one with regard to the provision for three months’ notice. I am therefore unable to accept the amendment. The argument of the hon. member for Pretoria East that we are dealing with a totally new principle in this amendment, viz. the principle that a volunteer will now be able to waive his right of discharge, is likewise unacceptable to us and totally in conflict with previous arguments advanced even by hon. members on the other side.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal briefly with several remarks the hon. the Deputy Minister has made.

Why do you run away?

I do not propose to take any notice of the hon. member for Pretoria East, because I do not want to get involved in childish matters in this House.

Quite obviously, as anyone will appreciate, an Act comes before a regulation. The very reason why I want this provision in the Act, is that I believe that it is a matter that should be enshrined there. Reference was made to regulations, but it is well known that the Act comes before and overrides the regulation. Otherwise the regulations are ultra vires, as the hon. the Deputy Minister well knows. He also knows that, as far as amendments are concerned, I have no powers to amend any regulation. The House cannot amend the regulations. The only remedy that exists, is to move an amendment to the Act in Parliament, because Parliament cannot amend regulations. The hon. the Deputy Minister is well aware of that. Therefore, I cannot change the regulation.

The third point I want to make is that, in regard to the question of emergencies, it is quite clear that there are other powers in the Act which can be used in such a case. One need only refer to articles 91 and 92 to see that it is made quite clear that, when there are emergencies, quite different conditions apply. There also seems to be some concern about the waiving of the right. There may be people who can serve, to whom this question of resignation is terribly important and who may not be prepared to commit themselves indefinitely because of their own particular circumstances. On the other hand, there are others who may well be able to commit themselves and who are therefore prepared to waive the right. To suggest that there is anything extraordinary or novel about the waiving of a right when one enters into an agreement, seems to me to display a remarkable lack of knowledge of what actually transpires in life. Therefore, with great respect, I regret it that the hon. the Deputy Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment. His side is, however, in the majority and therefore I have to accept the situation, however strongly I may feel about it.

Mr. Chairman, firstly I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is a pity that a trend has entered into this debate which I think is most unfortunate. I would ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to try to get his members not to turn Defence debates into occasions for the sort of cheap party politicking that we had from the hon. member for Jeppe. That is not the spirit in which we debate defence matters. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was obviously not insulting anyone or reflecting on…

Order! I did ask the hon. member concerned not to carry on with the debate in that manner.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, the hon. member then came back to the subject and said for instance that the Natal commandos had done four days’ training which was totally inadequate and incorrect. That in itself was a reflection on every officer and every member of those units.

I did not say that.

I am trying to demonstrate just what happens when one plays politics with a Defence issue. I am not talking to the hon. member for Jeppe, but I am appealing to the hon. the Deputy Minister to provide the leadership that will get us back on the old basis on which we used to deal with Defence affairs, and put an end to the sort of attacks and counter-attacks we had during the Second Reading debate.

I also want to take the point we dealt with during the Second Reading a little further regarding the regulations which will be issued in terms of this amendment in respect of people who, while they are engaged in doing service, may resign. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that he had no intention of changing the present situation. He gave the assurance that this amendment to the Act is not going to change the present set-up but that it does not bind him not to make future changes. However, I want there to be clarity on this for the sake of people who may be concerned, people who may say that they are not going to bind themselves and will not volunteer because they would not know what they would be volunteering for or what might happen. The Deputy Minister’s statement in this respect should be slightly clearer. He should confirm that he does not intend to use the amendment to the Act as the basis or reason for a widespread change in operations or in the conditions under which commando volunteers will operate, obviously excluding the question of resignations. That is specifically provided for here, and I said that we accepted that they could not just resign and walk out. They would have to await their formal discharge. That is a specific change and that we accept. Apart from that, I would like to be able to say to people who have doubts about this not to worry as it has been made clear that there is no intention to revolutionize or change the system to bring it into line with compulsory service. In other words, the defensive commandos will continue along the lines on which they are now serving. One obviously accepts that in future one does not know what is going to happen, but for the foreseeable future at least this situation will remain unchanged.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that in terms of section 44(2) of the Act, service in the commandos is, and will be, voluntary. We are not amending that section. Therefore the regulations which we visualize will emanate from the amendment of section 36, will refer only to the creation of offensive and defensive elements and at the same time prescribe the geographic limits of their service. I said that during the Second Reading and I want to repeat it now. However, I also want to reiterate what I said during the Second Reading, namely that other regulations pertaining to commando service will naturally be reviewed from time to time. In this regard I refer to the period of service, which, of course, will be voluntary. All the provisions pertaining to exemption and the rendering of voluntary service will still hold good. I can therefore tell the hon. member that the structure itself will remain unchanged.

