Mr. Speaker, when I ended my speech last Wednesday, I said that the Government does not want to imply with this Bill that it is waging a vendetta against the Press. At the time, however, I did not think that I would find a beautiful example in the Press the very next day of precisely what I was trying to illustrate. Friday’s Cape Times and Argus both contained reports taken from a report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, with reference to a statement by the hon. member for Yeoville on a certain resolution or otherwise by the Select Committee. The newspaper headline read as follows—

In the report the impression was created that the hon. the Prime Minister had ostensibly made a mistake and allegedly infringed a law by signing that certificate. Then the hon. member for Yeoville says, and I quote him—

Unfortunately the impression was created by the hon. member for Yeoville and particularly by the Press as well, that they were questioning the bona fides of the hon. the Minister of Defence in this regard. But what is the situation? I should like to state very clearly what the exact situation is. In terms of the Secret Services Accounts Act certain transactions were in the past excluded from audit by the Auditor-General. These transactions were then audited by the Department of Defence’s own internal auditor, and the hon. the Minister of Defence had to give the Auditor-General a certificate every year, as appeared in the papers. Consequently, this was done every year. This certificate mentions no amount, although all the projects exempted in this way, were registered by the Auditor-General. In this way the project Senekal was also one of these projects. The transactions of R17 million in the 1977-’78 financial year, were consequently included in the certificate for that particular year as only a small portion of the much larger amount.

Because the Secretary for Information was the accounting officer with regard to the spending of this amount, the certificate of the hon. the Minister of Defence consequently applied only to the proper transfer transaction from the Department of Defence to the Bureau for State Security. These are the facts.

What happened here was that the Select Committee on Public Accounts had a motion before it, a motion amended by the hon. member for Yeoville, with the approval of the committee. Then the hon. member came forward with a further addendum. This was negatived at once, without the committee even having discussed it. However, the Press then created the impression that the hon. the Minister of Defence had committed an invalid action. This is merely an example of why we now have this legislation on the Advocate-General before us.

In other words, you want to stop the Select Committee as well. You are talking absolute rubbish.

I am making my speech now. The hon. member for Yeoville can reply to it if he wants to. However, the impression was created that the hon. the Minister of Defence had allegedly made a mistake. I think this charge was flagrantly false. I believe that the Press and the hon. member for Yeoville owe the hon. the Minister of Defence an apology.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Worcester began by saying that his side of the House did not have a quarrel with the Press. In the few minutes he spoke, however, he made another attack on the Press. He devoted the rest of his speech, it seems to me, to a private war between him and the hon. member for Yeoville. However, I do not serve in the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Therefore I am not going to say any more about that.

†Mr. Speaker, quite a number of speakers on the Government side devoted most of their time to attacking the Press. They pointed out how irresponsible the Press was. They also reminded us in the NRP of the treatment meted out to us by the Press when we were still the old United Party, when we were also attacked by the Press. On several occasions we asked hon. members opposite to tell us what that had to do with corruption. Until now I have not received a reply.

It is clear to me that hon. members opposite cannot mention a single case of irresponsible reporting in connection with maladministration and corruption.

Nonsense!

The hon. member says it is nonsense.

*Hon. members on the other side had a great deal to say, but they never got round to that. [Interjections.]

†It is very significant to notice, as far as this debate is concerned, the inability of hon. members opposite to quote examples of irresponsible Press reports in connection with corruption and maladministration. We all know that when it comes to political matters the Press can, if it so desires, be mischievous. Whatever the Press writes about political matters can, of course, be interpreted in different ways. What pleases one person may annoy another. In fact, sometimes individual hon. members and political parties have been written up in the Press as having been effective when, according to my own assessment, they were not. There is no way, however, for one to determine whether my personal assessment or say that of a political correspondent is the correct one. [Interjections.]

Order!

In such a case one is really dealing with a set of value judgments and the argument very much becomes one about what is good and what is bad or what is pretty and what is ugly.

When one is dealing with corruption and maladministration, however, one is dealing with ascertainable facts. In such a case it is impossible to get away with a lie. Whatever is published can be proved to be either correct or incorrect. Just to prove this let me mention a newspaper cutting that I have here. The cutting is from a newspaper dated 15 March 1970, and I quote the heading—

When dealing with reporting on corruption and maladministration the validity of the alleged facts can be ascertained. Wrong reporting can be exposed. Wrong political reporting, however, is virtually impossible to expose and rectify, and there is not a single hon. member opposite who does not know this. Yet for two days, in the debates we have had here, hon. members opposite set up a smokescreen with a bitter attack on the Press, not because of examples of unfair reporting on corruption but because of unfair political reporting. As I have said, they cannot provide examples of incorrect reporting on corruption.

There is also another reason for their strange behaviour. Judging by the content of their speeches, this Bill must be seen as a forerunner of what I would prefer to call a final onslaught on the Press, since measures are to be introduced to curb what the Government regards as incorrect and unfair political reporting.

A final onslaught on democracy.

The hon. member says “a final onslaught on democracy.” How true. I say this because why else did they make those speeches? Why ask questions about who is running the country? Why speak about character assassination when, in fact, we are dealing with a Bill relating to corruption and maladministration?

I want to refer again to this newspaper cutting on the Agliotti affair. I think that it could well become Africana. As time goes on the value of this as a souvenir can only increase. One may even be able to raffle it to those who want a moment of what a free country South Africa once was.

Just don’t cry.

That hon. member says: “Just don’t cry.” Let him listen a bit more and let us see whether he is prepared to cry for the loss of democracy, whether he is prepared to stand up for democracy or not. The first important thing to note about this cutting is that the date is 15 March 1970. This is very significant because we should also bear in mind that a week earlier we had a report in the erstwhile Sunday newspaper Beeld about this matter. Hon. members opposite have claimed that the Government started the investigation. [Interjections.]

Order!

This lays to rest the lie that the Government started the investigation. Even if the Government had started the investigation, it would only compound the difficulty we have with this particular piece of legislation because I do not believe there is a single hon. member opposite who believes that the truth in that report should have been withheld from the electorate in the 1970 general election. This report came five weeks before an election. Is this the way they think a democracy should function? Do they think the electorate must be kept uninformed for as long as possible? If this Bill had been on the Statute Book in 1970, the public would not have known anything about the matter on 22 April of that year when the election was in fact held. In 1970 the normal democratic process would effectively have been prevented from following its normal course if a Bill like this had been on the Statute Book at that time. One cannot help but ask hon. members what they have against the normal processes of democracy, why they create the impression that they really hate democracy and why they are so intolerant.

This brings us, of course, to another point, namely the cardinal question: Why this Bill and why at this particular time? It is quite clear to me that the Information affair to a large extent lies at the root of this Bill. In order to appreciate the matter completely, one must also look at the part the hon. the Prime Minister played during the last couple of months. I am very glad the hon. the Prime Minister is present. As has been mentioned before, the hon. the Prime Minister, having arrived at a conclusion, made a rather rash threat at one stage that he would come with a particular type of legislation. Having made that threat, he was in fact committed and could not get out of it. This is why he cannot heed the pleas from his own side. I do not doubt that that is one of the reasons why we have the Bill before us today.

There is, of course, also another reason, a very deep-seated reason. When someone goes over the edge, if I may put it that way, when someone does something completely irrational or irresponsible, one must look at the underlying psychological reason for that. In other words, one must try to discover which was the straw that broke the camel’s back. As regards this Bill, I think I have discovered which was the straw that broke the camel’s back as far as the hon. the Prime Minister is concerned. I think that the straw that broke the camel’s back was a person called Judge Mostert. When Judge Mostert found that in his view the danger existed that the true facts concerning the Information scandal would not be published, he did something which in the eyes of the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister was the worst thing possible, and that was to use the tools of a democratic society, in other words the Press, in order to make known the facts which he believed had to be made known in the interests of the public. From that moment the camel’s back was broken and we can say that the days of a reasonable free Press in South Africa were counted.

This Bill must therefore also be seen as the Government’s revenge on Judge Mostert. This Bill is therefore, in a way, the price South Africa has to pay for Judge Mostert’s heroic act. If anyone doubts my statement, he must show me how it will be possible in future for a future Judge Mostert to do what Judge Mostert did when faced with similar circumstances and his conscience demands of him that he take action. Will anyone be able to do that again? Of course not!

*It is an established fact that the hon. the Prime Minister was already familiar with the main facts of the Information debacle when he made a remark about clean administration after his election to this office. One would normally expect that if a person seriously intended to bring about clean administration after 30 years of NP government, he would do so while maintaining all the means and resources at his disposal. Surely there can be no doubt that all over the world, the Press is a politician’s or even a Government’s most important means of keeping a vigilant eye on maladministration, but instead of using the Press for this honourable task, it is now being muzzled. As far as I am concerned, that is totally senseless.

What is also senseless and absolutely inexplicable—I shall even go as far as to say that it is an unpatriotic deed—is that although, according to the experts, there are already 95 different laws in our country which restrict the Press as such or make its task more difficult, South Africa was one of the shining stars on the continent of Africa as far as the freedom of the Press was concerned before the introduction of the Bill. The degree of freedom of the Press which existed here was doubtlessly one of our biggest assets. Everyone who has ever been confronted with critical or prejudiced people from abroad, in South Africa or elsewhere, knows that the fact that we had that degree of freedom of the Press in South Africa was one of the means which enabled us to neutralize the venomous attacks of those people on South Africa. The question must therefore be asked: Why should the Government destroy one of our greatest assets?

After the Bill has been passed, millions of rands will have to be spent in an attempt to make the world believe that we do have a free Press in South Africa. However, we shall not be successful in that attempt. Who will believe the Government if the Government— and this is the test—has not even been able to convince the official Opposition or the other Opposition parties in the House and has not even been able to convince the Press which gave its support to the NP? Do hon. members on the other side perhaps think that that part of the Press is unpatriotic? I expect an answer to this question. If the Government is unable to convince them, how does it think that it will succeed in convincing a critical and prejudiced international audience?

I have no doubt that the legislation may cause intimidation and a type of blackmailing of the man in the street, because of the fact that ordinary conversations about incompetence and ineffectiveness in the Government machinery will be exploited. This will result in threats and uncertainty.

Hon. members will freely admit that no similar legislation exists anywhere else in the world in a democratic or Western State. We are all proud of the systems of values on which our society is built. They are precious to us. By this time, the Government should realize that the more those systems of values are tampered with, the more likely the Government is to alienate itself from intellectuals and other groups of ordinary people to whom the systems of values of a democratic institution really are meaningful. As I am standing here, I am convinced that there are indeed hon. members on the other side who are just as deeply concerned about the subversion of our systems of values in South Africa as are we of the Opposition.

In the course of the past weekend, reports appeared in the Press which referred to NP supporters in the Press as well as hon. members of the NP who are hoping that certain amendments will indeed be accepted. However, they are hoping in vain. It is time they asked themselves how long they will be able, without losing their self-respect, to continue being humiliated all the time because of their commitments to a party or party leadership which is responsible for this type of legislation. This legislation is indeed a blot on the good name of South Africa. The time has come for them to decide whether they want to be a part of a choir of “yes-men” for ever.

†I have often been asked in all sincerity by supporters of one of the Opposition parties in Parliament, and I am quite sure that it has been asked of other hon. members of the Opposition as well, whether I really thought that if the NP should lose an election they would just hand over power. This question has been put to me quite often, and I must say that I have always gone out of my way to say that I sincerely believe that the NP has tremendous respect for the democratic process as such. So I have always been able to reply in the affirmative to people who have asked that question. I know that they are asking this question in all sincerity and are not trying to be funny. But when we see what is happening and know what has happened, and we cannot divorce it from the background of…

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker. All I want to say is that as far as this particular Bill is concerned …

That is a shocking insinuation.

The hon. member says I am making a shocking insinuation, but I have not even stated the facts yet. [Interjections.] As far as this particular Bill is concerned, one cannot divorce it from the background of the happenings over the past few months in South Africa. It is quite clear to me that when certain things go wrong, the Government is quite prepared to change the rules.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central asked so many questions that it is impossible for me to reply to them in the short space of time at my disposal. However, in the course of my speech I shall come back to his allegations that we could not mention a single example from the past of where a person was accused and was not in fact found guilty. He also asked what hope we had of convincing the world of our point of view, since we on this side were not even able to convince the Opposition. But surely we know that the Opposition is not open to persuasion. With all our best efforts in the past to attempt to convince them what was best for South Africa, we could not succeed in doing so, for they cling to the outside world almost like a bat to a nipple. We cannot convince the Opposition and for that reason I do not think we shall be able to convince the Western World or the rest of the outside world either.

Over the past few days we have had a hysterical outburst of protest against this Bill. I do not think that these protests were spontaneous, but took place in an organized way. Nor did we only have protests; we also had a demonstration, and as soon as one has to deal with demonstrators, one cannot help feeling resentful. A demonstration always leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. If the Press is of the opinion that its freedom is being encroached upon by this legislation, surely they can lodge a protest through the existing channels, inter alia, through the Press Union. If in this way they do not achieve what they are seeking to achieve, it is understandable that they will write in their newspapers as they have in fact been doing in recent times. They have every right to do so, and no one can take it amiss of them for putting their standpoint. Of course, every citizen of our country also has the right to protest against a Bill about which he has misgivings, but if the protests emanates from bodies such as the National Council of Women in South Africa, the Staff Association of the SABC, and last but not least a Railway trade union, viz. the Artisan Staff Association, then one wonders who is behind these organized protests. It is clear that some of the spokesmen of these organizations are not speaking on behalf of their members at all. It is also clear that some of these spokesmen, inter alia, Mr. Jimmy Zurich, the chairman of the Artisan Staff Association of the Railways, has no inkling whatsoever of what the Bill is all about. I am quoting what he said from Die Burger of 28 May 1979—

Surely these people have no inkling what this Bill is about. Surely this Bill does not prohibit them from moving a motion of no confidence in their Minister if they want to do so. It is clear to me that these protests took place on an organized basis. Surely we have reason to believe that these people are being prompted to protest. The question is who took the initiative. At the beginning of my speech I said that we have not only come up against protests, but against demonstrations as well. For the sake of the record, I shall have to refer to a few demonstrations. The first was the action taken by the Black Sash movement. Before the Bill had been tabled and the official Opposition had objected to its introduction, the Black Sash appealed to motorists to switch on their head-lights during the day, and also asked pedestrians to walk around with torches during the day to indicate their dissatisfaction with the Bill in that way. Surely the actions of this leftist movement in the past are also known to us.

The second form of demonstration was the lunch-hour protest meetings of the PFP. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout began with this by holding such a meeting here in Cape Town. I understand that it was not a success. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is going to try again, this time with the hon. member for Yeoville and Mr. René de Villiers. I understand that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition attributes the failure of his first meeting to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, for it seems the people of Cape Town do not want to listen to this hon. gentleman. Similar meetings are apparently being planned in Johannesburg and in East London.

The third form of demonstration to which I want to refer, is the PFP’s attitude of not respecting the Chair, as a result of which they have to withdraw from this House.

Order! The hon. member may not discuss that.

I do believe that the conduct of some people is aimed solely at getting their names in the newspapers. If it is reported in the newspapers that they had demonstrated against this Bill, they are quite satisfied that they have achieved their goal. The question I ask myself, is who is responsible for these organized protests and demonstrations. Is it Mrs. Joyce Harris and her Black Sash, or is it the PFP? I think this is a question which the Opposition should give us a reply to. If it is not one of these two, is it then the bosses of the PFP who are responsible for this? I have reason to put this question because I refuse to believe that the protests are spontaneous.

I do not intend to cross swords with the Press this afternoon. On the contrary, I readily concede that a major section of the Press is of great value to our country and the Government. The Press industry plays a special role in society and meets a valuable need in the life of a politician. Just think of how many newspaper clippings are used by hon. members in their speeches. In the course of time a newspaper becomes a daily need in one’s life. In the following leading article in Die Volksblad of Tuesday, 22 May, probably one of the most responsible newspapers in this country, I read the following—

Let us admit this candidly to one another: There are members of the English-language Press, journalists and editors, who are not only enemies of the National Party and the Government, but also of South Africa. We think for example of Mr. Donald Woods in the past. In future there will always be more like him. One will never get them to realize their responsibility with rules and regulations, agreements and codes. It is a pity that our responsible Press groups also have to be curbed now for the sake of those groups that act in an irresponsible way.

The hon. member for Durban Central said that we could not mention any example to him. I should like to refer to a debate conducted in this House in 1974. At that time there was tremendous gossip-mongering and accusations in certain newspapers in connection with the purchase of land by Iscor at Saldanha Bay. I do not know whether hon. members recall that it was said that some people had been enriched by the purchase of this land as a result of the high prices paid for it. Now I should like to quote what the hon. the Minister of Finance—at that time the Minister of Economic Affairs—said, and I quote from Hansard of Monday, 28 October 1974, col. 6705—

It has happened in the past that an innocent man or an innocent organization has been accused by various Press groups of corruption although they were not guilty. When I read the reply of the former hon. the Minister to this charge, it seems very clear that some members of the Press, English as well as Afrikaans, arrogate to themselves the right to charge, to try, to find guilty and to condemn a person. Surely we know how certain newspapers expressed misgivings in the past without dealing with them in full. They merely hint at something dubious going on without submitting any adequate evidence whatsoever in respect of these suspicions.

It is true that certain elements of the Press have no respect for the truth. They sometimes content themselves with half-truths and then abandon the whole matter so that the suspect always remains under suspicion. I have already said that we should speak frankly to one another for a change about this matter. Surely we are aware of the onslaughts being launched on our country. Surely we are aware that there are some of the English-language newspaper editors—the Donald Woods type —who welcome that onslaught and are even prepared to fan it by accusing innocent people and labelling them in this way. We are also aware that a part of the Marxist onslaughts on our country is aimed at casting suspicion on our leaders, English- as well as Afrikaans speaking leaders, and there are newspapers that are participating in this to their heart’s content. This legislation does not propose, as the Black Sash movement alleges, to create an opportunity to “sweep the dirt under the carpet”. It is being introduced for the very purpose of investigating corruption and then reporting it to the highest body in this country at the very first opportunity. It creates an opportunity for the Advocate-General to take action even before an accused or a defendant has had an opportunity to remove or destroy documents which perhaps contain essential evidence. I predict that this legislation, although it is now being protested and demonstrated against, will ultimately prove itself to be an essential instrument for ensuring clean national administration, and that is why I gladly support it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winburg will understand it if I do not react to his speech. My time is very limited in this debate. However, in the course of my speech, I shall try to refer to some of the issues which he raised.

