Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Prime Minister decided to cause the involvement of the Cabinet in the projects of the former Department of Information to be investigated, he did so because he had every confidence in their innocence. I want to confirm that confidence from this side of the House and say that every hon. member on this side of the House shares that confidence in their innocence with the hon. the Prime Minister.

Every hon. member on this side of the House, from the hon. the Prime Minister right down to the back-benchers, wishes to give the hon. the Minister of Finance the assurance that we did not need the report of the Erasmus Commission to confirm our confidence and belief in his innocence. We wish to give him the assurance that we have every confidence in his ability as hon. Minister of Finance, as leader of the NP in Natal and as a Nationalist Hon. members on this side of the House also wish to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that we consider this budget which he has introduced to be a brilliant one. In support of this statement we need consider only two aspects of the budget.

We can refer to the R780 million which the taxpayers are now saving in tax and in this connection I should like to refer to the little calculation which the hon. member for Durban North made here in this House yesterday. He said that the tax structure of previous budgets had up to now been A + B, and then made the strange statement that the tax structure of the new budget was now A + B—R780 million, as though it still remained the same. The hon. member for Durban North may know a great deal about economic affairs, but it is also very clear that he knows very little about the art of making calculations. That is why he made such a statement.

The second example which can be mentioned is that opportunities are being created in this budget for industries to utilize their spare capacity. They are being afforded an opportunity to form capital and to create more employment opportunities. We need only consider the reduced levy of R111 million and the reduced surcharge of R160 million. The hon. the Minister of Finance said that a certain Mr. Benchley had once said—

It is clear that Mr. Benchley also understood the spirit of hon. members of the PFP correctly, because I think that it is also their attitude to this budget. Every possible measure which the hon. the Minister may adopt is unsatisfactory to them.

When one is dealing with a budget there are three very important factors which are relevant. Firstly, it must be a budget which takes cognizance of the economic situation in the climate existing at a certain time, at home as well as abroad. I shall indicate in a moment that as far as this aspect is concerned, this was truly a great budget.

The second requirement for a budget to succeed is the willingness of the public and business interests in general to accept the guiding principles laid down by the budget and to conduct their affairs accordingly. For this purpose there is an extremely important requirement, which is that the general public and the business interests must have absolute confidence in the ability of the Minister of Finance to interpret the economic climate of South Africa and must be able to lay down the necessary budgetary adjustments and guiding principles which are suited to the economic climate.

The attacks of the official Opposition should be examined with particular attention. The attacks of the official Opposition were not aimed at the budget; their attacks on this budget were aimed at the person of the hon. the Minister of Finance. They used the Information debacle to attack the Minister of Finance. Why did they do that? They did so for one reason only, and that was to try to undermine the confidence of the public and the business interests so that they would be unwilling to accept the guiding principles of the budget. Consequently they did this in order to subvert and undermine the economic stability which the budget has to bring about in South Africa. Let us see whether they have succeeded. We on this side of the House do not think that they have succeeded at all. If we look at the balance of payments we see that it improved from R465 million in 1977 to R1 412 million in 1978. Then we should also consider the outflow of short-term capital, i.e. R896 million, which was replaced by internal capital formation, i.e. capital which came from the pockets of the public and the general business interests in South Africa. In addition we could also refer to the budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance in which he stated that whereas in 1974 the money supply was 22%, it had increased by only 17% in 1975, by only 9% in 1976 and by only 7% in 1977. This is sufficient proof that the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced good budgets in recent years, budget which were accepted with confidence and willingness by the public and on the basis of which they arranged their affairs.

The third requirement which is needed to cause a budget to succeed is political stability and peace and quiet in South Africa. I am sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not present in the House at the moment, for I am going to make information available, over and above his telephone call to Mr. McHenry, with which I shall demonstrate what the official Opposition is doing in South Africa Political stability is of cardinal importance, and when we speak of political stability in South Africa we are also speaking of the important task which this Parliament has in maintaining political stability. When we speak of this Parliament, we are not speaking only of the responsibility which the NP has. We are also speaking of the responsibility of the official Opposition, and the other Opposition parties, to maintain political stability in South Africa. And then it is also important, when we speak as the NP in this House, that we should know where the official Opposition stands in respect of the maintenance of political stability in South Africa.

On that basis I want to make the following statements. We on this side of the House stand for a democratic system of government. But does the official Opposition also stand for a democratic system of government in South Africa?

When did you begin to become democratic?

They need only say “yes” or “no”, but the hon. member for Bryanston said yesterday: “We are not a Nat party, we are a democratic party.” So I take it that they also stand for a democratic system of government in South Africa. I see the hon. member for Pinelands is nodding his head. But then there is a second statement I wish to make. We on this side of the House believe that any change of Government or system of government can only be brought about in a democratic way by means of the ballot box. I wonder where the official Opposition stands in this connection?

Yes.

They say “yes” very clearly. Consequently we are making progress. Because our system in South Africa is a democratic system, we believe that any foreign leader who visits South Africa should not speak to one group only. We believe that foreign political leaders who visit South Africa should speak to the Nationalists, but we also believe that they should speak to the Opposition. Because we are a democratic party, we have nothing to hide. Therefore we are not afraid if they speak to the Opposition. But I wonder whether the official Opposition also adopts the same standpoint? I wonder whether they wish to speak to all political leaders—I am referring here to parliamentary representatives from abroad who visit this country—and whether they speak to them regularly.

Yes.

So we are making progress. The reason why we as Nationalists wish to speak to them is because we as Nationalists are representative of what, for want of a better expression, I shall describe as the democratic view in terms of a conservative policy. However I want to qualify this immediately by describing it further as a conservative progressive policy. But it is important that the Opposition should speak to those visitors as well, because the Opposition represents the other pole of this policy. I wonder whether the Opposition would agree with me when I say that they represent the liberal policy in South Africa, the liberal political ideology. [Interjections.] They interpret the liberal views of the liberal Whites in South Africa. If they agree with me, we can go further.

When we speak of political stability, we speak, in the first place, of the role which we Parliament have to play in this connection, but we also speak of the role which the PFP as members of this Parliament in South Africa has to play in maintaining the political stability in South Africa and in ensuring peace and quiet in South Africa. But I also want to add that we expect that party to do so within a democratic Parliamentary context. [Interjections.] They agree with me, and this brings me at once to the call made by the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition to Mr. McHenry.

It took you a long time to get there.

The hon. member for Pinelands may laugh if he likes. I shall not try to prove that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did in fact make this call. I think that was proved beyond any doubt by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and yesterday by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: What was behind that call? In this connection I want to ask two questions. The first is: Is it concerned with support which the official Opposition is seeking in an extra-parliamentary context from organizations outside South Africa to exert pressure on the Government of South Africa to change its policy, to exert pressure on the Government of South Africa with the object of undermining political stability in South Africa…

That is rubbish!

… to undermine the political stability in South Africa?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member permitted to insinuate that it is the policy of this party or members of this party to help institutions that might create political instability in this country?

Order! Did the hon. member say “extra-parliamentary organizations and organizations outside South Africa…”?

I said: “Outside organizations which wish to exert pressure on South Africa to undermine political stability in South Africa.”

Order! I do not think I can uphold the hon. member’s point of order. I must tell the House that from now on I am going to clamp down very much more severely on insinuations from any side of the House than I have up to now. As regards this particular case, I consider this to be a political argument which may be continued.

The next question one would like to put is whether those outside bodies which are exerting pressure are not taking advantage of the disposition of the official Opposition to undermine the political stability of South Africa?

That is ridiculous!

Mr. Speaker, these questions are not all that far-fetched. In the first place, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated in public in 1977 that if he was unable to overthrow the system of government in South Africa within a parliamentary context, he would make use of extra-parliamentary methods to do so.

Where did he say that?

He can look it up in Press reports in his own newspapers.

It is untrue and you know it.

There is a witness, i.e. the former hon. member for Durban North, who stated expressly that if they were unable to overthrow the Government of South Africa within a parliamentary context, they would do so in an extra-parliamentary way …

Mr. Speaker, …

Order! The hon. member who said: “It is untrue and you know it” must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

I want to make another statement. It has often been said in this House this year that the Government is hiding behind the call to Mr. McHenry and the Information debacle in order to get away from the true political problems in South Africa. I want to say that the opposite is true. I want to say that the official Opposition is hiding behind the Information debacle and using it as a smoke-screen while they are engaged, with military precision, in negotiations to employ extra-parliamentary methods to destroy the political stability in South Africa.

That is absolutely untrue.

I shall prove it. I have here a letter which was addressed to a member of the House of Representatives of America. I am not going to make the names of the people public, because what is at issue is not the people, but the contents of the letter. I shall quote from the first part of the letter—

That is what the writer of the letter said—

Is it sheer coincidence that this sentence is contained in the letter? Can we ask whether the call to Mr. McHenry has a bearing on this letter or on the political stability of South Africa as it may be influenced from outside? I shall quote further—

Who wrote that?

It is not necessary to tell the hon. member who wrote it. I am not going to compromise these people. Mr. Speaker, I shall show you the letter to demonstrate its authenticity. Is it sheer coincidence now that they said that they wanted to make use of extra-parliamentary methods to bring this Government to a fall? Is the policy of the official Opposition not one of “power-sharing”? Surely that is the word which they use day in and day out in this House. I shall quote further from the letter—

Now I ask: Is it the “power-sharing” policy of the official Opposition which the foreign pressure groups wish to use to exert pressure on South Africa, or is the official Opposition echoing the views of the foreign pressure groups on this “power-sharing” idea? I shall quote further—

Can hon. members, in this quotation, see the striking resemblance to the approach of the UN and Swapo to the South West African situation? I shall quote further—

Where did they get this idea from? Did they get it from the official Opposition, or is the official Opposition echoing the view of pressure groups in South Africa?

A huge question-mark hangs over the official Opposition’s extra-parliamentary connections with pressure groups outside South Africa. A huge question-mark also hangs over what the official Opposition is doing with confidential information which it receives as a result of its parliamentary privilege. How is the Opposition using this information abroad?

Mr. Speaker, I can dispense with the arguments of the hon. member for Wonderboom in a matter of about 10 seconds by saying that to suggest for a moment that the NP’s policies are based on democracy, is nothing short of a sick joke, when one bears in mind that all the decisions which really mean anything at all in South Africa are made by this Parliament and this Parliament alone. To suggest that this is democratic in South Africa, when millions of people are unrepresented, is total nonsense.

We have now come to the end of a twenty-hour budget debate. When I look back on the events of this past week, I want to forecast—and I think the hon. the Minister of Finance will agree with me—that the reply of the hon. the Minister will be very brief indeed. The fact of the matter is that because of the nature of the debate, minimum attention has been given to the specifics of the budget itself. [Interjections.] I want to motivate this. I believe it is a tragedy, not only for this House, but for South Africa as a whole. Let us examine the fact as to how this began. On the first day of this debate, on the Monday, the three spokesmen of the three Opposition parties dealt almost solely with the budget itself, and quite rightly and understandably too.

Not Harry.

Two of the Opposition parties moved amendments refusing to pass this budget, and they gave their reasons. Important matters were raised by all three speakers, and after that we had a series of non-replies from hon. members on the other side of the House. On the same day, however, the second interim report of the Erasmus Commission was published. It was inevitable, therefore, that on Tuesday the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should devote a very large part of his speech to that report. [Interjections.] It was his duty to do that and to deal with the unanswered questions surrounding the Information debacle. I want to remind hon. members that when the first report came out we had two full days to discuss it. So important was the matter thought to be that a special session of Parliament was called by the hon. the Prime Minister, but when a report is now tabled, a report which deals with the honour and the integrity of the Cabinet as a whole, we are supposed to disregard this completely and to continue with the discussion of the budget. That is absolute nonsense. I immediately want to ask the hon. the Minister: Does he accept, in toto, the second interim report of the Erasmus Commission, i.e. without qualification? I shall return to that in a moment. I am very glad he is here.

Ask the hon. the Prime Minister.

What then followed on the Tuesday was the scurrilous attack by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to say it is a “scurrilous attack”?

Sir, I withdraw that if it will make him happy. [Interjections.] He was joined in this by speaker after speaker on that side of the House, as well as by the leaders of the NRP and the SAP. It was therefore inevitable that speakers of the official Opposition had to set aside their prepared speeches on every leg of the budget and deal with the unproven allegations made ad nauseam in the course of this week. [Interjections.] I said earlier that I regarded it as a tragedy, for this House and for this country, that so little attention has been given to the budget itself. I say this again because we would have wished to have raised very many important points with the hon. the Minister of Finance and to have made certain comments on the budget itself.

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

No. Let me concede immediately that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in his unbridled and unjustified attack on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, led a successful diversionary attack. However, the tragedy is compounded by the inability of the members of the SAP and the NRP to realize the underlying motives of the hon. the Minister concerned, thus actually aiding and abetting him in detracting from the major issues facing South Africa. It is readily understandable why this hon. Minister made the attack. After all, it is no secret that the NP has shown all the signs of a party at odds with itself. The once firm granite wall which we have come to know in South Africa, has now all the signs of crack after crack, one by one for all to see. [Interjections.] I want to make this point, a point which I believe is very important. I am sorry the hon. the Minister is not present, because I do not like saying this in his absence. However, I asked for him to be present, and I understand he is unable to be here. Not only did he seek to divert attention from the many unanswered questions, concerning the defunct Information Department …

Why do you not talk about the budget?

… but it is also well known that there are many within the NP—and the hon. member for Lydenburg should also listen to this—who blamed this hon. Minister for the downfall of Dr. Connie Mulder. [Interjections.] I say that bearing in mind that, in less than an hour, Connie Mulder is to reach his deadline. The hon. the Minister’s direct link with Advocate Van Rooyen and Advocate Van Rooyen’s immediate evidence before Mr. Justice Mostert was the beginning of the end for Dr. Connie Mulder.