A man who has volunteered for four years will not suddenly find that he is called up for a 30-day camp and be obliged to attend it, whereas his contract states that he will do four-day camps and attend weekend bivouacs?

The hon. member need be under no illusions. He should take cognizance of the fact that at present national service in the commandos does provide for a 30-day period…

Correct

I see the hon. member is in agreement. In other words, when we come to the leadership of a commando and officers are obliged only to do 19 days, one may very well find a commander in a position where he has no officers to command his men. But, as I have said, this is on a voluntary basis, as it has been before. What is more, the regulations have not been brought up to date and in line with the Act itself. In practice, commandos and Citizen Force units have been called up for 30-day periods or they have been rendering a total service of 30 days on a voluntary basis. I must emphasize the fact that this takes place on a voluntary basis. If it is impossible for a member to do a total period of 30 days, it is still possible for him to request exemption. Those conditions remain unaltered. I have been given to understand by our senior officers that the practice of calling up commandos and Citizen Force units for these longer periods still prevails, but they are rendering this service on a voluntary basis.

Can they be refused exemption?

The norms are whether it is in the interests of economy and whether it is impossible for the individual concerned to render such service. These norms which the commanding officer apply, remain the same. Those conditions will remain the same. I do say, however—and I said this to the hon. member for Carletonville—that the provisions applying to exemption on the third level, viz. those of volunteers, do not stipulate particular norms involving the economic situation. We are therefore of the opinion that we should look into that matter to make sure that we are being fair to the volunteers.

Mr. Chairman, I fear my question has now brought an entirely new point to light. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South quoted from the letter of appointment he received when he joined as a volunteer. In that letter the various obligations to which he had to commit himself, were explained, inter alia, one camp of four days, weekend camps, etc.—a total of 19 days. Those people joined under a four year contract, and their four years have almost expired now. It will, however, be expected—or, at least, it is hoped—that those volunteers, 1 700 of them in one commando, will join up for another four years’ service. What they should like to know, however, is whether, if they volunteer for another four-year period, their contract conditions will continue to apply. Can they then be called up to any place within the operational area of the commando for a period of 30 days? If they do not obtain exemption, can they be compelled to do so? In his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister said that the service period of 30 days would be voluntary. However, as I understand the matter now, it does not sound like it, because it is now being said that they will join up voluntarily, but that the service will be compulsory unless they are exempted from it by the Exemption Board. That is, of course, an entirely different matter.

Mr. Chairman, no…

Excuse me, but I think it is my last chance to speak, and if I resume my seat now, I shall not be able to participate in the debate again. I deduced from the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister that the service would be voluntary. But as I understand it now, only the step of joining up will be voluntary, but the men could be compelled by an amendment to the regulations to render service of 30 days instead of 19 days, continuously if necessary, and they will have no alternative except for the assurance that they may apply for exemption. That is the point on which I require clarity.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member should please go and read my speech in Hansard. I began by referring to section 44(2), which provides that the service shall be voluntary. The regulations to which I referred in my Second Reading speech, however, only refers to the creation of offensive and defensive elements. The other regulations have nothing to do with these amendments. They do not arise from them. The nature of the voluntary service, and the arrangements between a commanding officer and his men to arrange the service by means of weekend camps or four-day camps, remain unchanged. It is still done on a voluntary basis. Nor have I ever suggested that the period will be a continuous period. The present regulation already provides for a continuous period of 19 days, as well as for interrupted service. That remains unchanged.

That is all I wanted to know.

I simply said that, in view of the future, I am unable to commit myself as far as the period is concerned. That is a different matter. As I also indicated, it is already being applied in practice on a voluntary basis. That remains unchanged.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Let me motivate this briefly. It is a principle of insurance in respect of group schemes, short-term life insurance and also group accident insurance that if one cannot convince the insurer that membership of a particular group is compulsory so that the scheme as such can be supplied with new blood and young people in order to ensure a constant or growing membership, it is impossible for him to prescribe minimum premiums. This is how it was explained to us by the hon. member for Umlazi, who is an expert in this field. This is a fact of which we have to take cognizance, and we must therefore make provision for it. If such a scheme is not compulsory, the fact of the matter is that people will not take out such insurance. Although, at present, insurance is available to the people concerned, we find that in general it is not being taken out. Consequently we simply have to accept that for such a scheme to be successful, membership has to be compulsory.

