Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Mr. Speaker, we lost the deceased hon. member, who was born 49 years ago on 18 February 1930 in the Beaufort West district, at a relatively youthful age. Usually that is the age at which public figures first enter the prime of their lives. Recently the late Mr. Krijnauw had been going through a difficult period as far as his health was concerned. There had been a gradual deterioration which was a cause of concern to all his friends.

Before he came to this House he served for eight years as an MPC in the Transvaal. After the five years in which we became acquainted with him here I believe that we all agree that he was full of promise because there was in him the characteristic of thoroughness. I cannot think of anything which he undertook and which he did not do thoroughly, His speeches always testified to that quality. Whether one agreed with them or not, one was convinced of one thing, namely that he had prepared himself thoroughly. He was a man of very strong convictions, convictions which he then expressed.

I think that a great future would have awaited him if he had lived and had remained in politics, and that he would also have been capable of attaining greater heights. People in his constituency who came into contact with him, assure me that they held him in very high esteem.

It was my privilege, virtually a few hours before he lost consciousness, to have been able to take leave of him. What I found particularly striking was his friendliness, the warmth with which he received me, and that, even under those circumstances, he was the personification of courtesy.

On behalf of hon. members on this side of the House I should like to commiserate sincerely with his wife and children and all his other relatives, and wish them strength and fortitude.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches would like to associate ourselves with the motion of the hon. the Prime Minister, as well as with the tribute he has paid to our deceased colleague. On the Opposition side we regarded Pieter Krijnauw as a very redoubtable opponent. We also came to know him as a content debater in this House. He appeared to us to be a member with a very acute instinct for South African politics and he always had a thorough knowledge of the subjects which he discussed in this House.

He left his imprint, not only during the five years of his period of service in this House, but also as a member of the Provincial Council of the Transvaal, as a member of the Pretoria city council, and also as a member of the Pretoria Bar.

We want to pay tribute to this man for the years of public service which he rendered to his people and his country before he died at a relatively young age. We in these benches would also like to convey our sincere condolences to the relatives of Pieter Krijnauw in their bereavement.

I have the honour to second the motion moved by the hon. the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this party I should like to associate myself with the words of the hon. the Prime Minister and of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We knew the deceased hon. member for a relatively short time and shared a relatively short political life with him.

I came to know him in a Select Committee, where, I think, members of Parliament come to know one another best and where, in the peaceful atmosphere that prevails there, views can be exchanged and one can test and appreciate the strength of a colleague. I was always impressed by the fact that the late Mr. Krijnauw was a member of Parliament who knew his case, who had a contribution to make, and made it. He was a popular member among those of us who knew him. Consequently I should also like to convey the sympathy of my party to his relatives in their bereavement, particularly in view of the long period of suffering he had to endure during the last year or so. I therefore want to associate myself and my party with the motion moved by the hon. the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to associate myself and my party with the words of tribute to our deceased colleague which were expressed by the hon. the Prime Minister. We would also like to convey our sympathy to the next-of-kin of the deceased member.

Question agreed to unanimously, all the members standing.

Mr. Speaker, as I said the other day when beginning my reply to the Second Reading debate, there was very little discussion of the budget itself this year particularly by the Opposition. I think this is a pity because whatever one’s view may be of the details and the overall effect of the budget, it is indisputable that this is an important budget affecting the weal and woe of every inhabitant of South Africa. I feel therefore that it is deplorable and disappointing that hon. members of the Opposition in particular did not devote more attention in the course of their speeches to the budget and to the economic policy of the Government. The best contributions on budget affairs undoubtedly came from members on the Government side. [Interjections.] I took the trouble to read through virtually all the speeches in Hansard and I can say that anyone who took the same trouble would immediately reach the same conclusion.

In my budget speech I did not merely reel off a list of figures. I deemed it my duty also to give the House an exposition of the Government’s fiscal and monetary policy as a whole, including exchange rate policy and exchange control. Hon. members may differ with me about certain aspects of the policy but I do not think anyone could maintain that I did not spell out the Government’s short-term economic policy clearly. I played open cards. I elucidated phase III of our policy—our new policy of “growth from strength”, I called it. I also informed the House fully as to the motivation for this policy, its aims and the methods to be implemented. In addition, as is customary, I made available a statistical economic survey together with the budget. The quarterly journal of the Reserve Bank for March appeared very soon afterwards and the hon. the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council also released a report on its latest meeting. Therefore there was no lack of factual data.

In business circles in this country and overseas, and in bodies such as the IMF, the budget and the other documents elicited widespread discussion. I am pleased to be able to say that virtually all this comment was favourable. However, in the course of this debate the Opposition spokesmen have had relatively little to say about all these matters and failed to put forward any consistent alternative policy whatsoever. For the most part they merely referred to problem areas that still exist, for example inflation and unemployment, problems areas which are of course well known to all of us. Although this has been the most expansionistic budget in years, with net concessions in respect of taxes and loan levies amounting to no less than R762 million, they played the customary political game and asked for still more for pensioners, still more for farmers, the wealthy, the poor and also for bigger subsidies, etc. In the same breath, however, they added that Government expenditure had to be curbed still further.

I understand the problems of Opposition members in this regard because it must be difficult to find fault with a budget which, in the first place, reaps the fruits of the Government’s policy of financial discipline on such a large scale; secondly, contains net concessions of R762 million and clearly promotes economic growth; and, thirdly, effects a significant reform of our tax system.

In this regard I want to refer to one of the reasons why we are now able to continue with this reasonably large scale tax reform. The introduction last year of our new general sales tax is indeed the most important reason. You will recall how hon. Opposition members objected to that measure and the consequent legislation.

While discussing taxes, I want to refer very briefly to the improvement in the position of working married women and divorced persons which has been effected. Not only have we reduced the marginal tax scale; we have also increased the abatement for married women from R750 to R900. The resultant difference in their tax position is truly remarkable.

†That, however, is not all. I should like to refer briefly again to the position and the improvement we brought about in relation to separated and divorced persons, because a good deal has been spoken about that subject for some time. I have in front of me two Press reports each quoting Prof. Aubrey Silke of Cape Town, a recognized authority. In The Cape Times of 30 March he says—

He goes on to say—

He continues—

In a report in The Argus of 10 April he reverts to the same subject. The heading of the report is “When the fog clears, there is much in the new budget concessions to cheer divorced and separated working women”. Prof. Silke is quoted as having said—

He goes on to compare our position with that of Great Britain at the moment and he finds that we are in a very much better position—

He continues—

I think this is a point which is often overlooked in the present discussions. He goes on to say amongst other things—

The report states further—

So I can go on quoting from this very good report which in my opinion goes a long way towards clarifying the position for anybody interested in the facts.

*Various speakers raised the issue of inflation in the course of the debate. Again I wish to stress here and now that the Government regards inflation as a serious problem and that I regard the present rate of approximately 11% as unacceptably high. It is therefore still the firm intention of the Government to do everything in its power to bring about a substantial reduction in the rate of inflation. However, we must be logical, too. We must decide whether the present inflation is caused by excessive expenditure or not. If it had in fact been caused by excessive expenditure and we had had the position of “too much money chasing too few goods”, we would now be faced by a serious dilemma because in that case we should have to curb our expenditure in order to combat inflation and at the same time encourage expenditure to further economic growth and reduce unemployment. Fortunately we are not faced with this dilemma. Our present inflation is not the result of excessive expenditure and creation of money. On the contrary, our problem is just that total expenditure over the past two to three years has not increased rapidly enough and as a result the growth rate has been too low. In the past, inflation has often been caused in South Africa by excessive creation of money and expenditure but in recent times it has been ascribable to other factors. We have a cost pressure inflation due to increases in administered prices, the introduction of general sales tax, greater increases in certain wages and salaries than in productivity, and a further substantial increase in fuel prices. For this reason we cannot reduce inflation at present by curbing demand. At this point we shall not cause the rate of inflation to drop significantly by, for example, increasing taxes, curbing Government expenditure further, drastically curtailing bank credit and substantially increasing interest rates, but this course of action would of course reduce the growth rate and aggravate unemployment. Therefore the remedy for the present inflation is not further damping—that would indeed be counterproductive. Answers must be sought elsewhere. The reduction of the surcharge on imports from 12½% to 7½% ought already to have made a contribution in this regard. Moreover, the worst increases in administered prices, for example electricity tariffs, are hopefully behind us. The non-recurring effect of the general sales tax on the price index will presumably also disappear from the statistics soon. We must also lay greater stress on productivity in future. A strong rand will of course also assist in combating inflation. In this regard I want to point out that at the moment, due to the recommendations of the De Kock Commission which were accepted by the Government, our exchange rate policy is of course working towards this specific aim. The combating of inflation still remains one of our most important targets. This, however, does not derogate from our determination to increase the real growth rate of the South African economy to the level at which it ought to be.

I now wish to refer briefly to certain points and arguments raised by various hon. members. Unfortunately it will be impossible for me to refer to all the contributions. Time simply does not permit me to do so. I am sorry about that because in my opinion a number of very important and outstanding speeches were made during the debate. I shall begin with the hon. member for Yeoville.

†The hon. member for Yeoville mentioned some 18 points on which he said he and his party were not satisfied with the budget. I can remember a few years ago he had six or seven points and last year he had 12, if I remember correctly. This year he had 18 points, and with this sort of arithmetical progression he may have 24 points next year.

Inflation!

Yes, this is another form of inflation. But typical of his approach is that he wanted more stimulation of the economy, higher pensions, increased subsidies, increased export incentives and so forth. So, although the most expansionary budget in many years, with record tax concessions, was before us, the hon. member for Yeoville was not satisfied. He wanted far more. The hon. member admitted that the balance of payments on current account was healthy, that our reserves had increased, that our growth rate had increased and that interest rates had fallen, but then complained that the Capital Account of the balance of payments was still in an unsatisfactory position. He mentioned the figure of R1 380 million as the total net outflow last year. I think the official figure is about R1 370 million, but I will not argue about R10 million at the moment. I agree that the Capital Account has been unsatisfactory during the past two or three years and I pointed this out on several occasions. But simply to refer to the figure of R1 370 million as the net deficit, is to my mind seriously misleading. To begin with, of this total net capital outflow of R1 370 million in 1978, R437 million represented deliberate repayments to foreign banks and monetary authorities of short-term foreign loans of the Reserve Bank, the central Government and monetary banking institutions. These repayments reduced South Africa’s so-called foreign liability, related to the reserves, by an equivalent amount and thereby contributed to the increase in our net official reserves of R479 million in 1978. That increase in the net reserves is an extremely important figure.

Secondly, the central Government and the banking sector also repaid R426 million in long-term loans during 1978, which more than offset net inflows of long-term funds to the private sector and to public corporations and local authorities, resulting in a net outflow of long-term capital as a whole of R37 million. Obviously these large repayments of loans reflect economic strength and not economic weakness. It is no crime to repay one’s debts. There is nothing wrong with reducing foreign liabilities and thereby the interest payable on foreign loans. On the contrary, this is one of the major benefits we have reaped in recent years, precisely as a result of our policy of financial restraint and discipline. We were in a position to make these large repayments precisely because of the record surplus on the current account of the balance of payments. This was surely the logical and sensible thing to do in those circumstances. In the years 1974 to 1976, when we were running a current account deficit and borrowing substantial amounts abroad, hon. members on the other side of the House criticized us on occasion for over-borrowing, as they termed it. Now that we are running a current account surplus and putting this to good advantage by reducing our foreign liabilities, we seem to be criticized because there is a net capital outflow. This does not mean that I am complacent about certain other forms of capital outflow. It is true, as I pointed out in my budget speech, that last year there was a net outflow of so-called short-term capital, not related to the reserves, of R896 million. This is not a satisfactory aspect of the situation, but even here it should be noted that a large part of this outflow was the result of switching, by importers, from foreign to domestic sources of finance in response to interest rate differentials, viz. falling interest rates in South Africa and rising interest rates in many countries abroad. It was partly to deal with this problem that we instituted the new forward exchange rate arrangements in January 1979. I referred to this briefly a moment ago. These arrangements have proved to be successful, so much so that we have been able to allow interest rates to decline even further in South Africa as part of our policy for economic growth. The fact is that as a result of our excellent balance of payments performance, including the repayments of foreign loans, South Africa’s credit rating has improved tremendously during the past year. This was also demonstrated by the fact that the Republic was able to raise new loans of some $250 million towards the end of last year on relatively favourable terms for a five-year period.