Is that the budget now?

It is understandable, therefore, that this hon. Minister would do everything in his power to secure or resecure his position in his own party. However, I am quite confident that there are hon. members sitting on the Government side, and many, many more NP supporters outside, who will never forgive the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs for what he did to bring about the political death of Dr. Connie Mulder. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, attempting to serve his party interests and his personal interests, has done a great disservice to this country. He has described an ambassador of the USA to the United Nations as an enemy of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I recall the previous Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, in a public broadcast, acknowledging the fact that the USA is a leader in the Western world, and to that extent, is the leader of South Africa as well. Here, however, we have the sorry spectacle of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs daring to suggest, here in this House and outside, that the United States of America is an enemy of South Africa. [Interjections.] Once again this NP Government seeks to lead South Africa to a place of isolation.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Pinelands deliberately distort the words of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this House? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Lydenburg may not imply by way of a question that another hon. member has deliberately distorted an hon. Minister’s words. The hon. member must phrase his question differently and withdraw his statement.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Pinelands then allowed… [Interjections.]

Withdraw it!

Order! The hon. member must first withdraw his statement.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. Is the hon. member for Pinelands allowed to quote the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and then to use words which the hon. the Minister himself did not use? The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs referred to Mr. Don McHenry and not to the USA. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pinelands may proceed. However, he must quote the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs correctly. This is a very important matter.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lydenburg is just seeking to waste my time. [Interjections.] However, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has put his person and his party above his country. For that he does not need to be asked to resign; he should be sacked. [Interjections.] I therefore call upon the hon. the Prime Minister to see that that is done. [Interjections.]

Finally, there are two other very important matters that I should…

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

No, I do not have time to answer questions. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister owes South Africa an answer concerning his own statement in this House. It is a very, very serious affair, and I ask the hon. the Prime Minister not to delay this. There is a flat contradiction between the hon. the Prime Minister’s interjection in this House and an aspect regarding the story which is now recounted in the Erasmus Commission report. With great respect, one cannot accept in an unqualified manner the report of the Erasmus Commission, while leaving unexplained the hon. the Prime Minister’s interjection. I ask the hon. the Prime Minister to explain that to the House.

Did you give evidence before the Erasmus Commission? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister should tell us whether he lied or not. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them.

Mr. Speaker, finally I should like to say…

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 75.

Mr. Speaker, we have reached the end of the Second Reading debate of this budget. It was a comprehensive debate, as a budget debate ought to be. Considerably more than 40 hon. members participated in it and it lasted for 20 hours. I want to say that from the point of view of this Government it was certainly one of the most successful budget debates we have conducted in many years. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the Opposition, particularly not of the official Opposition. I maintain that this debate was absolutely disastrous for them. Never before has so very little been said on financial and economic policy and similar matters during a Second Reading debate of a budget. I found it significant that the hon. member for Pinelands took up a considerable amount of the time that his brief speech lasted, in acknowledging this very fact. He tried to make excuses for it, but how many hon. members of the official Opposition did not have the opportunity to discuss finance? However, they did not do so. This is a very remarkable phenomenon which emerged from this debate. It is not the only one either.

†I want to say that the most remarkable feature of this debate has been the extent to which the official Opposition has increasingly and effectively been driven into a corner, until they were completely on the defensive. [Interjections.] They are on the run and they are going to keep on running. They have shown the whole country that they cannot stand up and debate with us the financial and economic policies of this country. They failed completely. They have shown once more that on this so-called Information affair they have now been finally exposed—this is for the second time in an official report of a judicial commission of inquiry—for what they are: A group of sensation-mad persons obsessed with hurling innuendoes and insults at all and sundry on the Government side. They have hurled completely groundless accusations, bereft of all foundation. [Interjections.] They are a group of people who have been talking like this for months and months, very enthusiastically and irresponsibly backed by their Press. They have been talking about corruption and everything that goes with it. They have, as I say, made the most far-reaching allegations, while throughout this time there has been in existence a judicial commission of inquiry. They have, however, avoided going before that commission like the plague. [Interjections.] I ask any reasonable man to make an inference from that fact alone.

It is untrue and you know it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member say that the hon. the Minister knows that it is untrue?

Order! The hon. member may not say that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

In the course of this remarkable debate we were told by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the PFP had apparently submitted a document of 90 pages to this commission. I want to ask what that document is. Is it an affidavit, is it sworn evidence? [Interjections.] I went twice and gave evidence before the commission. I am dealing now with hon. members of the official Opposition and they are going to listen.

Let us deal with a few facts. I and the country want to know what that document consists of. Is that document sworn evidence? Or is that document, consisting of 90 pages, prescribing to the judicial commission how it should conduct its affairs? There is all this talk that evidence must be made public. Already evidence has been made public and they cannot touch it. If certain evidence is to be made public, I want to say by every standard of consistency, that that document of the PFP must also be made public. [Interjections.] Let me say that, because it is such a reasonable standpoint, we will insist on it. If we are asked to make evidence public that document must also be made public. [Interjections.] We call that bluff.

Regarding this Information affair, the Opposition—and I am not able to excuse the NRP of this issue either—has acted completely recklessly, and they are now being called to account. The whole country knows it.

However, there is another reason why I say that this has been a remarkable date. It has been so also because of what I will call the Eglin-McHenry affair. To my mind that has the makings of a public scandal of the worst kind. This incident has only just been raised and it is no use for hon. members of the official Opposition to become hysterical about it It won’t go away. [Interjections.] It has only just begun. Although we have only seen the first round of this fight, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his Party are already reeling punch-drunk in their corner. [Interjections.] The longer this matter is analysed and the longer the whole matter is exposed—which we are going to do—the worse the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will come out of it, and eventually he is going to suffer a complete knock-out. [Interjections.] That is in store for a party who, month after month, without having any evidence to prove it, has hurled accusations of the worst kind at hon. members on this side of the House. Chickens are now coming home to roost. It already looks as if the condition of the PFP is one of confusion worse confounded.

Mr. Speaker, on that happy note, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up much of the time of the House as I merely want to reiterate our support for this Bill. We believe that it is very necessary that this Bill should be presented at this time. We regard it, however, as an interim measure while the commission, which is looking into the situation with regard to sea fisheries, is deliberating. We shall vote in favour of the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the stage of the Third Reading of this amendment to the Sea Fisheries Act The Bill before the House closes up various loopholes and, I think, will lead to an improved fisheries administration. For those reasons we indicated at Second Reading that we would support this Bill.

There are a number of matters, arising from this Bill, which I think require to be cleared up in this Third Reading debate. From the beginning our attitude has been that there is a sensitive process involved in balancing the commercial fishing interests, the pleasure fishing interests of the public at large and, in some cases, the interests of conservation. It is necessary for the department to try and maintain that balance, and it is necessary for the public to accept that such a balance should be maintained. I want to make the comment today that we have become overnight a nation with maritime interests. It is only since the end of the last war that we have had a tremendous expansion of commercial fishing interests. It is only since the last war that we have had tremendous interest shown by the public at large—and the organized public as well in the form of clubs and associations—in maritime affairs. There have only been demands in the last 30 years for the necessity of strong conservation measures and the striking of the necessary balance. We have become a nation with maritime interests overnight since a period of 30 years can indeed be regarded as such.

Let us look at some of the various interests that have to be reconciled. We have trawling interests which have been given protection by the extension of our sea limits and the fishery zone. We have pelagic fishing industry, and it has been given expansion rights in the form of quotas, and recently has had to be protected against itself. In this particular respect I am sure that the hon. the Minister and his department will be the first to agree with me that our research facilities are utterly inadequate, and something has to be done to undertake research programmes that will lead to a proper balance being established between the need for conservation of our pelagic resources and their exploitation.

In the rock lobster industry we have had a similar situation. Careful control is absolutely vital. There has been a lack of research facilities, and in this particular instance—unlike the pelagic fishing interests—there is a need for an additional balance between the commercial export of the rock lobster products and the need to fulfil the demands of the local market. The “perlemoen” industry has been referred to in this debate. Here there has been clear evidence for some time of over-exploitation, and I think I am right in saying that there has been no research of any consequence done in this field at all.

More recently we have seen the development of a seaweed industry and here, in some cases, the conservationists have become very concerned. This is a field which also has to be looked at. We also have the interests of the trek-netters in the various coastal areas, traditional interests which some of them have enjoyed from time immemorial and which cannot just be taken away from families that have come to depend on the products of the sea for an existence.

We have had recently the issue of bait licences to various commercial boats among the line fishing communities, and although bait licences have not been referred to in this debate, I should nevertheless like to bring it to the hon. the Minister’s attention. There is abuse of the system of bait licences. Bait licences were issued with a view to people providing line fishing communities with bait. These bait licences are, however, being used for the catching of any fish that swims in the area where those licences operate. Large quantities of yellowtail, for example, are taken off the Agulhas Bank and off the Struisbaai coast, as a result of which the hon. the Minister has received numerous representations for restrictive measures. Yellowtail seem to be concentrated off the Agulhas Bank and the most modern method used by the people using bait nets has been to chum off the bank to attract the fish away from the Agulhas Bank, and as soon as they get away from the bank, into deeper water where the nets can be used, they are taken in vast quantities. In addition to those interests I would call commercial interests, there are pleasure craft and motor-boat interests, the tunny boats, ski-boats and even people who go down to the sea in canoes. In addition, there are skin-divers, and the skin-diving community is a growing community in South Africa, but they, at least, are subject to bag limits. I think I am correct in saying that a skin-diver is allowed to take only five of the pelagic fish species at a time—and obviously that would include a fish such as the yellowtail—and only two of the bank species. In addition to skin-divers there are rock anglers. Altogether there has been a vast development in the field of club angling sport over the last 20 years. Then there are also the ordinary individuals, like myself, who go around the coast and catch as individuals without, in fact, belonging to any club.

Do you still have some of that “perlemoen” left?

Yes! Then there are the other members of the general public, those who are subject to bag limits of one kind or another. We have, for example, limitations on th number of prawns that can be taken. People who pay attention to those restrictions take prawns, worms, “perlemoen”—as the hon. the Minister says, up to five at a time—and “arikreukel”, in accordance with the bag limits system only a specified amount of bait and shell fish. Apart from these people who do observe the law, however, there are vast numbers of people who do not observe these laws and bag limits at all. For example, prawn beds in estuaries are being systematically stripped by members of the public. Blood-worms and various other worm species are being collected with pumps in our coastal waters. Rocks are stripped of shell fish and there is a flourishing black market in “perlemoen” being conducted by people who disregard the five “perlemoen” per head limit and who are selling commercially. The same applies to “arikreukel”.

There are also set-netters and I think their exploits require the department’s attention. I am referring to the setting of nets, particularly along the coast of the South Western Districts, beyond Hermanus. Set-nets are set at night and thousands upon thousands of galjoen, a traditional Cape rock angling delicacy, are being taken in the nets. In the East London area, I believe, they are referred to as “dombas”. There are also throw-netters and others who disregard the preservation of our bait resources and take anything they can to satisfy their angling lust.

That gives one a picture of the combined assault, which has been taking place for some years now, on our marine resources. I should like, if I may, to refer to an article that appeared in The Cape Times after the Second Reading of this Bill. It was a mischievous article, a thoroughly ill-informed article, written by a man called Brian Grobbler. It appeared in The Cape Times on 30 March. When the gentleman wrote this article he had not even seen my Hansard, but the whole of the article was devoted to criticism of the speech that I made during the Second Reading debate on this Bill.

What newspaper was that?

The Cape Times. This Mr. Grobbler refers to me as a self-styled friend of the fishermen of False Bay. I, however, have never made that claim for myself.

I do that for you all the time.

He says that I should know better than to have said what I did say in my Second Reading speech because I represent Simonstown which has been the home of sport fishing in the Republic for the last 25 years, that I made an irresponsible outburst…

Where do you get that from?

Grobbler said what you said.

I said that that is what he said in his article. He said that I made an irresponsible outburst which was shocking coming as it did from a member of the Fishing Commission that was investigating the fishing industry in South Africa. This Fishing Commission which the hon. the Minister announced would be appointed, is not, however, going to be a commission of inquiry into the fishing resources of South Africa It has limited terms of reference. The previous fishing commission of the Republic, which followed on the fishing commission of South West Africa, reported to the House in the early 1970s. It undertook a thorough investigation into all aspects of the fishing industry. However, the terms of reference of this particular commission, as supplied to the House by the hon. the Minister at the end of his Second Reading speech, are very limited in their scope. Perhaps, Sir, you will allow me to mention some of them. The commission is to investigate (Hansard, 19 March 1979, col. 2747)—

1. (1) the present basis and method of granting utilization rights…
2. (2) the principles applied in the past in connection with the granting of utilization rights…
3. (3) the principles which should be applied in connection with the granting of utilization rights…
4. (4) the desirability of restricting the period of validity of utilization rights…
5. (5) the recognition to be accorded to persons and firms which have already obtained utilization rights…
6. (6) the possibilities and the desirability of charging fees in the granting of rights
7. (7) the application of conditions aimed at protecting the South African consumer’s interests…

This commission therefore has a very limited scope indeed. I think that the article written by Mr. Grobbler is an irresponsible article. He says at the end of his article that my speech in the Second Reading was aimed at trying to get rid of harmless amateur anglers in False Bay while allowing commercial interests to run wild and take as many tons of fish as they like. I call as my witness any member of the House who has been here for many years, and ask im to say which element in the fishing industry I have tried to protect.