Now, there have been objections from various quarters in this regard. It has been pointed out to us that problems might arise when it concerns people who have conscientious objections to supporting an insurance scheme of this nature. Various hon. members, including the hon. member for Yeoville, have pointed that out We do not know exactly what conscientious objectors they had in mind. If they had the Jehovah’s Witnesses in mind, I just want to point out that these people will not be involved because in terms of the provision of the Defence Act they are not members of the Defence Force. They have never been engaged for service and do not receive salaries either. Consequently, it cannot be they who are involved here. But there may be other people who have conscientious objections, people who are indeed members of the Defence Force, and I believe we ought in fact to make provision for them. Hence my amendment. I believe that the compulsory membership, as mitigated by this amendment which provides for those who have conscientious objections, will mean that the best possible premiums as well as the best possible insurance schemes can be negotiated for our men, and in particular the national servicemen, members of the commandos and members of the Citizen Force.

Mr. Chairman, the first matter I should like to raise actually concerns you. I should like to know whether you consider that the principle that has been accepted at the Second Reading is the principle of insurance or the principle of compulsory insurance. If it is the principle of insurance that has been accepted, I will be in a position to move an amendment to delete the word “compulsory”. However, if it is the principle of compulsory insurance that has been accepted, I obviously cannot move that amendment. I should therefore like to ascertain from you at the outset whether it is the principle of compulsory insurance or the principle of insurance that has been accepted. Depending on your ruling, I can then either move the amendment or not move it without losing my speaking turn.

I regret that I would be unable to accept either of the hon. member’s amendments should he move them, because they will be contrary to the principle accepted at Second Reading.

What has been accepted? Has the concept of insurance or the concept of compulsory insurance been accepted?

The concept of compulsory insurance.

Then I merely want to indicate that as far as we are concerned, we are against the concept of compulsory insurance and in favour of insurance. However, we would be in favour of compulsory insurance if the State paid for it Mr. Chairman, I assume you are also going to rule that at Second Reading the fact was accepted that the State is not going to pay for it Our problem is that there is a choice between two things: Either one makes the insurance voluntary, in which case the member of the Defence Force should pay for it, or, alternatively, one makes it compulsory, in which case the State pays for it. That is the attitude we have towards this clause. In its present form it is not acceptable to us.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg gives me some cause for concern. My difficulty with his amendment lies in the use of the word “class”. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is going to accept this amendment. The word “class” is not defined in the Act. It can mean a number of things. The hon. member is suggesting an amendment which to my mind is going to create a vagueness which will result in an even bigger problem. For example, does the hon. member mean, as he has suggested, that within the same group of people, say national servicemen, or even within the same unit, there can be different classes of members of the Defence Force? If he says that it is because of a religious concept, is he saying that the fact that people are of different religions, makes them different classes of members. That is quite wrong. Or does he have in mind the difference between—he did not refer to this example—national servicemen, Citizen Force members and commandos? I do not know what he has in mind. Does it only apply to ordinary soldiers, or also to NCOs and officers? To my mind he is introducing a problem by the use of the word “class”. To my mind the word “class” is in any case a foreign word when it is applied to people. I think it is the wrong word. If the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to accept this amendment, I should like to ask him to look for a word which actually conveys the meaning one wants to convey, because I think the word “class” is going to get him into trouble. Before this Bill is introduced in the Other Place, he might perhaps consider a different form of amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to state at this stage that I am prepared to accept this amendment. With regard to the argument by the hon. member for Yeoville, I undertake again to reconsider the use of the word “class”. I am under the impression that the word “class” is also used in other legislation that refers to different categories of people. In other words, no other connotation than that of a category of people can be attached to it. With regard to the idea that the State President should have the authority to indicate such categories of people, I also undertake to consider that.

Whom do you wish to include, and whom not?

In support of the argument by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, I wish to state that there are instances where conscientious objectors also serve in the Defence Force. They do not render combat service, but they are nevertheless serving in the Defence Force. Unlike the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they serve in non-combatant capacities, for example as clerks, administrative assistants, cooks, etc. We have already given recognition to their circumstances in another context by making it possible for them to render this type of service. For that reason we have considered it advisable to make provision in this case that the State President should be empowered to make appropriate regulations in this regard. There may be other categories as well, but I wish to repeat what has just been stated, namely that this scheme should be as broadly based as possible in order to make a success of it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that this party is still not satisfied with the explanations in respect of clause 3. I do not intend repeating the arguments which I advanced during the Second Reading debate, but simply want to place on record again that we believe that, when a person is killed or injured in the service of his country, it is the responsibility of the State to provide compensation, adequate compensation, for such death or injury. If the State is not prepared to do so on the normal basis of, for instance, a military pension and on a scale which is adequate, but needs to bring in outside insurance in order to provide proper protection, we believe that, while that is fair enough, the State must then accept the financial responsibility for the premiums. I am totally opposed to the concept of forcing something onto somebody and then making him pay for it. I believe that the State should pay. It is a small amount in relation to the total amount allocated in the Budget to the Department of Defence, an amount of approximately R1 800 million. The amount required here would be R2 million or R3 million at the most. It will be merely a few million rand, and I believe it is the responsibility of the State to meet that expenditure to ensure that the proper cover and protection is provided. I welcome the additional protection and cover. It is something we have all pleaded for. However, the State must accept the responsibility of footing the bill for this cover.