†It fell to the hon. the Prime Minister to take over the Premiership of South Africa at a time when we and the rest of the world faced grave dangers. In order to govern South Africa, the hon. the Prime Minister feels that he needs to bring about change and his viewpoint has been evidenced by his attitude towards the constitutional committee, the reports of the Wiehahn Commission and the Riekert Commission, the homelands issue, changes in the structure of the Public Service Commission and his consultation with people of all races. In accepting these far-reaching changes the hon. the Prime Minister has grasped the nettle despite the fact that he is a new Prime Minister. During an earlier debate already the hon. the Prime Minister alerted us to the fact that he had a Bill like this in mind. The hon. the Prime Minister has seen attempts at character assassination on himself and his colleagues in the Government following the Information debacle. On top of that, he has the formidable task of governing whilst we have the Rhodesian, South West African and Angolan problems on our borders. In addition to that, the United Nations and its principles have collapsed, and we are to be one of the scapegoats. In order to govern South Africa in these difficult times, it is therefore obvious that the hon. the Prime Minister should prefer not to have people yapping at his heels in regard to the honesty and the efficiency of his administration.

If one tried to make an assessment of the various opinions in regard to this Bill, it would seem that the following are the points of agreement: Firstly, honest and clean administration; secondly, exposure of maladministration; thirdly, exposure of corruption; and, fourthly, exposure of unjust enrichment. On these issues there is no disagreement between us. The appointment of an Advocate-General, in itself, to assist in the process not exclusively, but in conjunction with the Press, the public and the politicians, could be formulated in acceptable terms, and I see the hon. the Leader of the House is with me on this point. The main points of difference are the role of the Press and of the Advocate-General and at what point in time each must fulfil that role. These are issues which could be settled in a calm atmosphere of a Select Committee. Through our leader, the hon. member for Simonstown, hon. members of the SAP have decided to adopt an objective and positive attitude. We did not prejudge the issue before the Bill was mooted; neither did we prejudge the issue when we discussed and agreed to the First Reading. Having been furnished with the Bill, and after in-depth consideration, we came to the conclusion that there were issues on which everyone could agree. However, there were also vital matters on which not all of us could agree. The only solution was to have this Bill referred to a Select Committee so that the matter could be debated properly.

An amendment to that effect was placed on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Simonstown in an effort to find a suitable solution. I hope there will be hon. members on that side of the House who will come to our assistance when we vote on this amendment.

Do you want a bet?

Well, times may change. In any event, I am pleased to see that, even if there are no hon. members on that side of the House who will vote for it, the amendment apparently has widespread support throughout the country and, I believe, in this House. If the Government—even at this late stage—accepts the amendment, it will not be back-tracking, but will be considered an act of wisdom, an act of diplomacy. It will be an act of strength and not an act of weakness. When a party with 135 hon. members in Parliament makes a concession, it is not an act of weakness. It is done from a position of strength.

South Africa has a long and hard road to walk in the future. The road is there for all to walk along, and the Government must take a lead and take as many as possible people along that road. In the Select Committee, the Government will have the opportunity of at least reconciling some of the interested parties both in and outside this House. The post of the Advocate-General must not be a divisive, but a cohesive factor. We believe that it is now up to the Government to give that lead. There are pressure groups operating in South Africa and no country can be dominated by them. No self-respecting Government can be dictated to. But there are people who are not hostile to the Government and who feel that it is in the interests of all South Africans that the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government need the assistance of every South African in successfully combating the problems that beset this country. These people would like to see this Bill being referred to a Select Committee. The concept of an Advocate-General is excellent, and in carrying out the promise of a clean administration, the Advocate-General, the Press, the politicians and the public can assist by working together. These various components need each other. The Advocate-General can in that way be assisted in bringing out the truth of a matter.

There are of course political parties that have sunk so low that they are already questioning the honesty and the bona fides of the Advocate-General even before he has been appointed. To cast a slur on the Advocate-General in that way can only be done by one political party, and the man who did it is the one man in this House who has shown more political inconsistency and instability than any other hon. member in this House. That is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He said in The Argus of 21 May 1979 …

That is a lie.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says I lie.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

The hon. member must now listen. Either The Argus or the hon. member is wrong. On 21 May 1979 he said, and I quote—

Did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout use those words? [Interjections.]

Of course, I have … [Interjections.]

Exactly. Why does the hon. member make such a statement? He does it only to cast suspicion and to raise doubts about the Advocate-General. That is typical of the way he operates. We know that from the long years in the United Party. We are now seeing it happen again.

We say to the Government that we would like them to accept our amendment. However, if the Government refuses to accept our amendment, the Government leaves us no option but to vote not only for our own amendment, but also for the amendment moved by the official Opposition, even though we should not like to associate ourselves with statements such as those made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. [Interjections.]

You are only a political loafer.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Simonstown motivated our case very well. He pointed out…

Order! The hon. member for Bezuidenhout must withdraw those words. The hon. member may not call another hon. member of the House a political loafer.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them.

Go outside and be ashamed of yourself there.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was seeing his own reflection in my eyes. [Interjections.]

We believe that clause 4 is not a well thought-out clause. We feel it is an inhibiting factor. We also feel that the Government must at an earlier stage stand up to the strains and the stresses of public exposure. I know that the Advocate-General will be exposing matters that are brought to his attention. However, he cannot have an organization throughout the country which the Press, the politicians and the public can muster together with the Advocate-General. The Advocate-General can play an invaluable part and his machinery must be geared to expose what should be exposed. However, he must cooperate with the other components that can be of enormous assistance to him.

This Bill will have the effect of driving rumour underground. Scandal-mongering will unfortunately be the order of the day if this Bill is promulgated in its present form. We believe that there was too much haste in the drafting of this legislation. A Select Committee could have heard evidence and could have given this Bill the desired shape. In our view the NPU, the Bar Association, the various Side Bar Associations and all interested parties could have given evidence before a Select Committee. Thus we could have reached a modus vivendi with this particular legislation.

If the Advocate-General has tabled a report, there is no problem about publication or exposure. That gives us no difficulty. However, there are problems before the tabling of the Advocate-General’s report, problems that could have been considered and settled by a Select Committee. Reports from the Auditor-General, for example, would be tabled. If such a report should make mention of maladministration or unjust enrichment, publication is precluded in terms of clause 4(3), except with the written permission of the Advocate-General. Provincial auditors’ reports throughout the provinces are also affected similarly. Then we also have the case of institutions like Sasol, Escom, Iscor and others that are partly funded by State funds. If there should be maladministration or unjust enrichment it will be difficult to determine what portions of the funds in question are State moneys. These reports are tabled, but they may also fall under the provisions of clause 4(3).

A member of Parliament, reporting back to his constituency, can report on maladministration and on unjust enrichment. There is no argument about that. That is not in dispute at all. However, at all such report-back meetings members of the Press are also present. It then means that the Press cannot report to the public what was said at that particular public meeting. It also means that the people who are present can hear all that the member of Parliament has to say about maladministration or unjust enrichment Such a member of Parliament may even be slandering the Government without having to account for it, because no report of what he has said will publicly appear in the Press. If a member of Parliament should, in the production of a publication for circulation in his constituency, write about maladministration or unjust enrichment before the Advocate-General has tabled his report in Parliament, I believe that member of Parliament will have a headache. I should like the hon. the Minister to reply to this specific aspect at the earliest opportunity.

We find local newspapers having difficulties in connection with clause 4(3). Many newspaper groups are, of course, correspondents for overseas newspapers, and the overseas newspapers will be able to publish whatever they want to because there is no restriction on them whatever. This Bill gives rise to misunderstanding and misinterpretation and has been the subject of controversy. The Bill could, however, still be sent to a Select Committee. All the issues could then be clarified and the Bill improved upon. The Press has a duty to criticize, investigate and expose. That is the Press’ inalienable right, and I am sure that any Advocate-General would want that safeguarded. With all those considerations in mind, we have no hesitation in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Simonstown, and we call upon other hon. members to do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, in general the hon. member for Walmer made a moderate and responsible speech. I gladly accept his bona fides and that of his party in this matter, but then I should like to put two things to him. Firstly, he should remember that the Committee Stage of this Bill has still to be dealt with and that an undertaking has also been given that any good advice which may be given in the Committee Stage, will be seriously considered.

But by then the principle will already have been accepted.

I did not get the idea that the hon. member was actually opposed to the principle of the Bill. As far as I could make out, his reason for wanting to refer it to a Select Committee was that he was opposed to certain provisions of the Bill. But he should not forget that the Committee Stage has still to be dealt with. Since I accepted his bona fides I want to know whether it is perhaps asking too much of him and his party to accept our bona fides in this matter, too, and to afford us a chance to implement this legislation and to see how things go. I think I can say candidly that however strongly people are opposed to this Bill, they must concede—they cannot get away from this— that the fundamental objective of the Bill is a meritorious one. To summarize it briefly: The objective of the Bill is to ensure clean national administration. Although this fundamental objective cannot be attacked, efforts have been made for a long time now to discredit certain aspects of the Bill and to cloud certain important aspects by placing the emphasis on sections of the Bill and then misrepresenting those sections. As a result of these misrepresentations even responsible people in this country have expressed the concern that however good the intentions of this Bill may be, and however necessary it may be, it could have an adverse effect on the Government as a result of these misinterpretations. It could perhaps serve as ammunition for those who want to get at the Government and this country. These responsible people are concerned about the fact that the outcry being made on this Bill could give South Africa an image which this Government, with its outspoken believe in fundamental freedoms, does not deserve. In addition they are also afraid of and concerned about the fact that so much venom is being sucked from this Bill. The upshot of this could be that this legislation could have exactly the opposite effect to what is being envisaged. This concern and fear emanates from people who are moderate and responsible. Consequently I feel that I am now entitled—I hope this will not be called presumptuous—to make an appeal to these people. I am doing this precisely because they feel this way about the matter. I appeal to them to be careful not to attack the legislation to such an extent that the good aspects are also lost as a result of their criticism of certain aspects of the Bill, the parts they do not like. Alas, the other side of the picture is also true. We should also all bear in mind that when we defend the basic correctness of the premise of the Bill, when we defend the matters of principle, we should not estrange in any way our friends and others who want to co-operate. It is really not necessary to estrange our friends or other powers that are prepared to co-operate with us in the weal and woe and the interests of South Africa. More than ever in the past the stage has now been reached that those in this country who mean well by it, must stand united. This is not a new idea, because it is well known that there is a total onslaught on us in the world. That onslaught must be opposed with all the means at our disposal. At the same time this requires the closest co-operation of everyone, that of private as well as public institutions, that of the Press, that of politicians and indeed that of everyone who really has South Africa’s interests at heart.

As the hon. the Prime Minister said, the future of our country can only be built on systematic development. Is this not the purpose that we want to achieve by means of the Bill? We are not looking for corruption behind every bush, but if there is in fact mismanagement or maladministration, we are seeking by means of this very legislation to deal with it in a systematic way. This is what we have in mind and in actual fact this is what is needed, too.

The major problem—I could almost call it the “heartache”—is that in the course of time so much has been said about the Bill that is simply not true. Some of it has been deliberately and maliciously mispresented while other misrepresentations have been made out of ignorance. Then there are also the misrepresentations that arose from the fact that the matter had not been stated in full. I can quote certain examples of this. An expert on constitutional law at a specific university said in a report on the Bill—

This statement is made by an expert on constitutional law in this country and if the public read it as it has been reported, the public will attach value to it, but the statement that has been made, is simply not complete. Consequently it is not correct either.

It is being said that the Advocate-General will continue to have the power to decide that the disclosure of a certain matter is not in the interests of State security. Moreover, it is being said that this power should be restricted. Surely this power has been restricted, because the Advocate-General may only decide for the duration of his inquiry. However, once his inquiry has been completed—and he has to complete that inquiry as soon as possible—he may only make a recommendation; he may not decide. After completion of the Advocate-General’s investigation the matter is, after all, is referred to a Select Committee of Parliament where it is finally disposed of and then the decision on publication rests with the committee and not the Advocate-General. Consequently the statement of this learned gentleman is incorrect.

There is a further example to which I could refer. Unfortunately it is true that these misrepresentations are not confined to South Africa only, but go further, too. In the newspaper one reads a report on a good, moderate source in England from which the following statement originates—

The report also contains various incorrect conclusions drawn from the provisions of the Bill and these imply that after the Bill has been passed there will no longer be Press freedom in South Africa. On what statement does this authoritative source in England rely when it alleges that there is Press freedom in South Africa? On the statement that the English-speaking Press was constantly able to attack the National Party Government. Nothing in this legislation prevents the Opposition parties or the English-language Press from continuing to attack the NP Government. Consequently, the criterion used by this source to substantiate the fact that we have a free Press here, is still in force, because no attack whatsoever is being made on it. Therefore, I want to say once again that this is neither complete nor correct. However, I shall come back to this.

If one approaches the man in the street and discusses this Bill with him, one would find that he and many others are under the impression that, when there is any misappropriation or corruption in future, it will not be possible to publish anything about it, but that it will remain under wraps forever. Surely this is untrue. Surely we know that this is untrue. I think it would be as well if we were once again to examine briefly what the fundamental provisions of the Bill actually are. It provides that if misconduct is suspected, that suspicion must be reported to a specific source, i.e. the Advocate-General, and publication of this suspicion without the Advocate-General’s permission is prohibited. While the Advocate-General is conducting his investigation, it is, however, prohibited in two circumstances only …

How long will the investigation last?

As long as necessary. Publication is then prohibited in two circumstances: Firstly, when State security is at stake and, secondly, when publication will impede an inquiry. The Advocate-General has to give notice in the prescribed way of the complaint lodged with him as soon as possible after that has been done. This replies at once to the problem sometimes raised that the public even has a right to know that an investigation is going to be instituted. This right is not being affected. In the proposed amendments provision is being made for the public to be notified without delay that such an investigation is going to be instituted. Consequently these requirements in respect of the public are being met.

I want to go on to point out what I think the Bill really implies. The hon. member for East London City asked how long the investigation would last. The Bill provides that the Advocate-General must investigate the matter without delay and make a report. After all, there is no reason to delay the investigation unnecessarily. However, I shall come back to that. Then the report has to be tabled in the House of Assembly. After that has been done there is, after all, no restriction whatsoever on publication of any nature, except when State security is at stake, and in that case the Advocate-General simply makes a recommendation and does not make a decision in this regard.

Therefore, what is being prohibited by this Bill at worst? It prohibits—and only on a temporary basis—the publication of anything that would impede the investigation. Is there anyone in this House who can stand up without hesitation and say that he does not mind if a proper investigation is impeded? I doubt it. I believe that everyone in this House will have to agree that, if an investigation has to be instituted, it has to be a proper investigation which must not be impeded. Secondly, it prohibits the publication of anything which could affect State security. Once again I believe that everyone in this House will accept that when something could be prejudicial to State security, it should not be published. In that case, what is the problem? Why the complaint? There cannot be objections to the inherent provisions of the Bill. Therefore, the objection must come from another angle. It must lie in the fact that those who are opposed to it, want to imply that the discretion that the Advocate-General will have, will not be properly exercised by him. If this is the case we find, as the hon. member for Walmer said, that the Advocate-General is already being criticized and suspicion is already being cast upon him.

I just want to come back briefly to the English-language source to which I referred and according to which this country has at least one good characteristic, i.e. its free Press. In this respect, too, that source is incorrect. It is generally accepted that this country has, inter alia, the very important and good characteristic that its administration of justice and judges are held in high esteem. Since our legal system and courts are above suspicion, one cannot simply isolate the court from the society and say that because it is a court, it is above suspicion. The court is comprised of people, and where do those people come from? They are chosen from the ranks of the lawyers in this country. Consequently it is clear that the esteem in which our courts are held is shared by our country’s lawyers. Our lawyers are the people from among whom our judges are drawn, and a person is not suddenly transformed into a responsible being when he becomes a judge. Someone becomes a judge because he is already a responsible person, because he grew up in a responsible way and was trained in these matters. That is why we have a responsible administration of justice.

Who will be appointed as Advocate-General? The Advocate-General will be appointed from the judiciary of our country, i.e. the lawyers. The Advocate-General shall be a person who by virtue of his qualifications was entitled to be an advocate for at least ten years, although he will not necessarily have had to practise as an advocate. The Advocate-General will be appointed out of that stable. I do not want any misunderstandings to exist. I am not saying that a senior advocate will necessarily be appointed as Advocate-General. Nor am I saying that a senior advocate is not going to be appointed. I do not know. The appointment is in the good hands and discretion of the hon. the Prime Minister and the State President. However, I know that he will be appointed from the same group of people from which our judges are appointed.

In view of the potential importance of the post, the mistrust that has already been created in respect of it and the fact that the first officer who will fill the post, will have to do pioneering work, I want to express the hope and accept that the first person to be appointed to this post will be a carefully selected person. Later appointments will also have to be carefully selected people, but the first appointment in particular will have to be a carefully selected person, a person in whom the people can have full confidence and who will be able to exercise his discretion in accordance with the high standards for which our senior jurists are known.

Another standpoint has already been adopted. It is being said that since the Advocate-General will not be able to exercise a discretion to prohibit publication except in the two cases which I have already mentioned, the whole value of the legislation with regard to publication, is lost, because that Advocate-General could be so weak that he would hardly ever exercise his discretion against publication. This is not being said by the NP. However, it is being said. We are not afraid of this, and why are we not afraid of this? We are not afraid because we have confidence. We on this side of the House have the confidence that the Advocate-General will exercise his discretion properly. We have confidence in our legal officers and we have confidence in ourselves. We have confidence in our policy. We have confidence in our voters, and they in turn have confidence in us. This is the major difference between us and those who oppose the Bill. Hon. members opposite do not even have confidence in themselves. They do not have confidence in their policy and the voters do not have confidence in them either. There lies the great difference. I can go on to say that I have confidence in our nation, people who grew up in a tradition of freedom. If it ultimately appears that we are on the wrong road, they will not allow us to remain on that road. However, they are not simply going to allow themselves to be taken in tow.

I want to conclude by saying that I think I can say without any fear of contradiction that everyone in this country is proud of the Auditor-General and their judges. Give the Advocate-General half a chance and before we know where we are the day will come when all of us will be proud of him, and of his work as well.

Mr. Speaker, if the value of this Bill is to be measured against the quality of the arguments which are being advanced in favour of it, we must know for certain that it is time we rejected the Bill. The hon. member for Albany has just called us all to national unity in the face of the total onslaught on South Africa, while he knows very well—and he actually conceded it later in his speech—that with this Bill we are actually giving the enemies of South Africa abroad the greatest gift that they have received in years.

The hon. member for Winburg said with great self-complacency that no one would try to convince hon. Opposition members in this House, because they are incapable of being convinced. Well, if that seems to be the case to the hon. member for Winburg, I want to ask him whether everybody who is opposing this Bill, for example the Afrikaans Press, institutions like the Bar Association and the Side Bar Association and Mr. Jimmy Zurich, are also inconvincible. Is the Government so dejected as a result of the support they enjoy in the country? A little earlier on the hon. member for Worcester, for some inexplicable reason or other, saw fit to drag into this debate the fact that hon. Opposition members in the Select Committee on Public Accounts voted against a certain sum of R17 million which was transferred from one department to another. I want to say that we did so because of the fact that at the time when that R17 million was transferred there was in our opinion no statutory authority in terms of which it could be done. What that has to do with this Bill, I do not know, but since the hon. member saw fit to use this argument here, I just wanted to react to it briefly.