I have tried to strike a balance in my pleas between exploitation and conservation. I have spoken about the small fisherman, I have spoken about the need for harbours, launching ramps and so on, and, if anything, I have gone overboard in my criticism of the commercial fishing industry which I believe has been allowed to rape the resources off the country’s coasts. I have pleaded in the House for small-boat harbours and launching ramps. I have pleaded for reserves like False Bay in which limited exploitation rights should apply. I have pleaded that protection should be given against commercial trawlers and netters. I think I can rightly say that I am the only member of the House who has consistently over a long period of time raised these matters with successive Ministers of Economic Affairs.

Let me say what my thesis is. We have various fishing interests and maritime interests to which I have already referred in my Second Reading speech and again today. There has to be a proper reconciliation between them, a reconciliation between the very necessary commercial exploitation of those resources and the protection of those resources for conservation purposes. I think it is very healthy that there are so many people showing an interest in the sea, that there are, for example, so many South Africans visiting the coastal areas in the summertime. These people require small-boat harbours and launching ramps. This is a recreational facility that should be provided for the benefit of the people who go down to the coast for their annual holidays. They must be catered for besides the locals. At the sane time there are the existing line-fishing communities whose interests have to be protected, in the first place from the commercial trawlers and in the second place from over-exploitation by the hundreds of thousands of amateurs who come down to the coast at certain times of the year.

I have tried to make suggestions from time to time on how this balan could be maintained. Some people will disagree with me, but others will agree, for example, that bag limits should be imposed. If the spear fishermen have to be subjected to bag limits, it seems to me that there should also be a bag limit imposed on rock anglers in respect of certain species. I think a bag limit should also be imposed on motor boat anglers. I think that tunny fishermen at certain times should have bag limits imposed on them. Furthermore, I think that ski-boat anglers should have bag limits imposed on them in respect of certain species. I have never tried to be dogmatic by laying down specific bag limits that should be imposed. I have made the suggestion that it would be a good idea to investigate this matter. I have asked the hon. the Minister—I did so in my Second Reading speech—to investigate the possibility of striking a balance between exploitation and conservation.

With those words I want to say that we welcome the provisions of this Bill. As we indicated in the Second Reading debate, we think they do not go far enough to cover all the aspects involved in the fishing industry. We look forward to consolidated legislation the hon. the Minister will bring before the House in due course on the strength of the report of the intended fishing commission, which, as I have said, has limited terms of reference. We look forward to having, one of these days, consolidated legislation governing all the various different aspects of the fisheries of South Africa. We have fantastic fishing resources around our coast and, given a proper balance between exploitation and conservation, it will be something all of us in South Africa can be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to me that the hon. member for Simonstown is in his element when he is discussing fishing matters. I believe that he will also make a very good contribution as member of the commission which has been appointed.

I want to react briefly to what he has said about research. I just want to say that there are many bodies doing research on the fishing and related industries. Approximately 230 people are employed by the research section of the Sea Fisheries Division. Other organizations are the CSIR, the National Research Institute for Oceanography and the Oceanographical Research Institute in Natal. In addition there are the universities of Port Elizabeth, Cape Town and even Stellenbosch. In Natal there is the Anti-shark Measures Board which is doing very good work under the competent leadership of Mrs. Beulah Davis. I want to support the hon. member for Simonstown in this respect that the research could perhaps be done on a more coordinated and comprehensive basis. In Natal the fish and the breeding places of fish in rivers and river mouths are being threatened by pollution.

We are now discussing the Third Reading of this Bill. If one looks back in perspective, particularly in view of the important announcement by the hon. the Minister on the appointment of the parliamentary commission, one sees that the object of this Bill is to apply stricter control. Consequently it is important legislation. Once again we have received a comprehensive picture of the fishing industry in South Africa. It is an industry which is worth approximately R250 million and in which approximately 20 000 workers are employed. The fishing fleet consists of approximately 6 600 fishing boats, large and small.

In November 1977 the fishing zones over which we can apply control were extended to 200 miles from the coast. We also control the catches off Marion and Prince Edwards Islands, which are approximately 1 800 miles south of South Africa. An important step was taken when a research ship was built in Durban. As I have been given to understand, this ship will cost approximately R20 million, and approximately R25 million with its equipment. That may sound like a great deal of money, but if one thinks of the magnitude of this industry one can understand it. The criticism which was expressed must also be seen against this background. One can think back to the research ships that have been involved in the romanticism of marine life. The first one was the Pieter Faure which was used in 1897. Other research ships were the Pickle, the Africana and the Namib. If I had to think up a name for this new research ship, without flattering the hon. the Minister, I should simply call it the Heunis, because it is an important step which he has taken here.

At this stage I want to confine myself to the east coast of Natal. I think it is necessary for me to discuss the position in respect of elf. The hon. the Minister asked us not to drag politics into this debate, and I do not intend doing so. I should just like to rectify something as far as this prohibition on elf is concerned. A total prohibition was originally introduced as a result of a thesis written by a researcher in Durban. There was such a vehement protest that it was then decided that there would be a prohibition for nine months, and then a general prohibition from September to the end of the year, in other words for three months only. As happens with many of these things, particularly in the fishing industry, it aroused a great deal of emotionalism, but primarily that is what it was concerned with. I am referring to this matter because the name of my previous provincial councillor was dragged in here, and it was said that he tried to turn this matter into a political issue. I can assure hon. members that neither he, nor the National Party has ever tried to do that The statement that was made, i.e. that the Nationalists are opposed to conservation as such, is not true either. What actually happened was that the finding of that investigation was questioned. The campaign was conducted primarily by the newspapers. But a further development was that a commission was then appointed, viz. the Smit Commission, which subsequently became a committee. Just to show how important it was, there was a stage when 70 individuals and organizations gave evidence, and I believe that the report which was brought out would be of great benefit to the parliamentary commission. An attendant matter, and something which aroused further emotions, was of course that the Parks Board introduced the ordinance that everything associated with this type of fishing would be confiscated. In the process five motor vehicles were confiscated. I do not think that is right. That is what was at issue here. They set themselves above the law, as it were. In other words the courts did not decide the issue, the motor vehicles were simply confiscated.

I should just like to thank the hon. the Minister for not having turned this prohibition on elf into a political issue, for having risen above the issue. At this stage I do not want to quote what was said in the newspapers, the allegations which were even hurled at the hon. the Minister in this case.

I said that I should like to go on to discuss the east coast. The position in Natal is that the Sea Fisheries Division as such ceded certain of its powers of control to the province of Natal. If one considers the matter in perspective, I do not think that this will be the right thing in the long run. I feel that control should be exercised by the Sea Fisheries Division over the whole of Natal. I want to motive this briefly. In Natal there is no full-scale Sea Fisheries office. There is only a depot, with about three people working there.

In addition one must bear in mind that the territorial waters have been extended up to approximately 200 nautical miles. The south coast of Natal is known for many things. It is known for its beautiful beaches, and it is also known for its beautiful girls, but one thing in particular for which the south coast is known is its sardines. When the sardines start running, it is an enormous attraction, only there is so much confusion. Control over the sardines is not vested in the Sea Fisheries Division. The sardines are caught in nets. Licences have to be granted and control must be exercised. Consequently I think it is necessary for the Sea Fisheries Division to accept responsibility for this.

I know that I am skating on extremely thin ice now, but I feel that the commission that has been appointed should seek some or other form of liaison with the Transkei. I believe that if the matter is handled correctly they will agree to whatever is proposed in respect of the control of fishing along the east coast. I do think there is a possibility, if it is handled correctly, that these people can be brought into it.

As far as the east coast is concerned, I want to refer to a provisional report drawn up by the Department of Town and Regional Planning of Natal. It actually deals with “A survey of ski-boat launching sites on the Natal South Coast”. It is a very thorough, but provisional report which has been referred to various organizations for comment. After such comment has been received a final report will be drawn up. On page 3 of the report it is stated, inter alia—

I am quoting from this report since large amounts are going to be spent on the establishment of ski-boat harbours, something which naturally affects the south coast as well. The second best area for the establishment of a harbour is Shelly beach in my constituency. The best area is Durban itself. When an evaluation was made of these harbours, many factors were taken into consideration, factors such as the availability of fish, but if there is no proper control the attractiveness of establishing a harbour at that site is removed. That is why, as far as the Natal coast is concerned, the question of control must be taken into consideration with the view of the establishment of harbours there.

I should like to draw attention to the fact that two marine or coastal reserves have been established in Natal, the one at Ifafa and the other in Zululand. I think this is an extremely progressive step and if there is something on which the Natal Parks Board can be congratulated, it is this. But I must point out that those two reserves are by no means sufficient. The commission may subsequently argue that we need far more marine reserves such as these, some of them perhaps smaller, and alternating with areas in which people may catch fish.

I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for having removed the sting of politics from the whole issue of fisheries control, and for the appeal he made to us. Nevertheless I want to point out to him that during the previous election a politician once addressed a meeting and spoke for half an hour clutching a tin of canned pilchards in his hand. He said to the people that it was the Government’s fault that such tins of fish were no longer seen on supermarket shelves, because our fish were being caught by the Russians, and that if his party came into power, those ships would be chased until they found themselves between the devil and the deep blue sea. They are now in the deep blue sea. I am saying this simply to indicate that we must see this matter in its correct perspective, because the exaggerated statements concerning foreign fleets depleting our fishing resources have been rectified.

From this side of the House I want to say thank you in anticipation for the stricter control, for the fact that we were able to see the matter in its correct perspective and for the knowledge that our fishing industry is in good hands.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Coast, who has just resumed his seat, has obviously tried to make somewhat of a study of the subject discussed today. I am sure that hon. members will agree with me that when he talked about the east coast, he failed to mention that the best portion of the east coast is the area which stretches from Kei Mouth down to Kenton-on-Sea. The hon. member also did a little bit of an egg-dance as far as electioneering was concerned and he skirted around the subject of the shad ban in Natal. Basically he said that he was in favour of conservation, but he did not actually come out with the statement that he was in favour of the shad ban as applied in Natal and on the south coast right now.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question.

Yes, I will answer a question.

Mr. Speaker, I will try to make the matter very clear. It was all a question of whether a better survey should be done.

Order! The hon. member for South Coast cannot make a speech now. He may only ask a question. The hon. member for East London North may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the question that never was! However, the hon. member did conduct a bit of an egg-dance about this particular subject.

You just did not understand.

However, another hon. member of my party will be dealing with this particular matter. As he is from Natal, I believe he will be able to deal with the matter far more efficiently. He is fully aware of the whole situation in this regard.

I was fortunate to go out on one of the fishery inspection vessels recently. I went out on one of the vessels responsible for handling the sort of controls that are brought about by the legislation that is now being discussed here. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for the opportunity he granted me. I think the vessel itself was extremely well kept and extremely efficiently run. I only think that, by approximately 6 o’clock Saturday evening, I could perhaps have wished it had been a little bit faster.

How was the braai?

The braai was tremendous. [Interjections.] I should also like to thank the hon. the Minister for having accepted the amendment we moved during the Committee Stage, the amendment relating to angling from the seashore. I want to reiterate what I said at that stage. I do not think we should allow ourselves to become confused between sport fishing and genuine commercial fishing. These are two very different aspects of fishing as a whole. Regulations made for people who spend their lives fishing commercially, I believe, need to be different from regulations made in respect of people who are basically fishing for sport. The fact that they might sell a few fish to help with their expenses involved in this sport, is, to a certain extent, I believe, more incidental than anything else.

We are happy with the Bill as it stands. However, we have asked the hon. the Minister to exercise caution. We realize that he needs to have statistics and we are fully in favour of his obtaining those statistics in order to be able to arrive at a better control of our fishing resources in South Africa. However, at the same time, the sport fishing fraternity is a very large one, there is a lot of money involved in sport fishing and I do not think one should get it confused in any shape or form with commercial fishing. The NRP intends to support this Bill at Third Reading, as indeed it did at Second Reading and during the Committee Stage. I think, however, we should also make our position clear with regard to the control of sport fishing. I should like to support here the hon. member for Simonstown in that I cannot see any problem in having bag limits on fish up and down our coastline, whether one is fishing from a ski-boat, whether one is fishing from a paddle-ski, whether one is fishing from the surf or from the rocks. I believe that if any species of fish is or could be endangered by overfishing, it is absolutely right that there should be bag limits imposed on such species of fish.

We have one of the finest coastlines in the world. We have a great diversity of fish. We have a great diversity of different conditions. From the northern coast of Natal, right round to the Southern Cape coast and up towards the South West African coast, we have many different water conditions, we have two different oceans, and I believe we have the responsibility to posterity, to future generations, to protect these resources. If we do not exercise the sorts of controls that the hon. member for Simonstown has suggested, I believe, we could be put in a situation in which we could be accused by future generations of handing over to them a shoreline in a considerably worse condition than that enjoyed by us. For these reasons I believe that it is essential that the hon. the Minister should be able to get together facts and figures. As a fisherman myself, I certainly know that I have no problems with limits that are imposed on fresh water angling. I fully agree with those limits, e.g. the size restrictions placed on the catching of trout. I certainly have found that such limits have not interfered with my enjoyment of the sport of fresh water angling in any shape or form. Therefore if limits of this nature were to be put on fish in the sea, I do not believe that would destroy the enjoyment, in any shape or form, of the genuine sport fisherman. As such, we cannot make this appeal any stronger. We believe in such limits if they are necessary. We do not want unnecessary limits imposed, but if the need exists, let me appeal to the hon. the Minister to see that such a limit is imposed. Let me conclude by saying that we shall support the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not be reacting to what the hon. member for Simonstown had to say, although I largely agree with what he has said. I want to talk conceptually about marine matters to gain some clarification. I disagree with what the hon. member for East London North has said because what he had to say was contradictory, but I shall come back to that in a moment.