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to repeat what I stated during the Second Reading. We have already made a great deal of progress in the negotiations with regard to this matter and according to the legal advice we have obtained, this clause has been formulated in such a manner that if it were to be a need at any stage for some or another form of State intervention, that would not be excluded. All that this means is that a part of the premium may also be recovered from the member of the Defence Force. We are not saying that his is the complete scheme—by no means. The hon. member must please accept that we are still in a negotiation phase and that we are doing our best with regard to the principle he has raised.

It is an improvement, but I want the State to pay everything.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (New Republic Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last night, the hon. member for Umbilo had just resumed his seat. It is a pity that the hon. member is not in the House at the moment, because I would have liked to enter into an argument with him. I am therefore obliged to do so in his absence. The hon. member for Umbilo, as well as other hon. members who oppose the Bill, is proceeding from two premises. In the first place, they believe that alcoholism is a social evil to be combated by all possible means. In the second place, they believe that in increase in the number of wine outlets will encourage alcoholism and that no further outlet should therefore be granted. I see that the hon. member for Umbilo has just made his appearance in the House, and I am grateful for that.

Both the hon. member’s arguments are based on false premises, I believe. I conceded last night that the hon. member’s first argument, that alcoholism is a social evil, was true. However, I want to make it clear that alcoholism is not promoted by the sale of wine in grocer’s shops. After all, it is generally accepted today that an alcoholic is born one, and to him, all forms of alcohol are therefore prohibited. The moment he begins to drink alcohol he will become an alcoholic. Alcoholism has nothing to do with more wine outlets.

It encourages major consumption.

As for the hon. member’s argument that more outlets would promote alcoholism, I want to ask the following question: If a new groceries outlet is established in the immediate vicinity, of a certain group of housewives, would the fact that a new groceries outlet is being established virtually on her doorstep motivate such a housewife to buy more groceries than she needs? There are many shops in the centre of Cape Town that sell shoes, and I now want to know: Would this motivate the hon. member for Umbilo to buy unnecessary shoes?

Buying shoes is not an evil, but major drinking is. [Interjections.]

Just as the housewife who now has more grocer’s shops in her immediate vicinity is not going to buy any more groceries, that housewife will not be motivated to buy more wine just because a wine counter is being installed in the nearby grocer’s shop. For that reason, I believe, the argument advanced by the hon. member for Umbilo does not hold water.

It is now almost 21 years ago that I was privileged to make my maiden speech in this House. That speech in fact dealt with easier distribution of natural wine, because that would establish a new, healthy drinking pattern in our country. Far more people become alcoholics through drinking spirits than through drinking natural wine.

Many more people drown in water.

My whole speech, therefore, was devoted to the argument that we should establish a new drinking pattern in this country and that we should encourage people to drink more natural wine instead of spirits. The Malan Commission also recommended this, and its recommendations were embodied in legislation in 1963. However, for very good reasons the recommendations were not promptly implemented. The reason for this is that the previous Minister of Justice, and also the present hon. Minister of Justice, have been and still are very reasonable and honest people. The present hon. Minister of Justice was not in a great hurry to implement this principle, because he did not want to interfere with vested interests and vested rights. That is the reason why the recommendations embodied in legislation in 1963 were not promptly implemented. However, I shall come back later to the statement I made, i.e. that our hon. Minister is a very reasonable person.

In the light of the provisions of this Bill, the question may be asked: Why is only wine being made available at the grocer’s shops? This is for the simple reason that in all civilized countries in the world there is a close association between the moderate consumption of food and wine. Therefore it is appropriate that wine should be available in grocer’s shops as well. This does not apply to other forms of liquor, however.

Perhaps I should tell the House something about the modern method of wine-making in order to indicate how much stronger the association between the proper consumption of table wine and food ought to be today. In the old days, when I began to make wine 40 years ago, when one entered the cellar when the grapes were being pressed, there was a delicious aroma of odours in the air of that cellar. I want to emphasize, in particular, that this aroma was in the air and not in the must.

A bouquet.