I think that where the hon. member for Yeoville is on stronger ground, is when he argues that it is important to create employment for our rapidly increasing population and that to this end we should have a higher growth rate than the average rate of the past two or three years. In this respect his views closely correspond with our own, and that is why we are placing the emphasis on a policy of growth stemming from a position of basic strength in the economy.

The hon. member also called upon the private sector to respond to the budget stimulus by expanding output and investment. I want to say that that too is the right approach. However, it is difficult to reconcile this appeal with what I would call the lack of economic patriotism often shown by hon. Opposition speakers during this debate again. It serves little purpose for them to make appeals of this kind to the private sector as long as they continue to undermine confidence and to talk the economy down in the way they have done during this debate. They did it on many occasions. One only has to look at the speech of the hon. member for Namakwaland to see the difference in approach. I think his was an excellent exposition in reply particularly to the hon. member for Parktown in regard to the question of the Capital Account. All this raises in my mind this fundamental question: Are the Opposition parties really furthering the best interests of the private sector in the South African economy at this time? I think the time has come for organized industry, commerce, mining and agriculture to make a critical reassessment of the economic policies of the Opposition parties. The Government’s economic policy is clearly private-sector orientated. That is very definitely accepted. At this stage I should just like to interpolate to say that I thought the article in the Sunday Times on the budget and the philosophy of the budget, an article written by Miss Fleur de Villiers—I want to give her the credit—was an excellent statement of the whole approach of this Government under present conditions to the South African economy, to its potential…

Strange bedfellows! [Interjections.]

… and to our whole private-sector orientated philosophy. We have in fact vigorously curbed public sector spending and we are giving every incentive to the private sector to expand and to generate higher real profits, wages and salaries. We are demonstrating our belief in private enterprise and the market mechanism. However, the question is what the Opposition parties are doing about it. Through their negative tactics they are undermining confidence in the economy and weakening the position of the private sector. I want to say that by doing so they are playing into the hands of those who favour socialistic tendencies and more Government interference in the economy.

The hon. member for Durban Point raised certain matters with me. He referred to the position of the pensioner and spoke about the debt of the nation to its senior citizens. It was a point which was also raised by, amongst others, the hon. member for Walmer. I have a number of statistics here, and if one looks at them one will see that with regard to the remuneration of pensioners the Government not only has nothing to be ashamed of, but indeed has a great deal for which it can take credit, because if one looks at the position over the years, for example from 1970—it was in the 1970s that inflation really got under way—one will find that whereas in these years the consumer price index rose by 140%, social pensions rose by 180%. This is not the only index, of course, but it is a very powerful one. If the Government can ensure that pensions are rising that much faster than the cost of living, then I think it can take great credit for it. The hon. member for Durban Point also made another very interesting point.

What about the means test?

I shall comment on the means test in a moment when I refer to the hon. member for Walmer, who raised the same point. The hon. member for Durban Point said he wanted to dispel the idea that this was a give-away budget. He went on to say that I had emphasized that there was a 30% tax reduction for this group and for that group, but what I did not emphasize was that on the income itself it was a matter of a mere 3% and not 30%. When one takes the inflation rate into account, it merely means that instead of being 13% or 14% worse off at the end of the year, one is only going to be 10% or 11% worse off. That is according to the hon. member. This little argument caused me to sit longer at my reply than any other single comment, and I want to say that at this moment the logic of this argument still completely escapes me.

You ask some people in a year’s time.

I have asked my officials to work out a whole lot of figures and I can pass these on to the hon. member. However, precisely what point the hon. member was trying to make, escapes me.

I should now like to come back to the point which I said I was going to come back to. The hon. member for Walmer said that what was needed was an in-depth study of the position of the pensioner and the means test. I should merely like to say that this question of the means test limits and the adjustments of those limits is not a simple matter. The hon. member has only to talk briefly to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions to realize how complicated it is. It is an involved matter and is not something which we can change from year to year, for very good reasons. But in the meantime the Government is adjusting pensions in such a way that the pensioner is in fact each year that little bit better off. In this respect I think the Government has succeeded and, in fact, I am greatly heartened by the absolute flood of letters and telegrams that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and I have received since the budget. I have already quoted certain broad figures, but as far as the means test is concerned, this matter is constantly receiving attention and I should certainly not like to rule out the possibility that there may be an adjustment at some point in time.

Will there be an in-depth investigation?

The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is constantly looking at this matter, and there is also a joint committee of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and the Treasury which looks at this matter in depth each year before the budget and puts out quite a substantial authoritative report.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he concedes that a pensioner’s income, i.e. his pension, has to meet a far larger percentage of food and housing—which are above the average inflation rate—than a normal person and that those comparisons are therefore not genuine?

No, I said this was not a complete index, but a very good one. It is so. Particularly with regard to pensioners at the lowest income scale, the relative part of their total expenditure on food, clothing and housing is high. There is no doubt about that, but I am trying to get a fair average view through reliable statistics. But that is a well-taken point and I have never argued against it.

The hon. member for Walmer also made the interesting suggestion that we should borrow funds abroad on a long-term basis to finance specific projects and that we should not simply borrow money in general. The money should be used to finance a specific project, or more than one of them. I think the hon. member suggested something like R1 000 million that could be borrowed from a consortium of foreign lenders to enable us to provide housing and employment for a large number of people, particularly the unemployed. The hon. member also referred to the investment of this sort of money in education and other facilities. The Government has, on several occasions, looked at the matter. In fact, I have discussed this sort of possibility with leading foreign bankers, particularly during the last few years, the possibility of borrowing money for specific purposes, loans which we term “project-orientated loans”. Although this would mean somewhat of a shift in our usual borrowing pattern, it would not be impossible. However, it would not be easy. Certain problems are experienced in this regard. When one borrows abroad to finance non-income generating investments, such as housing, education etc., one assumes a number of risks. Sub-economic housing, for instance, cannot cover the servicing of these loans, let alone the capital redemption. Secondly, there are also fairly far-reaching currency risks in the world in which we live today. In the third place, there are term risks. For instance, foreign loans for five to seven years are the only ones available at the moment, and one therefore has to see whether that sort of term can be economical. In the fourth place, interest costs are high, which will load the Exchequer with high-cost moneys that have to be serviced. As a developing country we do need foreign investments. For some time now there have been certain discussions within the field which the hon. member has raised, and I should be perfectly happy to talk to him about it. He has raised an interesting point, and I can tell him of some of the discussions that we have had to date, and of the progress that has been made. I should like to stress, however, that it must not be thought that the Government is not already spending a great deal of money on housing, education and on all these basic services. These amounts are all at a record level today, and I know the hon. member will grant that.

The hon. member raised another rather important issue when he said that banks do not drop their overdraft and other rates except on application. The position is that changes in the bank rate are signals to the banks to change their own rate structures accordingly, if they have not already done so. I should not wish to dictate to our banks as to how and when they should adjust their rates, but I would say that if this sort of thing is only done on application—this is not generally so—then it seems to me that those banks should certainly make it generally known to borrowers that they will entertain such applications from time to time. That should be generally known, and we shall convey our views quite definitely on that.

*The hon. members for Bethal, Mooi River and various other members mentioned the position of the farmer and referred to the difficult circumstances prevailing in certain parts of the country due to droughts and other problems. I listened very carefully to those speeches and constructive approaches and I want to say that the Government has much sympathy with agriculture and with our farmers in these circumstances. I venture to say that I am of the opinion that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture will agree with me that this is in fact the case. At present we are awaiting a further report from the working committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Jacobs of the Reserve Bank on agricultural affairs. This report will have particular reference to long-term matters. As soon as we receive that report we shall give immediate attention to that matter and do what we can to improve the position.

In the meantime you are going to help me with the maize price, are you not?

Sir, can you see that when one gives the hon. the Minister of Agriculture an inch, he takes an ell! [Interjections.]

†The hon. member for Mooi River raised another interesting point when he mentioned the possibilities of what is called a “consumption tax”, a tax based on our expenditure, instead of on income. If I understood the hon. member correctly, he said that they had been scouting around to find something new when they came upon this, which is of course a very old proposal. The hon. member would be interested to know that this was raised quite seriously for instance in Great Britain in 1861. [Interjections.] Mr. A. R. Prest, a tax authority in Great Britain, commented on the Meade Report—the hon. member for Mooi River was referring more particularly to this report—where they talked about the possibilities of a consumption tax. Prest had the following to say—

At the moment it is not regarded as a practicable method of taxation and the two cases where it was seriously tried have certainly not been regarded as particularly successful. It causes very great difficulties among other things in its administration. One cannot, for example, have a PAYE system there. In our case, and in the case of many other countries, this would be a serious disadvantage. There are also other shortcomings. Our Standing Commission on Tax Policy and the Department of Inland Revenue have looked at these things more than once, and they have come to the conclusion that in our circumstances this would not really be an improvement at all. However, it was an interesting point to have raised in the debate.

The hon. member for Mooi River—while I am referring to him—made a rather remarkable comment in one of the newspapers I read at the time of the budget. He said that the budget was “illusionary and cosmetic” and did not effectively put money into the hands of consumers. I mentioned earlier the difficulties I had with a point raised by the hon. member for Durban Point. Well, this was the second most difficult issue that I had to try to puzzle out. [Interjections.] This budget is not cosmetic and illusionary, but is in fact concrete and down to earth and everybody can see precisely what it contains and what it does. The comment and reaction I have had illustrates this right through. I do not want to go into that, except tying that sort of comment to the comment of the hon. member for Durban North.

The hon. member for Durban North was kind enough to remind hon. members of the House that he was a student of mine. I have always been pleased to meet old students of mine, even if I find them in such unlikely places as on the Opposition benches! [Interjections.] Nevertheless, I am quite prepared to look at what he says quite objectively. However, if he ever wrote this particular analysis of the budget in a paper which I had set on public finance, I would have been hard pressed not to fail him. [Interjections.] The hon. member says that this is a neutral budget and that although I have made concessions, for example concessions of R762 million, I have taken it all back again, more particularly with the new general sales tax. However, the general sales tax is not new. It was already in operation when this budget was presented. If one looks at it on the basis of taxation, one finds that one cannot weigh that amount against the R762 million at all. What this budget undoubtedly is, as the hon. member for Florida, among others, clearly explained to the House, is an expansionary budget. One only has to look at the more important indication of that, i.e. the extent of the deficit before borrowing, a deficit of nearly R900 million. This must obviously be a very important stimulatory factor. This amount of R900 million represents about 2% of the gross domestic product, and it must represent a very significant addition to the direct income generated by the Government’s fiscal operations. It must also have, in the absence of all sorts of other contrary developments—which I do not foresee at the moment—a substantial expansionary impact on consumption, then on investments, and therefore also on the rate of economic growth.

*Mr. Speaker, at the outset I said that due to the lack of time it was impossible for me to go into any detail with regard to the contributions made by hon. members on this side of the House. I think that outstanding speeches were made here. For example there was the speech by the hon. member for Meyerton. He referred to the problems experienced by local authorities. He also spoke very well about the budget itself. I want to thank him for that. I can only give him the assurance that an authoritative committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Browne, the former Secretary of Finance, is hard at work on an investigation of this matter. As soon as we receive the report of that committee we shall regard it as a matter of urgent importance. I really do not think that the hon. member will be disappointed, either with the report itself or with the reaction of the Government. I have already referred to the hon. member for Bethal and the hon. member for Florida. I have a long list of other names here as well. However, I fear that it will be impossible for me to refer to all of them at this stage.

†However, in a matter of two or three minutes I should like to refer to a very important aspect of our economy, i.e. gold. I have always—for years, and particularly while I have been Minister of Finance—tried to state the case for gold in sober terms. I am not, and have never been, pessimistic about the long-term prospects for gold. I believe that what has been happening in the world at large, particularly during the last three or four years, has proved and vindicated our optimism on this side of the House. It would be very interesting to me if, during the course of one of our debates, someone like the hon. member for Parktown in particular, who is closely involved in this sort of thing—in the various important companies that he represents—would express his views on gold and the prospects for gold in the months and years ahead. There is of course no need for me to stress the overriding importance of gold in our economy. However, I should like to refer briefly to the latest developments which, I think, are extremely significant. That is the introduction of the so-called European Monetary System, which in this day and age of labels has already been labelled the EMS. It is my opinion that the importance for gold of the introduction of this gold-based European Monetary System can scarcely be exaggerated. It means in effect that the metal is being realistically revalued for official monetary purposes for the first time since the Bretton Woods system was introduced after World War II.