Order! It has nothing to do with the Bill. As far as I am concerned, the hon. member has now finished replying to those arguments.

Thank you, Sir, I thought so too. I want to continue my speech now.

We are now approaching the end of this debate. In my opinion it is a fortunate coincidence that the weekend there was an intervening weekend before the Second Reading debate could be completed, because it has afforded us all an opportunity of observing public reaction. It is quite clear that the opposition to this Bill in the country is strong, and profound, and widespread. Not only the Press, but according to reports in today’s newspapers, to a greater or lesser extent also Mr. Zurich of the Artisans Staff Association of the Railways—this has already been referred to—the Staff Association of the SABC and even that usually loyal supporter of whatever the Government does, viz. the Afrikaanse Studentebond, have expressed their misgivings about this Bill. The business world is upset because confidence in South Africa, which was slowly mounting is now being shaken again by the introduction of this Bill. A responsible businessman has expressed the opinion to me that the introduction of this Bill will prove to be the biggest political blunder since the Jameson raid. Such is the hubbub caused by this Bill all over the country. [Interjections.]

But the weekend has afforded us the opportunity, too, of holding a post mortem of the debate thus far and of the arguments which have been advanced in this House and elsewhere. As so often happens, we here in this House have for the most part been talking at cross purposes, but a pattern did emerge as the debate progressed. That pattern centres on the duality of this Bill. As we all know, there are two main issues contained in the Bill. The debate and the comments made can be divided into two themes and in the same way there are two main arguments that were advanced by hon. members on the Government side who are supporting the Bill. Some hon. members—the hon. member for Albany has just been an example of that again— emphasized the fact that there was a deficiency in our machinery for combating corruption and that the aim of this Bill was, therefore, to appoint an Advocate-General in order to strengthen that machinery. Other hon. members, such as the hon. the Minister in his introductory speech, concentrated instead on the real or alleged power of the Press. They attacked the Press for its alleged and ostensible sins and created the impression that the aim of this Bill was really to curb the Press. Those were the two themes. The first theme involved the strengthening of the anticorruption machinery. This theme was first mooted in this House in the debate which took place on 16 March 1979, a debate in which the hon. the Prime Minister raised the idea of the possible appointment of an Advocate-General. The second theme, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members have already indicated here, had been envisaged by the hon. the Prime Minister as long ago as the December short session.

If these are the two aims of this Bill—and they seem to be the two aims—it should be noted that there is no logical relationship whatsoever between the two. There is no sound reason why these two matters should be brought together in one Bill. It is very clear that an Advocate-General could be appointed and could function without the Press being censured at the same time, and it is clear that the Press could be censured, if that has to happen, without an Advocate-General being appointed in South Africa. As we all know, the reaction of the public to these two main themes are quite different in the two cases. As far as the appointment of an Advocate-General in principle is concerned, there is no particularly strong public objection to it, depending, of course, to some extent on the powers and functions of this official. I want to repeat at once, as other speakers have said from these benches in the course of the debate that we in the PFP are not convinced of the necessity of a new institution for combating corruption in South Africa; we believe instead that the greatest need is for a greater willingness on the part of the Government to utilize the existing machinery to the full.

During the Committee Stage—if South Africa should meet with the misfortune of this Bill reaching the Committee Stage—we shall move amendments in order to make the appointment of the Advocate-General more acceptable. As far as we are concerned, however, there is no fundamental objection to the principle of the appointment of an Advocate-General. As far as I could analyse the multitude of objections expressed outside, this also applies to other protesting bodies.

The part of the Bill which does arouse large-scale political anger and which causes the people to believe that there is something the Government wants to cover up, is the Press censorship that it wants to apply. Now I submit with all due respect to the hon. the Prime Minister and to the Government that if the main aim of the appointment of an Advocate-General is really to promote clean administration and if he sincerely believes in a free Press, and wants to prevent our country’s reputation from suffering a tremendous setback, then his course of action is very clear; he must separate the two parts of this Bill. He must drop clause 4(3) and what it entails—the Press censorship provisions and simply proceed with the appointment of an Advocate-General and matters pertaining to it I repeat, I cannot simply promise that we would support such a Bill, but I do say that our objection to it would be of a far less desperate nature than our resistance to this measure. I am also convinced that if the hon. gentleman were to do what I am now proposing, the general condemnation of the Government, and unfortunately, of South Africa, which the hon. the Prime Minister is unleashing with his present measure, will to a large extent disappear.

†There is no reason to believe that the Advocate-General in his role as a special investigator would be hampered by the existence of a free Press. The whole of the Watergate investigation, as has been pointed out, was conducted in the presence of a free Press, which clearly helped, rather than hindered, the investigator in his work. Dozens of scandals in all sorts of Western countries, including this one, have been investigated and cleaned up in the presence of an operating free Press. The Erasmus Commission, here in our own country, in the last few months seems to have worked quite happily in the presence of a Press which was reporting freely prior to the introduction of this Bill. For my purposes I do not even need to suggest that the hon. the Prime Minister drops his Press censorship measure altogether or forever. He can take it and put it on a shelf if he wants to. He can keep it in readiness in case he needs it and in case he can show the need for it. But as I have shown, there is no present reason to believe that Press censorship is needed for the Advocate-General to function effectively. At least, what I am asking is that the hon. the Prime Minister should try it and see.

A great deal is at stake. It has been pointed out many times during this debate that nothing could possibly do greater harm to the good name of South Africa than the passage of this Press-muzzling measure. I have listened for many hours over the years—we all have—to Government spokesmen accusing members of the Opposition of harming the good name of South Africa in that way. If harm has been done over the years by speeches made by the Opposition—and I do not admit or concede that—then all of it taken together is eclipsed by the damage that this single measure will do. This measure is hurting South Africa already by the fact of its inclusion in legislation introduced into this House. But, as I am about to show, if it is adopted and put into practice, it will continue to do new harm to South Africa from time to time, for an indefinite period. Let hon. members not deceive themselves about this. If there are stories of corruption in South Africa and if the Press here is barred from publishing them, then certainly the Press abroad is going to publish them with even greater gusto. It does not take much imagination to guess at the sort of reports that will be written. It will go something like this: “In racist South Africa, where the newspapers have been gagged and prevented from reporting on Government scandals, we can now disclose that corruption is rife.” [Interjections.] That is the sort of thing one is going to get in the foreign Press as a result of passing this measure here.

Now you have let the cat out of the bag.

For the sake of a little bit of satisfaction in preventing the Press here from running stories of corruption, the hon. the Prime Minister will actually be inviting a higher level of interest in such matters by newspapers abroad and, no doubt, an augmented level of rumour-mongering by the less responsible elements of the overseas Press, which will have the most detrimental consequences possible for South Africa. After all, as we pointed out at the time that the establishment of The Citizen and To The Point could not possibly do South Africa’s international reputation any good, because those papers were published here, by the same argument, it is not what appears in the Press here that can harm us overseas, but what appears in the Press there. It is difficult for the public to resist the conclusion that The Citizen and To The Point had more to do with the NP election effort than they had to do with the good name of South Africa. So it is also difficult for the public to resist the conclusion that the purpose of this Bill has more to do with keeping facts from the public here than from any foreign source of stories from South Africa. The hon. gentlemen should not forget what the effect in South Africa is going to be of stories that will be brought back from overseas by the thousands of people who pass through Jan Smuts airport daily, going both ways. They go abroad, read overseas newspapers and sometimes bring cuttings back with them or have garbled memories of what they have read. As a result of this, and as a result of the stifling of reports and comment in South Africa, the rumours within South Africa will be all the more rife.

I say again, that what I am proposing is a* sensible experiment. If I remember correctly, I think the hon. the Prime Minister referred to the Bill as a whole as an experiment I want to suggest the following experiment. Let the Advocate-General be appointed and let him function. If it appears, after a reasonable period—it can be six months, one year or two years—that he is truly being hampered in his functioning by a rumour-mongering Press, then the hon. the Prime Minister can introduce his Press-muzzling legislation. I give him no guarantee of any support for it from these benches, but I say that his chances of persuading reasonable people to accept it will be much greater if and when he can show that the Press has interfered in any way with the Advocate-General in the exercising of his functions. If the hon. the Prime Minister declines to do what I am suggesting, it is going to be very hard for people to resist the conclusion that his prime aim is not to augment the machinery for investigating corruption, as the hon. member for Albany and others have said in this debate, but that the prime motive is really simply to have a bash at the Press. I want to repeat that there is no reason why all the Advocate-Generals in the world cannot function in the presence of a free Press, reporting what it wishes to. If the Government goes forward with this legislation in its present form despite the arguments that have been used throughout the debate, it will be clear that all their claims that they are dearly concerned with South Africa’s good name in the world, are so much nonsense, because with this Bill the Government is deliberately doing great harm to that good name of South Africa, for no good reason that they have been able to prove throughout the long debate. I make this appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government. If their aims are what they say they are, if they have a regard for Press freedom—as the hon. the Prime Minister has declared—and if they care for South Africa’s good name, let them do as I have suggested.

If they will not do this and insist on going ahead with this measure in its present form in that they insist on tying Press censorship to the appointment of this official, then it is hard to resist the conclusion that they are motivated by no more than petulance and a rather childish resentment against the Press, which has frequently embarrassed them by its revelations. If that is not the case, they will put aside these totally unnecessary Press censorship provisions, added to a measure to appoint an Advocate-General, for no better reason than to exact a little vengeance from newspapers that have made them uncomfortable in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to react to everything the hon. member for Parktown said, except to refer here and there to a few of the points he raised. Inter alia, he referred ad nauseum to Press censorship, and in my view this is a gross exaggeration of what is being envisaged in this legislation as far as the Press is concerned. The hon. member went so far as to give the foreign Press an indication of what to write on South Africa. This put me in mind of the occasion when the hon. member, according to a report in the Financial Mail, stated that if he had been a foreigner and were to form a clinical opinion of South Africa, he would not invest money in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. member adopted the same kind of standpoint here today by virtually giving the hostile overseas Press an indication of what they ought to write.

However, if the overseas Press were to do what the hon. member envisaged, I must say in all fairness that the hon. member is creating an image of the Press that is far worse than the image I gave of the Press. The overseas Press is now going to wage a gossip campaign against South Africa. The hon. member also said that all I had done was to launch an attack on the Press. I think the hon. member erred in that respect. I devoted more than half of my speech to the positive aspects of this legislation. At this stage I wish to express my appreciation to the hon. members on this side of the House for the valuable contributions they made and for the fact that they pointed out so effectively, the positive aspects of this Bill. I think the hon. member for Albany did so very effectively, despite what the hon. member for Parktown has just said here. I should like to express my appreciation to them.

In my introductory speech I started off by giving the background with regard to clean administration which the hon. the Prime Minister had sketched. Thereafter, I elaborated on the need for it, and I concluded by giving a summary of the positive things we discern in this Bill. War had already been declared on us the weekend before the contents of this Bill had become known … [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister and I gave the undertaking that, wherever possible, we would be prepared to have talks and to listen to suggestions and advice. In spite of that, war was declared on us. We had to take cognizance of that, and as a result I said certain things about the Press, certain things about which I was deeply perturbed. What I find interesting, however, is that as regards all the things I had allegedly said and what I actually remembered having said, not one of the hon. members on that side of the House or of the Press has come forward and told me that I had told an untruth. I am waiting for someone to do this. Die Burger of 24 May 1979 went the farthest in an article “Politieke brokkies” by “Vryburger”. In this article reference was made to the matter of the Japanese jockey. Before coming to this matter, the author stated that the story that the Press keeps a file on important people, was not true. Then, at the end of the article, he went back to something that happened 10 years ago and again raked up the matter of the Japanese jockey. [Interjections.] I shall come to that in a moment.

The only other hon. member who commented on what I said, was the hon. member for Houghton. Evidently she did not see eye to eye with me because I allegedly did not attach sufficient importance to the responsibility of the Press to the general public. I stated this in even stronger terms and said that the so-called sacred duty of the Press towards the public left me cold. The hon. member was upset about that. I deliberately stated it that way, and I have no fault to find with that phrase. That is more or less how I feel. The hon. member read me a lecture on democracy. I could also read her a lecture on democracy. I could tell her that it is my personal feeling that she is a very important spoke in the wheel that is destroying democracy in South Africa. [Interjections.] It would affect not only me, but all of us, if the democracy should ever destroy itself. The Press would then have played a major part in that.

I should like to tell the hon. member that she must be rather naïve if she thinks that a group of people would get together, register a company, amass large sums of money, buy a printing press, and publish a newspaper simply because they regard it as their duty to the general public. Surely it does not work that way. In my view, a newspaper is published for two very good reasons. The first one—and I regard this as the most important reason—is that that specific newspaper wishes to convey a message from a specific group of people or from a specific body. A wonderful example of this is Die Burger. Die Burger was born from necessity. The idea of establishing Die Burger originated in 1915 because there was a need to convey the cause of the Afrikaner and the cause of nationalism. Consequently a group of interested people, people with the same inspiration, got together and established Die Burger. Let me state that Die Burger did wonder fill work for the cause for which it was established. Today, Die Burger is still one of the most excellent newspapers in our country. Lest there should be a misunderstanding, let me repeat what I said in my introductory speech. I do not mean that all newspapers should be cast in the same mould. There are more responsible newspapers and less responsible newspapers.

They are always changing.

That does not matter. To a lesser or greater extent they have intimated that they do not like this legislation. I can understand that. Never at any time did I deny that the Press was being affected in this process. In terms of clause 4(3), the Press is being affected. However, I shall leave it at that.

I believe that newspapers are established for those two reasons—I have not mentioned the second one yet. The first reason, for example as in the case of Die Burger, is where a certain sector of the population wishes to convey a message. The second good reason is an ordinary business consideration. It is done because someone wishes to make a financial undertaking of it, an undertaking which he hopes and trusts will be profitable. The motive is therefore one of profit. These are the only two reasons. I know of no other reason that could be advanced for the establishment of a Press group and for the existence of a newspaper. That is why we are concerned. We do not know what is behind SAAN and the Argus Group. The hon. member for Parktown told me just the other day that it was not public money. I concede that it is not public money. Even if it is not, why are they covering up? Why do they not come forward and told us who the powerful people behind those Press groups are, the powerful group that exerts so much influence in South Africa? [Interjections.] However, the hon. member is not prepared to disclose that. He does not tell me what influence Anglo-American has in SAAN and in the Argus Group. Surely he has the opportunity of telling us. Surely he is a person who is not in favour of covering up. But he does not tell us.

I said earlier that Die Burger had raked up the question of the Japanese jockey. That was an incident that took place 10 years ago. First Die Burger said there were no files of the nature I had referred to. Then Die Burger said that as far as “Nasionale Koerante” were concerned, this story about files full of mischief was a dead horse which not even a Japanese jockey would get to run. The incident in connection with the Japanese jockey took place 10 years ago. But Die Burger says no files are kept in which details of such matters are contained.

It has quite a good memory though.

But in the end, the story comes back to me. Why? For one purpose only: To take a stab at me.

In yesterday’s Rapport there was a cartoon. The only reason why that cartoon was drawn was to give prominence to the Japanese jockey episode. The cartoon depicted me burning newspapers. Inter alia, I was burning a newspaper on which there was a drawing of a Japanese jockey on a horse. This was an incident of 10 years ago. Allow me, however, to tell hon. members today what happened on that occasion. I have never had an opportunity to state this in public. I am now going to tell hon. members what happened 10 years ago. [Interjections.] On a certain Friday afternoon the Secretary for the Interior came to me.

Is it relevant?

If hon. members do not want to hear, they can ignore it [Interjections.]

Order!

But then they must agree with me that they want to gloss over it.

[Interjections.] I have never spoken about this before, but I should like to do so today. It will only take a minute or two. [Interjections.] I was approached by the Secretary for the Interior in connection with an application for a visa for a Japanese jockey. My immediate reaction was to grant it, but then I was confronted with a Cabinet decision which had to be regarded and interpreted as a policy decision, a decision which was irreconcilable with the application. I then looked for assistance. I requested the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Hilgard Muller, to come and participate in the discussions. Dr. Hilgard Muller, Mr. Du Preez, the then Secretary for the Interior, Mr. Booyens, who is at present Secretary for the Interior, and I discussed the matter but we were again confronted with the Cabinet decision that had to be interpreted as a policy decision. We felt that we could not ignore that policy decision. A week later, the Cabinet discussed the matter and then changed the decision. That is history. In all these years I have never looked for a scapegoat I never tried to put the blame on someone else. I was the responsible Minister and I took the blame. But now, after ten years, this is being dished up to me.

It is still newsworthy.

I should like to put a question to that hon. member who says it is newsworthy. Who is now harming South Africa with that story? [Interjections.] I am asking the hon. member for Groote Schuur who is now, after 10 years, harming South Africa, for raking up the issue of the Japanese jockey … [Interjections.] … can only— and all of us as sensible people should know this—prejudice our relations with Japan.

But it is because of your silly policy.

You did it to yourselves.

That does not matter. The fact of the matter is that after 10 years it is still being raked up. Must this still be laid at my door after 10 years? [Interjections.]

Order!

However, I shall leave the matter at that. But this debate is not really concerned with that. The debate is concerned with far greater and more important matters. I shall take my beating. I took it at the time.

It is not even laughable; it is simply ridiculous.

I took my beating at the time and I shall continue to do so. However, this is the sort of thing we have to live with. If the hon. member for Constantia sees no significance in the implications of this, then I cannot put the sense into his head to see it.

How is this legislation going to solve that kind of thing?

That is just by the way. However, it is related to the question which is now before the House. As far as I am concerned, I should prefer rather to close the book on the Press, unless of course I am compelled again to open it, and in all probability I shall again be compelled to open it.

I would prefer to deal with the aspects raised in the discussion on this legislation, aspects on which there is a measure of doubt. The first aspect concerns the interpretation of clause 4(3). The hon. member for Musgrave raised this aspect. After that the hon. member for Durban Point spoke and also asked how I saw the meaning of clause 4(3). Personally, I cannot see why the hon. member is having difficulties with it I am quoting the clause without the frills—

†The Afrikaans version is as clear. If one reads it without the frills, it says that no person shall publish or cause to be published in a newspaper any report relating to alleged misapplication of State moneys until such time as the report of the Advocate-General relating to the matter in question has been laid upon the Table in the House of Assembly.

*It is therefore not stated as from when. It is provided, though, that nothing may be written about the matters contained in clause 4(1) until such time as the report has been tabled. Consequently there is not only a prohibition on publication during the duration of the investigation, there is also a prohibition on the publication of that type of suspicion during the preceding period and until the report has been tabled.

What is of course intended here is that where such a suspicion exists, one would rather see that the Advocate-General is approached with that information, instead of having a lot of one-sided information which might be altogether wrong or partly wrong, and which might do people harm, being noised abroad. Such a person can then go to the Advocate-General and tell him that because he has such and such a suspicion, he would like to have it investigated. The Advocate-General will then investigate it. That is what the legislation makes provision for.