That bouquet, as the hon. the Minister says, was smelt in the cellar because of the fact that these aromatic substances which form the bouquet are very volatile. They volatilize or evaporate into the air at temperatures of a pressing season, the temperatures outside are already 28 °C, 29 °C, 30 °C and even higher. The grapes are therefore brought into the pressing cellar while such high temperatures are found outside. The moment those grapes are crushed to release the must, the temperature is already high enough to make those odours evaporate into the air. The fact is that for every two degrees of sugar which is converted into alcohol, the temperature of that must rises by 1 °C. If grapes initially contain 20% sugar, the temperature of the must will have risen by 10 °C by the time full fermentation has taken place. If the starting temperature was 28 °C, and the further 10 °C is added, the ultimate temperature of the must is 38 °C. The aroma, the volatile odours, the esters that were contained in the grape, have then already volatilized at a temperature of 28 °C. It is obvious, then, that all these lovely fruit odours which were contained in the must have volatilized and evaporated into the air instead of ending up in the bottle. With our modern, mechanical cooling methods, however, the wine-maker is now enabled to make the wine ferment at such a low temperature that all the lovely fruit odours in the must are retained and therefore go into the bottle instead of into the air.

Where does one buy that wine?

For the man who wants to drink it with his meal it is then preserved in the bottle. When that wine is poured into a glass at table, one smells those delicious odours and one tastes them as well.

What does it do to one?

It makes one feel very happy, and if one happens to be the host at that meal, it makes one a very fortunate host, since one knows that all the guests are happy too. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately, this is not the case with spirits. When spirits are made, the fluid is heated and then the esters volatilize. Brandy is in the fortunate position that after the alcohol and the esters have been volatilized by heating, they are condensed and a large part of the esters are retained in the brandy. For this reason, brandy is by far the best of the spirits.

What are esters?

Would the hon. the Minister please contain his ignorance on this subject for a moment? [Interjections.] In the case of cane spirits or grain spirits, there is nothing but alcohol and water in that mixture which one drinks. People drink it only to get tight. [Interjections.]

In the case of brandy, the esters are retained, and these give brandy its pleasant flavour. When a man has had a very hard day at the office, especially in those professions which make great demands on one’s intelligence and nerves, he drinks a brandy in the evening to calm him down so that he will not be an unpleasant husband and father to his family in the course of the evening. [Interjections.]

Therefore I want to reaffirm and emphasize my statement that natural table wines, which retain all those delicious fruit odours when prepared according to our modern methods, should always be associated with food, and that therefore they belong together in a grocer’s shop.

I want to confirm this afternoon that neither the wine farmer nor the KWV, which represents the wine farmers, would for one moment encourage the abuse of alcohol. Nor would they encourage a man to drink only in order to get tight.

This reminds me of a story my mother used to tell. It concerns the missionary who went to pay pastoral calls with the Brown elder. Driving along in their horse-drawn cart, they found a Brown man living next to the road—stone drunk. The missionary considered this an appropriate occasion for bringing home to the elders the dangers of the abuse of liquor. When the missionary had finished, the Brown elder told him: “I would give anything, Sir, to feel the way he does now.” [Interjections.] The people who do not drink to get stoned, but who drink in a civilized way, and who want to drink wine along with their food like civilized people, are now being enabled to buy food and wine in the same shop.

I want to come back to my statement that the hon. the Minister of Justice is a very reasonable and honest person. He would not easily interfere with vested interests. He came up with the brilliant idea of preventing any losses to the man who has a liquor licence and who paid a great deal for it He is now being offered the opportunity of obtaining a wine counter in a grocer’s shop. This is a brilliant plan for the problem with which successive Ministers of Justice have had to contend and as a result of which they have not been generous in granting liquor licences to grocers’ shops. We thank him very sincerely for this brilliant idea.

I am not sure, in fact, I think that wine and beer licences are not granted in this way. If I am correct, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give attention to this. The wine and beer licences of boarding houses and ungraded hotels are not relevant here, but independent bodies with wine and beer licences must enjoy the same protection, because these are the very people who have been propagating the proper consumption of wine over the years and who may be prejudiced. We should not like them to be prejudiced. I also believe that the hon. the Minister, who is such a reasonable person, would not like them to be prejudiced.

I also want to thank the hon. the Minister for having clarified beyond all doubt the position of our wine-making co-operatives, our cellar co-operatives. These co-operative wine-cellars have only come in the place of the wine farmer, and therefore the rights which the wine farmer had and still has of selling his wine on his own or on other premises must be made available to these cooperative cellars. There are many grape farmers, but few remaining wine farmers. The wine-making task of the wine farmer has been taken over by these co-operative cellars. Therefore we must thank the hon. the Minister very much for having made their position with regard to this aspect quite clear.