What is this Bill about? The Bill deals with the rational exploitation, conservation and tighter control of our fishing resources. Whereas the hon. the Minister—and I am not saying for political reasons—is usually accused, from time to time, of being insensitive to conservation, it is interesting that speeches from hon. members on this side of the House have been conservation orientated, whilst hon. members on that side of the House, to judge by their speeches, want to reduce the amount of control, for conservation and rational exploitation, which the hon. the Minister wants to impose. I shall illustrate that in a moment.

There is of course the whole question of ethics. We are not only dealing here with a commercial problem, but also with ethical problems. Neither are we only dealing with a practical problem, but also with a moral problem. I should like to elucidate that aspect. The whole question of the ethics of conservation is under discussion. What do we get, however, from hon. members of the PFP? I am not being political about this matter. I want to speak about the attitude towards a particular fish resource. I should like to quote from the hon. member for Hillbrow’s speech in Hansard. During the Committee Stage he said (col. 3404)—

I now get to the interesting part of his speech—

When there is rational and scientific exploitation of seals, and when seals, on a rational and scientific basis, are being used as a resource, hon. members on that side of the House, in a phrenetic, anthropomorphic spasm, complain, but—

There is a moral problem involved, and I think that the hon. member for Pinelands agreed with me, by way of an interjection during the Second Reading debate, that we must deal adequately with our marine resources and that our attitude towards marine animals must be adequately consistent and the same as our attitude towards land animals. There is, after all, no fundamental difference.

The hon. member for Hillbrow, however, says that when they start hitting the yellowtail there is no way they will stop until they have caught 400. Having caught 400, which is the maximum because he says his boat is then awash, they head back to shore. When they reach the harbour, however, what do they do with all the fish? He says they cannot throw them away so they go down to the village and sell them to the villagers for R1 each. In that respect he is like a cross between Buffalo Bill and Marie Antoinette. [Interjections.] To use a term used by the hon. member for Mooi River, we must get our minds right and look at this whole question of the morality and of the ethics of the control of our marine resources. I shall not go as far back as Theophrastus or Victor Hugo, but to the more recent schematic historians like Joachim of Flora, Hegel and Compte. Even more recently Aldo Leopold, who wrote in the 1940s, said, like the schematic historians before him, that he divided the history of moral judgment into three phases. The one was of the morality of man towards man, as typified in the Ten Commandments, then the morality of man towards society and then the third phase, where he says—

I should like to add to that the attitude of man towards marine resources.

The stage which the fishing industry has reached is not unlike the stage man reached in his relationship to the land mammals in the middle of the last century. One is reminded of the story of the passenger-pigeons which darkened, like clouds, the eastern skies of the USA during the 18th century. By 1870, however, the passenger-pigeon population was on the decline because of the road systems and the telegraph. When the great clouds of passenger-pigeons moved across the eastern parts of America, one village would telegraph the next village to notify them that the passenger-pigeons were coming. The result was that the whole of the village which had been notified would turn out when the passenger-pigeons arrived. The passenger-pigeons would be sitting in the great forests of that part of America and the villagers would then light fires underneath the trees, causing the passenger-pigeon chicks to jump out of the nests because of the smoke. The chicks were then lifted with shovels and used for pig food.

What has this got to do with sea fisheries?

I want to make a very serious point on the basis of this story. The attitude of man towards the passenger-pigeons is not unlike the attitude of people on the Natal coast towards the sardine runs. Today there are spotter aircraft looking for the sardine runs. Cables fly to and fro informing people when the sardine run takes place. As was the case in America when the passenger-pigeons were coming, when the sardine run takes place people turn up in their thousands. The sardines which are caught are left in buckets to rot all over the place. I am, however, not saying that people should not go and look at the miracle of the sardine run, but there is a difference between observing the sardine run and simply regarding marine animals as objects to kill, an attitude typified by the statement that: “When a fisherman starts hitting the yellowtail, there is no way in which he can be stopped fishing.” With great respect to the hon. member for Hillbrow, I regard that as a barbarous statement.

It is an irrefutable fact that we have not had a Minister who has dealt more sensitively with marine matters than the present Minister of Economic Affairs. Our controls are more rigid and sensitive. For the first time in the 300 years of our history, we are seeing the proclamation of marine reserves. They have been proclaimed on the west coast, something I have spoken about before, and they have been proclaimed on the east coast. In the period between the Second Reading and Third Reading debate on this Bill, the hon. the Minister has proclaimed a portion of False Bay, one kilometres out to sea, between Smitswinkel and Partridge Point, as a marine reserve. I think that is a wonderful thing and I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister. There are people who will say it is too little and there are also people who will say that we should not have done it at all.

The fact remains, however, that this is a proclaimed conservation area where one will get climax colonies of fish, and as such it is an irreproachable step in the right direction. When there is rational exploitation of other mammals one gets this kind of anthropomorphic zeal, yet a Minister who has done more for marine conservation than any other Minister in South Africa’s history finds himself under attack from people who know nothing about the world’s marine resources. [Interjections.]

I now want to come to the question of the exclusion of shore fishermen. I know this Minister’s style. He can be tough—and we have seen him when he gets tough—but his style is basically one of trying to co-operate. We all know that his style is basically that of one who tries to bring about the greatest possible co-operation between conservationists, the industry and hon. members of this House when it comes to legislation of this kind. I therefore ask hon. members to think twice before abusing that privilege. When I say this, I am referring, in particular, to excluding shore fishermen from being licensed, or any right the hon. the Minister may have to do so in the future.

It is only the hon. member for Simonstown who has really spoken much about spear fishermen, but whether one is speaking about the killing of fish from the land, from boats or with spear-guns, one must remember that it is not a question of the same sort of people killing different kinds of fish under different circumstances. It is a question of different people killing the same kind of fish. If one therefore wants to control the resource, it is no good controlling the resource by excluding some people who are killing the fish and including others. I say this because shore fishermen, for example, are killing galjoen, which the boat fishermen do not catch at all. So how is one going to protect galjoen if one does not license and control the shore fishermen? How can one control him if one does not license him? Kingklip, for example, are exclusively taken by boat fishermen. So no amount of control of shore fishermen—e.g. in rock angling or whatever—will protect the kingklip. One therefore gets different assaults from different quarters upon different resources, very often, and sometimes different assaults on the same resource. So if one wants to control fishing, one must control the whole spectrum of men killing fish. It has been mentioned that Naidoo fishing on the Tongaat coast may perhaps not apply for a licence. I do not want to comment on that, but what I want to say is that if one is going to license fishermen, one can do so by consent. One can do so through the clubs. One makes propaganda and tries to explain to the fishing interests, the clubs and associations, why one wants to impose the control. I believe that most anglers are responsible people, and I therefore think they will come back from their fishing trips and issue returns. Perhaps one will not charge them anything for the licence, or perhaps one may only charge a nominal fee, but they will come back and report what they have caught.

There are two important aspects involved. The one is that it is no good talking about bag limits if one does not know what one is trying to control. How can one set up a bag limit if one does not know the state of the resource? One cannot wait for the resource to collapse before imposing bag limits. One only has to realize that with the collapse of the pilchard concentrations, it is going to take us 40 years to reconstruct that resource, that is if we ever manage to do it at all. I am not saying that one cannot empirically impose a bag limit until one knows more of the facts. There may be an argument to be made out in favour of doing that, but in this regard there is a point I should like to make. Unless one monitors the resource, one cannot impose reasonable bag limits.

The hon. member for East London North said he had no objection to the controls that apply to fresh water angling. He said he was happy with them. One of the controls he did not mention, a control which applies to fresh water angling, is that one must have a licence. On the one hand, therefore, the hon. member is arguing that he is happy with the situation that the fresh water angler should have a licence, while on the other hand he asks the hon. the Minister not to licence shore-based fishermen.

I did not say that.

Sir, the hon. member did.

When?

The hon. member said that for purposes of this Act we should not licence…

I said we should not include sport fishermen under commercial fishermen.

Whether one kills fish in the name of sport or commercially, the effect of the assault upon the resource is the same. I shall give an analogy to try to explain what I am saying. Consider the case of a farmer who has 1 000 springbok on his farm. Basically he farms with game. He might send 500 springbok per year to the market. That is then a commercial activity. However, he also arranges a hunting party once a year. He has his friends over for the hunt and they shoot some big rams. He will shoot only a limited number. The point is that for both of those activities the farmer must be licenced.

Yes, but in terms of different legislation.

Let me take it further. On the first day of a fishing contest held recently, the anglers caught a certain tonnage of fish. I calculated that, if converted, that amount of fish was equivalent to 450 head of springbok. If I had to arrange the hunt—I am talking of the ethics and the morality of it and of the public’s attitude towards marine resources—and I hit the springbok until there were no more left to shoot at and in total I shot 450 springbok in one day, can you imagine, Sir, how in their columns the newspapers would be screaming at me? They would be saying: “This is carnage!” Yet one can hit the yellowtail until there are none left, until they disappear completely. The hon. member suggests that one should be able to do that without any control if it is done in the name of sport. I say that that is the wrong principle.

It was the hon. member for Hillbrow who spoke about yellowtail.

Sir, I think it is a wrong principle. I am being serious.

I am in favour of bag limits.

But how does one impose a bag limit without knowing the state of the resources? If you require that fishermen be licensed and submit returns, even if one gets a return of only 15% to 25% from them, one will know what the state of the resources is. On the strength of that one can then determine what the bag limits should be. One can say, for instance, that in respect of yellowtail the bag limit is to be 10. If the resources in respect of a particular species are dwindling, one can set a bag limit of two or five.

But one need not classify them as commercial fishermen. [Interjections.]

Let me give a rather good example of the damage a fisherman can do in the name of sport. If one looks at clause 8(b) of the Bill, one will find that it provides that a fisherman—and I believe a new social definition of that word should be introduced—can take out one kilo of perlemoen. That is equivalent to two perlemoen. It is interesting to note that perlemoen reach maturity at the age of some 13 years—on average it is probably 10 years—and that therefore one fishermen can in terms of this legislation quite legitimately destroy an accumulated marine life of 10 000 years. If one looks at the quota of perlemoen taken this year, it is interesting to note that the 165 000 tons of perlemoen taken represents 4 million years of accumulated life.

How many years of perlemoen did you eat on Saturday?

That is not the point. I have got nothing against the rational exploitation of this resource or against eating perlemoen. I can tell the hon. member that I would much rather see people having to come to South Africa to eat perlemoen than having perlemoen exported overseas. The fact of the matter is that we need a new ethic in this regard. I think we need to observe the fish, to study and understand them, rather than to kill them. People can gain more pleasure if, as on land for instance, in the name of sport and the love of nature, they walk through the veld and camp there, listening to the noises and observing the animals, the birds, the spiders, etc. I think we need a new ethic of conservation so that the social concept of “fisherman” can be changed and he can be seen as a man who, though he kills fish occasionally, and within reasonable limits, in the name of sport, is also a man who understands and begins to observe the overall position.

With the advent of modern technology, with modern equipment such as the aqualung which is available to the scuba diver and the creation of marine reserves, we are going to see a new era. People will go to marine reserves and observe fish under the water, from glass-bottomed boats, etc.

The hon. member for Hillbrow however, who is supposed to be a member of an enlightened party, tells the hon. the Minister in a hostile way that “When a fisherman starts hitting the yellowtail, there is no way in which he can be stopped” and that the fish must then be distributed as largesse amongst the poor villagers. I hope that is the last time we hear that type of criticism from a party which adopts the attitude it does towards this hon. Minister, who is the most enlightened Minister on fishing matters that this country has ever had.

At Second Reading I referred to the whole question of capture fishing, aquaculture and mariculture. The hon. member for Moorreesburg and other hon. members also spoke about that.

It is interesting to see that the world capture fishing, in 1971, reached a peak of 70,2 million tons and that in the subsequent six years the catch remained constant in a world in which there were massive advances in marine technology. One sees this progress everywhere, also in the fishing industry. Sonar, spotter aircraft, spotter helicopters, factory ships, faster engines, and so on, all contributed to the improvement of fishing methods. Today we eat kinds of fish we have not eaten before. Hon. members ate angel fish on Saturday, fish that I am sure they have never eaten before. We are beginning to eat kinds of fish we have not eaten before, and yet the international catch remained constant. That means only one thing, and that is that the resource is damaged. In all the speeches delivered in this debate, that has been illustrated very graphically in respect of our part of the world. I should have liked to make another plea but I see my time has expired.

Mr. Speaker, it has been arranged that I should have a chance to speak. I see the hon. the Minister is anxious to complete the Third Reading, however, and so I shall not take long.

The hon. member for Maitland has paid tribute to the hon. the Minister for what he has done, but one cannot help wishing that the hon. the Minister had been here about 10 years ago because one can remember very clearly the speeches the hon. member for Simonstown made in those days, speeches in which he complained about the assault on our fish stocks, an assault which was very serious indeed and which caused the situation we are in today. As always happens in this kind of situation, action is only taken when resources have depleted sufficiently for people to take notice. We differ fundamentally with the hon. member for Maitland on one aspect. He was talking about springbok and inland fishing, etc. However, our problem is that the springbok we hunt and the trout we catch in our dams, are know resources, whereas there is no way in which we can really determine the resources in the sea. We can only make estimates and guestimates in that regard. For that very reason why the introduction of this Bill is so important. From the returns he will obtain, the hon. the Minister will try to gather information to enable him to control fishing in that sense. Throughout the debate on this Bill we háve been intent on the private fisherman, the sport fisherman, the rock angler and the chap fishing with a rod and line in the surf zone being excluded from the provisions of this Bill which require certain things of them. We have no problem as far as licences are concerned. I think it might well create a considerable commotion, certainly in Natal, if we required every person fishing in the sea to have a licence. However, it could be done. We have no problem in that regard and I am not complaining about it. My problem is the fact that a return is required. I think one always has to look at the problem from another angle.