There has been considerable speculation on how long it would take. Today it has again been asked how long it would take. I hope with all my heart that an investigation would be finalized within a week. If it could be finalized within a week, it should not take 14 days and if it could be finalized within 14 days, it should not take three weeks. There is only one factor over which one has no control, and that is of course the volume of work the Advocate-General may receive. The scope of the work could be so wide and the volume of the work so great—however, I do not foresee this happening—that the Advocate-General would not be able to dispose of everything so soon. With the very object of making this clear in the Bill, namely that we should finalize it expeditiously, there is an amendment in my name on the Order Paper in clause 5(1), on page 8, in line 1, after “inquire” to insert “forthwith”. That indicates that the investigation should commence immediately. It is a factual investigation that has to take place and I can see no reason why it could not take place within a short space of time.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he could give us some idea of how long he thinks it would have taken the Advocate-General to have investigated a matter such as the Information affair?

It would never have happened that the whole Information matter would have been placed before the Advocate-General. I believe one has to be practical. Certain aspects thereof would probably have been placed before the Advocate-General and separate facts could have been gathered about various aspects. If the hon. member wishes to score a point by stating that a matter of such magnitude as the Information matter could not be submitted to the Advocate-General, I am prepared to concede that, but such a matter occurs but once in a lifetime.

But what about the Agliotti affair?

Oh please, the Agliotti affair was only a brief affair.

Well, that took a year.

But that was an investigation, and what we are dealing with here is not an investigation in the sense that it takes the form of a court in which a hearing takes place. Here, it concerns the gathering of information. That is all this amounts to. Facts have to be assembled and a report has to be submitted on those facts.

The second aspect that was raised concerned the freedom of speech of hon. members of this House. As far as I am concerned, there should be no infringement at all of freedom of speech as far as hon. members in this House are concerned. It is my point of view that hon. members of the House should be free to raise any matter they wish here. They should be free to raise any matter here, regardless of whether or not there is an investigation in progress. What is more: Any paper should be free to report on discussions that take place here in the House and to publish the information which emerges from that.

We considered the matter and came to the conclusion that no amendments were necessary to give effect to what I have just said here. I made my point of view clear because I felt that Parliamentary privilege should not be encroached upon in any way and because, in my view, if one were to place a prohibition on publication, it might mean an encroachment upon Parliamentary privilege. In other words, not only does a member of Parliament have the right to say what he likes here, he is also entitled to see whatever he has said here is conveyed to the general public. As I have said, we have gone into the matter and I wish to refer hon. members to sections 29 and 30 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, No. 91 of 1963. This forms an annexure to the Standing Orders. The provisions contained in sections 29 and 30 are of such a nature that it is not necessary for us specifically to make provision for this aspect in this Bill. However, if hon. members still feel unhappy about it and are of the opinion that express provision should be made for it in the Bill, we could consider specifically inserting it here. The trouble is that, if we were specifically to insert such a provision in the Bill, then it would detract to a certain extent from the provisions of section 29 and 30 of that Act, since one would be creating the impression that those provisions were not decisive.

But they deal with other things—legal proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, that is my point of view on this matter. I do not believe we need elaborate on that any further.

Reference was also made to the question of evidence. I foresee that the Advocate-General would, apart from his factual findings, also include the relevant evidence in his report, as in the case of the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I would go further and state that if necessary we would provide that all the evidence except that which, in the opinion of the Advocate-General, would endanger the safety of the State, should be attached to his report.

Let me state at this stage that as far as the Advocate-General is concerned, the Government envisages that he should be a man of high repute. I think it is altogether inappropriate there should be a desire at this early juncture to detract from the authority of the Advocate-General. We foresee that the Advocate-General should at least have the status of a judge …

Such as Mostert.

… and that in all probability someone from the Bench would be appointed to perform this task. I should like hon. members to accept that the reputation of the Advocate-General would be above suspicion. That is what we envisage in this regard, and we hope with all our hearts that this will be the case.

Then, the argument has been raised that the inquiry should take place in an open court. That is a difficult aspect I have problems with that I could indeed insert a provision that the Advocate-General should be able to decide that it should not be in an open court only when the security of the State is involved. One could perhaps consider such a provision, but the difficulty I have with that is that in the case of an inquiry of this nature the Advocate-General or the presiding officer never knows what is going to be said next. Consequently, aspects that affect the security of the State might emerge. With regard to the question of whether the inquiry should take place in an open court or not, I think it would be wise that this should be determined according to the judgment of the Advocate-General. Suitable provision is being made for that in the Bill.

A great deal has been said about the scope of clause 4(1). This is a difficult aspect. Recently we had talks with the Press Union about the matter. This morning I had a long interview with the Transvaal Law Society and discussed the entire matter. After a long argument, it seems to me that ultimately we again arrive at the present wording of clause 4(1), and under the circumstances it seems that this is probably the best. The reason why this is a difficult aspect is that in the wording of clause 4(1) we have to reconcile two widely divergent ideas.

One idea is the interests of the Press, in accordance with which we desire that the definition should remain circumscribed and the other idea is that the Advocate-General should be given as much scope as possible for the purposes of his inquiry. Between those two extremes, we are looking for a reconciliation in the wording of clause 4(1). Nevertheless I wish to state that one could listen to ideas and could discuss this again during the Committee Stage. However, after due reflection I felt that it would probably be best to leave the definition as it is at present.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he agrees that he does not seek to cover maladministration which does not involve dishonesty concerning State money?

If I understand the hon. member correctly, our view is probably the direct opposite, namely that our view of misappropriation and maladministration is that there should be an element of dishonesty. I think dishonesty is the key word. There has to be an element of dishonesty when misappropriation or maladministration takes place. I think the English wording leaves a little more doubt. In the English version of the Bill, the word “misapplied” is used. To me, it does not have quite the same connotation as “wanbestee”. However, if the hon. member can suggest a more suitable word for the English text to convey the concept of misappropriation, so that it includes the element of dishonesty, I shall gladly consider it.

The hon. member for Parktown indicated this afternoon, or at least that was how it appeared to me, that he accepted the principle of the appointment of an Advocate-General. He said he could not speak on behalf of his party, but he is such an important member of his party that I think he could speak on behalf of his party with a considerable measure of authority. It does not appear to me as if there is really a great dispute on the appointment of an Advocate-General. The Press Union also indicated that it was acceptable to them. This morning I spoke to the Transvaal Law Society about this and they prefer the idea of an ombudsman to that of an Advocate-General. I do not wish to go into the differences between the two positions now. During the Second Reading debate, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said the idea of an ombudsman should have seen the light a long time ago. I therefore assume that the hon. members do not oppose the principle contained in this Bill. The difference really lies with publication, and I shall come to that in a moment. I have already dealt with the matter with regard to the General Bar Council and the Association of Law Societies. I received a long telex from the president of the General Bar Council. I do not wish to burden hon. members with it. However, we have reached an agreement on the various messages passed to the Press, and I do not think we are experiencing many more problems as far as that is concerned.

The positive aspect of this Bill has been repeatedly emphasized here, which is that for the sake of clean administration we want to have allegations investigated and then publicize the truth, not conjectures or half-truths. That has repeatedly been emphasized. I wish to emphasize that we are merely asking for a temporary prohibition on publication. That is all we are asking for. If the Press were to cooperate with us and decide to approach the Advocate-General about a suspicion of malpractices, the Advocate-General would have to decide that very same day whether or not it should be published, that is, if the security of the State is not in jeopardy.

And any obstructing the investigation.

Yes, only on the grounds of those two considerations, namely the security of the State and any obstructing of the investigation, can he decide that there should be no publication. Otherwise, he must cause it to be published on the very day on which the Press presents it to him. That is all we are asking for here. If, for either of those two reasons, he decides that publication should not take place, he proceeds with his inquiry—as I have stated, we hope that it will be finalized quickly—and as soon as it has been finalized, the information has to be released for publication, unless he makes a different recommendation to the Select Committee, which then has to ratify this.

That is all we are asking for. Let the Press therefore come forward and assist us in bringing about clean administration. Can we not address this plea to them? Let us ask them to help us to bring about clean administration. On the very same day on which the Press lays a matter before the Advocate-General and he says it can be published, the Press can publish it. If this does not happen, we expect that it will happen shortly afterwards in any case, as soon as the whole matter has been investigated and the facts disclosed.

Hon. members have made a great issue of the telegrams that were allegedly sent. The hon. the Prime Minister and I have each received a number of telegrams. If I were now to invite hon. members to guess how many telegrams we have received by now in consequence of the open invitation in the newspapers, hon. members would probably say that we had already received thousands.

Tens of thousands.

Yes, tens of thousands. But the hon. the Prime Minister and I together have not received even a hundred. By lunchtime I had received only 19 and a few more thereafter. That is the reaction there has been.

I now come to the hon. member for Simonstown. He moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading. Unfortunately I cannot accept that motion by the hon. member. There is one thing the Government is adamant about, and that is that this Bill should, in principle, be passed during the present session. That is how strongly we feel about the matter. I wish to give the hon. member the undertaking now—on the basis of which he might perhaps consider withdrawing his motion—that I shall propose to the Cabinet tomorrow that a Select Committee be appointed after the Second Reading of this Bill has been disposed of. The Select Committee will not have power to call for papers or to hear evidence, but will have to assist us with the formulation of the various provisions of this Bill. I trust that the Select Committee will work with the utmost dispatch and if it is at all possible, be able to finalize its work by the end of next week. In the Select Committee we could then discuss the matter calmly and see in what respects the provisions of the Bill can be improved.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister for clarity on one point He has stated that he intends putting this matter before the Cabinet tomorrow. If the appointment of a Select Committee is agreed to and seeing that the only principle that has been accepted at Second Reading is the appointment of the Advocate-General, will all the other aspects be open for discussion in the Select Committee or not?

A Bill does not consist of only one principle. The Bill also makes provision for a period during which there may be no publication. The hon. member must accept that that is also a principle that will be accepted at Second Reading, besides the principle of the appointment of the Advocate-General, about which it appears to me that there is no serious difference of opinion. I shall undertake to put this before the Cabinet tomorrow and if this is approved I shall come back to the House with that as soon as possible. To this House and to everyone affected thereby, this should be proof of how strongly we feel about this matter, and not only that, but also to what extent the hon. the Prime Minister and I have repeatedly stated we are prepared to listen to suggestions and ideas on this matter. By the way, I just wish to point out that the hon. the Prime Minister and I have another appointment with the Society of Journalists for Wednesday morning and that on that occasion we shall discuss matters with the journalists and hear their ideas. This morning I also had an interview with Asscom and heard their views. Their views did not really concern the merits of the Bill, but I nevertheless listened to them. I also listened to the Law Societies. That proves our sincerity with regard to a meticulous examination of the Bill, but at the same time also our sincerity that this should be finalized during the present session.

Mr. Chairman, on Friday I was replying to a question by the hon. member for Orange Grove in connection with a remark on the religious programmes on television by Mr. Chalmers. I have inquired about this matter and received information about it from the management I am satisfied that the matter has been satisfactorily dealt with by the management. They have their rules, and I think a matter such as this can be safely left in their hands. I understand that the gentleman under discussion has been reprimanded.

*The hon. member also inquired about magazines after I had said that those magazines were distributed by the SABC. That is true. They are indeed printed by Republikeinse Pers, which is a subsidiary of Perskor. It is, however, under contract with the SABC. The contract contains, inter alia, provisions relating to financial compensation for the SABC. In the second place, full particulars with regard to the programmes are provided by the SABC. They determine what is to be published. It is a condition that the SABC has to provide background information for the contents of the magazine and that it also has the final say on the presentation and the contents of that magazine.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister who the registered owner of the two periodicals actually is?

I am unable to state precisely how they are registered. My information is that they are publications of the SABC, that they are indeed printed by Republikeinse Pers, but that they are under the full control of the SABC as far as contents, programmes, etc., are concerned. If the information is incorrect, the hon. member can place a question about it on the Order Paper. Then I can provide him with complete information in that regard.

The hon. member for Durban Central inquired about certain services of the Film Board. The Public Service Commission has investigated the micrographic services of the Film Board. Those services will in future be rendered by various Government departments. The production of silent films will be terminated, except in cases where the Film Board still has contractual connections. Once those have been completed, the work will be terminated. A decision still has to be taken with regard to the building. The Department of Public Works will ultimately make a final decision about it.

I just want to add that a clause will be added to the Finance Bill this year to repeal the National Film Board Act of 1963. However, because it is difficult to say when all the activities will be completed, it will be announced in the Gazette from time to time which activities are to be terminated as from a certain date. Provision is also made for the Government to take over the assets and liabilities of the National Film Board.

The hon. member for De Aar asked whether negotiating machinery could not be created so that discussions could be held, particularly with regard to salary matters. I do not think that that is really necessary, because organized education is represented in all the interdepartmental committees of the Committee of Heads of Education. The teachers are therefore participants in policy formulation. They have a say when conditions of service, for example, are discussed. I have already referred to certain negotiating and research machinery which we should like to put into effect in the department. All the bodies concerned will also be represented there. There is therefore not much more that can be done, as the hon. member suggests, to give the interested parties, the teaching profession and so on, a greater say.

The hon. member for Pietersburg made a good contribution with regard to civil graves and certain historical events in the Northern Transvaal, events which he wants to be saved from oblivion. It is valuable when hon. members provide us with information of this nature, particularly with regard to their own areas, areas with which they are familiar. Many of these things are often lost. Therefore one values it highly when matters of this nature are mentioned and placed on record here in this way. With regard to the monument for the child hero, I want to point out to the hon. members that we do not erect monuments. In that respect, the local community will have to be motivated to do so. It is remarkable what local communities are already doing. The question with regard to the civilian graves is a matter which may also be referred to the War Graves Board. They, too, have their programme of activities, but when a real need exists, they may possibly change their programme somewhat in order to give attention to this matter as well.

†The hon. member for Umbilo referred to the Medical School of the University of Natal. I just want to inform the hon. member that I had discussions with Prof. Clarens and a delegation led by him. Most of the ideas put forward here by the hon. member were also mentioned by that delegation. The proposals put by the delegation will be considered by my department. In that regard we have also held discussions with the Department of Health, and a new Cabinet memorandum has also been drawn up. There are decisions taken by the Cabinet which, should the hon. member’s suggestions in connection with the medical school be applied, would have to be reviewed. However, we are working on this and decisions will be forthcoming.

*The hon. member for Rosettenville made his usual pithy and well-motivated contribution. He spoke about the television programmes on Sunday evenings in particular. He asked that the religious programmes be made more attractive. He suggested that those programmes could be made more interesting by means of news flashes on ecclesiastical events. This is a matter about which I can hardly give my opinion. However, representatives of the SABC are present here. They will hear this. Moreover, I shall convey the idea to them. Those are suggestions which can be followed up by the experts. They could perhaps try out some of the hon. member’s suggestions. If the hon. member has more suggestions in mind—it sounds as if he is an expert in this field—we should like him to submit his suggestions to us.

The hon. member for Rissik referred to certain statements made by Dr. Motlana. It is a pity that such statements are made. It is also true, however, that we have many people in South Africa from the various population groups who are also active in the teaching profession and display a spirit of enthusiasm and dedication at, for instance, Whites in Black education. Instead of such comments, those people deserve elementary expressions of gratitude. The hon. member also referred to another matter, but I shall come back to that briefly later on.

The hon. member for Vryheid said that he committed himself to untiring diligence in an endeavour to have an Afrikaans university established in Natal. That is a fine and laudable aim. I cannot quarrel with the hon. member about that. We have to keep in mind, however, that the establishment of new universities, of branches of universities, of separate campuses, is a matter concerning which certain guidelines were laid down in the report of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission. There are even guidelines which were laid down by the Universities Advisory Council. Those are guidelines which we have to take into account Even if we were to attempt to further a particular cause, it would still be worth our while to allow ourselves to be guided by the experts who assisted us in laying down those guidelines. Furthermore, the hon. member referred to certain complaints against the Executive Committee of Natal with regard to educational matters. I am not going to involve myself in that. The hon. member should try and discuss it on another occasion with the people with whom he has a problem. Unfortunately I am unable to help him in that regard.

†The hon. member for Berea spoke about children with learning disabilities. He suggested that such children should be identified at an earlier stage. I agree with him. In our work in the department this matter and other matters are receiving constant attention. The hon. member also asked for more money for subsidizing these schools. Let me tell him in this regard that the subsidies for the schools subsidized by the Government are constantly adjusted, as happened this year—just to use an example—in the case of mentally-handicapped children. The subsidies for children with learning disabilities are therefore also taken into account. In one of the speeches by an hon. member on this side of the House the expenditure per pupil was mentioned. I think the figure mentioned was very close to R3 000, if not more. If one calculates it on that basis, one sees that it is the most expensive education offered in South Africa. This shows that the interests of those children are really taken into account Departmental subsidies are adjusted when schools have trouble making ends meet He also referred to certain nutritious foodstuffs. I have made a note of that. We can use that and forward it to interested bodies and individuals.

*The hon. member for Albany also made his usual solid contribution. He referred in particular to the library services we provide and the services we render to other States through our libraries. The hon. member actually spoke about the provision of reading matter to the visually handicapped. He knows a great deal about that, of course, because the big national library for reading matter for the visually handicapped is situated in the museum in Grahamstown where fine work is being done. I may tell the hon. member that approval was granted in August of last year for a departmental advisory committee for the provision of reading matter to the visually handicapped to be established. It replaces the old central co-ordinating committee for the provision of reading matter for the visually handicapped. Such a departmental advisory committee has already been appointed. Its main task will be to examine and implement the new dispensation in this regard, a dispensation proposed by the Vaughan Committee. I refer to the new dispensation of Government aid for the production of Braille, tapes and large-print reading matter. This matter is therefore at present being given special attention.

The hon. member for Ermelo referred to the Niemand report on the performing arts. That report was laid on the table in April of this year. The comments of various bodies had to be obtained, and at present they are also drawing up a document so that the Secretary for National Education can use that document as a basis for discussion in negotiations with the Secretaries of the provinces. In other words, discussions with regard to this matter are still being held. Of particular importance is that we also have to obtain their opinion of this proposed advisory committee. It is clear, therefore, in view of all that must still be done, with so many bodies that still have to be consulted, that we shall be unable to introduce legislation in respect of this matter during this session. The hon. member then acted very cleverly. In fact, he cornered me as far as my future capacity in Transvaal is concerned, because he indicated to me what I should do with regard to the centres for extra-curricular education. I received his message. I promise nothing, but I shall indeed investigate those matters. I thank the hon. member for his special contribution. I think it is important to express gratitude towards parent communities that have made the substantial contributions in their areas and towns which the community of Ermelo, for instance, have already made. Those communities make a special contribution towards the upliftment and further development of their children, and one has particular appreciation for that. Wherever those communities may be, such contributions are really appreciated.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister, before he finishes with the Niemand report, whether progress has been made with the investigation which was to be held into the allegations made by the director of Napac?