What is clear to me is that the demonetization of gold—this confident assertion by the Americans, in recent years, that one can phase gold out of the world’s monetary system—has now been shown to have manifestly failed to achieve its object and that it offers no hope of success. In the absence of any move to introduce a new official parity, the valuation of official stocks of gold can now effectively take place only on the basis of market or market related prices, and this is now being done by all members of the European Monetary System. As a consequence it is now plain for all to see that gold holdings constitute a very much larger proportion of the international liquidity system’s resources and reserves than has previously been supposed. From now on the central banking community will not only have an interest in establishing what one could call the floor price for gold at or near the levels at which the revaluation of stocks is taking place—and that is usually more than $200 per fine ounce—but will also have an interest in ironing out market movements so that gold in the short-term fluctuates within narrower limits than it has done in recent years.

In my own discussions with international bankers during the past year and more, both at home and abroad, I have on several occasions referred to gold as a hard currency, and I suggest that if proof of that assessment were needed, the coming into force of the gold-based EMS, the European Monetary System, is absolutely conclusive.

*In the next few minutes I should just like to refer to briefly to certain other aspects of the doings of the Opposition, the official Opposition in particular. I think hon. members will agree with me that after a day or two this debate took a dramatic turn when the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs referred to what I am tempted to refer to as the unprecedented telephone conversation which the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition had with Mr. McHenry of America.

†The whole country knows that for the past several months we on this side of the House have been under attack because unfortunately a small handful of people let the country down extremely badly and did things that should not have been done with public money. That was, however, something we deplored from the moment we realized what was taking place. We took steps which, I think, any honourable and fair-minded person would say are probably the only steps we could take to save the situation. Immediately the present Prime Minister took over the premiership he immediately appointed a judicial commission of inquiry which is, despite what has been said, an absolutely authoritative commission. This is what the Opposition wanted. What have we, however, had ever since then? We have had a sustained campaign of slander, innuendo, insinuation and reflection directed against us, a campaign the likes of which this country has never yet experienced, certainly not in my time, and I do not only mean my time in active politics. [Interjections.] I am counting my words and am going to speak very calmly and I hope fairly, and I hope hon. members will control themselves as well. If hon. members of the Opposition want to be unreasonable, however, and want to start a shouting match, it would be quite easy for us to handle that too.

We have now got to the stage where I can tell the House from my own experience—and I have talked to many people of all classes and persuasions—that more and more people are saying today that they have absolutely had this whole matter up to here, and most of them indicate right up to their chins. I accept that this is an hon. Opposition, and for the moment let me refer specifically to the official Opposition. I am sorry to say that the NRP have, unfortunately, also had a considerable part to play in what I consider to be a completely unfounded campaign of slander directed at this side of the House. [Interjections.] I suggest that the Opposition members are now hoist with their own petard or, if I may put it another way as someone said it to me the other day, the chickens have now come home to roost, if one wants to use metaphors. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let us just test this. Why is it that we on this side of the House, against all the things we should like to say about the official Opposition, repeatedly express our grave distrust about the official Opposition when it comes to important matters of policy? I should like to refer to only three illustrations which worry me very much. I first of all refer to—I shall do it very briefly—what I have called earlier the Eglin-McHenry affair.

Order! I just want to inform the hon. the Minister that I am at the moment considering the sub judice aspect in relation to a certain case which is being heard by the court. I am considering how far discussions in this House can perhaps be placed before the court in the form of evidence. As I am considering this aspect, I should be glad if the hon. the Minister would give me an opportunity until tomorrow to come to a decision.

Sir, I shall certainly do that I can assure you that I will not in any way touch on any of the sub judice elements at all. I merely want to refer to the very first point that was raised and say to the House that it is not the question whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, having been taken into the confidence of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, telephoned Mr. McHenry the next morning, the next afternoon or the next evening. In my humble submission that has nothing to do with it. The question which worries me is that he could have telephoned him at all. [Interjections.] That is the point at issue. He went out of that confidential discussion and made himself guilty of what can only be called “a gross breach of faith” …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is then, the Minister entitled to use a phrase that “he was guilty of a gross breach of faith”?

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

That question worries me and a lot of people in this country. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not telephone Mr. McHenry to talk about the weather, the state of his health or the basket-ball score on the latest American league; the hon. member telephoned him to talk on South West Africa. Sir, this is the point I wish to make and I am going to leave it there. I am not going to make it difficult for you in any way. I think, however, that I am entitled to raise this point since it came up long before the further developments. I maintain that this is the point which the hon. member has to answer: How could he have made that telephone call at all under the circumstances? I say it is unprecedented.

Sir, I think the House is indebted to the hon. member for Von Brandis for having raised another matter, i.e. the article in Punch by the hon. member for Sandton. I have taken the trouble to read that article.

It is not an article. It is a short story.

Sir, that article is nothing less than shocking. How could a South African citizen, a man who sits in this House and has the protection of the House and of the Government in respect of his daily affairs, write an article like that in a foreign journal? One has to ask what is going on in this country. I read the article very carefully and want to say to you, Sir, that if that article is not undermining confidence in this country, I do not know the meaning of the word undermining. If one reads the article carefully—in fact, one does not have to read it too carefully to see it—one notices too that it is a thinly disguised, but carefully planned device to attack and try to discredit the Afrikaner. This is I think reprehensible. [Interjections.] Let the hon. members read it. I have the article here. Who are the police officers referred to? They are a Col. Van Aswegen and a Lt. Neser. The court orderly is a Kotzé, and the clerk of the court is a Van Vrede. Let us just remember what is going on here. This concerns a homeland leader who is arraigned in court for political reasons. The charge is of a political nature and he is condemned to death on political grounds. The hon. member cannot deny that. Why did he go out of his way to say that this homeland leader had had an English education? The man with the name of Kotzé returns home and tells his wife about the case. Talking about the Blacks, she says: “Why not shoot the lot of them?” And he fully agrees.

You are misquoting. The word was “communists”, not “Blacks”.

No.

Sir, I have got it here. Is the hon. member challenging me? Whether it relates to communists or not, the whole context is that there were 25 000 Blacks milling around outside the court. Kotzé’s wife said: “Shoot the lot,” and he agrees that that is the thing to do.

Can you not read properly?

As a South African I want to ask: Why is it that the official Opposition’s good faith is so seriously and gravely questioned on this side of the House and outside amongst the public?

If the article is so bad, why do you not lodge a complaint with the Publications Board?

I want to give one further illustration.

Why do you not ban Punch? [Interjections.]

At this moment there is a sustained campaign being carried on outside this country to get the investors and big corporations to disinvest in South Africa, to pull out. When one thinks of the billions of rand of overseas money that is productively invested here, one realizes that that is a very grave matter indeed. A few years ago publicity was given to a certain case in Business Week when hon. members of the Opposition vied with one another to say how money should be pulled out, how they would look clinically at where they invest, and so on…

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? [Interjections.]

The money invested here from outside…

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Yeoville entitled to say: “He knows it is not true”?

He should know.

Order! The hon. member said nothing further. What did the hon. member mean with those words?

I said the hon. the Minister “knows it is not true”.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Sir, in dealing with facts I am not particularly interested in what the hon. member for Yeoville thinks about them…

They are not facts.

It is absolute nonsense.

… as long as I know that they are facts. This money invested here from abroad is earning some of the best returns in the world. It is a point that is freely made when one talks to people abroad. What do we find, Sir? This is of course the season of the year for this campaign to be at its height because this is when the big corporations, particularly in America, hold their annual general meetings and have to put up with all these odd resolutions trying to force them to pull out of South Africa.

Then we find that a man who I am told on good authority is a South African national and who…

You are a liar.

Order! To whom was the hon. member for Houghton referring?

Mr. Speaker, I was talking to the hon. member for…

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am making the point that at this time when South Africa’s worst enemies…

[Inaudible.]

Order! What did the hon. member for Houghton say?

I said that what he said was a lie, a complete lie. He said, if I heard him correctly, that…

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I did withdraw it.

The hon. member must withdraw it a second time.

Mr. Speaker, I was talking to myself. [Interjections.] I withdraw it.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I am making the point that at this time when this campaign is at its height we find that a man who I am told on good authority is a South African national and who has set up a finance company of some sort on the fringe of the City of London, wrote to the chairman of a very big corporation in America and said the following in his letter—

This South African national continues by saying to this big American group—

The letter goes on to say—

This sensitive field he is referring to is getting foreigners to sell up in South Africa and to pull their capital out. He is trying to encourage this.

Whom are you referring to?

This letter is signed by Jonathan P. Mervis, who I am told on equally good authority is the son of Mr. Joel Mervis, a PFP member in the Transvaal Provincial Council. [Interjections.] This is the same Mr. Joel Mervis who, when he was editor of the Sunday Times, more than anybody else broke up the old United Party Opposition under the leadership of a man of the calibre of Sir De Villiers Graaff. Mr. Joel Mervis more than anybody else was the man who did it through the fact that he was editor of that mass circulation newspaper. The interesting thing to me is the reply of this American businessman. He replied as follows—

This American goes on to say to the South African national—

He goes on to say—

He concludes by saying—

Mr. Speaker, if I am asked why it is that a very large part of the South African population says that they have no trust in the official Opposition, how do I answer that?

How can you ascribe that to the Opposition?

Now that the hon. member asks me that, I want to ask him—he will know that this can be established—whether this Mr. Jonathan Mervis was or is a member of the PFP. Was he?

He is a British subject of 10 years’ standing. [Interjections.]

The hon. member can answer that. He can go into it. However, what are the facts about investment in South Africa? I knew this would hit them hard. Those hon. members are the people who have been bandying it about to the whole world what a bunch of rogues sit on this side of the House without having any grounds whatsoever for saying that, and now that they are getting it back, they cannot take it. But they are going to get it back more and more. To put it plainly: Do not let us have too much squealing now that the tide has been turned against them.

What are the facts about investment in South Africa as seen by people abroad? What does the Investors’ Chronicle say? They know what they are talking about. The Investors’ Chronicle recently described how South Africa is now easily at the top of the league table for this year’s stock exchange performance. I quote—

It goes on to say—

This report then says that Mr. Richard West from Johannesburg who wrote for the Weekly Spectator said—

He goes on to say—

If that is not enough, I can also refer to a report which I saw in the Pretoria News just two months ago. It is headed: “Safe South Africa is recommended to investors.” The report from New York says that in an important analysis of the political stability of countries round the world, South Africa, contrary to most freely expressed opinions, has emerged handsomely placed in a respectable middle range of safe nations and is thus commended to major investors. I can go on reading this report in more detail. That is the actual position.

I also want to say briefly that I really think that in this whole campaign, which I call a campaign of slander, we have had to endure, the role which certain newspapers, particularly the Sunday Express, The Cape Times, the Rand Daily Mail, The Natal Mercury and one or two others I have read regularly, have played, I think is absolutely appalling. It is a hostile Press. It is one thing to be hostile to the Government, but another thing to be hostile and reckless about the best interests of one’s country. That is my charge against the newspapers, namely that for some time they have been recklessly, adversely and deliberately trying to affect adversely the best interests of their own country in which they live and operate in great safety and peace and in which they earn returns which are the envy of newspapers in many other older countries of the world.

That is the position. As a matter of interest, I have here a speech which Mr. Horace Flather made in 1963. I think hon. members will remember that Mr. Horace Flather was a most distinguished editor of the Argus group of newspapers. He was a man of great stature in the newspaper world, as anyone who knew him would immediately confirm. In this speech of 1963 he spoke about the freedom and function of the Press. Let us spend just a minute or so seeing what he had to say about the freedom and the function of the Press. He said—

Judge these newspapers on the Information affair, judge them, those that have been attacking…

I would rather judge you on the Information affair.