I just want to explain. There is no provision in the Bill that requires that.

That is correct, but the point we have been careful to exclude is that it is not required of a person fishing from the shore. The hon. member himself suggested that it would be desirable, even if one got a 25% return, to give one some kind of an indication of what is happening with that particular type of fish resource. The way in which the shad fishing fell off in Natalcause for such concern that the province of Natal, as the hon. member for South Coast said, was called upon, on the basis of a research paper, to ban shad fishing entirely. However, this is the way things work. When one bans something then there is such an immediate reaction from the public, and because one regards them as sensible, one relaxes the ban and says one will rather place a limit on catches. I am quite certain that the hon. the Minister, the hon. member for Maitland, the hon. member for South Coast and all of us realize that some action must be taken in order to allow that stock of fish to build up. When it reaches desirable proportions, the limit can always be increased. That is the way sensible people handle a situation such as this. I should therefore like to place it on record that we are all agreed on the fact that conservation requires enforcement I can understand the hon. member for South Coast complaining that cars have been confiscated, etc., and the hon. member for Vryheid, in a previous debate, indicated that the same thing happens in the case of impala which are poached. Without enforcement the game stock of this country would disappear altogether as a result of poaching.

There must be education.

Education is something which takes a period of time. In fact, it requires a good deal of time, particularly in connection with the resources of the sea which nobody is prepared to concede are not absolutely limitless and can go on for ever and ever, amen.

We can start here.

I agree with the hon. member. We are in total agreement on this, but one of the things that puzzle me is that as far as the conservation of game is concerned, the attitude of the Press is always that game conservation is always the “in” thing. It is a marvellous thing and one has to support it In fact, they have given publicity to a great number of people who are really way-out people who make no real claim to being real conservationists, but are merely publicity-seekers. When it comes to the conservation of the fishing resources, however, another attitude is taken up and everybody who comes along and wants to shove his name in the paper has merely got to start shouting about this and he is blown up out of all proportions as being a self-appointed expert on this, that and the other thing, whereas in fact his knowledge is severely limited indeed.

Ask me, I know!

I find this to be a very extraordinary situation indeed. With those few words I should like to say that we support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall only be a few moments, but I must respond to the argument of the hon. member for Maitland, who has blown up the argument put by this side of the House completely out of all proportion. In fact, he has distorted what was said. The hon. member for Maitland tried to create the impression that we are an irresponsible lot of people who go around catching fish, that we do not care about the shooting of hundreds of animals and that we have no idea about conservation. I want to dispel that argument right here and now. We in these benches are completely in favour of conservation, whether it be the conservation of animals or fish. Therefore in no way can the hon. member make such an allegation. When it comes to the question of the clubbing of seals, I do not think there is one member on this side of the House who would support the clubbing and the killing of seals in the way it has been done. Even though I am a fisherman and I love fishing, I do not think I could kill an animal. I certainly do not think I could shoot an animal. I would not have the heart to do so.

What about a fish?

Just a moment. I am coming to that in a moment. We shall fully support the hon. the Minister in all his efforts to bring about conservation, and we agree that if one wants to impose bag limits as far as fishing is concerned, that is well and good. We also fully support the argument of the hon. member for East London North that there is and should be a distinction between commercial fishing and private fishing, because the purpose of the trade has been taken out of the definition itself. The definition of “fisherman” has been extended to include any person who catches on a fulltime or a part-time basis. That brings me to the story of the yellowtail. I live in Johannesburg where there is no sea. I go on holiday once a year and if I happen to spend a few weeks by the sea I may have the opportunity of going deep-sea fishing once, twice or maybe three times if I am lucky. If one tries to catch fish in such places as Maputo, Port Elizabeth, Mossel Bay, Knysna or Cape Town, as I have done, one is very lucky to catch any fish at all.

You may not set foot in Knysna!

The hon. the Prime Minister knows that area very well. He and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs know the Knysna Heads very well. He can testify to the number of times it happens that one tries to manoeuvre a vessel through The Heads. Normally the surf is so high that trying to get through is a perilous venture. Many a time it happens that vessels coming through The Heads cannot get out again owing to the dangerous swell. However, when one does manage to get out to the bank where the yellowtail are supposed to breed, then, if conditions are perfect and the yellowtail are on the run, it is possible to make a good haul. Nevertheless, it happens very often that not a single one is caught. The reason for that is that yellowtail often disappear into the deep where they cannot be reached at all. However, on the few occasions that fishermen really come across a vast shoal of yellowtail, they normally become so excited that there is no way of stopping them once they start catching those fish. There is no way at all of stopping them. Such an occasion occurs so rarely, so seldom…

But they should release the ones they do not need. They should let them go.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London North says one should release the extra ones that are caught [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to put a hypothetical question to the hon. member for Hillbrow. Say for instance he went hunting instead of fishing. Would he, on the rare occasions he came across a herd of springbok, keep shooting as long as they are in view?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maitland should realize that the shooting of animals is an entirely different concept from the catching of fish. [Interjections.] It is a completely different concept. One cannot compare the shooting of buck with the catching of fish. I am sorry, but the two can simply not be compared. They are two completely different things.

Why?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to put this in the correct perspective. I believe we should not allow ourselves to become confused with all these things. The question with which we are dealing now is what is to be done with all those fish once they have been caught. Many people sell them. One thing I must make abundantly clear, is that I have never sold fish myself. However, I have seen people selling fish they have caught. They often sell them for upwards of R1 each. This happens on rare occasions, however, and we should not blow it up out of all proportion. I want to make it clear that we support the hon. the Minister wholeheartedly when it comes to conservation. If he wants to impose bag limits on certain species of fish he must do that. However, I want to let the matter rest there.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will not hold it against me if I do not reply in detail to all the matters raised by them during the course of the debate. However, a few matters or principle have emerged from the speeches of hon. members and I should like to refer to those.

To start on a personal note I want to say that I do not think the article about the actions of the hon. member for Simonstown gives a true reflection of what the debate was in fact all about. Similarly, it is not a true reflection of the role played by the hon. member for Simonstown over the years with reference to the fishing industry. I do not think this article does the hon. member for Simonstown justice and matters should be placed in their right perspective.

The question of conservation and utilization is a very sensitive field to enter upon because of its very fundamental nature. As far as I am concerned there are more scientists than scientists in the fishing industry. Allow me to try to explain that Sir. Every person involved in the fishing industry, whether as an angler, a sportsman or commercial entrepreneur, knows more about the industry than those who have made a study of it. From the very nature of things it remains an emotional field to enter upon, a field that can easily lend itself to emotional outbursts on the part of experts and laymen alike. I may add that nobody has more experience of that than I myself. Therefore, it is the responsibility of my Division of Sea Fisheries to ascertain whether or not it is possible to reconcile the conflicting interests involved in this industry.

To make any decision in this specific connection it is not possible to apply exact yardsticks in view of the fact that one is not dealing with an exact science. So I accept that when a certain number of people agree with a certain decision, an equal number will disagree with it. I realize that, but I also believe that we as members of this House and as people who appreciate the singularly complex nature of the fishing industry, should not allow ourselves, individually or collectively, to be drawn into the matter. I do not think I am boasting when I say—hon. members all know this—that the doors of my department are open to anyone who wishes to make representations in this respect or wishes to state a point of view. In this connection I wish to record my appreciation of the work done by a few scientists in the employ of the Division of Sea Fisheries. These people are doing extensive research, they are experts of the highest international calibre and contribute enormously to our knowledge of marine resources not only in our own waters but in international waters as well.

In the second place, I want to say a few words in defence of those people who have to apply the law, namely our inspectorate. These people have to do their work under the most difficult circumstances. I fully sympathize with these people and I want to emphasize today that I am sick and tired of all the scandalmongering and accusations to which they are subjected, tales and accusations that are however never proved. When these matters are discussed—not only in this House but also outside—it should be remembered that it is never possible to prove anything that is negative. We place our officials in an extremely difficult position as far as this is concerned. I have never yet hesitated to take steps against any official of my department if it could be proved that such an official had exceeded his authority. I want to make an appeal today not to condemn everyone connected with the industry as being a scoundrel just because one of his associates has overstepped the mark, because that is not right. I am making this appeal in all seriousness. Unless we put this matter right people will no longer be willing to undertake this work. Nobody wants to be accused of malpractice day in and day out when he is innocent Neither are these people given an opportunity of proving their innocence. However, that does not imply that one should not condemn any malpractices but I want people to be sure of their facts before they make accusations and I want to appeal to everyone concerned to heed this appeal of mine.

Hon. members have also referred to the research aspect and in this regard I just want to say that we are giving particular attention to two elements of research. The Division of Sea Fisheries that is responsible for research has divided its research work into two categories. In the first instance there is the conservation of the resources. The basic research that is being carried out in this connection is aimed at collecting information on fish and their feeding grounds, as well as the physical and chemical parameters that influence the presence of fish and their feeding grounds. It is no good carrying out research in respect of the fish alone; this must be done in respect of their feeding grounds as well.

The second type of research that we undertake, is developmental research. In contrast to the first type of research which is basic research this research encompasses applied research with a view to finding methods of determining the extent of the resources and applying reasonable yardsticks to control the exploitation of our fish resources and to making information available that will enable us to determine what those yardsticks should be, as well as the extent to which they should be applied. I want to draw attention to the fact that there are various institutions—the hon. member for South Coast and other hon. members have also referred to this—that do research in this specific connection. They are the Division of Sea Fisheries that falls under me, the universities, the CSIR and the various oceanographic institutions. Some of the provinces also carry out research in this connection. However, this research is not carried out in isolation. It is properly coordinated. I think hon. members will be interested to know that there is a committee under the chairmanship of the president of the CSIR that is responsible for co-ordinating the activities of the various persons and bodies, concerned with research. Let me say immediately that the Division of Sea Fisheries of the Department of Economic Affairs is represented on that committee.

However, it is not possible for South Africa to carry out research in this connection on her own. That is why South Africa plays a very important role on the international bodies that are concerned with fishing research. That gives us access to the results obtained in other countries from their research and they in turn have access to our results. Hon. members must not underestimate the importance of South Africa’s participation in these international bodies. It opens doors to us to countries that would otherwise have been closed because of political considerations. I wonder whether hon. members realize fully the significance of the work done by scientists of this department as well, and whether we can in fact evaluate the advantages, other than those of a commercial or material nature, that accrue to South Africa through this work. In this connection I also want to pay tribute to them because they do this work under difficult circumstances.

Hon. members, more particularly the hon. member for South Coast, have referred to the position in Natal. Let me say at once that hon. members must understand that in terms of the Sea Fisheries Act there is in fact divided control over the resources in Natal in the sense that the control over fishing done from the beach, in other words, as far as the low-water mark, is the responsibility of the Natal Provincial Administration which in turn delegates certain responsibilities to the Natal Parks Board. My department is responsible for fishing between the low-water mark and the 200 mile limit, the area that constitutes the fishing zones. I tried my best not to become involved in the wrangle that arose as to who should have control over the resources in Natal itself, although I did give attention to the matter. In this specific connection I just want to say clearly that as a result of representations made to me the whole matter was investigated and a report was brought out. Without deciding on the issue, I just want to tell hon. members what the most important findings were.

In the first instance, I want to refer to the aspect of control. As I have said, there is a large measure of divided control. The Division of Sea Fisheries of the Department of Economic Affairs controls fishing from boats at sea The Marine Division of the Department of Transport controls the seaworthiness and registration of the boats and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure controls the beaches but has in most cases delegated that control to the local authorities. In the Development Trust areas access to the beaches is controlled by the respective governments of the Black states. In practice, therefore, local authorities can exercise considerable control over aspects such as the access of vehicles and boats to the beaches as well as fishing off the beaches.

As far as the Provincial Administration of Natal is concerned, the Natal Parks Board exercises control over fishing between the high-water and low-water marks. The Natal Provincial Council lays down the regulations governing certain types of fishing, for example, the collection of shell fish and oysters, the limitation on nets and the catching of certain types of fish. The Natal Fishing Licensing Board consists of 15 members and is the controlling authority that issues licences for commercial fishing and fishing off the beaches, while the Provincial Administration is the controlling authority that issues non-commercial licences. This will give hon. members an idea of the complex nature of the control bodies alone.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Order! Before allowing a discussion on clause 1, I wish to inform hon. members that this clause contains only one amendment. Where reference is made in the existing Act to “sufficient”, the clause refers to “conclusive”. I therefore ask hon. members to confine themselves to this proposed amendment.

Mr. Chairman, your ruling is quite clear. The English text of the original legislation has been allowed, almost by accident, to pass in past years. It did, by definition, allow of a very limited access to the courts. The matter would have rested there and probably never have been taken any further, but for the adverse decision which was delivered by a judge of the Supreme Court in the case of the State v. Moroney. In that instance the court decided to accept the less stringent interpretation of the two words used in the English and the Afrikaans text of the Act and set aside a conviction of a lower court. This did not suit the thinking of the hon. the Minister. After all, if this section was not going to be amended to substitute the word “conclusive” for the word “sufficient”, I am sure the hon. the Minister could have thought who next was going to go to the Supreme Court of South Africa and seek relief from the judiciary. I am sure the hon. the Minister would say that one obviously cannot have people running to judges whenever a decision which they consider to be unreasonable is taken. I realize that this is what the hon. the Minister is trying to stop. He has therefore decided to change the more liberal word “sufficient” and to substitute the more stringent word “conclusive”. I want to accept that this is logical in terms of the Government’s approach to censorship. It is logical to the Government’s philosophy of closing the doors of judicial reason to aggrieved persons in these matters. On the other hand, I would ask the hon. the Minister to accept that it is also absolutely logical for the official Opposition to disagree with this more stringent interpretation of the clause which now stands to be placed on the Statute Book. We believe that wherever it is possible for the courts to have any function in matter of this sort, that the courts should not be interfered with. I therefore serve notice that we, on these benches, are going to oppose the passing of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am very conscious of your ruling and I will confine my remarks to the meaning of the words “sufficient” and “conclusive”. When the original legislation was passed, the then official Opposition quite correctly opposed section 8 and asked for a complete omission thereof. The basis of their objection related to the word “sufficient”. At that time it was found that mere publication in the Gazette was “sufficient” proof of the undesirability of a publication and that that in itself was going too far.