Finally, I want to pay tribute to the KWV, which has been pleading for and propagating this legislation through the years. I also want to pay tribute to the KWV which is now emphasizing the association between food and wine with its famous wine-houses and wine-house restaurants. I most strongly recommend hon. members to pay a visit to the KWV’s wine-houses, such as Laborie in Paarl or Kleinplasie at Worcester. In saying this, I do not intend any offence to the hon. member for Worcester. [Interjections.] If people want to spend a very pleasant evening with their friends in a civilized way, with pleasant food and lovely, delicious and exquisite wines at a low price, I very strongly recommend them to pay a visit to these wine-houses where the association between wine and food is emphasized.

With these few remarks I want to repeat my very sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister of Justice for having cut this knot and launched this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is really rather ironic that the hon. member for Paarl kept harping on the sense of fairness of the previous Ministers of Justice and of the present hon. Minister of Justice. If the provisions of the Bill before this House are the epitome and manifestation of a sense of fairness, why have members of the NP not been allowed a free vote? Hon. members will recall that the first Liquor Act came up for discussion in the years 1927 and 1928. Within the governing party at that time there was a debate that carried on for many years on what system should be introduced in South Africa in order to discourage the abuse of liquor. Ultimately, after a long debate within the governing party, with the late Mr. Tielman Roos on the one side and the late Dr. Malan on the other, a compromise was struck. In 1963, as the hon. member for Umbilo indicated, Government members were allowed a free vote. Every hon. member of the NP was allowed to vote as he wished. Is this going to happen again?

It will.

Well, this is the first I have heard of it. This is the first indication from the opposite side of the House that a free vote will be allowed, because if one listens to the arguments being advanced, one has to conclude that the party whip is being cracked.

You know nothing about the NP.

Perhaps the NP has had a chance to reconsider the matter over the past 24 hours.

It is ironic that the hon. member for Paarl spoke between four and five o’clock on a Friday afternoon. I think the hon. member knows exactly what I have in mind. There is one aspect which he carefully avoided. Anyone who read the Erika Theron Commission report, knows that the Coloured community in the Western Province and the Boland—where most of our wine farmers are situated and where the drinking of wine has been more prevalent over 300 years than in the rest of the country—are faced with a drinking problem which is worse per capita than anywhere else in South Africa. However, the hon. member for Paarl preferred not to refer to this aspect. His only point in this regard was that an alcoholic is born and not made by wine. This is a statement subject to serious reservations, for if it is true that nothing can be done about an alcoholic because he was born that way, then I do not know why we have such a thick Liquor Act. Then the alcoholic is on the road to perdition in any case whereas those who are not born alcoholics, are not susceptible to it.

But this Bill is not only for alcoholics.

If it is not for alcoholics, it is an inferior social measure. The question is not whether a person will only drink wine, and perhaps a little too much, or whether he will consume it with a leg of mutton, as an hon. member said. That is not the point. The question is not what the well-to-do people or the wine connoisseurs are doing. I concede that during the past 25 to 30 years the drinking pattern with regard to good wine, as well as the production of good wine, has been simply miraculous. After having lived on a Boland wine farm for 25 years, I moved to the Transvaal. When I arrived in the Transvaal, there was virtually no such thing as drinking wine with your meals. Today it is the general practice there. This is a fine development This is a characteristic of a standard of civilization which a great many of our people have achieved. However, this Bill does not deal with these people, because the wine connoisseur and the well-to-do person are not going to buy their wine in the supermarket. I do not believe this for one moment

Why not?

Because, in the first place, the supermarket and the grocery store will make provision for wine which is generally popular, in other words, wine which is inexpensive.

Why not superior wines?

The supermarket and grocery store will concentrate on inexpensive wines because they will be the easiest to sell to people who buy there. Surely this is what usually happens. The commercial pattern in supermarkets is that good articles are for sale, but at a reasonable price.

That is a very weak argument.

The hon. member can argue as he wishes but the people who are going to purchase liquor in the supermarket are not the people with the drinking pattern which the hon. member for Paarl described so lyrically and at such length.

An hon. member stated that we would not increase wine sales in this way; we are simply going to make it more convenient for people to purchase their wine. Of course this is not true, because if it were; this Bill would have been unnecessary. Why would the wine farmers and the KWV exercise pressure, from a pressure group, to have this Bill passed unless it were aimed at increasing wine sales? This is a completely commendable aim in itself, but very dangerous in its effect.