Yes, I can stand up to that, but you have of course never appeared before the judicial commission because you have got no case, and you are afraid to appear before the commission. That is the position. I say we must judge these newspapers on what has happened. These are the newspapers who have now elevated Dr. Rhoodie, who a few months ago was an outlaw to them, to the status of a great hero and martyr. Yet he is a fugitive from justice, and even the commission says so, but these newspapers say he is a hero. Although many of us on this side of the House have repeatedly said in public and in this House what the facts are on important issues with regard to this affair, some of the hon. members of the Opposition have refused to believe it and these newspapers have as good as called us liars in public. That is the position. How does that square up with what Mr. Flather says with regard to the duties of the newspaper editor? Let us take just one example. When Dr. Rhoodie says that I was a member of a Cabinet Committee on Information the newspapers and The Cape Times says: “Horwood was a member.” The quote was in huge black letters. That was after I had repeatedly said that I was never on any kind of committee whatsoever. How does that tie up with what an editor of English-language newspapers throughout his life said of the undoubted criteria to judge a newspaper and an editor? However, let us take this matter one step further. Mr. Flather said—

When I, at the time that Rhoodie made certain accusations against me, issued a statement in writing, what did certain newspapers do? They took out from the statement, which ran to about 2½ typed pages, one section of about six lines. The Natal Mercury was the worst. How does that square up with a responsible newspaper’s activities? What does the Opposition say to that?

They encourage it.

Mr. Flather says further—

[Interjections.] He then goes on to say—

Then he goes on to say—

A newspaper therefore has no better right and duties than an ordinary citizen, and I think that is accepted by all reasonable people. If that is so, how can we be told all day long that the great thing, unqualified, is the freedom of the Press? Freedom to do what? I want to say that the freedom of the Press had, in the light of reports by some of our newspapers and in particular the hostile English newspapers that I have referred to, has degenerated into outright licence and abuse of the freedom of the Press. That is one of the biggest problems in our public life today…

You are now doing South Africa a further disservice.

These are matters which the public of this country are now wishing to have examined. I say that it is high time that we should give serious thoughts to the views of a man like Mr. Horace Flather, a man who speaks with the greatest possible authority on these matters.

*Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey my thanks to you and to hon. members for the opportunity afforded me to furnish my reply. I wish to express the hope that we in this House will set an example to the public, to all South Africans, an example of dignified and responsible conduct, whatever the matter under discussion. As far as the Information affair is concerned it is in my opinion high time that the official Opposition come to their senses and begin to act in a really responsible way. If this does not happen they are going to bear the consequences…

Are you going to shoot us?

It is not only hon. members on this side of the House who are absolutely sick and tired of this mudslinging which has taken place thus far but also the vast majority of the population of the country.

To come back to the budget and the financial policy of this country I just want to …

Tell us about the 10 million dollars to Switzerland. [Interjections.]

I will tell you all about that; you need not look that way like a crab. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I just want to say that in the difficult times the world is going through at present, a prominent British author and financial authority has said that there is no longer any point in British citizens investing in Britain and that they should rather invest in South Africa. In the light of this statement I today wish to express my continuing confidence in the economy of South Africa. I also wish to express my absolute confidence in the people of South Africa because I am quite convinced that responsibility, decency and dignity are going to triumph so that we shall be able to develop this beautiful country into one of the finest countries in the world, because that is what we deserve.

Order! Before I put the question, I should like to deal with two expressions which were made during the debate. In the first place, the hon. member for Yeoville said: “You know it is not true.” If construed in another way it means the same as “It is not true, and you know it.” This has always been regarded as unparliamentary, and the hon. member must therefore withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I have not heard your whole ruling, but I withdraw it.

Order! I also want to know who the hon. member is who, at the end of the hon. the Minister’s speech, said: “Are you going to shoot at more of us?”

Mr. Speaker…

Order! In my opinion that is an extremely ill-considered remark and the hon. member must withdraw it and apologize.

I withdraw it, Sir, and apologize.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Are you prepared to reconsider and review your ruling that the accusation of the hon. the Minister that what a member did was a gross breach of faith is perhaps not also unparliamentary?

I am quite prepared to reconsider that, but I do not consider the expression “that they are guilty of a breach of faith” as unparliamentary.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—99: Albertyn, J. T.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Blanché, J. P. L; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Coetsee, H. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der West-huyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visagie, J. H.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; 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, W. L. van der Merwe and J. A. van Tonder.

Noes—25: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, N. B.

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

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule:

Vote No. 1.—“State President”, agreed to.

Vote No. 2.—“Parliament”:

Mr. Chairman, at this stage and on this occasion which, I believe, is the correct and proper one, I would like to raise a matter affecting the administration of Parliament, a matter which has for some time been a cause for concern with myself and my colleagues. I refer in particular to the rules laid down relating to members’ rights concerning the usage of the Parliamentary dining-room.

The existing rules governing the admission to these facilities of guests who are not White are broadly as follows: In so far as the main and public dining room is concerned, a member may entertain a member of the diplomatic corps, and only the President of the Senate, Mr. Speaker and hon. Ministers may, in addition, entertain Black persons, and then only “very important” Black persons; in so far as the private dining room is concerned—the little dining room tucked away from public view—a member may entertain any Black person, but only after permission has been obtained from Mr. Speaker.

These laid-down arrangements in effect mean that many important visiting dignitaries, local and foreign, have in the past been excluded from sharing a meal with or from being entertained by hon. members of this House. There are two major principles which, I believe, are immediately at issue. One is an internal principle affecting us in Parliament; the second is a principle which I would consider to be of national importance. The internal issue involves the principle of the rights, the privileges and the sense of responsibility of hon. members of this House.

While certain members, because of the positions they hold, are regarded as being senior, and correctly so, this should not, I believe, in any way imply, or be meant to imply, that any one member is more favoured than any other or, for that matter, that any one member is less or more responsible in his actions than any other. These rules, which I have quoted, grant special parliamentary, as against Government, privileges to certain members and exclude, by their very nature, other members from those privileges. I think that I should tell you, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues and I feel aggrieved and offended that the existing rules militate against all except the Government.

The second issue, the second principle involved is, I believe, far more important. This is a country that is avowedly moving away from discrimination, and this Parliament has, as one of its most vital tasks, the job of alleviating South Africa’s political isolation and ostracism. Yet, in our own, very intimate structure we allow the perpetuation of a set of rules that is both racially discriminatory and, I believe, insulting. The South African Parliament cannot, on the one hand, proclaim as its public commitment the removal of racial discrimination whilst, on the other hand, privately maintaining its own apartheid dining-room, which may be gastronomically excellent but which retains its racial purity.

I do not believe that there is any democratic Parliament in existence anywhere in the world that would even contemplate incorporating in its management rules as indefensible, as morally corrupt and bankrupt as those I have described here today.

I should very briefly like to state, in this connection, my view and that of my party. I believe that no rules with any racial connotation whatsoever should apply in regard to the usage of the facilities in the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. I believe that Blacks should be treated in terms of what they are, i.e. ordinary people, and that they should not be discriminated against, as in the present situation. In any event, I am convinced that members will exercise their proper discretion, as befits their station, in the usage of these facilities, no matter who the guests or what their colour. The perpetuation of the existing rules, which do not serve any justifiable purpose at all, can only add fuel to the fires of those who continue to criticize us. In past sessions my party, and this session I myself personally, have tried through the correct channels to bring about the removal of these distasteful provisions. I and my party have to date, however, seen no visible success resulting from these efforts. I therefore now, under this Vote, publically request that the hon. the Leader of the House should, as a matter of the highest priority, take this question up in the right quarters and remove from our backs these distasteful and offensive limitations. I must give notice that I do not intend to let the matter die here, but shall continue to raise it, as is my right and my duty, whenever I am able, until the South African Parliament…

Write your story in Punch.

… is put on the same footing, in this respect, as any other Parliament in the world.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to break a convention, as the hon. member for Sandton has just done, by discussing with him the merits of the case. However, I want to tell him that he has done this House a disservice today, and not only this House in the narrow sense of the word, but also Parliament as an institution. The hon. member repeatedly referred to “my party”, and I therefore take it that his whole party agrees with the attitude he has adopted here.

Yes.

Let us be clear about this. The fact of the matter is that we have various committees in Parliament which handle our internal affairs. In those committees, matters affecting our internal affairs are discussed. We have, inter alia, the Catering Committee and the Committee on Internal Arrangements, committees in which this type of matter is raised and discussed from time to time. Now, when discussing that subject in the past, the committees decided that the proper course to be adopted was that the Speaker and the President of the Senate should from time to time make arrangements in this regard and should maintain the necessary supervision. However, the hon. member does not want to uphold that arrangement which has applied over the years. For that reason I say to him that he has broken a convention today. My standpoint is that a custom which has arisen by convention is a sacred custom and something which should be protected more jealously than anything placed on the Statute Book by way of legislation.

Apartheid is not sacred.

Over the years the custom has been that the internal arrangements of this House are not discussed in the open House. The various parties are represented on the committees. They have their representation on the Catering Committee and the Committee on Internal Arrangements and there they are afforded the opportunity of putting their cases.

What is the result of this? The result of this has an effect on what we have to live with every day. Our foremost endeavour is the achieving of good relations among the various race groups. Today they are again being polluted by those people opposite.

Abolish it.

I said that I would not discuss the merits of the case—and I will not do so, because then I should be breaking with tradition, as he did this afternoon. However, I want to tell him and everyone who takes an interest in this, that to us, the first and foremost thing in this country is to have good relations among the various population groups.

In that case abolish apartheid.

He need not tell me “abolish apartheid”. Each of the parties tries in its own way to bring about good relations. Let me say, however, that the 135 members on the Government side can do all the fine things in the world to promote relations—and, like the proverbial one bad apple in the barrel, one of the hon. members opposite can destroy and undo in a few sentences all the good efforts on the part of the Government. For that reason I level at him and at his party the accusation that they have again helped to pollute relations among population groups in South Africa today.

But he is telling the truth.

By doing that they have done not only this Parliament, but this country a disservice.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the House cannot get away from this problem by saying that he is not prepared to deal with the merits of the case and by merely pointing to the fact that there are other channels through which these matters can be raised. The point of the matter is that this very question was raised two months ago in the proper way, through the proper channels, and I should like to ask the hon. the Leader of the House whether in fact this problem has been put before the NP caucus for its decision, because there is no other reason why there should be any delay on this matter. We have made our position clear over 18 months, two years. It is perfectly simple. No compromise is required. There is no ambiguity about our stand. Every single one of us stands completely for the opening of the dining-room facilities at Parliament. What makes it so extraordinarily anomalous is that for some reason the NP caucus can accept the fact that every other part of Parliament except the dining-room is open to Blacks without reservation. What is the syndrome operating in this, what is the threshold of pain, what is the threshold of tolerance that prevents the NP caucus from accepting this? I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the House whether he has in fact put it to the NP caucus. If he has not, the proper channels have been blocked and cannot work in this Parliament. If he has, what is the answer? The hon. the Leader of the House must tell us this. If it has been put before the caucus, why is there a delay? Is there some problem? Is there division in the ranks?

The hon. member for Sandton has asked whether there is any other Parliament in the world where this kind of extraordinary discrimination operates. I want to point out that just a few miles from here one can have lunch with members of the CRC in their dining-room. What kind of world are we living in? The CRC do not keep their dining-room facilities segregated. Is there something wrong with them or is there something wrong with us? I think we must be very careful in putting these questions to ourselves. Somebody is out of step.

You!

No, Mr. Chairman, there is only one answer and that is that there is something going on in the NP caucus that is preventing the proper people from acting. Let us be quite frank about it: It is Mr. Speaker and the President of the Senate who have the jurisdiction in this matter. We have no problem with that, but we know there is something holding back a proper decision in this regard.

This must be read in the context of an extraordinary situation which exists around and about Parliament. If I want to ask a Black person to have lunch with me in or near Parliament, I cannot do so. Where do I go to? The hotel down the road, the Town House Hotel, does not have international status. If it did, there might have been something in the argument that one can take a Black somewhere else for lunch. Why should I, however, take him to the Mount Nelson or the President Hotel? Mr. Chairman, one can see that this has all sorts of ramifications. For some reason or other, Blacks may not break bread with Whites. [Interjections.] That has quite a symbolic significance, has it not? I think we should look into this and ask the NP caucus to get off its hind legs, take its decision on this matter and tell Mr. Speaker that we will start with the removal of race discrimination right here and forthwith.