For that reason I should like to quote briefly what was said during the Committee Stage when the principal Act was discussed. Mr. W. T. Webber, the then member for Pietermaritzburg South, discussed the point 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 this Act be sufficient proof of the undesirability of that publication or object. He then asked (Hansard, Vol. 50, col. 2350)—

What the hon. member for Sandton indicated was that even at the stage when the word “sufficient” was introduced, access was limited. I am quoting this to indicate that when the debate took place, the argument was not based on the Afrikaans word “afdoende”.

*I am the first to admit that the correct translation of “afdoende” is “conclusive”, rather than “sufficient”.

†The point I want to make is that even at that time the Opposition, mindful of the fact that the word “sufficient” was more flexible than the word “afdoende”, levelled its attack against the word “sufficient”. Today we are faced with some sort of Hobson’s choice: Either we retain the word “sufficient” or we settle for the word “conclusive”.

I want to say immediately that the NRP will oppose the amendment proposed in the Bill. As far as we are concerned, the word “sufficient”, with the very limited degree of flexibility it introduces and the very limited discretion it allows the court, is preferable to the word “conclusive”. Although we prefer that word, I should like to point out how unsatisfactory we find the word “sufficient”. I once again quote from Mr. Webber’s speech—

I must apologize to the hon. the Minister that I was absent when the Second Reading took place…

It was lucky.

Some hon. member says “it was lucky”, but once he hears what I am going to say now, he will realize how unfortunate it is that I was not here on that occasion.

I just want to point out that we had an incident in this Chamber the other day when an hon. Minister quoted from an undesirable publication.

Terrible! Who was that?

It was the hon. the Minister of Justice. The publication from which he quoted was compiled by some or other brotherhood or priesthood—I do not know what exactly it was. [Interjections.] The fact remains that he quoted from an undesirable document. All hon. members will agree with me that the undesirability… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. members must please pay attention to the discussion.

Thank you, Sir. The fact that that was considered to be an undesirable document was, I am quite sure, published in the Gazette. We should not like to see the hon. the Minister, when he quotes here from such a document, left entirely without any defence. If we accept the amendment contained in this clause—to the effect that once a notice has been published in the Gazette, that will be considered conclusive proof of the undesirability of a given publication—the hon. the Minister, whom I know to be a fair-minded person, would have to place his colleagues in the position that he would not even have the benefit of being able to argue a case, limited as it may be, on the point of what can be construed as sufficient proof.

As I have indicated, once a notice has appeared in the Gazette, that will, in terms of this clause, be considered conclusive proof of the undesirability of the publication concerned and hence of the guilt of the hon. the Minister for having quoted from that publication. I know that perhaps that is not a very good example to use, since the hon. the Minister enjoys parliamentary privilege. However, I can clearly call the incident to mind, and it is quite clear to me that the same hon. Minister could quite easily have done what he did here from a public platform.

Yes, quite easily.

The hon. member for Pinelands says he could quite easily do that. Perhaps the hon. member for Pinelands has more experience of that hon. Minister.

That is right.

However, I am not here to defend either the hon. the Minister of Pinelands or the hon. the Minister.

Order! There is no hon. Minister of Pinelands.

I beg your pardon, Sir. I meant to say “the hon. member for Pinelands”. I must not let my imagination run away with me. The Minister at the time acting was the hon. the Minister of Police. I do not think it would have been fair to leave a person in his situation without any defence. Let me say, Sir, that the original section 8 was unacceptable at the time and remains unacceptable to us even if the word “sufficient” were to be retained. It cannot be expected of us to accept it now that the word “conclusive” is substituted.

I want to come to another aspect. Quite rightly, the hon. member for Sandton has indicated what the history is that lies behind this. The hon. the Minister discovered that the English version had introduced a measure of flexibility in the courts. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, with great respect for your ruling, I maintain that both hon. members came very close to being out of order when making their submissions. [Interjections.] Both of them indicated very clearly by implication and by insinuation that their objection was not really to the proposed amendment but to the principle of the Act. That basically is what they are concerned about. That is why the hon. member for Durban Central used such expressions as “even as unacceptable as the original Act was”.

The wording there is better than that proposed in the Bill.

I make the accusation now that they are trying belatedly to incapacitate the Act as it now stands on the Statute Book by refusing to allow the Act to achieve its purpose by way of an amendment to the wording. After all, it is very clear what the legislator originally intended. In fact, the hon. member for Durban Central admitted this when he said he would be the first to admit that the correct translation of the Afrikaans word “afdoende” is “conclusive” in English. It is very clear, in other words, that the legislator intended in the first place to say that publication in the Government Gazette should be “conclusive”. In conflict with this very clear intention of the legislator, they withhold support for this proposed amendment on the basis that there should be more flexibility. In the first place it was obviously never the intention of the legislator that it should be flexible.

I also want to refer to the unfounded argument of the hon. member for Sandton. He spoke of limited access to the courts, and said that this proposed amendment will further limit access to the courts. But that is an unfounded allegation which the hon. member has made. Neither in existing Act nor in this clause is there any mention of limiting access to the courts. Nobody is being prevented from going to court.

What about the discretion?

It has nothing to do with discretion. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about.

I know, because there was a court case.

The fact is that anybody has free access to the courts. All that is at issue here is the onus of proof which rests on the State. This merely covers a work which has been declared undesirable by virtue of the publication of that fact in the Government Gazette. That is sufficient proof of this fact. That is all. The rest of the function of the court is not affected in any way. The right of the accused of access to the court is nowhere affected or limited.

There is nothing left to be touched!

The hon. member for Sandton, as a legal expert or refuted legal expert, should know that all that is affected by this clause is the onus of proof in regard to the illegality of the action. In respect of all the other elements of the offence however, there is absolutely no restriction embodied in this clause.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he would be satisfied with a compromise, namely that we leave the provisions as they are so that the English works can be judged according to the existing English text, while the Afrikaans works will be judged according to the Afrikaans text.

If ever I have heard a ridiculous suggestion I have heard it now, viz. that one legal provision should apply for English speakers and another legal provision should be applicable for Afrikaans speakers! If that is not the height of nonsensicality, I do not know what the word means. I want to stress that the hon. member, as a member of the legal fraternity, has definitely not served the interests of our judicial system by making the unfounded allegation that the access to the courts is being further limited. That is an unfounded allegation to which I want to lodge the strongest objection. Both hon. members referred to the court decisions which led to this Bill, but now they profess to have made a great discovery.

I quoted Warwick Webber though.

The hon. member need not quote anybody else to me. He admitted he was not here.

No, I was here.

The hon. member was not here when we dealt with the Second Reading of the Bill. It is also very clear to me that he did not take the elementary trouble to read the Hansard report of that debate first. He would then have seen that we debated this whole matter fully at the Second Reading. Neither would it have been necessary for him then to read old debates. He could have read it in the Hansard of the Second Reading debate on this Bill. We dealt fully with this whole matter at that stage.

I did not read the hon. member’s speech. I only read the hon. the Minister’s.

Then the hon. member read badly because the hon. the Minister also dealt with it The fact of the matter is that we had an intolerable situation, which the hon. member for Durban Central has acknowledged, in that the Afrikaans text and the English text differed on a very material point.

Why do you not change the other text?

Now the hon. member for Sandton asks: “Why do you not change the other text?” I keep trying to tell him why we cannot change it. We cannot change it because it is in conflict with the whole purpose and object of the Act. If proof of publication in the Government Gazette is not conclusive, we might just as well repeal the section. That is why I say that the hon. member is on the verge of being out of order because he is trying to incapacitate the principal Act That is the basic reason for their opposition to this clause. That is why I allege that the hon. members are not being honest in their opposition to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member permitted to say that the Opposition is not honourable in its opposition?

No, I did not say that.

The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. members of the Opposition are not being honest when they tell us that they object to the wording of the amendment. They are trying to use this clause to bypass the principle of the Act.

Never!

I lodge the strongest objection to that.

Mr. Chairman, of course I agree completely with the hon. member for Mossel Bay, not because he is on my side but because logic is on the side of both of us. It is not a case of access to the courts or non-access to the courts. What is in fact the position? The position is that somebody is prosecuted criminally because he has published an undesirable publication. In other words, there is access to the courts and the process continues in the court. Here it is merely a question whether publication in the Government Gazette is prima facie evidence and whether it is adequate, final, conclusive proof. That is all that is at issue. Hon. members must be reasonable, therefore. We should not drag the courts in here into something which is a highly emotional matter. This has to do with a question of proof in court.

The hon. member for Durban Central is also not fair in his statement that this merely constitutes a notice. The proposed section 8(4)(b) states expressly—

In other words, emphasis is not on the publication in the Government Gazette; emphasis is on the publication of the decision. There must be a decision by a committee. I can only repeat what I said during the Second Reading debate, namely, that the object of the legislator was very clear here. In the Afrikaans text which was signed by the State President the word “afdoende” is used. The intention of the legislation has always been that such publication of a decision of a committee should be conclusive proof. I said that this particular provision was specifically inserted in the Act so that, inter alia, rapid and efficient action could be taken in cases where material dangerous to the State or hard pornography was being published. That is why I am afraid that I cannot make any concessions in this regard and I must ask the Committee to accept the amendment as I have moved it.

Mr. Chairman, it is obviously regrettable that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to meet us halfway with regard to this clause. I want to mention one or two aspects as I did not have time to do so on a previous occasion.

†In the first place, I should like to come back to what the hon. member for Mossel Bay and the hon. the Minister had to say in regard to the argument that I put previously. My argument is not based on the fact that there is not free access to the courts. The hon. member for Mossel Bay continued to say: “Dit is nie ’n saak van vrye toegang tot die howe nie.” That is not what I based my argument on. I pleaded for a retention of a limited discretion being left in the hands of the courts. I accept that there is free access to the court, but my question is, under what conditions? I am therefore not trying to level an accusation against the Bill, and I am not suggesting that the clause is in any way preventing access to the court. What I am concerned about are the conditions under which one has access to the courts, whether a limited discretion should be placed in the hands of the courts or not.

In reply to the hon. member for Mossel Bay I should further like to say that nowhere can or should it be read that our opposition to this amendment is based upon the fact that we should like to attack the very principle of the Bill. We are not attacking that. We cannot attack the principle of the Bill, not in terms of this clause. It would have been lovely to be able to attack it, but then Parliament will have to remain in session throughout the recess. I am confining my own argument to the two words “sufficient” as opposed to “conclusive”.

I should like to say that the hon. member for Sandton quite correctly quoted the court case which brought this about. The penny should have dropped for the hon. the Minister at the time, and he should have realized that it was not the English translation or version that was out of step, because how do we distinguish between what is the translation and what is not? The Bill before the House should in fact be changing the Afrikaans word in this respect. If we should have done that…

Then we might as well scrap the whole provision.

No. Why? The hon. member for Mossel Bay now argues that we might then as well scrap the whole provision. Does the hon. member realize what he is saying? He says that if we are going to allow a limited discretion in the hands of the courts, we might as well scrap the whole Bill.

On this particular point.

Yes, on this particular and very serious point. This particular point can lead to penalties, but the hon. member for Mossel Bay says that, if we should change the Afrikaans version in order to bring it into line with “sufficient”, in the English text, we might as well scrap the whole clause. That is what the hon. member is saying.

Order! As far as I am concerned that is not at all relevant, because the question of which text was to be charged was settled at the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, what I am pleading for is this. I must add that I am completely and entirely in your hands, Mr. Chairman. However, when we think in terms of a Committee Stage, then we are thinking of exactly how this particular clause will be put into practice in a factual situation. I hope I am correct. I submit that should we stick to the English version as it stands in the existing legislation, the application of the measure leaves a limited discretion in the hands of the courts. My contention is this. If we were to leave a limited discretion in the hands of the courts, then, by no stretch of imagination, would it be possible to claim that by doing so we are attacking the principle of the whole system of control over publications in South Africa. That seems to be the submission of the hon. member for Mossel Bay.

We have so often been requested, particularly by the hon. the Minister, to be reasonable.

*We should be fair. If we do in fact want to be fair, surely we should leave the discretion in the hands of the courts. That is the whole basis of the matter. I really do not believe that by doing that we shall be opening the flood-gates for crude pornography and things of that nature. In any event that is not relevant and it is also out of order.

†For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I have tried to indicate quite clearly our opposition to this clause. I want to stress that it must never be said that we opposed it because we interpreted it as a measure which would bar access to a court of law.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Central has once again confirmed that he did not take the elementary trouble of following the Second Reading debate on this Bill. He does not have the faintest idea of what it is all about.

Then tell me.

The hon. member is now pleading for “a limited discretion of the courts”. In one court case after another, however, the learned judges have said that they do not want a discretion in this matter. The learned judges have asked not to be placed in this invidious position of having to make a ruling about the desirability or not of a publication on the basis of non-legal considerations. They have described this as an administrative function.

That was in the 1974 debate.

Correct. That is quite correct. However, that is precisely what is at issue now.