I think I have already replied to a question in that regard in the House. I assume that it will be taken into account, but I am unable to say that it has already been introduced into the whole process of discussion. I do not believe that it will be overlooked if there are any views in it which deserve consideration. I think that in saying this I have already replied to the hon. member.

The hon. member for Witwatersberg pleaded in his usual, fervent way for again making idealism a motivating factor in our actions with regard to the teaching profession as well. I fully agree with the hon. member. If idealism as one of the mainsprings of our lives should disappear, we could just as well lie down and die.

The hon. member also asked that we should revive our military tradition and have it reflected in certain special schools, if necessary, which we should try to establish. I want to point out to the hon. member that our secondary education does, of course, consist of generally formative education with the emphasis on certain fields of study. The hon. member is in fact asking that we should also consider the military field as a special field of study.

The hon. member should remember, however, that it has always been our policy not to draw our potential leaders away from our schools, for if that should happen, the schools would be so much the poorer. We have our cadet system in our schools which is thoroughly organized in co-operation with the Defence Force. There our sons are already prepared for their military service and for the development of leadership characteristics. At that early stage they are identified with a view to eventual officer training. The idea which the hon. member expressed, is nevertheless interesting. I shall take it a little further and perhaps discuss it with the Committee of School Principals, because there are others, too, who are of the opinion that there should be other fields of study. It is just that one must be careful not to introduce too many of these special fields of study so that the general formative influence which our secondary education should have, is prejudiced. I have received the hon. member’s message and I shall discuss the matter a little further with other interested parties.

I still have one or two brief ideas, but I shall leave them until other speakers have had a turn to participate in the debate.

Mr. Chairman, I should have liked to enter the debate earlier on in the discussion of this Vote, but due to indisposition, I was unable to do so. As other hon. members have probably already done, I too want to extend my congratulations to the hon. the Minister on the new status he is soon to enjoy. I hope, however, that he is not already imagining himself in that situation to such an extent that he will not hear what one still wants to say about this Vote.

No one would want to dispute the fact that South Africa has a tremendous need for understanding in the outside world, but what is often disregarded is of course the fact that there is a serious lack of mutual understanding among the various population groups in South Africa. Between Black and White and between Afrikaans and English-speaking people, there are stereotypes and prejudices and misrepresentations of one another’s way of life, ways of thinking and opinions on our common fatherland. Research repeatedly shows that Black and White and Afrikaans and English-speaking people who live in the same city or area might just as well have been living in different countries when it comes to their views on each other. Therefore, even if we have all the international understanding we need, and we do not have mutual understanding, we shall still be unable to make it. What is even worse, however, is that against the background of the international lack of understanding, it is for all of us deadly dangerous to carry on without mutual understanding for one another’s attitudes here in South Africa. The question now is in what way such understanding can be promoted. In this regard, I should like to make three proposals to the hon. the Minister.

In the first place, I want to make another plea for re-establishing parallel medium education in our schools. I know it is an old, hackneyed argument, but against the background of encouraging mutual understanding, I do not think it is totally inappropriate to make this plea again. My own experience as a lecturer at Afrikaans as well as English-speaking universities, has been that the greatest degree of mutual understanding and tolerance was to be found among students who had attended schools where there had been Afrikaans as well as English-speaking pupils. On the other hand, I was repeatedly struck by the limitless ignorance and misrepresentations which existed mutually between the majority of Afrikaans and English-speaking students. Today this is counteracted to a great degree by the common experience in the Defence Force. It can, however, be accomplished far more effectively by means of parallel medium schools. This plea should not be regarded as being aimed against the principle of mother tongue education. The two are not necessarily contradictory. There can and ought still to be mother tongue education, even at parallel medium schools. We justifiably deplore the lack of understanding between Black and White in South Africa, but this situation is aggravated immeasurably by the mutual lack of understanding which also exists between White and White. We can start combating this problem at school level.

In the second place, I want to ask that we grant universities the right to decide for themselves whom they will allow to register as students. Let me say at once that a great deal of nonsense has been written and said with regard to academic freedom. There is general agreement, however, that if it means anything, it means that the university should have the right to decide who should be admitted as a student, what he should be taught and by whom. It does not mean, however, that the university has no obligation towards the community or is totally separate from the community. However, if one carries out a comparative analysis of the degree of academic freedom which exists in different societies, however, one sees that one of the outstanding characteristics of academic freedom is that the universities have the right to decide who may register as a student. However, I do not want to advocate the principle of academic freedom in the abstract I want to place it within the context of the problem I have formulated here, viz. the promotion of mutual understanding. If we in South Africa are going to have relatively peaceful change, it will be because the leaders of the younger generation are going to negotiate with one another in a peaceful way. That leadership is cultivated and educated at our universities. The more people from different backgrounds and with different racial and cultural associations who come into contact with and have discussions with one another, the greater the possibility that there will be mutual understanding and appreciation. This has been proved repeatedly without exception. The less they are in contact with one another, the more, and the more rapidly, racial polarization and mutual stereotyping occur. The task of our universities to assist us in our struggle for survival is just as important as that of any other institution in South Africa. They are not there just to provide professional training. They are also there to broaden understanding and acceptance. Again, my plea is not aimed against the principle of universities with a particular cultural or language basis—by no means. I believe that if universities have the absolute right to decide who will be allowed as students, the cultural basis will at any rate be maintained to a great extent, but that at the same time there will be a much greater degree of fluidity and variety in student life in our universities. There is no doubt in my mind that a compartmentalized system of universities only causes misunderstanding in our difficult circumstances. That is why it is so encouraging that a greater degree of freedom in this regard has already come into being. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, however: Let us get away from permits in this regard and let the universities decide for themselves whom they will accept as students.

The third proposal I want to make is that we should use television as an instrument for adult political education in South Africa. By this, I certainly do not mean one-sided political indoctrination, but precisely the opposite. Television is a powerful medium of information in any society and when it is controlled by the Government, as is the case in South Africa, it has an overwhelming influence. We boast that we are a plural society with a variety of cultures. Since that is the case, we should, however, reflect this variety positively on our television. There is a variety of political concepts and attitudes in South Africa. Why cannot this variety of attitudes be opposed to one another in live broadcasts over television? Why cannot Motlana, Koornhof, Arrie Paulus, Bergins and Buthelezi enter into debate with one another before the whole of our population? If that should happen, we would be able to see how diverse are the attitudes adopted in South Africa and we would be able to promote understanding of the mutual differences and the methods whereby they could be bridged.

This year will most probably be regarded as the year in which a lot of thinking was done in South Africa with regard to constitutional matters, particularly at the parliamentary level. However, what does the average South Africa, Black or White, know about the problems of constitutional change? How does he distinguish between one constitutional dispensation and another? How does he know about the demands that are made on a Government in respect of what type of constitutional situation we must have in order to obtain the greatest degree of cooperation among the various population groups? What does he know about the attitudes and preferences of the various population groups in respect of different constitutional dispensations? This is important information which I think the average South African can obtain if television is used as a medium of information in a proper and unprejudiced way.

We know that it has been said that the election of 1977 was held, inter alia, so that the NP could obtain a mandate for its constitutional dispensation at the time. We now know, however, looking at it in retrospect, that that was utter nonsense, because the average South African, particularly the voters, did not have the faintest idea what that constitutional dispensation was all about. In fact, we now see that we are in a new situation where we shall again have to consider the nature of the constitutional dispensation in South Africa. I believe that if we make use of television in an unprejudiced way to weigh up attitudes against one another, we shall be able to inform the average South Africa so much better with regard to the demands which will be made on us in future. We simply must not again allow such an opportunity to pass.

When I talk about this kind of political education, I do not have in mind a dry, sterile debate between experts about the nature of the problem in general. Nor do I have in mind one-sided interviews held by someone from SABC-TV with, for example, one person who has to react to questionnaires drawn up in advance. I mean a lively debate among people from different backgrounds and with different political standpoints, so that the average viewer can come into contact with the variety of ideas and attitudes which exist in South Africa and so that the viewer can get an idea of the problems which face us if we are to achieve peaceful change. In that way we can further mutual understanding.

Mention is made in the Bible of a nation which goes under due to a lack of knowledge, but I think we in South Africa are in danger of going under due to a lack of mutual understanding. It would be tragic if that should happen just when we were in a situation where we could have done something about it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rondebosch devoted his speech to the theme of mutual understanding among the various population groups in South Africa. I personally consider that to be a very topical matter. He went on to submit three proposals for promoting this mutual understanding among the various population groups. In the first place he referred to parallel-medium education. As far as I know, this is no problem. I know, at least as far as the Cape is concerned, that it is general practice for parallel-medium education to be offered at primary school level. As regards universities, I want to leave the matter at that for a while, because in the course of my speech I shall come back to the universities and the admission of people of another colour to universities. I believe we should leave the question of the utilization of television in the capable hands of the hon. the Minister who will furnish the hon. member with a reply on this aspect. In any case, I believe the hon. member expressed a few stimulating thoughts.

We have almost come to the end of this debate now and I consider it essential for the Committee to pay attention to the important work that is being done by the universities in the interests of education in South Africa. When we say that «education looks to the future, it is a fine ideal which we should strive for, because it is by this very ideal that one generation is bound to another. When we say that education should look to the future it is precisely the university as an institution and the university material that should spearhead the opening up and exploration of the future for us. The South Africa of today and tomorrow, with its contrasts and rich diversity of human material, is making heavy demands on its young people: Demands of leadership, demands of well-qualified and occupationally orientated students and demands of technically skilled professionals.

The fact that we are considered to be one of the most developed countries in the world today, bears testimony, inter alia, to the fact that the university material and the universities as such have stood the test of time. Therefore, it is appropriate, for the sake of the record, to convey the gratitude of this side of the House to all universities for the academic work which they have done, but particularly those universities—and now we come to a matter which the hon. the member for Rondebosch touched upon—that do not regard a university merely as a centre of creative, intellectual activities. The hon. member for Rondebosch and I can debate this matter, but as far as I am concerned, all knowledge has a certain emotional value, whether it is in the exact field of the physical sciences or in the field of the social sciences.

I want to point out the difference in our approaches now. According to the hon. member for Rondebosch this emotional value should be tied up with a sort of international, intellectual university code, while this side of the House adopts the approach that this emotional value of knowledge should be tied up with the particular community in which the university finds itself so that the institution can be nourished by the community for which and through which it lives and which it ultimately serves, and, furthermore, so that this university operates as a system or an institution within a social, political context. We must expect certain basic principles in a political system to pervade and to find expression in the university organization because one cannot abstract one’s universities and isolate them from our social, political relationship.

It is no use propagating certain principles such as the admission of more Black people to White universities and to call it something which the University council itself should decide on. One is then creating a certain climate and a certain mode of conduct at those universities. These students of a different colour must return to a strange climate when they have completed their courses. The policy of this side of the House is that the admission of Black students to White universities is the exception rather than the rule for the sake of the way these people fit into the political, social reality in South Africa.

Universities have grown in the past two decades. In 1959 there were nine universities at which 41 000 students studied, and today there are seven universities at which 141 000 students are studying. This is a wonderful achievement Today one out of every 430 members of the population attend a university, while one out of 113 people in the USA and one out of every 1 215 people in Great Britain attend a university.

In its growth the university has experienced certain problems, however, and, in the time I have left I just want to emphasize one of the problems, viz. the fact that one out of every three students who enrol for university training, fail to complete the course. In other words the pass rate is such that of all the students registering in their first year, only 68% pass. A great deal of research has already been done on this matter. Before one tries to come to grips with this problem, three questions must first be clarified. Firstly, whether all material offering themselves at universities, is really university material. Secondly, whether there is no ceiling as regards university potential on the one hand and the employment of this university material on the other hand. In the third place whether there is an essential balance between academically qualified people and technically qualified people. After these three questions have been clarified, the educational authorities should gear the educational machine to the basic answers to these three questions and then—I am convinced—the pass figure at universities will be higher than it is at present.

However, it will never happen that all students pass, and the fact that there will always be unsuccessful candidates is a very characteristic of a university. It is a fact that we shall have to accept too, but students will not always make the grade in their first year, and in their entire course, because that is the only way in which the Tukkies stand a chance of beating the Maties on the rugby field.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bellville associated himself with an aspect which I raised on Friday, viz. the question whether there should not perhaps be a ceiling in respect of the admission to universities. As regards the committee which is going to pay continual attention to salaries, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we in the NRP will obviously have nothing against it However, he will have to admit that there is in fact a problem in the way of a satisfactory solution, because this committee will have to work within the restrictions imposed by the Public Service Commission.

I am glad the hon. member for Vryheid is here, because he made a typical provincial “stryddag” speech here on Friday of the kind we are used to in Natal and which breaks out there from time to time like the measles and in which all kinds of unfounded allegations are made against the provincial administration. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member, because I am told that he is possibly going to become a commissioner “corporal” and is therefore leaving us. Many of the charges that are levelled are based on half-truths, and in some cases he also said things which were not really true. He said, inter alia, that at one stage it was the policy of the Executive Committee in Natal for high schools in urban complexes to be single medium English high schools. That statement is totally untrue. The policy in Natal has always been that wherever a school is established, the nature and character of that school is determined by the people attending it. As regards his accusation about the purchase of a place like St Charles in Pietermaritzburg, the hon. member must take note of the fact that in that case the department did exactly the same as the Free State Department of Education when they took over St. Andrews in Bloemfontein.

He also spoke about the lack of facilities in the rural areas. There are many rural places where sports facilities in particular are far better than those in the cities. I can talk from experience, because I know of high schools in Durban which, although they have more than 1 000 boy pupils and more than 22 rugby teams, have only three rugby fields at their disposal. In my opinion the answer to this lies in what the hon. member for Ermelo said regarding the creation of additional facilities, namely that the community itself should embark on fund-raising campaigns for the creation of facilities. In this regard I want to congratulate the community of Ermelo on the sum of R400 000 which they raised for the creation of better facilities. This, in my opinion, is the spirit that we should encourage in South Africa.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister at once that it has become absolutely essential for us in South Africa now to create proper machinery for the co-ordination of education as a whole. I know that there are in fact many interdepartmental committees at work on the matter of co-ordination today, but it is still fragmentary. The only department which could possibly be of assistance, is the Department of National Education. The most senior co-ordinating body in so far as education is concerned, is obviously the Committee of Heads of Education, but this body is active in the field of White education only. Something like this is required on a far broader and much more permanent basis, however, because it is absolutely essential to have a body which can determine the educational requirements of the whole country in a co-ordinated way so that educational priorities as well can in fact be determined in a co-ordinated way.

†I should like to conclude by saying that this is the task of the hon. the Minister and the Department of National Education, because otherwise this department will in fact just become a misnomer. We should always remember that all of us compete in the same labour market, and that is why there is a need to have uniform standards of education on a co-ordinated basis.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to react to what the hon. member for Durban Central had to say because I believe the hon. the Minister will reply in full to his speech. I want to take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Bellville on his neat and fine speech.

In the few minutes at my disposal I want to try to refer to two aspects in particular. In the first place, I want to try and associate myself with other speakers by defining and trying to evaluate the importance of the teacher’s role in the national economy. Over the years the teacher has played an increasingly important role in our national economy.

At the outset I must refer once again to the indissoluble partnership of the parent, the Church and the State, a partnership which must be kept intact in the educational process. Naturally, the parent is primarily responsible for the education of the child and this may not be neglected. The family ties remain the life giving umbilical cord, the indispensable ties, for if they are eliminated or damaged, the child must suffer. The parent who wittingly allows those ties to be disrupted, causes the child to sustain an injury, one which can hardly be healed by the other two partners in the educational set-up. The church, with its essential spiritual care, takes care of the spiritual growth of a child and remains indispensable.

Since we have now identified and accorded recognition to the two partners mentioned, I come now to the third partner which from the nature of its unique involvement is capable of forming and creating the child in its totality.

We must admit that as a result of present social and circumstantial obligations a parent is no longer in a position to educate the child in its totality. Because of the pace of modem life and numerous other obligations, a communication gap has started to develop between parent and child. The child misses the paternal authority and this has become a factor which influences his development in a negative way. The authority structure in the family is steadily disappearing. The father figure is not always the patriarch in the home any more. The traditional family worship no longer forms an integral part of the family set-up. The paternal punishment and discipline is taken over by the mother and palliated by the various television programmes.

For that reason the teacher is still the key figure in the education of the child. It will be a sad day if we were to negate the extremely important role played by the teacher. The teacher is not just an instrument of instruction for ordering and forming the child intellectually, but also acts as a substitute in the total development of the child as a whole. Therefore, he is not merely practising a profession while the child is placed in his care for 12 years of his life. He receives that child as ripe and ready to be formed into a staunch and steadfast citizen of the country.

In other words, we must be prepared to place a high premium on the teaching profession. A nation that does not take care of its teaching and education is jeopardizing its future with maladjusted human material. We have been and we still are proud of our teaching corps. I am sure that will remain the case. For that reason I am grateful that the doors to negotiation and consultation are still open and will remain open. I am grateful that the hon. the Minister has seen his way clear to creating machinery for continued liaison and negotiation with a view to the improvement of conditions of service and salaries. Education is a unique profession with a very high premium. For that reason, I believe that members of that profession are justified in bargaining for better conditions of service in an orderly way from time to time.

In the last few minutes at my disposal, I want to refer to another facet of our education. I want to refer to the role of youth organization in a development of our children. Here I am referring to the Landsdiensbeweging, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides and the Voortrekkers. The role of these organizations in the development of our youth has not been properly evaluated and appreciated.

Because I have closer ties with the Voortrekkers, I want to refer briefly to this fine movement as a youth organization. The aims of this movement can be summarized as the development of a sound, Christian-national outlook on life by the youth and in this case particularly the Afrikaner youth. These aims embrace the child in its totality: The development and creation of the whole child and then later on the whole human development of the child. The Voortrekkers function on the basis of group activity where the small, intimate teams, together with the adult officers, attempt and carry through certain projects in order to achieve an ultimate aim. The teams are accommodated in the various commandos which in turn are located in the various regions of the four provinces and South West Africa, to make up a mighty youth organization of more than 30 000 youth members.

The officers in charge of these various commandos and small teams consist of voluntary, dedicated men and women who, in a modest, but still invaluable way, are contributing to the development of our children. I want to pay tribute today to those people who with love and dedication and sometimes with the greatest personal sacrifice are prepared to take the child by the hand and lead him to the wonders and beauty of nature, the open expanses of our plains, the mysteries of our firmament in the darkness of night, the melodies of the quiet nights in the veld, the love for our own soil, our beloved fatherland, our own beautiful fluttering national flag and the clear sounds of our national anthem. All that, and much more, our Voortrekkers have to offer. May I call for a more sympathetic and compassionate understanding on the part of our parents and the general public.