Mr. Chairman, I want to set a few matters straight. Arrangements exist in accordance with which hon. members may treat non-Whites to meals in Parliament. The hon. member knows that. The hon. member implied that such facilities did not exist at all, but that is not true. The hon. member knows that such facilities do in fact exist. I want to say frankly to the hon. members opposite who are getting so hot under the collar, that we do not discuss this matter in caucus. It has never been put before the caucus, nor will it ever be.

Why not?

Why should it be? Does the hon. member now want to draft the agenda of the NP caucus? [Interjections.] He now wants to decide for the NP what we should discuss in our caucus. The hon. member can rest assured that it has not been discussed in the NP caucus, that it is not on the agenda for discussion and that we are satisfied with the existing arrangements.

Who decides then?

I expressly told the hon. member just now—and this is the present arrangement—that it is felt in the various committees of Parliament that the Speaker and the President of the Senate should decide on these matters. This is the case and we let the matter rest there. The hon. member knows that it is under consideration.

He is simply playing to the gallery.

Now that I have set these matters straight as required, I consider it unnecessary for me to elaborate on this matter any further.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not hold up the Committee very long, but I do want to make one point and that is to say to the hon. the Leader of the House that I find his argument and reply quite remarkable. If a doctor diagnoses an illness, one does not blame the doctor, but one deals with the illness. In this case the whole problem is not that we are now playing fast and loose with good relationships in South Africa, but that we are not prepared to take seriously that which an hon. Cabinet Minister of that side of the House has declared to the whole world, namely that we will move away from race discrimination, discrimination on the basis of race and colour. The hon. the Leader of the House has said that his party is satisfied with the rules as they exist, but we say that we are not—and some of us have expressed this from the moment we came here. Year after year we have got no satisfaction. We do not raise this matter lightly, but we deliberately raise it now because we have failed to get satisfaction anywhere else. I want to challenge hon. members on that side of the House: Can they honestly say to me and to any of us here that they agree with the situation as it exists right now? Are they prepared to accept this kind of discrimination? I want to ask the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens what he has to say about this. I do not believe he accepts the position. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance, who always has a great deal to say to us, what his standpoint is on this.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, he must tell us what his standpoint is. [Interjections.] This is not a matter of politics, but a matter of allowing people, friends, acquaintances, colleagues to come and have a meal in a dining-room. Is that so wrong? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I consider it unnecessary that we on this side of the House prolong this debate much longer, but I just want to say that what the hon. the Leader of the House has said, is quite correct, viz. that this matter has already been put before the Select Committee concerned. The hon. Chief Whip of the PFP knows just as well as I do that the Select Committee decided that the Speaker and the President of the Senate should decide further on this matter. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who was in his caucus this morning when they decided on this matter, knows just as well as I do that that was the most recent decision. However, they do not have the courage to attack the Speaker and therefore they now come along and bark up the wrong tree, because it has become the custom of the official Opposition to break down the traditions of this Parliament as much as possible. The fact that they raised a matter today in this debate which is still under consideration by the Speaker, is not the only way in which they are going astray. If I may become more personal, I could also refer to the dress of hon. members in this House, a matter in regard to which we had a problem a little while ago. I could also refer to the dress of the guests of the hon. members of the Opposition who appear without ties in the dining-room. Hon. members should not now… [Interjections.] It is unpleasant for us to say these things today across the floor of this House, because this is not the place to do so, but those hon. members leave us no choice other than to raise these matters in this House, since they are expressly undermining and breaking down the traditions of Parliament in this House. I have pointed out a few examples. I could cause great embarrassment for hon. members of the official Opposition by referring to many further examples of what they are doing, but I shall try to refrain from doing so, notwithstanding the provocation on the part of the hon. Chief Whip of the PFP and his misrepresentation that there are no facilities for them in the Parliament building to entertain people of other races.

I did not say that. [Interjections.]

The hon. Chief Whip asked why, if he wanted to entertain a guest, he had to take him to the Mount Nelson Hotel. He knows that is not the truth. I think that since this matter is under consideration by the Speaker, it is probably inappropriate for us to discuss it further in this House. For that reason I want to reproach the official Opposition for deciding to debate this matter in this House today while knowing full well what the arrangement is and that this matter is now in the final stage of consideration. To me this is an indication that hon. members are not in earnest in trying to have that facility opened to all, that they want to see how much embarrassment they can create and to what extent they can break down the traditions.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have been in this House a good deal longer than the hon. Chief Whip opposite.

That does not matter.

Let me develop my argument.

That is why you are senile already and I still… [Interjections.]

Order!

I really do not mind, Sir. One of the traditions that has changed in the House, is manners. They have become considerably worse, let me tell that hon. Chief Whip. However, what I was going to say, was that over the years that I have been here, many things have changed in this House, and because those things were changed nobody stood up and fussed about the fact that traditions were being altered in Parliament. There was a time when Black visitors to Parliament were all kept in one small bay, but that has changed. Was that a change in tradition?

It was not debated across the floor.

That does not matter; I am coming to that. Or was that an adaptation in the direction of much more intelligent thinking and a gradual removal of racism in this House? What the hon. Chief Whip has forgotten, is that we have tried the traditional and ordinary channels in order to get this changed in this House. For years I have been asking the Speaker who preceded our present Speaker for this. I raised this matter with him many years ago. I might add that one of the reasons why the private dining-room was finally installed was as a result of my complaints that nobody except Ministers was able to have Black guests in this House. The small dining-room was then installed and, as the hon. the Leader of the House, the hon. Chief Whip on the Government side and the hon. member for Sandton pointed out, it is possible to have Black guests, but only under difficult circumstances.

With permission.

Why should one have to get permission to have a Black friend to a meal in this House? Or do no hon. members on the other side of the House have Black friends? Is this something they will never admit to? Can one only invite a VIP Black man to this House? There are Black friends whom we wish to invite to this House. We want to be able to invite those Black friends to have a meal with us in the same way that we can invite our White friends to have a meal with us without asking permission of anybody at all.

I want to make one final point about this tradition business the hon. Chief Whip has mentioned. We are talking very largely these days about new relationships in Southern Africa. I should like to point out to hon. members opposite that Southern Africa is occupied by Black people to a very considerable extent and that the White inhabitants of Southern Africa add up to a very, very small minority indeed. If South Africa wishes to improve her relationships with her neighbouring States, the Black States of Southern Africa, there are a great number of traditions that it is going to have to change.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the official Opposition opposed the Second Reading of this Bill. We also opposed both clauses of the Bill when they were before this House during the Committee Stage. The arguments that were put forward during the Second Reading debate and during the Committee Stage elicited no change in the Bill at all, and therefore we shall remain steadfast in our opposition to the Bill now that it is going through its Third Reading stage. This is a small Bill, a very short Bill, in fact a Bill of few words. It has elicited, however, several quite long and legalistic arguments in rebuttal of the criticisms, by this side of the House, of the contents of the Bill. Shorn of all the verbiage, however, and with all the legalistic arguments cut away, the import of the Publications Amendment Bill now before the House for the last time, particularly in so far as the first clause is concerned, is that whereas the English wording of the principal Act did allow aggrieved persons, albeit inadvertently, limited access to the Supreme Court, by the amendment before the House today, this access is now unequivocally ended. In other words, instead of liberalizing and allowing for a broader interpretation of the Bill, Parliament is going in the opposite direction. The legislation on censorship is being tightened up and not liberalized at all. I think that our attitude to the right of aggrieved persons to have access to the Supreme Court, in circumstances where the provisions of the Publications Control Act come into play, is well known. I think the Government is aware that it is our belief that in the last resort a party that is aggrieved by a decision should have access to the Supreme Court. This has been argued over many years. By taking this final step, probably the very last avenues open to the courts have been removed, and we cannot, of course, agree with this.

The provisions of the second clause cause even greater concern because of the way in which the word “film” is now redefined. Having listened to the arguments of the Government and having studied the Bill carefully, it is now clear to us that this new definition constitutes a further intrusion upon the private rights of private citizens. Let me give an example. After having listened to the arguments of the hon. the Minister and the arguments of the hon. member for Durban Central, it is a fact that if a South African, returning to South Africa from any place he might have been visiting, brings with him a totally innocuous video-cassette, not one containing pornographic, licentious or even political material but a cassette version on of a wild-life film, the “Brady Bunch” or any film of that nature, he does so with the full realization that that is a cassette version of a film that was manufactured for the purpose of being viewed by or shown to the public. If the person who brings that film into the country shows it to any person, not necessarily to the public or for gain, but perhaps only to his wife, his children or his family, he is then, in terms of this amendment, technically guilty of an offence. We believe that this further extension of the definition to bring within its ambit the concept of video-cassettes, an issue we have debated during three stages of the Bill, constitutes that intrusion into the private rights of citizens that I referred to earlier on.

A second aspect to this clause is that we believe—we have stated it and I would like to state it once again—that the enforcement of this new extension will be impractical and impossible. We believe that the enforcement will be incapable of implementation, because it is not for a customs official to check through every film, video cassette or tape which is in the luggage of a person entering the country. His task would be to look for obscene or pornographic material, film which is palpably offensive. It is certainly not the task of a customs official to go through people’s luggage to check whether they are bringing in innocuous films, tapes or video cassettes. Their importation is in any event not illegal and therefore it is not in the power of customs officers to stop the importation of this material. In terms of the legislation, the right and duty is created merely to stop the private showing of a film which has not been before a committee and which was manufactured for the purpose of being shown in public.

During the Second Reading and Committee Stage I asked the question, and have not yet had an answer, of how the Government intends implementing this new provision, this extension of the law, particularly as it affects the importation of video tape cassettes of the type which I have mentioned. Because of the total impracticability of the implementation of this clause, I believe it becomes what can be described as bad legislation. While the legislation shows, and continues to show, the trend of the Government to try to seek control within in its hands of all forms of publications, media and the like, I believe that it is impractical of enforcement and that it is legislation that hon. members on this side of the House should not condone. Accordingly, we will continue in our opposition to the passing of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading debate we discussed this short Bill very thoroughly and subsequently during the Committee Stage we again considered it very carefully. Particularly in view of the two episodes in which the hon. member for Sandton was recently involved, I must admit that one is somewhat loath, especially now, to have to listen to him. Here one has the contrast between the philosophies of two groups in Southern Africa. I want to tell the hon. member that in the days when I was still a student, we had to deal with the exegesis of the Old and New Testament. We often discussed the question of interpretation and interpolation. I understand that the hon. member is a lawyer. I am afraid, however, that during the Second Reading debate, the Committee Stage and now during the Third Reading debate he simply interpolated and did not, as behoves a jurist, explain these two clauses in a concise manner. He simply tried to introduce the destructive philosophy of the PFP in an attempt to undermine the sound principles inherent in this legislation and to prevent matters being dealt with properly.

The hon. member had the same criticism to offer in respect of clause 1 as he had on the previous occasions. This clause simply deals with the meaning of two words, “sufficient” and “conclusive”. When one reads the case of The State v. Moroney it is very clear that according to the judge, the word “sufficient” did not reflect the actual viewpoint of the law. I suggest the hon. member investigate the etymology of the words “sufficient” and “conclusive”. It is very clear to me that it is quite correct to substitute the word “conclusive” for the word “sufficient”. I think that once we have dealt with and approved the Third Reading of the Bill, our particular arguments will have been “conclusive”. The hon. member says we have failed to progress so far as to liberalize this Act. That is another term that the hon. member is bandying about in order to create the impression in the outside world that with legislation of this kind the NP is interfering in the private lives of people. With reference to his explanation of the relevant principles the hon. member ought to confer with the hon. member for Pinelands. I think the hon. member for Pinelands is in complete agreement with the way in which he has argued the matter. However, I should like to hear how the hon. member for Pinelands justifies the arguments of the hon. member, especially in view of the basic principles we ought to maintain, principles that are founded on the Holy Scriptures.