The hon. member for Umbilo said that the incidence of alcoholism in France is among the highest in the world, if not the highest. Now it is a well-known fact that the alcoholic beverage which is freely available and being drunk freely to an overwhelming extent, is wine. I have no doubt at all that wine, however noble, wonderful and civilized it may be under certain circumstances, could give rise to alcoholism in other circumstances. Unfortunately some people have a tendency to become addicted to alcohol. I concede that they are perhaps born with this inherent tendency and the consumption of wine is the first step in that direction. The hon. member for Umbilo was right in saying that wine is an intoxicating drink because even if its alcohol content is 12%, 13% or 14% it is still an intoxicating drink and gives rise to the weakling developing a taste for it, with the result that he begins to drink too much. The hon. member for Paarl said how wonderful it was that food and liquor could now be sold together. I cannot conceive of a more dangerous and pernicious situation than one in which the man or woman who goes to the supermarket or grocery store to buy food is also tempted to spend some of the food money on drink. That possibility cannot be excluded, particularly if the liquor being sold there is inexpensive or is being sold at a very reasonable price. I thought that after the speeches of the hon. members for Hillbrow and Umbilo we would be able to discuss this matter in a more scientific way. After all, the facts are well-known. Those people who should like to see this Bill becoming law, should come and show us that an increase in wine consumption in these social strata that I have referred to will not result in alcoholism.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member says that I should not discuss discrimination now. However, if one reads the Erika Theron Commission report without levity one sees what enormous problems we are already faced with, and I want to warn that we should be extremely careful not to aggravate the problem. I wish to state that not more than 1% of those people who are already alcoholics will ever be cured.

That is untrue. Look at the success of the William Slater Hospital.

I can show the hon. member for Maitland the documents that prove my statement. Curing people once they find themselves in that situation is extremely difficult and in most cases perhaps impossible. I do not want to put it more strongly than that.

I want to say to the hon. member for Paarl and other hon. members that we should be very careful and consider very carefully whether it will not be scientifically proved that the greater number of liquor outlets particularly for cheaper liquor—I emphasize that—is going to aggravate addiction, particularly in the area where the wine farmers and the KWV are situated.

Mr. Speaker, I was given permission to make a very short speech and for that reason the hon. member for Johannesburg North will not take it amiss of me if I do not follow up on his argument. I want to begin by saying that I fully support clause 8 of this Bill. I am doing this because I am convinced that in the long run it will benefit our people in South Africa.

In the early ’sixties comparable legislation was introduced here, i.e. legislation which could be described as introductory legislation. At that stage the sale of all types of liquor to our Black people was legalized. In other words, they were introduced to our Black people as well. This law resulted in a terrific uproar and it was said that liquor consumption among the Black people would increase tremendously and that they would be guilty of large-scale drunkenness. What has happened in actual fact? Nothing out of the ordinary happened. All that happened was that there was a gradual improvement in our drinking pattern. There was a slight increase in the consumption of beer and spirits, for example, whereas illicit liquor brewing and peddling has decreased, with the result that a number of “shebeen queens” have disappeared. This Bill envisages the increased promotion of table wines among the population groups and bringing them more prominently to the attention of the housewife. What is more important is that light table wines are being associated with food by means of this Bill. This is a factor which should have been an integral part of our drinking pattern long ago. These licences are not issued to hardware stores, clothing stores or shoe stores, but to grocery stores, and in that way it is ensured that light wines are associated with food. I do not know whether table wines, as the hon. member for Worcester stated, are a noble product, but if “nice” and “noble” mean the same, it is a noble product. It is a pure South African product and delightful if used properly, and therefore this product is entitled to further promotion among our people. Its further promotion is also necessary because its sales in the trade and its consumption are insufficient. I want to refer particularly to on-consumption licences which I think have given rise to other possible consumers being outpriced. I know I am not making myself particularly popular by saying this—though it will not make me change my point of view—but I want to say that I have a very good knowledge of wine prices, in the wholesale trade as well as at liquor stores, and at 80% of the hotels and restaurants one pays three times the price that one pays for the same bottle at a liquor store, for a bottle of wine at one’s table. One often notices that the steward who serves the bottle of wine at the table, receives a tip, out of decency and gratefulness for the service, and often that tip amounts to 25 cents or 30 cents. That is more or less the same as the wine farmer receives for that bottle of wine. In other words, the wine farmer receives plus/minus 10% of what the consumer has to pay for that wine when it is served at the table. It is very important that the public of South Africa be aware of these facts.

I expect this provision to give rise to complaints on the part of hotels and restaurants. The grocer is now going to be called in to help inform the public that table wine is really a part of a meal and not intended to make people drunk. In future we can only expect an improvement in the drinking pattern. In this regard alcoholism is totally irrelevant. Alcoholism is a disease and in reality a medical problem. The consumption of wine will now be viewed in a different light and wine sales are certainly going to increase. We can only expect the drinking pattern to improve in future.