The Saturday before last the inauguration of more than a thousand Voortrekkers took place at the Goodwood Showgrounds. On that occasion the hon. the Prime Minister was the guest speaker. On the same occasion the children of a number of hon. members in this House were inaugurated as Voortrekkers. Among others there was the youngest son of the hon. the Prime Minister, the son of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, and also the youngest son of the hon. member for Durban Point.

Hear! Hear!

As commandant of the Acacia Park Voortrekker Commando, I should like to express a word of heart-felt congratulations to all our Voortrekkers and their parents.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the sons of the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and the hon. member for Durban Point will have more in common when they grow up than their fathers have in common today.

The hon. member for Gezina referred to the value of youth movements. I think this applies to all youth movements. He also referred to the important role played by teachers. Those of us who have had the opportunity of serving on school boards and school committees have a deeper awareness of the multi-faceted role which the teacher has to play in the community; sometimes involuntarily, because this role has to be played. I agree with the hon. member that this important role must be continued. The task of the teacher is becoming ever greater in our society.

Further, on behalf of my colleagues I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his new appointment. We wish him every success. We hope and trust that he will make a great success of his new task. I am, unfortunately, speaking at a very late stage, right at the end of the debate. It was not possible for me to be here on Friday. For this reason I want to be brief and to the point and will only raise one or two minor matters.

I want to express my appreciation to SATV for the service they have rendered so far. After having had television for a few years in South Africa, we can now appreciate how poor we were in the days when we had no television. What a lot we missed. Think for instance of the opening of Parliament, an occasion which could previously only be viewed by the few privileged people who could be present. Now people all over the country can watch it. Then, too, there was the inauguration of the State President. I think we have a lot to be thankful for.

But there are the other aspects, too, for instance the news service, and the work being done in the cultural sphere. In addition there are the educational programmes, musical programmes and so on. I need not go into all these in depth. If I might just briefly refer to the news service again, I do just want to mention in passing that I really do miss the late night news on television. I do not know whose clever idea it was to broadcast both news bulletins so early in the evening.

You ought to be asleep by that time.

The hon. member for Welkom says he is asleep by that time.

No, it is you who ought to be asleep.

No, we do not all go to bed with the sparrows. [Interjections.] Especially during the first half of the year, when Parliament is in session, we could listen to the news late at night. Now, when the House sits in the evening, we cannot see the early or late news broadcasts. I merely mention this in passing.

In general, the standard of the programmes is high, except that I do not like those marching pills. [Interjections.]

When we look at the annual report of the SABC we note that the SABC makes special reference to the efforts made in the matter of national relations in South Africa. Reference is also made to the services rendered to the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking sections of the population, and to the Coloureds. Mention is also made of the fact that programmes have already been completed for the future channel 2, a channel intended for the Black population. It is undoubtedly true that the SABC is trying to cater for everybody’s needs. But I want to deal with an important aspect.

There is still one section of the population for whom, in my view, provision has not yet been made. The language and culture of the Indians in South Africa does not fit in with our language and culture so easily as that of the other race groups. Could an effort not be made to show Indian films from time to time, because after all there are hundreds of Indians—and in the course of time there will obviously be many more—who are television viewers. I might just say in passing that these are not the sort of films which many people will watch. But there are times which could be used for this. On a Sunday afternoon, for instance, an hour or two could be devoted to such a film. I am sure this would not interfere with the present programme hours. We realize that there might be problems with the availability of films. As a result of the strained relations between India and South Africa there might be problems with the importation of suitable films. I understand, however, that there are many Indian films available, films which are shown in many cinemas. These films are in their various languages and are intended for the various groups among them. The various languages will also be a problem, of course. But I do think that films in the various languages, e.g. Hindu, Urdu, etc., could be shown in rotation. If the films are shown in rotation, everybody’s needs would be satisfied. I think I am correct in saying that videotapes are available in South Africa. They are present sold and leased to Indians so that they can be shown privately to family and friends. I wonder whether the showing of these films on television could not be investigated. I think there are few people, even amongst the Whites, who have the equipment necessary for showing videotapes. This obviously applies to the Indians as well. If we could investigate this matter, and if something could be done about it, I am sure this would contribute further to better national relations.

I want to conclude by raising a matter on behalf of a few voters in my constituency. We are all very grateful for the provision whereby pensioners obtain their radio licences at a nominal rate. This is a major concession for these people, who have to spend the better part of their lives on their own. It helps them to have a radio in their straitened circumstances. But there are hundreds of people who do not qualify for old age pensions but whose income is the same as that of the pensioners. Here I refer specifically to those whose incomes do not make it possible for them to obtain pensions. Could the possibility of these people also obtaining their radio licences for a nominal fee, not be investigated? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will say that the old age pensioner uses his pension book as proof. He might ask where one would draw the line in the other case. I think that the submission of the income tax assessment or certificate could be accepted as proof. The fact that a person does not pay tax could, in my view, also serve as a good yardstick. In this way we could extend these facilities to many other elderly people who really do need them.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. members who have participated in this debate for their contributions, and especially for the good wishes conveyed to me on my appointment as Administrator of Transvaal. I very much appreciate this.

The hon. member for Rondebosch raised three points in particular to show that we should not only create a better understanding of South Africa abroad, but that within South Africa, too, we should engender a better mutual understanding among the various groups. As far as understanding is concerned, particularly amongst the Whites, the position is not too bad in South Africa. Over the years we have made good progress in understanding one another. We no longer have a language struggle and the Boer/Rooinek struggle we used to have. Even under the present dispensation, we have made very, very good progress. If we only stress the understanding, the mutual respect we have for one another, in regard to these matters, things will continue to improve. I am afraid, however, that the minor differences are so often aired and too much is made of them. The fine things and the good things which we have achieved are then bedevilled in this way.

Regarding the question of dual medium education which the hon. member made a plea for, in the Cape and even in Transvaal there are many cases where parallel medium—not dual medium—education is provided. We should rather leave this matter to run its natural course.

The next matter the hon. member dwelt on was the question of universities. As far as that is concerned, the hon. member has of course touched on a fundamental principle of the Government’s policy on universities, schools and so on. He would like us to move away from the permit idea. Even in that regard, I think that the present arrangement works quite satisfactorily, viz. to give those Ministers dealing with universities for other groups the right to decide on the admission or otherwise of such a student to a White university. We must also remember that a protecting mechanism is built into the present system, not because we want it that way, or because it is a paternalistic idea. There are many students from our other population groups who, although they are university material, cannot be admitted to a White university for many reasons. This applies particularly in the case of certain faculties which lay down certain pass percentages, etc., as prerequisites. Although this would apply as far as his admission to a White university is concerned, there is in fact an opportunity for such a person at the university established for his own population group. At the time when the universities were established, we on this side were denounced as being everything that was bad, but today the worth of those universities—the national universities if I might call them that—is clearly underscored and there is appreciation for what we have in fact achieved for the different population groups.

As it is handled at present, this is working well. When referring to the character and so forth of the various universities, the hon. member said himself that we should be careful that the character of our universities is not affected. The hon. member for Bellville also referred to this when he said the university was a reflection of the community within which it stood and had to serve that community in respect of language and culture as well. One must be careful not to meddle with that cornerstone of our universities.

The hon. member for Rondebosch referred to television as an instrument for adult education. It is a fact that there is a multiplicity of political attitudes, but I do not believe it is the only instrument we can use to achieve political understanding or even understanding for one another at other levels. In many more of the things we do, in our daily life, for instance, we must try to cultivate an understanding of each other.

It is interesting that the hon. member sees no value at all in the discussion programmes we have at the moment He wants there to be more open discussions. This is an idea to which one might possibly give attention. But we must be careful not to make a political platform of television or even of the radio, or use them for practising politics, in the sense of merely setting standpoint against standpoint, because then we shall really be watering down its information, educational and entertainment function—in short, its real function.

You are doing it already, but only from one side.

Why do they do it in other countries?

The hon. member nonetheless raised some interesting ideas which must be given some consideration. In some respects these were not acceptable, but there was merit in other respects. Regarding political opinions on television, I shall come back to this at the end of my reply.

The hon. member for Bellville made a very interesting contribution. Of particular interest was his view of the university as a reflection of the community in which it stood, and that it operated within a social political system which one should definitely respect.

The hon. member came back again to the question which we normally refer to as the failure rate at our universities. I want to tell the hon. member that we have made good progress in regard to that problem. Last year the Committee of University Principals held a symposium at the University of Pretoria in regard to the transition between school and university. On that occasion some important contributions were made. It has already been pointed out that we have achieved a considerable success rate. In 1956 the pass rate was only 56%, while in 1975 it had risen to 67%. There has therefore been a considerable improvement. I think we can be reasonably proud of the success rate we have already achieved.

The hon. member said quite rightly that many factors played a role in the success a student achieved at university. It starts with the motivation he gets at home from his parents. Then there are the teaching methods at the university and mainly, of course, the diligence and motivation of the student himself. That is often where things go awry. The parents motivate the student, the teaching methods at the university are right, but the student—let us be honest with one another now—is lazy and in the end he stumbles over his own laziness. Then the reason for his failure is sought in many other places. The hon. member also rightly pointed out that our universities are no longer just places for our true intellectual elite, and that there are many people who regard it as a status symbol to enrol at a university, just to be able to say that they have been to university, regardless of whether they obtained a degree or not I think as far as that is concerned that we are going to make progress with the technikons through the distinctive fields of study and courses, which they offer, and which they implement in co-operation with the universities so that those who want to embark upon tertiary education, can be channelled to the university or the technikon, depending on their aptitude and capability. This matter is receiving close attention and we shall see more developments in future, especially as regards co-operation between the universities and the technikons. The hon. member made an interesting and important contribution and I want to thank him for this.

I now wish to turn to the hon. member for Durban Central.

He apologizes for not being able to be present.

Unfortunately he and the hon. member for Rissik, as well as other hon. members, are engaged in a debate in the Other Place and were not able to be present here. But I shall nonetheless try to answer fully. The hon. member made inquiries particularly as to co-ordination in the field of education in South Africa. I can tell him and the House that a memorandum has been prepared by our department regarding an umbrella advisory board for education in South Africa, in which all interested departments will be involved. That memorandum is being circulated amongst the other departments at the moment to obtain their view of the matter. Depending on the comments we receive from the other education departments, a final Cabinet memorandum will be drawn up in this regard and a decision will be taken in this connection.

The hon. member for Gezina referred to the important role of the teacher. I shall show in my concluding remarks how I associate myself with him in this regard. I obviously want to stress the importance of the teacher. He also pointed out that as far as the parents were concerned, a shift of function may have occurred in so far as the parent has already transferred many of his original obligations onto the school and the churches with the result that the teacher has a considerable burden to bear. When expressing our thanks and appreciation to the teachers corps, we must not neglect to make an appeal to the parents and families.

There was a time when we spoke a lot about the healthy family. But recently I have unfortunately heard little, even from the pulpit, to show that we should help one another and encourage one another in the maintenance of a sound family life in South Africa. We merely accept that this should be so, without really paying much attention to this important question. I do not think that we say enough about sound family life and good family relationships. The parents carry the responsibility of parenthood, and although the school, the churches and other organizations have to a large extent taken over the functions of the parent, this does not relieve them of their duty. They can, by virtue of having been relieved of various duties, do more for the child in other respects. The teachers, parents, organizations, churches and all concerned with the child must remember that what is said to the child today will be repeated by that child to the next generation. Everybody must take this into account. I want to associate myself with the hon. member and say that we have a high appreciation for the work our teachers do. I shall come back to this aspect just now. I also have high respect for the work done by youth organizations. I want to add immediately that we must thank the hon. member for Gezina because, in addition to all his other activities, he still finds time to act as commandant of a Voortrekker commando. This sets an example to the public and shows that all of them, even if they are busy people, can make their contribution. All who play a part in this way, and influence the child, will one day see the fruits of their labours. I want to thank the hon. member for a fine and important contribution.

I am really grateful to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, because we are dealt so many blows, right, left and centre, in regard to the SABC and the television service. It is supposedly so slanted and so prejudiced. I am grateful that he indicated that we are that much richer as a result of our television services compared to the time when we did not have television. I must honestly say that taking everything into account—all the information transmitted by television and the radio, their educational function and their entertainment function—we can say that we in South Africa are fortunate that these media offer the quality programmes we do get. We must thank them for that I want to thank the hon. member for his balanced view and understanding of the matter. While speaking of television, I want to raise a very interesting idea put to me by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. He asked why the national anthem was not also played at the beginning of the evening’s programme, when the children were really the largest group of viewers, and not only later in the evening, when the older people were sitting red-eyed before the screen. The national anthem is played then and the flag is shown on the screen. At that time most of the children are already in bed. I think this is a good and interesting idea which might possibly be followed up, and I want to thank the hon. the Minister for this.

The hon. member asked if we could not do more about showing films for the Indian community. The hon. member pointed out that there were problems in obtaining the correct sort of film, that there were language problems, and so on. The other day I said in reply to a question that as far as the other population groups were concerned, material was being introduced into radio and TV so that we might learn to know more about them, too, and so that there can be the necessary entertainment for them as well. These matters are receiving constant attention, but what the hon. member has said will be followed up and the possibilities in that regard investigated.

The hon. member then asked if there was a possibility that other pensioners drawing small pensions could be put on the same footing as old-age pensioners. I must say that when I was still an ordinary member that matter worried me too, and one should possibly find some norm as regards earnings, whatever those earnings might be, to see if everybody cannot be treated alike. I shall give further consideration to the idea the hon. member has raised.

The hon. member for Berea also put a question to me the other day regarding another matter. I shall inform him personally in this regard if he does not mind, because my time is somewhat limited and I should like to conclude.

I just want to point out that Dr. Meyer, chairman of the board of the SABC, is retiring at the beginning of next year. This will therefore be the last debate during which I can refer to his retirement. I want to record my special thanks and appreciation to Dr. Meyer for the short time I have worked with him. He has occupied that position since 1959. Under his leadership there have been phenomenal changes in the field of radio and television, e.g. the introduction of radio services for our Black nations, the introduction of FM and eventually, television and the expansion of our various foreign services. On that alone one could talk for some time. I want to thank Dr. Meyer most sincerely for his many years of faithful service and his outstanding achievements in this field.

I should also like to thank everybody concerned with teaching, educating and training our youth, whether by way of formal education or by way of opportunities provided for youth in the field of culture. Everybody deserves our thanks. One must be grateful for the character values these people have inculcated in our youth in the normal fulfilment of their duties, and for the lasting impressions they have made. There is a beautiful little poem which I have known for years and which I want to quote now, because it will always be true of the real educator teacher. I quote—

That is an eternal truth. We thank them for the character values they have inculcated in our youth.

I do not want to end on a strained note, but it has been said here that we should ensure that justice is done to the political parties in what is said over the radio, or what is shown on the television screens. I want to say to the Opposition, especially the official Opposition, that I wonder what the people of South Africa would have said about their contribution if this debate on National Education had been televised. One can perhaps conduct a sensible discussion with the hon. member for Rondebosch and to a certain degree with the hon. member for Johannesburg North, although these matters fall outside his province—and one can understand that—but if one looks at the big sour one from Orange Grove, one wonders what contribution he has ever made to education in this House. There is always talk of things which really have little to do with the education of our children.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member sits there making a noise. I repeat that if we had televised what has happened in this debate, they would have come out of it completely naked, because their contribution to this debate has been a round nil. [Interjections.] I need not be ashamed, because I am only speaking the plain truth. Three hon. spokesmen for the official Opposition participated in this debate. One could take each of their contributions and compare them with the ideas expressed and the contributions made by hon. members on this side of the House and ask any impartial referee to assess these contributions and then listen to what he had to say about them. It is also possible that their judgment in regard to these matters is so distorted that they no longer really know what this Parliament is all about. Those people seldom try to put to the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people what really should be done in the field of education. That is the meagre contribution they make. I shall leave it at that, because unfortunately we shall probably be saddled with this for a good many years to come. I thank other hon. members for their contributions. The content of the speeches made by hon. members on this side of the House shows that they have understanding for and real interest in the youth of South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban Central can conduct a meaningful discussion with one on this matter, but there are others who do not even try to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the patience you have displayed towards us. I think you have given us ample opportunity to discuss this Vote in a meaningful way.

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. Chairman, I move the three amendments printed in the name of the hon. member for Wynberg on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) In the English text, on page 2, in line 30, to omit “has let” and to substitute “lets”;
2. (2) in the English text, on page 2, in line 31, to omit “has granted” and to substitute “grants”;
3. (3) on page 4, after line 13, to add the following paragraph to the proposed new subsection (2A):

The first two amendments have to do with the English version of the Bill and are, I think, a matter of semantics.

We are changing the Afrikaans version.

I understand now from the hon. the Deputy Minister that the Afrikaans version of the Bill is to be changed. If that is so, I find it a little extraordinary. I shall first listen to what the hon. the Deputy Minister has to say and then come back to these two amendments if necessary.

The third amendment has to do with the credit that is extended if people are renting property with an option to purchase. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, if people who are bound by such a contract and want extended credit terms, they will have to submit to the board some form of financial statement for consideration before those extended terms are granted. I think the amendment speaks for itself and I should like to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reaction.

Until I hear the explanation from the hon. the Deputy Minister on the first two amendments, I shall, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, held them in abeyance, because I believe it is his intention to alter the Afrikaans text rather than the English text.

Mr. Chairman, I must apologize for not having moved my amendment at the beginning, but I was waiting for the hon. member for Wynberg. However, he did not turn up. I wished to hand him the amendments before moving them. I did not know that the hon. member for Orange Grove would be acting on his behalf.

We consulted the law advisers, and the English text is quite correct. It refers to an action which has already taken place, and for that reason I should like to move the following amendments—

1. (1) In the Afrikaans text, on page 3, in line 28, after “verhuur” to insert “het”;
2. (2) in the Afrikaans text, on page 3, in line 29, after “verleen” to insert “het”.

We therefore prefer to bring the Afrikaans text into line with the English text, since the law advisers believe that the English text is the correct one. They actually allege that the Afrikaans text is also correct, but to put the matter beyond all doubt, they suggest that these two words be inserted. I want to repeat that they refer to an act which has already taken place. That is why the past tense must be used.

As regards the hon. member’s third amendment to clause 2, I do not think one can lay down that provision in legislation. The fact of the matter is that the field officers of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure are continually visiting land which is being utilized in this way in order to examine the land itself as well as the position of the people concerned. It is very easy to ascertain from such a person’s conduct with regard to his obligation whether he is carrying on profitable farming operations on his land or not Moreover, if one prefers, one can stipulate in the lease that the tenant has to comply with certain requirements after a specific period. However, I do not think one should lay down certain fixed practices for such a person in the legislation. I believe that what the hon. member is asking me can just as well be laid down in the lease. Therefore we are unable, unfortunately, to accept this amendment because of its impractical nature.