But only some judges said so.

Mr. Chairman, surely that is precisely what we are concerned with here. We are concerned with the limited discretion. At that time, in the 1974 legislation, the limited discretion was removed from the courts, at the request of the judges themselves. Now, however, the hon. member for Durban Central is pleading for a limited discretion again. Then the hon. member cannot understand when I tell him that if we introduced a limited discretion here again, we would be undermining the whole essence of this provision in the legislation. If we did that, we might as well remove this provision from the legislation. Now the hon. member for Durban Central alleges that I made a general statement to the effect that the discretion of the courts should be curtailed. Surely that is devoid of all truth. I never said such a thing. I was referring specifically to this particular section in the Act. That section was inserted into the Act precisely in order to remove the limited discretion of the courts, at their own request. That is why it would frustrate the whole purpose of that legislation if we were to give them a limited discretion again through choice or play of words.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the hon. member for Mossel Bay whether he admits that the retention, in the English text, of the word “sufficient” leaves a limited discretion in the hands of the courts.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation which is now before the House arises from the ruling in the case of the State v. Moroney. There, the appeal court adopted the attitude that the effect of the fact that the terminology…

Order! I can no longer allow the speech in its present form. The hon. member must confine himself to the clause. He is making a Second Reading speech again.

That is correct. I am now responding firstly to the question of the hon. member for Durban Central, regarding the terms “sufficient” and “conclusive”. I want to reply to that. The court found that the fact that there is a difference between the English and Afrikaans texts of the Act at the moment means that the common factor of the two terms has to be found. According to the appeal court, the common factor is the fact that proof of publication in the Gazette constitutes only prima facie evidence. Of course this leaves the court a discretion. However, I have been arguing all along that that is quite wrong, and that judges have said in case after case that they do not want to have that discretion. Now that responsibility is being imposed upon them again. Therefore I say for the umpteenth time—because it seems to me that one has to repeat something a thousand times, and even then it is not understood—that we must accept this clause as it is or accept the proposal of the hon. member for Durban Central that the English text should be taken as the norm. If that were to happen, however, the whole clause might just as well be deleted. It would be in conflict with the spirit and principle of the existing Act, and for that reason it is totally unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I merely want to express my thanks to the hon. member for Mossel Bay for his having finally agreed that the existing wording “sufficient” would in fact leave a limited discretion in the hands of the courts and for admitting that he finds that objectionable. I think he has put forward the best arguments why hon. members should vote against this particular clause. I can never find the leaving of the discretion in the hands of the courts something objectionable. I am therefore expressing my gratitude to the hon. member for having made that point very clear why he would prefer the word “conclusive” instead of “sufficient” and why “conclusive” would leave no discretion to the courts. I prefer to be on the side of the discretion of the court and so does the NRP.

Mr. Chairman, to conclude the discussions I only want to say for the sake of etiquette that the hon. member for Mossel Bay has convinced me even more of the correctness of the legislation and that the hon. member for Durban Central has not convinced me at all.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, this is the clause which worries us the most. During the Second Reading debate I asked the hon. the Minister the following question: “If a private person brings a video tape which was taken from a television programme abroad, back to South Africa, does that mean that he must submit it to a committee for approval before showing it?” The hon. the Minister replied as follows: “Die antwoord is natuurlik ‘ja’.” That was the first time that the exact meaning of what the amendment intended was explained to the House. I believe that with that answer the hon. the Minister has let the cat out of the bag, because this amendment in effect provides—although it is couched in broad language, which bears little resemblence to the original section—for the all-enveloping censorship of photographic and pictorial representation material, whether it be of a public or of a private nature. If the hon. the Minister and his advisors are to be believed, it covers private video cassettes. The public should know what the consequences of this amendment will be and therefore we should ask ourselves what this amendment means. Is this amendment for instance geared to hitting the commercial sale of material which the State does not wish to have disseminated within the country? The answer is obviously “Yes”. But the extent of the scope of this amendment also covers that which we believe should remain within the private domain. It covers the sort of programmes that some of us, and many other people in South Africa, have seen in private, such as “Roots”, taken on a video cassette in an overseas country, or, perhaps of a more political nature, the revelations of Dr. Rhoodie from BBC/TV.

In the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Mossel Bay, who, it is alleged, is also a legally trained person…

We have no proof for that!

Mr. Chairman, I have no proof of this. The hon. member, however, made the accusation that the Opposition of the official Opposition and the NRP to this clause was that the Opposition parties wanted a flood of hard and soft pornography to enter into South Africa.

What absolute rubbish!

Quite frankly, if the hon. member had listened to the arguments of the Opposition over the years since 1974, and prior to that, he would have known…

Since 1963.

The hon. member for Durban Central points out that these arguments have been voiced for even a longer period. If the hon. member had listened to the arguments of the Opposition he would have realized that that was a fatuous argument. It is a cynical argument, and not an honest argument. It is the sort of thing one would expect from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and, honestly, not from the hon. member for Mossel Bay. The Opposition has never, and never will, advocate a flood of pornography into South Africa. The Opposition has never argued in favour of a permissive society as alleged by the hon. member for Mossel Bay. The hon. member, as well as the hon. the Minister I think, overlooks the fact that there is already legislation on the Statute Book of South Africa which prevents pornography and undesirable matter from coming into the country.

In this regard I refer to the Indecent or Obscene Photographic Matter Act of 1967. In that Act the possession and the exhibition in South Africa of all pictorial representations of pornography, or anything which might be considered lustful, is prohibited and is made a criminal offence. If somebody goes overseas on a trip to, say, Switzerland and shoots a little film of skiers coming down the mountain and then brings this film back into South Africa then, in terms of this definition, that home movie film of his private holiday trip must be submitted to a committee before it can be shown to any person. If one reads the definition it is all-embracing. I realize that the hon. the Minister and his advisers certainly do not intend those sort of films to be covered.

I will answer you in full.

The hon. the Minister looks very serious when he says: “I will answer you in full.” I have no doubt that he will answer me in full; I am really worried that he will answer me in full because he may reveal even further stringencies of the law which the hon. member for Durban Central and I have not yet discovered.

As a matter of fact, I shall set your mind at rest.

I do not believe that the amendment is geared to stop pornography. I honestly do not think so. This amendment is geared to further blindfold the people of South Africa, to blindfold them politically, to stop them seeing the sort of show seen on television programmes throughout the world: The White tribe of Africa, Roots and the Rhoodie interviews. All of these may not be embarrassing to at least some members of the Government. They do not only want to stop these programmes being shown in public; they even want to stop them being shown in private within one’s own family circle. If ever there was an invasion of the private rights of individuals, this is an extension of the already existing invasion which is contained in the censorship legislation of South Africa.

I believe that this sort of all-embracing clause could well create criminals out of people who are not criminals at all. I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister, but I want to tell him that it will not be sufficient for him merely to reply that this is an administrative measure and his department will deal with it I want to know how this legislation is going to be implemented. How is it going to be administered? The hon. the Minister has, by means of this amendment brought so much within the ambit of publications control, that it is, in my submission, almost impossible to administer. What does the hon. the Minister contemplate? Is every official at every customs point going to look into the bags of every private person to see that they do not contain a video cassette of Coronation Street or The Sweeney? Is that going to be the practice? [Interjections.] I want to know, in relation to the powers of inspection, whether inspectors are going to go around on the home-movie nights of Friday and Sunday to see whether the ski-holiday cassette being shown has the stamp of approval of the Board of Censors.

They are going to climb into trees to look through windows.

I believe that the implementation of this legislation is going to become horrendous. The legislation will create a further bureaucracy and we shall once more go deeper and deeper into the private lives of individuals. When an Act is difficult to administer, when an Act creates a morass of bureaucracy, it must be bad legislation. I believe that good legislation should not be difficult to administer; it should be legislation which is accepted by all the people who are subjected to it. This censorship legislation and its extension is not acceptable to all the people of South Africa and, accordingly, we shall continue in our opposition to it.

Mr. Chairman, in order to prevent the hon. member for Sandton—he will not blame me for saying this tongue in cheek—from confusing the public in a mischievous way, I am going to read to him exactly what the intention and effect of the amendment is—

My reply to this was “yes”. The rest of what I said then is not relevant now. I continue with the statement—

Allow me to interrupt my statement here by saying that our only intention with this amendment is to ensure that effect is given to the original intention that a video cassette be covered by the provision with regard to films. In other words, it may not be exhibited in public or published. Therefore it has nothing to do with the case where a person looks at it privately, i.e. not in public. Hon. members must also take note of the definition of “public” in the Act. It refers to exhibition for a consideration. The position is clear, therefore. I read further—

This is concerned, therefore, with exhibition in public—

I trust that this makes the position clear to the hon. member. It has nothing to do with the relevant section in the Customs and Excise Act in terms of which a pornographic cassette can be seized. That has absolutely nothing to do with the amendment, so it cannot be debated. A video tape which is made overseas and then brought into the country can therefore be shown under the same circumstances as private films. Under the circumstances in which a private film may not be shown, it will not be possible to show a video cassette either.

Mr. Chairman, I must say to the hon. the Minister that it is very clear to us why he wants to introduce a new definition of “film”. Before I proceed to make our opposition to this clause quite clear, I should like to make two general remarks. The first is that the hon. the Minister has harped on what the original intention was.

It is because there was only reference to video plates before.

Yes, that may have been the original intention in 1974, but we know that the man who was originally responsible for this whole Act as such is no longer with us and is not even a member of the NP anymore. Just to show that I am independent and do not favour one or the other, I may also say that I am quite sure that it is not the intention with this amendment to try to control the McHenry tapes. I therefore accept it.

Who has the tape?

I do not know. That would be a 64 million-dollar question to answer. I accept the point the hon. the Minister has made. It makes sense as far as the modernization of this legislation, the administration and dealing with that situation are concerned, but I feel I am morally obliged to say to the hon. the Minister that the NRP cannot divorce itself from this particular definition without seeing it in the particular framework in which it will be operative. We have definite objections to this framework, and to the way the whole system is being applied. For that reason I just want to make it quite clear that, whilst we accept the fact that the hon. the Minister has to do this and that this new clause will perhaps assist him in the administration of that system, we see it as an extension—not as an extension of fair control over publications, because then we would have supported it—but unfortunately as an extension of what we believe to be an unfair system of controlling publications, a system which could perhaps also easily lead to a certain amount of counterproductivity. For that reason we shall oppose this particular clause.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot help commenting on what the hon. member for Sandton said about this clause. The hon. member argued again that “this section provides for all-enveloping censorship”. At the Second Reading, however, he made it quite clear that the existing section is an all-embracing section in any case. He specifically said at that stage that he could not see what the proposed amendment would add to the existing section. Today, however, he says that they are opposed to the extension of the provisions, while he conceded at the Second Reading that he did not know there was an extension; and if so, what the extension was.

There is an extension.

The hon. member for Durban Central says that there is in fact an extension. I should like to ask him what the extension entails.

Did you listen to the hon. the Minister?

I listened to him.

Do you want to argue with the hon. the Minister?

No. The wording is now being changed—and we spelt this out very clearly at the Second Reading as well—in order to include, in view of technological developments, those things which were not included in the previous definition.

I now want to come back to the same argument which I advanced in connection with clause 1. The hon. member for Sandton accepted that the existing section was meant to be all-embracing. Now, according to him, the section is being made all-embracing. Now I want to ask him again, as I did at the Second Reading, what objection one could possibly have to the fact that it is being made all-embracing, if one does not object in the first place to the fact that an all-embracing provision is contained in the Act.

Who does not object to that?

The hon. member for Sandton, and it seems the hon. member for Durban Central as well. These hon. members argued very piously in this House that they are not in favour of a permissive society.

We are not going to fight about it.

Mr. Chairman, that is debatable, but you will not allow me to debate it. I should very much like to do so. However, they have advocated a permissive society before in this House. I should have liked to debate it if the rules of the House had allowed it The point is that it is no use saying that they are not in favour of a permissive society if they argue that they are not in favour of an all-embracing provision in the Bill. After all, one cannot only pay lip service to a principle and then oppose it when the legislation has to be worded in such a way as to create the effective machinery for achieving in practice the very thing which one advocates. It simply does not make sense. Therefore they must not blame me for telling them, when they say that they are not in favour of a permissive society, that I question that allegation and regard it as mere lip service.

The hon. the Minister spelt out very clearly exactly how this proposed amendment will be implemented in practice. I want to tell those hon. members that the officials have always had the necessary wisdom to implement the legislation effectively and without going to extremes. I do not think they should worry now about the problems which the implementation of the legislation are going to create for the officials. Merely to allege that the officials would have problems in implementing it is not an argument for keeping good legislation out of the Statute Book. I think the motivation for this amendment is really quite obvious. It does not require any proof, and I therefore gladly support it.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I may deal directly with the hon. the Minister and refer him to section 19(1) of the principal Act. The relevant portion to which I should like to refer him is a portion which he quoted and which states—

That is section 19(1)(a). There is a question I want to ask the hon. the Minister, and his answer may be helpful to the understanding of the amendment. Let us take a famous television programme such as “Roots”. Would the hon. the Minister agree—and I am sure he would—that that was a television film that was made and intended to be exhibited to the public? [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister says “yes”. Well, what we are talking about is a cassette of the film which is a copy of that same film. The point that I have tried to make, and I should like the hon. the Minister’s guidance on this, is that if one takes a copy of that film onto a cassette, one is, in effect, making a copy of what was made with the intention of showing it to the public. Having accepted that, one reaches a situation that if one has made a cassette of a television programme—no matter what it is—one has, in fact, made a copy of a programme which was intended to be exhibited to the public. Then, by bringing it back into South Africa—and it may well be an innocuous film—and showing it, not to the public, but to any person, one is contravening the law unless that particular cassette has been submitted and approved of by a committee. I trust that the hon. the Minister has wholly followed the train of thought that I have tried to express.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would react to that, because if the answer to that is—as I think it is—that it would have to be shown to a committee, then I think the objection to this clause is exceedingly well founded. If the answer is that such a video cassette would not have to be shown to the public, then our objection would not be so strong, although we shall remain opposed to the clause.