As far as the second clause is concerned, I want to repeat that it is absolutely untrue to say that by inserting this provision the NP is seeking to interfere in the private lives of people. The only matter at issue is that in our view here in South Africa there are certain things such as pornography and matters affecting the security of the State which the Government has during every election in the past and by means of legislation identified as being matters that should be controlled in our South African society. I think that in many countries in the world—most countries in the world—decent and well-balanced people will continue to wish and hope for a government to come into power that will have the courage of its convictions and combat and fight pornography and anything that endangers the safety of the State. That is why I wish to extend to the hon. the Minister my personal sincere thanks for still being prepared to review this legislation, for still being prepared to establish norms in South Africa, norms that can serve as ideals for us and that can assist us in eradicating this type of subversion and pornography from our society. Over and above that I am convinced that the hon. member for Sandton and his party want to create the impression that the English-speaking section of our nation, as well as other population groups in Southern Africa, does not agree with the NP as far as this matter is concerned. I have thousands of English-speaking people in my constituency. Most of them agree with the NP as far as its attitude in this regard is concerned. The private lives of citizens are not being interfered with in the slightest. Therefore the argument advanced by the hon. member, namely that the Government wants to place every citizen who leaves or enters the country under a magnifying glass, is not valid at all. There are certain rules and norms that apply to every person in South Africa and to which everyone in South Africa has to subject himself when he enters or leaves the country. Nothing additional is being done in the legislation under discussion, therefore, that can be described as an inquisition by the NP.

I and other hon. members on this side of the House are not only very satisfied with this amending Bill but are also very grateful for it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik has referred to the difference in the philosophies to which he and the hon. member for Sandton subscribe. I do not want to voice an opinion in that regard at the moment. I merely want the hon. member to realize that in my philosophy there are also norms covering the possession of undesirable literature. I think that is a field in which the courts of law ought to have a discretion. That is why the opposition of the NRP to this legislation, especially as far as clause 1 is concerned is based on the fact that, limited as it may have been, a certain measure of discretion was at least left to the courts. This is not simply a question of access to the courts; there are also the conditions on which access to the courts can be gained. In view of the new definition it will not be worthwhile for anyone even to try to gain access to a court of law. The courts will be deprived of practically all discretionary power.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay is not here today. He made it quite clear that the whole matter centred round the removal of the discretionary power of the courts. The hon. member quoted from court judgments in order to show that the courts do not, in fact, want that discretionary power. That may be so but I think we as legislators are entitled to say that we believe that such a principle is not something to be departed from. We have stated our attitude very clearly. We still regard this legislation as inadequate and in many respects as unfair legislation. In view of the fact that the hon. the Minister has not met us in any way we shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

I just want to raise one further point. As we are discussing the Third Reading of the Bill will the hon. the Minister really not consider having another serious and penetrating look at the principal Act? The hon. the Minister is also aware of the fact that in literary circles—let us talk specifically about Afrikaans literary circles—there is a deep-seated feeling against and serious objections to the application of the present legislation. This gives rise to unnecessary alienation that ought not to br present The hon. the Minister will end that when this new legislation is applied, that alienation will continue and I ask him, therefore, to keep this aspect in mind in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reply immediately to what the hon. member for Durban Central has said. I do not think I can be accused of not having taken a deep and penetrating look at the Act and of not having tried—I honestly think I have had a measure of success—to defuse to some extent the tense atmosphere that has existed between certain writers and the Government in respect of this legislation. I do not think I can go any further, at least not at this stage. In all honesty I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Central that there are certain cardinal principles in the legislation which I am not prepared to throw overboard. [Interjections.] The principal Act is not at issue, however.

I now wish to reply to the remarks made by the hon. member for Sandton, although he said nothing new today. These two amendments add nothing further to what we already had in mind with the original legislation. Proof of this is to be found in the fact that the terminology of the clause concerned was correct in the Afrikaans text and that it was only the wording in the English text that was incorrect. Throughout it has been the intention of the Act, or at least that portion to which this clause refers, that the publication of a decision by a committee will be regarded as conclusive and final. The only thing we are doing now is to place the original intention of the legislator beyond any doubt.

I come now to the question of access to the courts of law. It has been argued ad nauseam—last year under my Vote as well—that the Bench itself has said that it wanted nothing further to do with this type of administrative matter. I gave the hon. member for Sandton a detailed explanation during the Committee Stage but in spite of that he still says that I did not explain what would happen to a cassette that is recorded in all innocence overseas and brought into the country. However, I told him very distinctly that, as in the case of any book or film, such a cassette was subject to inspection by the Department of Customs and Excise. And that is, in fact, what happens. Should the officials concerned find that the material is pornographic or dangerous to the security of the State in any way they will confiscate the cassette. If they are not sure about the matter, they seek the opinion of the Publications Board. However, if the person concerned is lucky, brings the cassette into the country and uses it publicly, the material, as in the case of any book or written matter, is examined by the Publications Board if anybody has lodged a complaint about such material. That is the entire procedure. I think I have replied to all the questions.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—98: Albertyn, J. T.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Coetsee, H. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visagie, J. H.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; 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, W. L. van der Merwe and J. A. van Tonder.

Noes—24: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill was debated at length at Second Reading and in the Committee Stage and I intend only to record clearly the view of the NRP and not to rehash the debate. We supported the Second Reading of the Bill because, on balance, we felt that it was a measure which deserved support, although we were and remain opposed to clause 3. The only aspect of clause 3 we support, is that, as worded, it is made clear that the State or the Defence Force will be able to pay either all or some of the premiums involved in a compulsory group insurance scheme. If I understand the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly, the State will, according to the wording of the clause, be entitled to pay a portion of, or, if it so decides, all the premiums involved in the insurance scheme. We believe that this is the correct thing and that, therefore, it will be a matter of administration for the Government to decide that the Defence Force should carry the cost of this insurance. According to the wording of the clause, this would not be prohibited. Am I correct in that interpretation?

Yes.

The hon. the Deputy Minister indicates that that interpretation is correct.

In respect of the military code of discipline for the auxiliary services, we have no problem. In regard to voluntary services and the amendment pertaining to the commandos, we are satisfied that the division of the commandos into offensive and defensive units will cover the problems we foresaw. It is vital, as I think anybody who is associated with the Defence Force will agree, that we must get the greatest number of volunteer leaders that it is possible to get. I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister and to the department to do everything possible to encourage rather than to discourage volunteering, particularly at officer and NCO levels. With those remarks, let me say that this party will support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point will forgive me if I do not reply to what he had to say. I should like to comment on what the hon. member for Wynberg said the week before last in this House when it was his turn to speak. He pointed out that defence matters were very important and that their importance would increase as the onslaught on South Africa increased. The hon. member pointed out that the policy in South Africa is responsible for the onslaught against South Africa.

Sir, you will permit me to pause for a moment to indicate what in the opinion of an expert is the cause of this onslaught against South Africa. It so happens that there are forces at work which are trying to bring about the downfall of the country. In his New Year’s address the hon. the Prime Minister said that the greatest challenge would be to escape the stranglehold of the Third World War. The Third World War is being fought in the military sphere as well as in the propaganda and psychological spheres. The war is being waged more intensively here in South Africa as I shall indicate just now. To resist this onslaught South Africa and its people must be self-reliant, as I shall also try to show.

Let us look for a moment at what an authority in the field of warfare had to say about this matter. In this connection I refer hon. members to what a British general, a former chief of the Nato Forces in Northern Europe, had to say about the anti-terrorist campaign in Malaya and Borneo. He retired in 1972 after a brilliant military career and he was frequently the recipient of high awards. He visited South Africa in 1977 and he wrote the book The Bear at the Back Door. He calls the Third World War which is now in progress the war of subversion. I should like to quote what he had to say about this matter in so far as his own country is concerned—

That is what Sir Walter Walker had to say about this matter. We are well aware that there is a terrorist onslaught against South Africa, Rhodesia and South West Africa, an onslaught supported by the Russians, the Cubans and the East Germans. I should like to leave the military offensive at that, however, and refer to what Sir Walter Walker had to say about the secret war against South Africa. He calls it the onslaught of the Carter Government on South Africa. This is a propaganda onslaught, and I should like to quote to hon. members what he had to say about this matter—

He calls it the onslaught against South Africa. I just want to indicate further what he has to say about this type of onslaught. He says the voters of America know little of the organized onslaught led by the liberal international division of the State Department and the CIA. Agents of the USA Government are actively engaged in destabilizing and undermining the position of South Africa by way of generous donations to resistance movements, Black conscience movements and future Black leaders. He also alleges that the American Government is waging a war against South Africa to bring about the downfall of the White government. He alleges further that if the Blacks take over, the USA will have a special and friendly relationship with them regardless of what their politics are.

He also warns that it is the tactical aim of the Carter administration to bring about dissatisfaction in the Republic by undermining the economy on the understanding that the Blacks, when they become sufficiently dissatisfied, will take matters into their own hands. He alleges further that the greatest tragedy facing South Africa is the Black Power idea which is being deliberately imported into South Africa from the USA. He says this force is behind South Africa’s most important riots and he calls it a time bomb that is ticking away. He says further that South Africa must be aware of its real enemies because the country’s future depends on this. He predicts that pressure on South Africa will definitely increase in the months ahead. According to him one of the greatest handicaps our enemies have is the lack of a full-scale political and propaganda war strategy.

He refers further to the UN and the leftist Press propaganda war against South Africa. He is very critical of South Africa’s Press and accuses them of doing South Africa incalculable harm, particularly to the race situation in South Africa and our image abroad. He accuses them of exploiting and abusing the freedom of the Press. He also predicts that a confrontation between the Government and the Press is inevitable. According to him the Press has freedom of speech, but does not accept the responsibility which goes with it.

I should like to quote something which has a bearing on this matter from a letter in a newspaper. A certain person presently residing in Berea, Durban, wrote a letter to the Press in which he said that he left South Africa 20 years ago and went to live in England. He had now come back to South Africa. To further illustrate my argument, I quote him—

He goes on to refer to the changes which have taken place in the interim and compares circumstances in South Africa with those in England—

He states further—

In conclusion he says—

This is a quotation from a letter from someone who lived in Britain for 20 years after he left South Africa and is very pleased to be back again. That is his view of the Press.

In the recent debates which have taken place here we have seen every member of the Cabinet having had to run the gauntlet of the Press, and in this connection I think particularly of the hon. the Minister of Finance. As Sir Walter Walker said…

Order! What legislation is the hon. member dealing with now?

Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the Third Reading of the Defence Amendment Bill.

The hon. member must come back to the amending Bill.

Sir, I want to indicate that in this psychological war against South Africa there is a witch-hunt against any person who stands up for South Africa. They indulge in this psychological warfare with people so that people who are South Africans or who support South Africa start apologizing and creeping away in shame. [Interjections.] They want to ensure that all secret projects in South Africa are stopped and their aim is also to see that any person who stands up for South Africa should be flushed out and attacked. There are people who have been under fire from the Press because they stood up for South Africa. Among these are people like Gary Player, Mr. Piet Liebenberg of the Finansbank, Mr. Raymond Ackerman, Mr. Tommie Muller, Dr. Jan Hurter and Mr. John Heydenrich. Afrikaner leaders are attacked and vilified. The charge against them is that they have helped their country and have no regrets about doing so.

I want to quote from a report in Die Burger of 31 January which demonstrates how accurate this Press attack against South Africa is. It is a report about an observation made in Accuracy in Media and reads—

The observation continues—

I quote further from the report in Die Burger—

The observation continues—

That is according to the quotation. Sir Walter Walker is full of praise for our Defence Force and its commanding officers. He regards the Cape sea route as being of the utmost strategic importance for the West. According to him more money is spent annually in America on advertising aspirins than on the promotion of South Africa. The amount of $18 million spent on the promotion of South Africa’s cause overseas, he says, is totally inadequate and is ludicrous in comparison with the $350 million spent annually on commercial advertisements in South Africa or even on the military budget of more than $2 000 million. He refers to this disparity in South Africa and suggests that much more will have to be spent on political strategy, particularly in the USA. From his book it is evident that we have to be militarily self-sufficient; that we must make ourselves militarily strong; that we must wage a propaganda war; that we must be and remain economically strong; and that agriculturally we must be in a position to produce food. He also refers to the importance of our strategic minerals and to our energy resources, factors which, in his opinion, are trump cards in our hands.

Sir Walter Walker also refers to the fact that it is very important for us to establish and extend our defence network in the front lines and on our borders. I also want to refer to what he has to say in conclusion in this regard. In connection with this onslaught he says—

This is what he asks. When one sees what is happening at the moment in South West Africa, and in the light of what this military expert has to say about the onslaught on South Africa, the question arises whether Swapo wants peace or whether Swapo is not going to do everything possible to try to wreck the settlement plan. War and terror will increase in intensity, the number of murders will increase and Swapo is told by Russia how to react. When one sees what has happened recently in Southern Africa one asks oneself if the great powers, in their onslaught against South Africa, are not receiving assistance from people in South Africa.