Mr. Speaker, as a chemist by training, I listened with some interest to the speech of the hon. member for Paarl. There was a certain amount of light humour in his reference to esters, the pleasant aroma and all the good aspects of wine. One must grant that that is in fact true when one is talking about civilized people in normal circumstances consuming wine with their meal rather than consuming it, perhaps for the purpose of getting themselves senselessly drunk. However, the active constituent in wine, whatever its percentage content might be, is still ethyl alcohol, C2H5OH, which has a molecular weight of 50. What does this tell us about it? It tells us very little.

Can we use it in our motor-cars?

No. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs will not allow it. I believe that one could go so far as to say that ethyl alcohol is probably the most elegantly presented poison legally available on the market today. I believe that the abuse of alcohol has been responsible for more hardship, more heartache and more sorrows and schemes and sadness than any other substance in the whole history of mankind today. I do not want it to be assumed from this that I am against the use of alcohol in normal circumstances, but I believe we have got to be very careful that we do not glamourize it, that we do not create the impression that to have a happy, carefree life one has got to take alcohol. In that regard I must take issue with the hon. member for Paarl, because it is never, in my experience, necessary for one to partake of alcohol to have a happy life. Some of the most contented, well-adjusted and balanced people are people who do not partake of alcohol. Therefore we must guard very carefully against this.

One can refer to the advertising one sees encouraging young people to “get into the swing of things”. The advertisements say: “Be with it,” “drink this brand of wine; you cannot be a ‘with-it’ young person unless you are drinking this particular brand.” I believe this is an insidious form of advertising. I do not believe it is necessary for us to have this form of advertising. I believe that alcohol will always be available. It will always be freely available through bottle-stores. I think it was the hon. member for Johannesburg North who referred to the thoroughness with which our legislation deals with the availability of alcoholic beverages, and that in itself says a lot.

This Bill is going to create the impression that there is really nothing wrong with the freer availability of alcohol, in this case in the form of light wines. I really wonder whether at this stage this is in the interests of the ordinary people of this country as opposed to the interests of certain businesses in this country. Nobody denies them the right to make a good living and to make a profit. However, when it comes to the fine balance, the interests of the ordinary people must play an important role. Ordinary people do not always know about the problems attached to the abuse of alcohol. Very often the first time they become aware of the problem is when they are hooked on it, when they are alcoholics already. This is the trouble. In this country we have one of the highest rates of alcoholism of any nation in the world.

Despite the restrictive selling practices.

Despite restrictive selling practices, as the hon. member for East London North reminds me, we have this enormous problem. Certain less sophisticated sectors of our community have a rate of alcoholism that is even higher than that. I therefore believe that when we discuss these issues we should try to get a balanced view of them. This is why I welcome the fact that there is a free vote on this issue. I believe that, if we are genuine in our intention, to have a free vote to get the honest opinions of all members is the only way to deal with this matter in this House.

I do not have any quarrel with the hon. member for Paarl, but when he makes the statement that the sale of wine in food stores is an accepted part of the pattern of life in all civilized nations, I think we must stop and ask ourselves whether he really meant to put his argument in that way, because when certain other legislation comes before the House, legislation which would perhaps open up our way of life and lead to a freer way of life, one gets members of the NP pointing to the undesirable effects of it experienced overseas.

In this respect one could perhaps refer broadly to publications. They argue that the freer availability of all publications overseas has led to a deterioration and a breakdown in the Western way of life as we know it. I find it interesting that this sort of argument should now be used in reverse, as it were, by saying that, because this happens in other civilized nations, we in South Africa should follow suit. I find this type of logic absolutely beyond me. I am sure this argument is going to come back to haunt the hon. member for Paarl in later years. He referred, too, to the fact that the availability of wine in food stores and chain stores would make it cheaper. I do not think that that is a benefit either. The fact that it is cheaper means that more people will buy it. The hon. member also used the argument that the fact that every comer store in town sells shoes does not mean that one will buy a pair of shoes at each store. One can only wear one pair of shoes at a time, unless one is a centipede.

One can only drink one bottle of wine at a time.

My hon. friend says that one can only drink one bottle of wine at a time, but we all know that there are many people who do not restrict themselves to one bottle. Therefore, to use an argument like that is absolutely ridiculous, because by the very nature of alcohol once one has had a little, one relaxes and one wants more and, once one has had more, one loses all one’s inhibitions and one goes on and on having more.

Speak for yourself.

I believe that the argument of the availability of shoes as related to the availability of alcohol is a ridiculous one to use in this House.