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that the hon. member for Sandton should harass me again with the same thing after I took the trouble to make this statement. The key to the whole matter is defined as follows in the Publications Act—

The key is therefore “exhibition in public”, and “public” is defined in this Act If this is not complied with, the film or video cassette does not fall under the provisions of section 19(1) which the hon. member quoted. However, this does not exclude the possibility that action can be taken against a film or video cassette in accordance with the provisions of the Customs and Excise Act. However, that is not at issue at the moment and we need not therefore debate it.

Mr. Chairman, before we vote on the clause, I just want to say that the hon. member for Mossel Bay has in fact compelled me to discuss this matter a second time. I want to refer briefly to three aspects of importance. The hon. member for Mossel Bay made special reference to an all-embracing definition in clause 2 of the Bill. He used the terms “effective machinery” and “permissive society”. The NRP is in favour of an all-embracing definition if we can be convinced that by means of a specific law we can obtain effective machinery with which to counteract a permissive society effectively. Because we believe that the machinery is not effective, it would not in my opinion be meaningful to assist the hon. the Minister merely because he believes that his all-embracing definition and his machinery is adequate, whereas in fact it is not.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the contribution by the hon. member for Durban Central. It is true that it took time, but I can add nothing to what I have already said.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend making a long speech, but there is a point which I raised with the hon. Minister a few moments ago and he has not replied to it. When I referred to clause 2 of the Bill for the first time, I asked the hon. the Minister how he intended implementing the provision in regard to the video-cassettes, which were now definitely being brought within the scope of the legislation. If the hon. the Minister can spare the time, I should like him to tell us a little more than merely saying that it is an administrative matter. I should like to hear his ideas of how he is actually going to see to it that this measure is enforced, because I think it is relatively unenforceable.

Mr. Chairman, the reply is very clear. I have repeatedly said that all we are doing here is ensuring that a video cassette is a film. This situation has applied up to now with regard to film control and now video cassettes will be dealt with in the same way as films.

Private people bring them into the country in their suitcases, and every family is therefore now affected.

The Department of Customs and Excise can seize anything undesirable. It can be seized just as an undesirable book can be seized. Indeed, this is being done at present. However the hon. member for Sandton is now referring to the Customs and Excise Act. In any event this is not at issue now. This kind of seizure takes place in terms of the Customs and Excise Act.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—95: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heyns, J. H.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visagie, J. H.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, A. van Breda, H. D. K. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Noes—21: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.

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

Clause agreed to.

During division:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: It is a custom in this House that hon. members of this House, when present in the Chamber, be suitably dressed. My submission is that the hon. member for Yeoville is not suitably dressed for this occasion.

Order! That is not a point of order.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, now that the Third Reading is being dealt with, I just want to tell hon. members of this House what a pity it is that our amendment that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee, has not been accepted. The sound custom that defence matters and related problems be referred to a Select Committee, has simply been ignored by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence. I believe that this is to the detriment of the good understanding between the various parties in this House. If defence matters were unimportant in South Africa, I could understand such behaviour. However, the truth is that the aspect of defence in South Africa is going to become more and more important as the onslaught against South Africa increases in intensity. I believe that that intensity will increase in the short term, irrespective of how and when our internal political problems are solved. South Africa will have to remain militarily strong, and this can only happen if the agreement between the political parties is of such a nature that it can contribute to the strengthening of South Africa. For that reason I think it is a great pity that the hon. the Deputy Minister decided to depart from the usual practice. Now that I have referred to the importance of the onslaught on South Africa, I want to go on to refer to the speech made a few days ago in this House by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In this regard I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to enlighten us on the matter which I now want to broach. I shall not merely single out a few points from the speech, because I do not want it to be alleged that I have quoted the speech out of context. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated (Hansard, 3 April, col. 3919)—

I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether there is any implication in this speech by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that military action is being envisaged to achieve the aims to which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs referred. I should like to hear that the answer is “no”, but if it is “yes”, then this confirms yet again that it is essential that all parties in this House be consulted before legislation on defence is piloted through this House.

We proposed a number of amendments by means of which we tried to improve this legislation. The amendment on clause 1 was aimed at protecting the employee to a certain extent. However, that amendment was negatived. We also proposed an amendment to clause 2 which was aimed at affording a serviceman a certain degree of protection. With regard to clause 3, we also proposed certain amendments. I should like to dwell on this. It has never been this party’s standpoint that insurance for servicemen is unnecessary. On the contrary, we welcome the fact that insurance is being made available for all servicemen, but what we do object to, is that that insurance has to be paid for by the serviceman himself. He has to pay the premium himself.

At this stage neither we nor South Africa yet know how the insurance is going to work, what percentage will be deducted and how much it will cost the serviceman. For that reason the hon. the Deputy Minister still owes this House and South Africa an answer. It is our standpoint that no deduction should be made if insurance is made compulsory. It is true that the principle has been approved and that insurance will be compulsory, but I believe that the serviceman should not pay for it himself.

In a country like South Africa, in view of the intensity of the onslaught, and bearing in mind that we shall have to call up a considerable number of our young men for a very long time for the defence of South Africa, surely the State could go so far as to show its willingness to pay the amount required for the insurance that our young men deserve.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg told this House that he regarded it as a pity that this Bill had not been referred to a Select Committee. We on this side of the House feel, on the other hand, that the Bill has already been examined from all sides during the previous two stages. The hon. member also used this Bill to repeat the PFP’s previous request for an understanding on Defence matters among the political parties. Before there can be any question of the Opposition having a say in Defence matters, certain parts of the South African Opposition will in any case first have to prove that they are to be trusted on less sensitive aspects of our public administration than the defence of our country. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether, as far as Defence matters are concerned, there has ever been any question of a breach of trust?

What about South West?

For the greater part of last week we heard it being proved in chapter and verse that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not to be trusted with our foreign relations. How much less reason do we then have to have any confidence in the trustworthiness of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and of every member of his party, when it comes to such highly sensitive matters as the defence of our country?

That is a disgraceful remark and you know it.

As I said, we believe that the most important aspects of this Bill were discussed in detail not only during the Second Reading debate, but also during the Committee Stage. I think it is unnecessary to go into the matter again. It is perhaps appropriate, while we are finalizing the discussion of this measure, to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on the way in which he dealt with this Bill. I think everyone in this House was impressed by the accommodating and reasonable way in which he introduced this Bill and piloted it through. In any case we on this side of the House are absolutely convinced that the hon. the Deputy Minister is seeking to promote the best interests of the Defence Force and every one of its members. The way in which he attended to the Opposition’s amendments as well as those from this side of the House, attests to this very clearly. He indicated during the Committee Stage that it was only really in respect of clause 3 that negotiations were being carried on at this stage. Therefore my remarks will be largely concerned with that aspect. In my opinion it became clear throughout the debate that the Government does indeed look after the Defence Force and its members. As far as the proposed group insurance for national servicemen is concerned, I want to say that I welcome the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg and accepted by the hon. the Deputy Minister. However, I do not welcome it primarily because of the monetary aspect of who the premium payer is to be. I have already said that the Government looks after the members of the Defence Force. Over the past few days we have had further proof of this. Since the beginning of April we have increased the serviceman’s remuneration by approximately 125%. Therefore I do not believe that the question of the payment of premiums is related to their ability to pay. I shall come back to that in a few moments.

I think that for the sake of the record it would be as well to point out that from 1 April, the salary per 30 day month received by national servicemen without professional qualifications or dependents has risen from R45,60 to R104, viz. approximately 75% of the corresponding salary of a member of the Permanent Force. This is a significant improvement in view of the fact that the group of national servicemen without dependents or professional qualifications comprised approximately 90% of all national servicemen in this country. In respect of professionally qualified national servicemen the improvements are still more dramatic. In the case of doctors and dentists the increase is R200,10 per month, which brings their remuneration to no less than R848 per month. Those with dependents now receive the same salary as members of the Permanent Force.

Therefore, when we come to clause 3, it is not so much a question of the ability to pay off the member of a group life assurance scheme. That has in any case been considerably improved. However, as the hon. member for Verwoerdburg rightly said, the amendment accepted has in reality brought the scheme into line with an accepted principle in insurance, and it is now possible to speak of an optional or semi-compulsory scheme with regard to this group life insurance scheme. I do not want to repeat what the hon. member for Verwoerdburg has said, but it remains true that if a measure of choice exists, it is right and in order that the normal procedure be followed, and that is that the insurer pays his own premium, but that when it is a service requirement, the employer must play a much greater part in that regard. I am also particularly grateful that the hon. the Deputy Minister said in the debate on this matter during the Committee Stage that if some form of State intervention should be necessary at any stage, such State intervention was not excluded. I think that is an important concession which the hon. the Deputy Minister has made. If one examines this clause and thinks of group insurance as such, one should always bear in mind that group life insurance is a type of insurance of which the premium structure has to be continually revised on the basis of the experience gained with such a scheme. Incidentally, I just want to say that group life insurance schemes in South Africa have played a very major role in the provision of money for widows and orphans, but that contrary to what is perhaps generally thought, from the point of view of the insurance industry it is not a profitable type of insurance scheme. In any case it is not a gold mine. By far the majority of group schemes existing in South Africa, are a dead loss to the insurers. Nevertheless I do think that it is a good thing that the South African insurance industry be involved in this particular scheme. For the industry such a scheme is an attractive commercial commodity, because it opens doors for it. Seen from a broader South African viewpoint, however, the fact that the insurance industry is providing such a scheme, is also important, because this industry in our country is a fully South African industry. I think it is a good thing—and I think the insurance industry also sees it in this light—that this industry also has a part to play in the defence of our country.

I now come to the nature of group insurance. The foundation of the whole premium structure of group insurance is such that regular revision on the basis of claims experience makes that structure subject to adjustment from time to time. When one is dealing with group insurance for the Defence Force of any country, there is always the possibility of the escalation of claims because any country could find itself in a war situation to a greater or lesser extent and because the claims under such a group scheme may be connected with the active involvement of such a country’s Defence Force in conditions of war.

For that reason I say that it is of the greatest importance that the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that the State is prepared to assist with the premium payments of this scheme if necessary and is considering the possibility of contributing its share while the negotiations are in progress. I think this is important, specifically because the danger exists with regard to these group schemes that there may be an escalation of costs. A further reason why I think that this type of scheme is of the greatest importance, concerns the inclusion of section 38A in the Insurance Act by the Financial Institutions Amendment Act, No. 80 of 1978. In terms of that clause it has become possible for the insurance industry to exclude war risk in respect of ordinary life insurance. It is very possible that the industry as a whole, in view of this new legal provision, may in future exclude war risks in respect of all soldiers in our country, whether national servicemen or members of the Permanent Force. The importance of such a group scheme which will also include that risk, is therefore obvious. For that reason I should like to make a very strong plea, while this matter is at the negotiating stage, that a group scheme for the Defence Force members meet two requirements when the negotiations have been concluded. The first is that such a scheme will furnish comprehensive life coverage, particularly since it is improbable that war coverage will be provided in future as a standard benefit in ordinary insurance. For that reason it is of the greatest importance that war coverage be included in such a group scheme for members of the Defence Force. The second requirement is that all members of the S.A. Defence Force, and not only national servicemen, will be able to benefit from it. If one regards the advantages of a group life insurance scheme as being of a twofold nature—the one is the coverage aspect and the second the possibility of conversion, to which I shall come back later—then I want to put it that the coverage aspect for Permanent Force members is probably more important than for national servicemen, because the Permanent Force members are those people in the whole Defence Force structure who are far more likely to have dependents and who have to face the possibility that they could leave behind a wife and children, whereas, as I have already said, 90% to 95% of national servicemen are young men without dependents. For that reason I should like to ask that attention be given to these two requirements in negotiations with the insurance industry.

I mentioned the fact that a group life insurance scheme has two advantages. The one is the coverage advantage at a premium that can easily be afforded, and the second is the practice with regard to group life insurance schemes that when a member of the scheme leaves his employment there is an option for such a member to convert his insurance into individual insurance without fresh proof of insurability.

I want to put it clearly that the only advantage involved in this conversion, is the guarantee of the person’s insurability. This does not give him a cheap premium later, because a group life insurance premium is merely a coverage premium. No savings element is included. However, the guarantee of the individual’s insurability is perhaps a more important advantage for the young unmarried national serviceman than the coverage advantage because to such a young man the risk of injury, the risk of disability and the risk of permanent incapacity is perhaps more important than the death risk. 80% of those in the age group 15 to 24 years who die during any given year in our country, die as a result of accidents. I am not referring to operational incidents on our border, but to ordinary accidents, motor accidents, etc. Similarly, more than 80% of the cases of permanent disability in the age group between 15 years and 24 years, are the direct result of accidents. For that reason I also want to make the plea that in the negotiations to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred, it will also be ensured that this conversion option available on the discharge of the national serviceman, be included in his group life insurance scheme, so that we protect not only these young men who sacrifice their lives for their country, but also those who make their sacrifices in the form of their health and their ability to work.

We on this side of the House are grateful for the improvements contained in this Bill. We ask that in the continued negotiations regarding this group insurance scheme referred to in clause 3 of this Bill, an effort be made to introduce the most comprehensive scheme possible, that it involves all groups and that it includes a conversion option for members of the Defence Force. Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

The House adjourned at 16h02.