I just want to ask the hon. member: If these provisions are inserted into the legislation and the tenant does not comply with them, what does one do with such a person? All the procedures to be followed if he does not comply with that provision would also have to be written into the legislation. This would mean a lengthy description of what has to be done if he does not observe such a provision. Therefore, I believe it to be better to embody the provisions in the lease, for if they are embodied in the lease, one can deal with him at once if he does not adhere to the contract. In my opinion, the hon. member’s proposal is quite impractical and it is not acceptable to us.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot say that I am very satisfied with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply on the amendment I moved. All that we are asking is that a man who is getting very favourable credit terms from the State should of necessity, in terms of legislation, have to submit a financial return. This is not an enormous task for anybody who is receiving favourable credit terms from the State. I would agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister that it is perhaps better to have such a clause written into the hire contract. That would be fine, but there is nothing in this legislation that says that that has to be done. We believe, as a matter of principle, that this ought to be done, i.e. that if the State is going to lend money on favourable terms, it should, as a right, receive a financial statement. In enforcing this, one can by all means add further clauses to the hire contract requiring more detailed statements of account.

In the annual report the Secretary for Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure states that the board visited various agricultural credit committees and that during the period under review the board held 246 meetings and dealt with 5 861 cases. I am sure that very few of those cases are in fact covered by the clause we are talking about at the moment. I do not believe that it is impractical at all; I would go so far as to say that I should like to see this provision extended to more of these cases where people are getting favourable credit terms from the State. What we are therefore trying to do, is to establish the principle that, if somebody is getting good credit terms, much better credit terms than he can get in the open market, it should be necessary for him to supply a financial statement. We think that it would be helpful, because many farmers from day to day are unaware of what their situation is. Their accountants, or they themselves, might get down to working out once or twice a year how much they have paid out and how much has come in. Nowadays farming has become so marginal as far as profit is concerned, that we believe it is a necessity for a farmer to know exactly where he stands from day to day.

We suggest that in this sort of situation the farmer should be forced to learn where he stands. At the moment that is not the case. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that the farmer is visited from time to time by departmental people to see how he is doing. However, this is not good enough. It has got to be backed up by some sort of legislation which forces him to review his position. This is why I shall persist with this amendment.

As far as the first and second amendments are concerned, I think I understood the hon. the Deputy Minister clearly, but I am not quite certain. He has at least brought the Afrikaans text into line with the English text. Could I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he means that this should now apply to existing contracts rather than to future contracts? From the Second Reading of this Bill, I understood that the intention with clause 2 was to lay down a policy that would apply for the future. If that is file case, the Afrikaans text is correct and it is the English text that is incorrect. I must then persist with those two amendments and reject the amendments of the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is a question of semantics, and I think that, if he thinks it over, he will agree that I am correct. I should like to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply before I take these amendments any further, because I should like to know what he intends.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to repeat that I cannot accept the third amendment as moved by the hon. member, for the reasons I have given. Firstly, the persons concerned are regularly visited by field officers, by officials of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. All the assistance they need in that particular connection, they can have at very short notice. Secondly, I think it would be absolutely impractical to embody the proposed provision in the Bill. One could just as easily do that by means of the lease. If the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure finds it necessary to act against such persons, they have the power to do so in any event; it does not have to be embodied in legislation.

As far as financial guidance to farmers is concerned, I agree with the hon. member for Orange Grove, of course. However, I think it will be totally impractical to write into the Bill that it should be done in a particular manner. The hon. member also failed to reply to a very important point If one inserted it into the Bill, one would have to add certain other provisions as well, for if the person concerned does not comply with the legislation, what is one to do with him? It is better to insert it into the contract. Then one can embody certain penalty provisions in the contract.

As regards the hon. member’s argument with regard to the first and second amendments, I want to tell him that this is an action which takes place after the land has been left I do not know how I can put this more clearly to the hon. member. The English text is quite correct and the Afrikaans is now being brought into line with it because it refers to an action which takes place after the land has been let. That is the crux of the matter. That is why it has to be put in the past tense.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept the third amendment. The other two amendments I have already put.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that I have to persist with the first two amendments that stand in the name of the hon. member for Wynberg. The point is that in the future at the time of the signing of the contract—and such a contract consists of two parts, viz. firstly, the rental arrangements for the lease and, secondly, the option of sale on the property—this clause should come into operation, and not afterwards. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to have another look at this in the company of his law advisers. I think he will see that I am correct in this and that our amendments are quite pertinent.

As far as the third amendment is concerned, the hon. the Deputy Minister asked what one would do if the farmer were not to meet the requirements, should my amendment be accepted. The answer is quite clear. One does not give him extended credit terms and one forecloses the contract.

The need for this amendment has never become clearer in my mind than when I listened to what the hon. the Deputy Minister was saying. I am absolutely certain that we would be incorrect, as far as State money is concerned, if we did not demand this sort of thing. I see no good reason why it should not be allowed for in legislation. I do not think it is impractical to ask for such a requirement from anybody who is reaping the benefits of favourable credit. Therefore I must also persist with that point.

Mr. Chairman, having listened to the arguments on both sides of the House in connection with the wording “has let” and “lets”, in terms of the English and Afrikaans versions respectively, I think there is one question to which the hon. the Deputy Minister has not replied. That is a question put to him by the hon. member for Orange Grove. If the amendment he has now proposed goes through, so that it becomes “has let”—and the English version is in fact the correct version—will the application of this clause then be retrospective? In other words, if one has current agreements which exist, existing current lease and options agreements, then, as I understand the situation now, if this clause is accepted, anybody who has signed agreements—that is now in terms of the English version— agreements which are still in force at the moment, immediately becomes subject to the various conditions that are now being imposed. I am referring now to provisions such as “for a period of five years” and “that no rental shall be repayable in respect of the first two years of the lease”, etc. I do not really believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister has answered that part of the question.

To put it briefly, the question really is whether it now means that this legislation becomes retrospective on people who already have lease and options agreements in force with the Government.

Mr. Chairman, this provision is not retrospective. The provisions apply from the date on which this legislation is promulgated. I hope the hon. members will now understand clearly that the legislation concerned will not be retrospective. I have already said so. After all, it says so quite clearly in the Bill. The proposed new section 10(2A) reads as follows—

It means that this legislation comes into operation when it is promulgated. Therefore it is not retrospective.

Amendments moved by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture agreed to.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer negatived and amendment (2) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (3) moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister and other hon. members will recall that we have had a substantial debate on this Bill. We supported the Second Reading, in other words the principle, of the Bill. Sometimes people have difficulty in obtaining title because predecessors in title had neglected their duty and had failed to take transfer. Such a situation can eventually get out of hand because sometimes those predecessors in title can either not be traced or there are difficulties in giving correct title to those who have inherited the land. The position with regard to such land is often complicated by usufruct or fideicommissum and mortgage bonds, and the deeds registries often have difficulties. The only remedy is to obtain a Supreme Court application, but this is expensive. We supported the idea that there should be a short-cut for a person receiving title, thus eliminating the extensive costs that would otherwise be involved.

The Bill before us makes provision for a special land division committee but we feel, quite frankly, that the whole procedure could have been simplified. The application to have land designated and the objections to such application could all form part of one hearing. The matter could then quickly be disposed of and provision could be made, if necessary, for appeal. It would have taken too many amendments however—and the Bill would have become too distorted at this stage—to have provided for the situation along these lines. We shall therefore reluctantly go along with the procedure that has been outlined, but it does present certain difficulties which will become clearer in the amendments we shall be proposing. The hon. the Minister has a copy of those amendments. I consequently move as an amendment—

The reason is very simple. In this particular clause, subsection (4)(b) states that—

We then have an elaborate procedure of how, once the land is designated, it is to be advertised, objections can be lodged, matters can be investigated, the hearing takes place, further advertisements are made and further appeals allowed until the matter becomes final. We will however, never get to that stage. The Minister, having received an application for designated land, may in the face of possibly one objection decide against it and that will then be the end of the matter. This seems contradictory to the whole spirit of the intention of giving people an opportunity to appear and of putting their case. So, the purpose of this amendment is that the Minister shall first afford a hearing to the applicant and other interested parties. In other words, where there has been an objection lodged to land simply being declared designated land and the Minister perhaps thinks that the objector does not have a case, then he must at least give the applicant a hearing. The objection, which will just be a written objection, must be tested by cross-examination and by hearing counter-evidence. I cannot see how, purely on the face of an objection, the Minister can come to a decision and then say that that is the end of the story, that he is not allowing the matter to be taken any further and that therefore it is not to be designated land. Therefore I put it to the hon. the Minister that this proposed amendment would help him to come to a decision as to whether to declare it designated land.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow. I can come to only one conclusion—and I say this with great respect towards the hon. member—and that is that he has not come across anything of this nature in his career as an attorney. In terms of the provisions of that specific clause, after all, the Minister already takes his decision on the basis of representations made to him. He cannot take a decision about something which is hanging in the air. He takes it on the basis of representations made to him by the applicant or interested parties. When the Minister has taken the decision not to proceed with the matter, he is not infringing upon the legal rights of anyone, after all, for any person who feels aggrieved by this still has the whole court procedure to which he can have recourse. By means of his amendment, the hon. member wants to add to subsection (4)(b)—

This is the person who initiated the matter—

How does the Minister know in a case such as this one who all the interested parties are? Therefore the hon. member is proposing something which is completely impossible, and then there is still the cost aspect, which is very important in an application of this nature. To propose that the applicant or any other interested parties—and the Minister will not even know who they are—should be heard before he can take his decision would cause the costs to soar. Therefore I think it is a completely impractical proposal of the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the hon. member for Namakwaland, it is all very well for people, particularly those in farming areas, when they have a problem, simply to send it to the seat of the deeds registry like Cape Town or Pretoria to let the people in the Deeds Registries sort out the headaches instead of the hon. member himself who sits in a country town and therefore does not have to go to the Deeds Office. However, in this particular case he has not understood the argument I want to ask the hon. member for Namakwaland how this whole thing starts. The Minister does not suddenly pluck an application for a transfer of title out of the sky. How does the Minister know about it? Who starts the ball rolling? It is not the objector who starts the ball rolling, but the applicant.

You did not listen to him while he spoke.

Who starts the ball rolling? The applicant starts the ball rolling. The applicant is the person who is afforded a hearing. There do not have to be any other interested parties who are involved, but if there are, they must be advised. In these circumstances I must stand by this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. I think the hon. member for Namaqualand replied very effectively to the hon. member’s speech. I think the way the hon. member for Hillbrow tried to back out really did not do credit to the profession he practised before coming to Parliament because he contradicts himself on two occasions. The objective of this clause is specifically to enable the Minister not to proceed with a designation. If he finds that the objections are such that it would be very difficult to satisfy all the parties with a designation, he simply does not proceed with it. As the hon. member for Namaqualand said, the applicant can follow other procedures, after all. However, the hon. member for Hillbrow does not understand why this Bill was introduced. I think that is the whole problem. It is aimed at cases to which solutions can be found, but where the high cost of the normal court procedures makes it impossible to arrive at a solution. We have always introduced hybrid Bills in Parliament in such cases. To prevent that, we have introduced this Bill specifically to accommodate all these cases, so that we will not have to introduce an ad hoc Bill every time. The hon. member does not know that the implementation of these two laws was a resounding success at George and Oudtshoorn. We had no problems in that connection. Consequently I can only say that I am afraid I cannot accept this amendment, because it would frustrate the whole purpose of this clause. The whole point is that we do not want the Minister to act as arbitrator between the various parties. The parties must come to an agreement themselves and then the objections can be dealt with. If the Minister finds that the objections are of such a nature that he cannot proceed with the designation of the land, then it is not proceeded with.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he then contemplates that the Land Division Committee will be unable to sort out certain problems. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister saying that if, because of the objections, the Land Division Committee will not be able to solve the matter, the only one who will be able to solve it will be the Supreme Court? If that is not so, I want to ask him in what circumstances he will exercise the power given to him in clause 2(4) if he deems it inadvisable for the land to be designated because of objections.

Mr. Chairman, it is obvious. I now want to refer to the powers which are being requested here. When, in the opinion of the Minister, the objections are of such a nature that he cannot proceed with the designation, then he does not do so. It is as simple as that. Surely we cannot make the Minister act as arbitrator over every little thing that is brought to his attention. The fact of the matter is simply that when the Minister believes that the designation should not be proceeded with, it is not proceeded with. In other words, no further use is then made of these procedures. I do not know how I can put this more clearly to the hon. member.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, this is an administrative clause in terms of which a committee is appointed which shall consist of a judge or a magistrate with at least 10 years’ experience plus two other members. The quorum is to be two. In an endeavour to improve the situation, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 4, in line 56, after “whom” to insert “(i)”;
2. (2) on page 4, after line 59, to insert:

The reason for this is that the legislation deals with deeds registries, partitions of land and with all the things appertaining to conveyancers. I think it would therefore be most helpful to a judge and particularly to a magistrate, should a magistrate be appointed, if one of the other two members of the committee were to be a conveyancers.

I also wish to move a third amendment to this clause, as follows—

In this connection I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree that at least one of the two members should be the chairman, because I think it would be invidious if the matter were to be decided by two people, neither of whom was the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I quite sympathize with the hon. member for Hillbrow in a certain sense, but I do not think we should bind the Minister by providing here that it must be a conveyancer or, as the hon. member adds, “a person with knowledge of and experience in conveyancing”. Many of the inquiries to be undertaken by this committee will take place in areas and at places where in all probability no qualified conveyancer will be available, and perhaps not even a person with the necessary experience in conveyancing. I think we should leave this to the hon. the Minister, because I am almost sure that in practice, he will go out of his way to appoint a conveyancer and probably a surveyor as well, because they are the people involved in the kind of work to be done by the committee. I do not consider it advisable to bind the Minister, and for that reason I do not support the proposed amendment.

This also applies for the provision that in determining a quorum, one of the two members should be the chairman. It may often happen in practice that the chairman, who then has to form a part of that quorum, may be disqualified, he may fall ill or he may pass away. In such a case, there cannot be a quorum for an urgent meeting to conclude a lengthy inquiry, while the conveyancer and the surveyor, who have been involved in the inquiry all along, will be able and competent, having heard evidence for weeks or even for months, to form a quorum and to give a ruling. However, if the chairman has to be a part of the quorum, it may happen, as I have said, that he may be disqualified, which could cause an enormous delay in the further investigation and conclusion of the matters which the committee concerned has to decide about.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to say a final word on clause 4. I think that the argument that the chairman of the committee might pass away before a judgment is given on a case which might have been going on for quite some time, is a real danger, because it does happen on occasion. It happens in the Supreme Court and in magistrates’ courts as well. I think that, on balance, the chances of that happening are nevertheless remote and that that presents far less danger than when two people make a decision in the absence of the chairman. That, to my mind, is the danger that we must look out for, and therefore I must stand by the amendments that I have moved.

Mr. Chairman, I regret to say that we cannot accept the hon. member’s amendments. I say this on the basis of the arguments advanced in this connection by the hon. member for Marico. The arguments of this hon. members are quite valid, and for that reason I cannot accept the amendments of the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, we now come to the clause which provides that the committee has to investigate the applications referred to it in order to be able to make a finding on the claims and objections received and to make an allocation of the undivided property. Clause 9(b) provides that the committee may “at its discretion refuse to hear any oral evidence … unless such evidence is given under oath …” I have no objection to that; I agree that any evidence submitted in a case of this importance, should be given under oath. When we refer to the actual evidence being given under oath, it is not clear whether legal representation can be afforded to the applicant or to the objector at that stage. This committee is, of course, a statutory creation and not a court of law where legal representation is provided for. In magistrate’s courts the Supreme Court and in other places legal representation is allowed. I cannot, however, see any provision in this subsection that legal representation can be afforded. In order to clarify the situation beyond any doubt—and I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister feels that there should be legal representation for anyone—I move the following very simple amendment—

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for Hillbrow is really asking for here, is a right which the applicant has as a matter of course in any event. Nothing contained in this legislation prohibits the applicant from making use of legal representation. In practice the position is that only a legal practitioner would be able to disentangle the web of ownership, as is found in these cases. If the hon. member gives this matter more thought, he, too, would find that one cannot really tackle a matter such as this without legal representation. Ultimately it is a conveyancer who has to do the conveyancing for the applicant and only a lawyer, an attorney, is allowed as conveyancer. I have never seen legislation which provides that a person is entitled to legal representation; it is an automatic right which everyone has and consequently I believe that the hon. member’s request is quite unnecessary.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect to my colleague and learned friend from Namakwaland, I have been advised by senior counsel on my right in regard to this matter. [Interjections.]

Has he got an up to date Butterworths?

Approximately five years ago, I am advised, Justice Baker delivered a judgment in the case of Bell that no one is entitled to legal representation as of right I do submit that that is the law at the moment. My basic common-sense approach to law tells me that this committee is a creature of statute, and that, as such, one has to make provision for that statutory right. If it is not provided for, it just does not come about by itself. I stand by the amendment and honestly think that the House will be making a grave error if it does not accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am in complete agreement with what was said by the hon. member for Namakwaland with regard to this amendment. Unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment, because practice has proved otherwise. The hon. member is not listening at all to what I am saying. Practice has proved otherwise. In the case of the hybrid Acts to which reference has already been made, all interested parties had legal representatives. The cases were untangled to the satisfaction of all parties with the assistance of the legal representatives. So the hon. member is looking for ghosts where there are none. The applicants have the right, of course, to appoint legal representatives in such cases. If I were involved in such a case, I should also appoint a legal representative myself. However, I should definitely appoint the hon. member for Namakwaland and not the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect to the legal submissions made by the hon. member for Namaqualand, I am prepared to be guided and I think the House should let itself be guided by the hon. member for Groote Schuur on my right. [Interjections.]

Can you afford his advice, Alf?