Order! By way of a change the hon. member must now confine himself to the Bill.

In conclusion I just want to refer to Sir Walter Walker’s recommendation as to how this situation should be controlled. I quote—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg has very clearly and adequately set out the attitude of this side of the House to this piece of legislation. I, however, should like to react to a few of the aspects raised by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. Before I do that, though, I again want to refer to the question of insurance and to indicate to the hon. the Deputy Minister that our attitude is quite clearly that we want insurance but that we believe that it is the obligation of the State to pay for it. If it is not, in fact, to be the obligation of the State, the option should be left open for the individual concerned.

In passing the hon. member who has just resumed his seat dealt with one aspect of defence which is, to my mind, quite relevant. I refer to the fact that there is no doubt that there is going to be a very substantial onslaught against South Africa. There is also no doubt that South Africa is going to need a strong Defence Force in the years that lie ahead. In fact, it needs it now. What is equally important, however, is that if we are to wage that fight successfully, the Defence Force must not be divided and must not represent a divided people in South Africa either. [Interjections.] One of the tragedies in this debate and an earlier debate has been the endeavour to divide South Africa in a manner in which I do not believe it should be divided. [Interjections.] What should really be happening in South Africa is that hon. members in this House—and particularly on that side of the House—should be directing their speeches towards trying to bring about unity amongst the people of South Africa so as to make it possible for us to face the impending threats against South Africa. [Interjections.] We had examples of what I am referring to in this debate and in the debate immediately preceding this one. In this debate, in fact, there was a classic example that I want to refer to in a moment. Immediately before this debate, however, the hon. the Minister of Finance challenged the loyalty of hon. members on this side of the House and questioned their willingness to encourage investment in South Africa.

With good reason.

I challenge any hon. member, including the hon. member who has just interjected, to produce one iota of evidence about what we—and I include myself in this—do in respect of South Africa when they are overseas. I can call forth testimony to prove what I do for South Africa when I am overseas, and yet I have to be attacked in this House by the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether that which he said now is true of all members of his party when they are overseas, and I am referring to the hon. member for Houghton in particular?

The hon. member for Houghton has addressed audiences in America and has had to suffer abuse for having said that she does not want sanctions against South Africa. [Interjections.] Let me make a very simple point. I actually believe that when a member of the Opposition, when he is abroad, asks for investment in South Africa, his request has greater credibility than a request that comes from a member of the Government. Those hon. members should therefore be encouraging us to do this instead of accusing us of economic sabotage. [Interjections.] It is, in fact, traitorous to South Africa and disastrous for South Africa to allow such attacks to go on being made and to go on having the people divided in this way.

Let me now deal with the specific instance in this debate. The hon. member for Wynberg and I are the two defence representatives of this party. We are the spokesmen of the party and have gone to the border when we have been invited to do so. We have also gone to meetings with the hon. the Minister to discuss legislation and we have also been involved in all sorts of other matters. If the suggestion is, however, being made that we are unreliable, I do not want to participate any more. I want to make that quite clear. I do not want to have any part of it any more. Either the Government respects us and trusts us or we want nothing more to do with the Government as far as this is concerned. I want to make that quite clear.

Why do I ask this? I ask that the hon. the Prime Minister should be present, and I do so for a very simple reason. The hon. member for Umlazi said the following during debate in the House (Hansard, 6 April 1979, col. 4198)—

*I regard that as an insult to the hon. member for Wynberg and I regard it as an insult to myself. It is unnecessary for the hon. member for Umlazi to tell me whether I can be trusted with defence matters or not. I call it an insult and I say that it is shameful that such an insult should be uttered in this House. I want to continue, however, because that is by no means the worst of it. The hon. member for Wynberg subsequently put the following question to the hon. member for Umlazi—

Thereupon the hon. the Prime Minister asked by way of interjection: “What about South West?”

†What about South West? I have been to South West Africa at the invitation of the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Wynberg has also been there. I challenge the hon. the Minister to give one single example of anything my colleague and I have done whereby a confidence could have been betrayed. I also challenge the hon. members who were there to do so. Let me say what we have done: We have tried to improve the morale of troops on the border and we have tried to improve the morale of parents who have children on the border. We have tried to point out to South Africa the dangers which exist and to make them conscious of the dangers and the threats of Swapo. That we have done. But I challenge the hon. the Prime Minister to give an example of where my hon. colleague and I have in any way betrayed a confidence. Unless this is cleared up, I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that he cannot have a relationship with us if this is to continue. We cannot have the situation that I am publicly told through the Press that I can go and look at the photographs which have been taken from the American spy plane while at the same time we find this type of accusation being made. I do not want to see those photographs if I am not trusted. I do not want to see those photographs and I do not want to be a party to that if I am not trusted. If the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister does not deal with this, then I certainly want an investigation and I will ask the House to investigate whether the hon. member for Wynberg or I have in any way been responsible for any breach of confidence. Either it is said and proved or those concerned should shut up and apologize.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the hon. member for Yeoville has responded to the events here by jumping up very quickly and asking for an inquiry into this specific matter, while there was dead silence on the other side of the House when the question of the telephone call was mentioned. Why did they not ask for exactly the same thing then? One would have been able to see then what was correct and what was not. However, the matter goes further. The hon. member for Yeoville really must make sure who his bed-fellows are before making all kinds of remarks. He should note who his bed-fellows are and how his leader is behaving in respect of certain matters before making these remarks.

[Inaudible.]

I want to make it quite clear that when similar allegations were made in the past, there was dead silence on the other side of the House, also on the part of the hon. member for Orange Grove who is now interjecting. He did not ask for an inquiry either at that time. Surely it is quite clear then that if the hon. member for Yeoville is innocent of the charges which are being made against him as an hon. member of this House, he as well as the hon. member for Wynberg is free to say that such an inquiry should be undertaken. If this is the case, they can do so.

I now want to mention another matter. It is a good thing that the hon. member for Yeoville raised this matter. Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill concern the protection of the volunteer and the service he renders. I now want to allege that a person volunteers primarily in order to render the greatest possible service to his country. That is to go and defend his country on the border in spite of the financial benefits he has to forfeit.

It is interesting to note that two statements were made on 6 March 1979. The first concerned the problem experienced during the negotiations with the five Western Powers, a problem which led to a deadlock in the negotiations at that stage. That same evening, the Chief of the Defence Force announced that an attack had been launched on Swapo bases across the border. Let us now look at the consequences of these events. On 7 March 1979, a day after this announcement had been made, there were big headlines in the newspapers. One read, for example: “South Africa strikes into Angola.” The statement made by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs concerning the problems experienced during the negotiations was also published in the newspapers. Let us now consider the reaction of the Opposition parties with regard to these matters. I now want to make it quite clear to the hon. member for Yeoville what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had to say about it. According to The Cape Times, and as far as I know all the other newspapers, he spoke only about the fact that the negotiations of the Western Five on South West Africa had reached a position of stalemate. He went on to make certain allegations, such as—

At no stage did he say anything about the attack which had been made on the Swapo bases during that time.

Quote what I said. [Interjections.]

I have said quite clearly that we are concerned in this case with voluntary service in the Defence Force, and the attack on Swapo bases across the border is a defence matter. The hon. member for Yeoville alleged that “they must be trustworthy and must have the respect and the trust of all hon. members in this House”. I have told him that he should also make sure who his bed-fellows are and who the leader of his party is. He must also make sure of what the behaviour of his leader has been in this connection. It is interesting to note that the official Opposition made no reference at all to the attack on Swapo bases. Not even the hon. member for Yeoville did that.

That is untrue and you ought to know it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this point? [Interjections.] Sir, there is a difference between saying that the hon. member… [Interjections.] Sir, may I ask hon. members to be quiet while I address you?

Order! The hon. member may address me.

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between saying that an hon. member knows that what he says is not true and saying that he ought to know that it is not true. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, there are many Speakers in this House. I thought you were occupying the Chair.

Order! Is the hon. member casting reflections on the Chair?

No, Sir, I am casting reflections on those hon. members. What I am saying is that if I say “he ought to know”, I am not saying he is a liar. If I say “he does know”, then I am saying he is a liar. I am not allowed to say he is a liar, but I am allowed to say that he ought to know what is true and what is not true.

The hon. member is therefore not saying that the hon. member is a liar?

No.

The hon. member for Carletonville may proceed.

I find it interesting that the hon. member for Yeoville tries to escape from a situation through a very nice play on words. That is exactly what they are doing in respect of other situations which they handle. It is exactly the same situation. In Hansard of 8 March, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a statement in response to the statements made on Tuesday, 6 March, and in that statement he made no reference whatsoever to the attack on the Swapo bases. He did not do so according to the newspaper quotations either. I find it interesting to look at all these newspaper cuttings. Associated with the actions of the Government and the standpoint of the Government that South Africa will be defended if real problems arise in the sense that people prepare to attack South Africa, there is the conduct of the leader of the NRP. His attitude was quite different from that of the leader of the PFP. A certain newspaper report reads—

It is very clear to me in the light of this, and as appears from the play on words in this connection, that the official Opposition is not unanimous about what it should do. They are divided on this matter, at any rate. Then the hon. members of the official Opposition who do not agree with the standpoint and who are negative in respect of this matter should come forward and say so. What is the reason for failing to say anything about the matter?

The whole statement you are making is untrue. [Interjections.]

Let us suppose that it may be untrue. [Interjections.]

You people must keep quiet.

I should like to have the attention of the hon. member for Yeoville. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Yeoville says that this is untrue, let us suppose that it was untrue. What opportunity would have been the first and the best opportunity for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to have expressed an opinion on the matter, either for or against? But for his own reasons he failed to do so. That is the basic principle. The first opportunity he had for expressing an opinion upon the matter was on the morning of 7 March in his own representative newspaper, The Cape Times. The Cape Times reported the matter under banner headlines that day. However, the hon. Leader was silent on that day. He was as silent as the grave.

Then he phoned McHenry.

The next day he rose in this House and still he said nothing in this connection, as appears from his Hansard report. He said nothing about it on that day either. Let us see what the Secretary-General said according to the same newspaper report—

If the UN deplores this specific matter and if we want to defend South Africa against it, but the official Opposition does not want to take a stand on it, then they are not doing South Africa a service through their conduct. The hon. member for Yeoville ought to realize that and he ought to take a stand against it.

The whole statement is based on an untruth.

No. That is very clear. Even as far as this piece of legislation is concerned, hon. members on that side of the House have felt that a committee should be appointed to investigate the matter relating to voluntary national service. The standpoint of the Government is that the volunteer who offers his services should enjoy protection as long as this would not prejudice the country as a whole. On the basis of that, the economy, businessmen and all the interested parties should for certain reasons also enjoy the necessary protection.

That is exactly what we said.

If that is exactly what the hon. member for Wynberg said, why did he not support the legislation in the first place? He prefers to oppose it, and for that reason he is proving very clearly in his own mind now that he agreed with something which is already contained in the piece of legislation.

I find it very interesting that when the hon. member for Yeoville had to state a point of view on behalf of that party, he did not really state his party’s point of view. The House should take note of the fact that he said that he and the hon. member for Wynberg are their representatives in the field of defence and that only they are responsible and trustworthy. According to him, they are the people who can be trusted with regard to South Africa’s defence as a whole. As far as the rest of that party is concerned, they are silent, as they have also been silent on other matters. If all these things are taken into consideration, i.e. voluntary service, the protection introduced in terms of clause 2 and also the provisions of clause 2 by which the commandos are brought into line with the Citizen Force, etc., I believe that this legislation is in the interests of the country and its people as a whole. Accordingly, we want to extend our sincere congratulations to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to react briefly to the support we have received from various hon. members in this connection. In the first place I should like to refer to the contribution made by the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. member asked to be excused after having pledged his support to the Third Reading of the legislation. We can assure the NRP that we appreciate the understanding which they displayed very much indeed. Hon. members on this side of the House also supported the legislation. Then, too, I am thinking in particular of the hon. member for Umlazi, who referred to the clause pertaining to insurance. In my opinion it would really be worthwhile reading his contribution again, for it brought a great deal of clarity into the debate, and I hope to furnish replies presently to questions which the hon. member put to me.

The hon. member for Vryheid referred very appropriately to the bases of the onslaught on South Africa, and I should like to thank him for doing so. Similarly, the hon. member for Carletonville once again made a powerful contribution, and I think that his analysis of the standpoint of the hon. member for Yeoville was on target. It made the hon. member feel rather uncomfortable. I shall come to the hon. member for Wynberg soon, but because I think that that is going to take up most of the debate, I first want to discuss the clause pertaining to insurance. I have already said that as far as the insurance question is concerned, we are in the negotiation stage. It is necessary for us to obtain the authorization to negotiate in this way. There was a preamble to this matter, however, and I want to deal with it briefly. The hon. member for Umlazi also referred to it. But I want to say, by way of amplification, that the Financial Institutions Amendment Act of 1978 effected material changes as far as life insurance was concerned, changes pertaining to the insurability and the insurance potential of the soldier. By means of that legislation it became possible for insurance companies to exclude combat risk. Life insurance which was applicable during the period 1 April 1944 until prior to the date of commencement of this Act therefore included combat risk. However the 1978 legislation made it possible for an insurance company to exclude it. So much for life insurance.

In the case of short-term insurance, for example accident insurance such as that which may be taken out with insurance on a motor vehicle, as well as other forms of personal accident insurance, this was normally excluded too, and insurance in the short-term—known to insurance companies as short-term insurance—could not be taken out. Since the 1978 legislation it has become necessary for us to consider supplementary financial assistance for a person who is injured in the course of his compulsory military service. We are not dealing here with combat service only, but with a military service risk. The period of service of a national serviceman is of course fraught with other risks as well. For example, a person may be injured on his way to his parent’s home, etc. The exclusion of this is now possible. This deficiency which arose compelled the State to establish machinery which can make supplementary financial assistance available to the soldier who sustains an injury in the course or as a result of his military service which makes him temporarily or permanently disabled or even causes his death.

It is also necessary for us to deal with the present situation as far as the financial assistance of the soldier is concerned. This includes the person who becomes incapable of working or dies as a result of military service. For members of the Permanent Force and Public Service employees who are serving as national servicemen, members of the Citizen Force, the commandos or as reservists, the Government Service Pension Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Act are available. It is true that these benefits are not ample. In some cases only a lump sum gratuity is paid out, and in other cases an annuity which is paid out in monthly amounts. So much, then, for the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Let us now consider the Military Pension Act which was passed in 1976. We find that the benefits ensuing from that Act are available to national servicemen, members of commandos and reservists, with the exception of course, of employees of the Public Service while they are rendering such full-time compulsory military service. Then the collective benefits of the Government Employees Provident Fund as well as the Workmen’s Unemployment Act are at the disposal of auxiliary service members of all races and groups while they are rendering such full-time compulsory military service. In terms of the Military Pensions Act a lump sum gratuity is paid out in respect of disablement of less than 20% and an annuity in monthly amounts in respect of disablement of 20% and more. When permanent disablement has been incurred, even if it is 20% and more, there is consequently no amount available which can immediately help the family or individual. In the case of death an annuity in monthly amounts is paid out under the Military Pensions Act to the widow or a parent who was dependent on such a member. Once again there is no aggregate amount available which can serve as support.

Now we have in fact taken cognizance of the deficiencies—I shall not call them shortcomings—which emerged in the course of time after we had reviewed the entire insurance package which the State had created for the individual soldier. We then realized that we ought to do something about it. Hence the provision in clause 3, which refers to the compulsory insurance of members of the S.A. Defence Force. We came to the conclusion that we would have to provide cover which also included a combat risk and which, in contrast to short-term insurance, would make a short-term shock cover available. When a breadwinner is suddenly not there any more, his widow cannot rely only on an annuity which is paid out to her in monthly amounts. A larger amount of money is necessary, perhaps for the purchase of a house or for the acquisition of an amenity which would in fact have been available if the spouse or breadwinner had remained alive. Consequently the need which we identified is perhaps of the nature of an adequate cash gratuity. By way of this legislation we are now taking the first step in order to meet this need and to eliminate the grey area which arose. We are now trying to resolve the situation by the use of the words—

The disablement which is being referred to here may be permanent or partial.

The hon. member for Umlazi wanted to know whether we could state it as widely as possible. My reply to that is that we will of course state it as widely as possible because we want as many members of the S.A. Defence Force as possible to join the scheme. This would of course help to keep the premium as low as possible. Consequently the scheme is going to be initiated on as wide a basis as possible and will, if we succeed in our negotiations, include all national servicemen, both those who perform their tour of duty in 24 months as well as those who still have subsequent camp obligations to meet. It is hoped that both the Permanent Force as well as auxiliary services will be included, because people in all these divisions ought to be covered 24 hours a day during the performance of their military service. As I have already said, that sort of cover should not be concentrated only on the combat risk, but also on the performance of service or duties which could give rise to death or disablement during the period in which such full-time military service is being done. That, then, is my reply to the first question of the hon. member for Umlazi.

In addition the hon. member for Umlazi wanted to know whether it would be possible for a member, when he leaves the service, to convert his cover into some other form of insurance. The hon. member is not present in the House at the moment. I am aware that there are circumstances which prevent him from being here today. However I shall deal with the aspect which he raised. At this stage it seems to be a new idea, but negotiations in this connection are already in progress. Then the hon. member asked whether the State would in fact make a contribution. The hon. member for Durban Point also spoke along these lines, and wanted to know how I interpreted the provision in the clause under discussion. I want to make it clear to both hon. members that I said that the provision in the legislation could be interpreted in such a way that, if the State wanted to make a contribution, provision for that purpose would not be excluded. But I was not implying with that that the State would definitely make a contribution.

But if we take cognizance of the basis of insurance, and particularly in view of the fact that we are dealing here with a arrangement not for gain, an arrangement which we want to make applicable throughout the entire insurance industry in South Africa, it is surely the case that components may be added, for example underwriting in the case of a loss. With this I am not binding the State in any way. I am only pointing out the possibilities. In addition it is not excluded either that if premiums should increase—this is also a matter to which the hon. member for Umlazi referred—there could be a fixed premium for national servicemen while the increase could be borne by the State. I want to repeat that the clause is worded in such a way that this is not excluded, but I cannot bind the State in this connection. I want to emphasize this very strongly. The hon. member for Durban Point interpreted the matter quite correctly when he said that at the most I was committing myself to an interpretation of the clause and not specifically to the State’s contribution in this connection.

This brings me to the Exemption Boards, and although not one of the hon. members referred to them again, I want to emphasize the point that I think that we have found sufficient material in this debate to take a look at our exemption system in a Defence Force context, particularly on the level of the volunteer who applies to his commanding officer and ultimately to the Chief of the Defence Force for exemption. At the same time I just want to rectify an impression which could perhaps have arisen. The section in question, which authorizes the Chief of the Defence Force to consider and grant certain exemptions, is in fact connected with the criteria contained in section 71 of the Defence Act. Consequently I can assure hon. members that we will take a look at this.

This brings me to another matter, which will probably take up most of the rest of my reply, and that is the matter which the hon. member for Yeoville raised. That hon. member was very concerned at the fact that the hon. member for Umlazi had used the following words (Hansard, 6 April, col. 4251)—

The hon. member for Wynberg then put a question. If there is anyone of whom there ought to be an investigation, it is in my opinion the hon. member for Wynberg, for if he did not involve someone here by implication, then I do not know what he was doing. What did the hon. member for Wynberg ask? He asked the hon. member for Umlazi—

To what was the hon. member for Wynberg referring?

What was the reply?

Sir, I shall deal with that further. To what was the hon. member for Wynberg referring?

I was referring to Defence matters which we were in the process of discussing.

It is a very serious matter which the hon. member for Yeoville has raised. The hon: member for Wynberg asked—

The reply is “yes” or “no”.

The hon. member for Umlazi said that a certain part of the Opposition first had to prove that they were to be trusted on less sensitive matters than the defence of our country. The hon. member for Wynberg did not ask for these matters to be specified. No, he asked the hon. member for Umlazi whether, as far as Defence matters were concerned, there had ever been any question of a breach of trust. In this way he implied that there had on other occasions, in respect of those matters which the hon. member for Umlazi mentioned, there had in fact been a breach of trust. That is what the hon. member for Wynberg said. [Interjections.] I like the hon. member for Wynberg because he is a very honest and sincere member.

He does his best.

He does his best. If a person speaks as spontaneously as the hon. the member for Wynberg does, one can believe him. In this connection he very clearly implied that a certain part of the South African Opposition was not to be trusted in regard to less sensitive aspects of our public administration.

It does not hold good.

It is well-founded. What did the hon. member for Yeoville do today? He said that he and the hon. member for Wynberg were involved in Defence matters and that an aspersion had been cast on them by the question which the hon. the Prime Minister asked, viz.: What about South West? That is what they allege.

That is correct. That is where we were in step.

Let us examine the question which the hon. member for Wynberg put and try to establish whether he could expect any answer other than the one which the hon. the Prime Minister gave. How on earth can the hon. member for Yeoville deduce from this that it was aimed at him and the hon. member for Wynberg? If the hon. member for Wynberg had asked: “Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether, as far as the hon. member for Yeoville and myself are concerned, there has ever been any question of a breach of trust in regard to Defence matters?” it would have been a completely different matter. But he asked the hon. member for Umlazi whether there had ever, i.e. in all eternity—and that is a long time—had ever been any question of this. Consequently his question also referred to the experiences of the past two weeks with the official Opposition, particularly with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. His question was whether there was “any” question of this, not whether it had applied to them in greater or smaller measure. In other words, his words “any question” were comprehensive. His question, by implication, referred to the entire context of defence, consequently to indirect matters as well, for example the lives of our young men, and Swapo bases which could perhaps have been established in South West Africa. It is in that context that an acute person such as the hon. the Prime Minister understood the concept of “any question”. When the hon. the Prime Minister asked: “What about South West?” he was not referring specifically to the hon. members for Yeoville and Wynberg.

It was reply to a question which I put.

The hon. the Prime Minister was not referring specifically to them. In a single sentence he replied to the tragic history of the past two weeks which was revealed here. This reply he gave to the official Opposition. Defence matters have by implication, as I have already said, a bearing on what is directly and indirectly involved here. For that reason I do not believe that the hon. the Prime Minister had the hon. members for Yeoville and Wynberg specifically in mind when he asked that question.

Will you reply to a question?

We are going to discuss this for a long time to come. The hon. the Prime Minister, in that way, evoked this reaction from the hon. members for Yeoville and Wynberg. The hon. member for Yeoville took a very strange step today. I want to ask the House to join me in examining this unusual step and analysing it a little. The hon. member for Yeoville did not ask that the honour of the PFP—the hon. member for Umlazi spoke of a part of the Opposition—be cleared. He did not ask that the honour of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition be cleared. He did not ask that the honour of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the hon. member for Parktown, the hon. member for Rondebosch or the hon. member for Houghton be cleared. [Interjections.] What did he do, however?

I did not ask you either.

He only asked that the honour of the two of them be cleared. What was he trying to imply by that?

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must deal more specifically with the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am simply replying fully to the hon. member for Yeoville. He made an attack on the hon. the Prime Minister.

Is it necessary for the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply so fully? This point has nothing to do with the Bill. However, I shall allow the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply briefly to the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he now accepts that in so far as the two Defence spokesmen are concerned—because they are the only ones at issue here—there is no question of suggesting that there has been any breach of confidence at any time? Does he accept that or does he not?

I want to state very categorically that the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Wynberg are by no means the only ones involved in this.

That is not the question.

I am replying to the question. It was far wider than that. The hon. member for Yeoville focused this matter solely on the hon. member for Wynberg and himself, and I say that it is totally inappropriate. They are not involved. The hon. member for Umlazi referred to a part of the official Opposition. I cannot understand how the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Wynberg could have placed their personal credibility and the reliability as far as Defence matters are concerned at stake in this debate. I cannot understand it at all. There is only one reason for doing so, and that is that the hon. member for Yeoville is availing himself of this opportunity to get the hon. member for Wynberg out of trouble, because the hon. member for Wynberg implied here that there had in fact been a breach of trust, etc. in respect of other parts of the Opposition. That is what he implied. Consequently I am quite convinced that as far as this matter is concerned there is no need at all for us to reply to the hon. member for Yeoville.