I understand that the hon. the Deputy Minister is in a difficult situation at the moment. I shall stand by my amendment. I submit that between now and when this matter is referred to the Other Place, the hon. the Deputy Minister should perhaps get further legal opinion on this for consideration in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I shall give the hon. member the undertaking that I shall obtain the necessary legal advice in this regard and, if necessary, rectify the matter in the Other Place.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, in connection with clause 10 I want to refer to subsection (3)(a). That is the subsection which has regard to the applicant requesting the committee, as contemplated in subsection (2), to reconsider its findings. In the event of such a request—

In that regard, I move as an amendment—

1. (a) the committee shall afford the parties a hearing in terms of paragraph (b);

What I am asking for is that, when it comes to a reconsideration of the committee’s findings, such a request should not simply be brushed aside because in the committee’s opinion it should not reconsider the matter and therefore refuses the request I do not think it should come to that decision until there has been a further hearing to establish what further evidence has led to what is basically an appeal. I am asking that in such a case the procedure set down in paragraph (b) should be followed and an appeal of this nature should be reconsidered. That is the purpose of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but this side of the House cannot support that amendment either. If we look at clauses 7, 8 and 9, we see that the applicant is afforded ample opportunity to substantiate his application. In his sworn statement he must set out the grounds for his application in full. The man who objects must also support his objection by sworn statement. When the committee has made its finding and the applicant is not satisfied and asks for the finding to be reconsidered, he must once again support his application for the reconsideration of the finding by sworn statement. In my opinion there is more than enough opportunity for any applicant to submit his case properly to the committee by way of a substantiated sworn statement. Why should there be another hearing? It is absolutely unnecessary. I think the hon. member fails to see the very thing this legislation seeks to do. What it seeks to do is to eliminate the unnecessarily protracted hearings. That is why the committee has adequate authority and is afforded adequate opportunity, by way of the submission of sworn statements to it, to make a finding and to take a decision. If the applicant is not satisfied, he is afforded the opportunity to request that the finding be reconsidered and he has to set out his grounds for that request in a sworn statement. It is our opinion that this is adequate and that the committee is, in fact, in a position to determine what its findings should be. For that reason we really cannot support the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have one difficulty with the argument of the hon. member for Marico. Perhaps he can help me with my difficulty. Perhaps he can tell me what the difference is between the procedure laid down in paragraph (b), in terms of which “the committee shall, if it does not refuse the request… convene a meeting” and take the other steps set out in sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii), and the committee deciding on its own to refuse a hearing altogether. The committee is being placed in a situation where it can of its own volition simply decide not to hear the matter. Is that a just way of dealing with it? Who is going to suffer? Only the applicants and the objectors. I thought the whole purpose of this legislation was to help the applicant and consider objections. Quite frankly, Sir, it is not I who am missing the point of the Bill but the hon. member for Marico. I stand by my proposed amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I content myself with what the hon. member for Marico said. I think he explained the matter well. The hon. member asked what the difference was between subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b). Let me indicate the difference. When an applicant submits new arguments or facts that have to be assessed by the committee, the committee acts in terms of subsection (3)(b). However, when the applicant requests the committee to reconsider its finding and the committee is of opinion that no new facts have been submitted by the applicant—and I think the committee will be able to pass excellent judgment at that stage because it has considered the entire matter throughout and has had all the facts at its disposal—it can decide not to allow a new hearing. I think this is the difference between clause 10(3)(a) and clause 10(3)(b). As the hon. member for Marico said, the whole object of the Bill is to try to facilitate matters and to expedite matters. However, the hon. member persists in building in things which will have the very effect of protracting the process and which are really unnecessary. Consequently we cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, one really feels that it is far more justified to refuse to have a hearing than to have hearing. That is, in effect, what the hon. the Deputy Minister is saying. It is not a question of speeding up the procedure. It is a question of seeing that justice is done and of coming to the right decision, because they are prepared to have a hearing and to go through all the procedures. All we are saying here is that they are not prepared to go through the procedure. One is therefore not saving time. One does not save time if one refuses an application because one hurts people by refusing an application.

But the parties have been heard.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, I do not have an amendment pertaining to this clause because I cannot find an amendment to solve my problem. My problem lies in clause 11(7) which states—

I am not concerned with the other aspects at the moment. I am concerned here only with its being burdened by a mortgage bond, and I quote further—

That is all right in terms of the law as it stands at the moment, but how, I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, is he going to put this into practice? How does one put it into practice in the light, for example, of section 56 of the Deeds Registries Act I shall quote the relevant section because I do not want to catch anybody out Section 56, which deals with the transfer of hypothecated immovable property, states—

This is the Registrar of Deeds—

How does one get a building society or a bondholder to agree to this if either party thinks it would be prejudiced in any way, which it might well be? This also applies if the bond is fixed for a period and the period has not yet been reached. I cannot find an amendment to meet the situation and I should therefore like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister how one is going to get over this difficulty.

Mr. Chairman, the particular section of the Act provides that the land which is allocated by division automatically serves as security for the particular loan. Let us assume, however, as the hon. member said, that the bondholder does not want to give permission for the bond to be cancelled so that the transfer may be registered. In that case the applicant has only one remaining legal right, and that is to obtain another bondholder. Otherwise he has to repay the person’s money. However, there is nothing obstructing the transaction simply because one particular bondholder does not want to give his permission. Surely this is a problem the applicant has with his bondholder and not with his title. In other words, the person actually has no real legal problem.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member to assume that it is a participation mortgage bond. What happens then? What do we do with a participation mortgage bond or what happens if it is a fixed bond for a period and the period has not yet been reached? How do we solve that?

Mr. Chairman, I cannot envisage any company dealing with participation bonds, ever considering the possibility of including in a participation bond something like an old piece of surplus land which has not had an owner or has been unoccupied for generations. I think this is a perfectly absurd question.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

with the consent of the parties concerned and Subsection (1) of the clause reads—

I want to submit that the selling of the piece of land can obviously cause a very serious problem if the committee has come to the conclusion that they cannot allocate the land to A or B or C or whoever the parties are. So, in order to find a solution to the problem, they want to sell the piece of land, but this may not be what the parties concerned want and it may not be in the interests of the parties to sell the land. The purpose of this amendment is to provide that the committee may only sell the land if they obtain the consent of the parties concerned to sell it. I believe it will be wrong to sell the land over their heads if the parties to an action claiming ownership to the land, do not get it and do not agree that the land should be sold.

Mr. Chairman, there are two reasons why the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow is quite impractical and nonsensical. The first reason is that if the hon. member had read further, he would have seen that clause 13(7)(b) provides that if the addresses of the parties concerned are unknown, the money may be paid to the Master of the Supreme Court. How on earth can the Minister obtain the permission of the persons concerned if their addresses are unknown? The legislation makes specific provision for cases where the parties are unknown. [Interjections.] The second reason is that in a transaction of this nature one may get one particular interested party who owns an insignificant section of that property. I myself have seen something like a ⅓ 200th share in a small undivided piece of land. If such a person wanted to be malicious, he could simply refuses his permission and the whole transaction would come to naught. In other words, the only practical solution to this problem is to give the Minister, who is not an interested party, the right to pass judgment. It is practical and right that this be so.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

If the deed cannot be found and the committee is therefore—

Obviously they cannot; one of the first reasons why this was brought to their attention was probably that the title deeds could not be found—

In other words, if the title deed has been lost, they can submit an affidavit to that effect, and in that case—

We have no objection to what is stipulated here as it is the only way in which it can be done. However, I have a simple problem with this. What legal document does the party who has succeeded in obtaining this land have to prove that this land is his?

The title deed.

No, he has no proof as he has lost the title deed. Clause 14(3) now provides that—

The Registrar therefore merely endorses it.

One can obtain a copy of the title deed.

I think the hon. member for Walmer, who is a conveyancer, should know that an ordinary copy of a title deed does not help anybody.

A certified copy.

That is a different story. That is why my amendment says—

That is therefore exactly what I have suggested. As hon. members will know, if the title deed is lost, one normally has to follow the regulations, which prescribe that a certain number of advertisements should be placed in the Government Gazette and in local newspapers, and that an application and affidavit have to be submitted in respect of such title deed. This is also provided for in this subsection, which is fine, but a certified copy of the title deed should then be given to the applicant.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow has absolutely no regard for the fact that all these procedures which are followed, are followed at the expense of the applicant. The Deeds Registries Act to which the hon. member referred, also provides that any person who has a registered interest in any property may obtain a certified copy of that title deed. So why should one compel the applicant to obtain a certified copy of that title deed at his own expense—it costs anything from Rb0 to R100—if he does not want it? One day when he wants to have a certified copy, he can exercise that right.

Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, I think it is remarkable to suggest that a person who has gone to the trouble of following the whole long rigmarole which is laid down in this Bill, and of obtaining legal representation which the hon. member has said he has a right to— although he is wrong about that—will not show any interest in obtaining the title deed to the land which has been allocated to him. Really, Sir, I think this is a joke. I do not think hon. members and the hon. the Deputy Minister have taken this Bill seriously at all. I want to predict that the hon. the Deputy Minister will soon come back to the House with amendments.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In motivating my case I should just like to say a few words in connection with the history of this university which has played such a large part in the development of Natal in the last 30 or so years. The university originated as a university college in Pietermaritzburg in 1910 and was only constituted as an independent teaching university in 1948. It has the unique distinction of being the only university in South Africa which has two campuses some 80 km apart, the one in Durban and the other in Pietermaritzburg. There are at present over 8 000 students and approximately 800 staff members, and in 19bb some 1 600 degrees were conferred by this particular university.

Another interesting point about the University of Natal is that in 1936 a separate section was established in Durban for the use of non-White students, and although they received their instruction in a part of the city other than that housing the campus itself, they were taught by the same teaching staff. They also took the same basic degrees and they sat for the same examinations. In the 1960s, when the enrolment already exceeded 900, the change-over was made to ethnic universities, but by that time the non-White section had already become the largest university institution for non-Whites south of the Sahara. As the enrolled students completed their degrees, with the exception of the medical school the non-White section gradually ran down and the training offered there came to an end. By that time the university had already trained over 600 non-White graduates to serve their own people.

It is well-known in this House that the university has had several distinguished principals. At present there are nine separate faculties at the University of Natal. I shall not list them all, but there are nine separate faculties and the university has also developed several research institutes concentrating on applied research. These are supported by funds from industries as well as, in most cases, by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. The chief research institutes are the Wattle Research Institute, the Paint Industry Research Institute, the Sugar-milling Research Institute, the Social Research Institute, the very well-known Institute of Parasitology in Durban, which falls under the medical school, and the Oceanographic Research Institute as well.

The cost of the university buildings, over the last 30 years, has run to several tens of millions of rand, and today the university hostels have accommodation for nearly 3 000 students.

It is interesting to note that approximately 30% of the students come from outside the borders of Natal, and although most of the instruction is done in English, the faculty of agriculture, which caters mainly for rural populations, does give instruction in both English and Afrikaans. There has been—and this is certainly not the place to raise it—a certain amount of discussion centering around the medical faculty of the University of Natal. I should like to quote a few brief comments, in relation to the faculty of medicine, from the 19bb annual report of the university. As hon. members will know this faculty is situated in Umbilo Road and is therefore separate from the campus of the university, which incidentally is the reason for the amendment Bill that is before the House this evening. I quote from the report—

A further interesting comment, for the times in which we live, is the following—

This is regarded as a significant step forward, and I believe they have every reason to be proud of that step forward. They go on to say—

Then, I should also like to quote a few figures from the actual booklet commemorating the 25 years of the medical faculty at the University of Natal. The 25 year period was up in 19b6, because the faculty was actually established in 1951. The claim in 19b6 was that the graduates of the Medical School numbered over 600, and they have contributed to the health care of the population and acquitted themselves with honour in many specialized fields. I believe that those who have followed the history of the Medical School would be the first to agree with those sentiments. It is not generally known, but the clinical departments of the department of medicine are also charged with the health care in the King Edward VIE Hospital, with which they share premises as they are situated right next to them in Umbilo Road. They are also charged with the health care in the Wentworth and Clairwood Hospitals. The department of medicine is therefore certainly playing its part in the medical care of people in the greater Durban area.

Another fact that is not generally known is that one of the first poison centres in South Africa was the brain child of Prof. Leary who founded the Department of Pharmacology at the Medical School in 19b2. Immediately on founding that department, he set up liaison with the Addington Hospital and with various bodies that were able to contribute information which led to the library of information which, in turn, gave birth to the fully-fledged 24 hour service offered through Addington Hospital, i.e. information on all aspects of poisoning, not only by medicine, but also by substances commonly taken by accident, such as insecticides, household poisons and other substances of that nature. I believe that the pioneering work done by this medical faculty, through Prof. Leary and his Department of Pharmacology, has set a very useful example which has been followed throughout the country, so that today South Africa is in the fortunate position of having several poison centres which cater for an enormous number of accidental poisonings which takes place in South Africa.

Therefore one can truly say that the Medical Faculty of the University of Natal has rendered enormous services to the community, not only in Durban and Natal, but also in a pioneering way to many other citizens of the country. The Bill before us is a very simple and short one. As I have indicated, it is the Medical Faculty that has given rise to the amendment that is before us this evening.

It seems that universities with faculties of medicine and/or dentistry do not actually have the legal right or authority to provide medical or dental training at places other than the campus of the university. Although this university is unique in consisting of two campuses, the facilities offered by the faculty of medicine are at a third campus and are, as such, not actually strictly catered for in terms of the law relating to the university.

Clause 2 merely provides that the university may now also conduct its activities in any hospital or hospital department approved by the S.A. Medical and Dental Council as a satellite hospital, or as a satellite hospital department or in any health clinic assigned by the health authorities to the university for training purposes. The provision is not new. Several of our South African universities found themselves operating in an extra-legal situation. Therefore this is simply a normalizing of a situation which has existed for many years.

I do hope that I will have the support of hon. members on both sides of the House this evening in piloting this legislation through to legalize a situation which has applied for many years.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hon. members on this side of the House I just wish to tell the hon. member for Berea that we fully support the Bill which he introduced and which is before the House at the moment. We are fully aware of the fact that as far as both the academic work and the research at the Medical School is concerned, this university is doing work of a high standard. Therefore we support the hon. member’s Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea motivated the Bill fully. We accept his motivation and support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Government Whips for making time available for the discussion of this amending Bill. I should also like to thank hon. members who have supported what is in fact a very simple amendment. I thank them for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

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

At the time of the Second Reading of this Bill the hon. member indicated he would move such amendment He also set out his reasons for wishing to move the amendment. I do not think the amendment requires much further motivation. I cannot recall what the hon. the Minister’s attitude was at the time, but I am sure he should like to give us his views at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I see the hon. member for Yeoville has just resumed his seat I merely rise to afford him the opportunity to motivate his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being late. I was under the impression that the House was going to deal with another Bill.

May I very briefly motivate this amendment? If one looks at the Bill one sees that there are various proceedings which are prescribed and which are included in the definition. It is quite clear that what is not included in the definition is the fact that one may also have proceedings in order to set aside anyone of such orders. The fact that one needs to include an application to set aside the order is demonstrated by the fact that the mere bringing of that application has certain consequences. Therefore, while it is purely a technical amendment, it seems to be to be of consequence that we should include not only the application for the type of order which is requested, but also the application to set it aside.

I do not believe it is a matter of great contention, but it is perhaps of some consequence for people who practise in this type of litigation.

Mr. Chairman, I shall consider the hon. member’s motion. I must put it to the hon. member that I did try to look at it quite sympathetically. However, I was unable to see how the words “divorce action” could in any way be affected by the hon. member’s proposed amendment. The Bill in its entirety actually concerns only those applications for an interdict. Therefore “divorce action” will also mean an action or application in forma pauperis. I could not find that it would in any way be necessary—and this also applies to the divorce action as such, to introduce here the putting aside of court orders of this nature. I shall have the legal advisers look at this again. As the hon. member quite rightly said, it is a very technical amendment, and if we feel it is necessary, I shall move the necessary amendment in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to raise with the hon. the Minister the problem that arises—perhaps he would like to look at this as well—in clause 1(2) which states—

Let me take the example of an application in forma pauperis. An application in forma pauperis is, by definition, regarded as a divorce action because it is included under the term “divorce action” in clause l(l)(ii)(b). Now I come to the question I should like to pose to the hon. the Minister. If one brings an action for leave to use in forma pauperis, the application is granted and a summons is then issued, on what date was the divorce action instituted? This becomes material for quite a few reasons which perhaps I do not need to enlarge upon now. Is it the date of commencement of the application for leave to sue in forma pauperis, or is it the date on which the summons was issued? I say this because in terms of the definition there is some degree of vagueness. Let us take a relevant example. One can have an application to sue in forma pauperis set aside, but when is it actually set aside? Is it set aside from the date on which the application is lodged to set it aside, or is it set aside on the date on which the order of court is granted. That is why I think that the amendment is relevant.

There is, however, the problem in regard to clause 1(2), the problem being when one actually starts an action. That is not only relevant to applications in forma pauperis. It could also be relevant to an application for substituted service or an application for edictal citation. Let me give the hon. the Minister the following example. In terms of this Bill it is intended—and I have no quarrel with that—that the Act should commence on 1 July. However, until 1 July one can still continue to sue for judicial separation. What happens to the application in forma pauperis to sue for judicial separation if it is lodged before that date but is opposed? Has that action been instituted or has it not been instituted? It is my submission that it is unfortunate that one is going to have any judicial separation actions from now until 1 July because, quite obviously, people who would want to claim that right would want to try to claim it fairly quickly now, thus creating a situation which is going to disappear on 1 July. In my view, therefore, the action should only be instituted on the day on which the summons is actually issued. What is actually the position? I would be very grateful to the hon. the Minister if he could give some indication of what clause 1(2) is intended to mean.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite possible that there is a grey area here, to judge by what the hon. the member has said. I shall refer this matter back to the law advisers just to get complete clarity on this particular point. If it is necessary to move a further amendment in this regard I shall do so in the Other Place. I trust that will satisfy the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I am quite satisfied with that. The only submission I should like to make to the hon. the Minister is that I hope that if he does find it necessary to move an amendment, the amendment will make it clear that the action is only instituted as such on the date that the summons is issued and not by reason of any preliminary proceedings.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper which reads as follows—

Dissolution of marriage and grounds of divorce.

1. (a) the irretrievable break-down of a marriage referred to in section 4; or
2. (b) the mental illness or unconsciousness of a spouse referred to in section 5.

I have a difficulty in arguing this amendment without also referring to clause 4, because the two clauses really hang together. I want to point out that the relevant provision in the draft Bill in the Law Commission’s report is in fact identical with the amendment which I am now proposing. The Law Commission’s original draft Bill also contains the word “shall” instead of “may” in clause 4. For reasons best known to the hon. the Minister, in submitting the Bill which is now before the House, the word “shall” was changed to “may”. I believe this has introduced a considerable degree of uncertainty into our divorce law. I believe it is going to make it very difficult indeed for any legal man to advise his client as to whether or not he or she is going to have grounds for divorce which are likely to succeed. I therefore want to remove the uncertainty and I want to restore the original wording as contained in the Bill which was submitted by the Law Commission. I have read out amendment to clause 3 and will move and motivate my amendment to clause 4 when that clause is discussed, but the two amendments do hang together.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton has a problem with her amendment because she also couples this specific amendment to a later clause of the Bill. One can understand this.

Order! I must point out to the hon. member that the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton to this clause cannot be put before clause 3 has been negatived.

Mr. Chairman, the problem with this clause is whether it should be “may” or whether it should be absolutely imperative, i.e. an absolute instruction to the court. Surely it has always been the case in our law that the presiding officer, in this case the judge, must have the discretion to be able to establish whether, in the light of what the legislation lays down, the provisions of clause 3(a) are in fact complied with, i.e. the irretrievable break-down of the marriage or the provisions of clause 3(b), viz. that it is really a mental illness or a continuous unconsciousness. Therefore I think that the hon. member has a problem with her amendment Let us take a simple example, and in this regard I want to refer to clause 3(b). How is one to provide that the court has to grant a decree of divorce in the case of continued unconsciousness? The problem is that one should leave it to the discretion of the court to decide whether it wants to allow a certain period. Will one month, or three, or six, of unconsciousness be adequate? Clause 3(a) deals with the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. It should be left to the discretion of the court to decide whether a decree of divorce can in fact, in the court’s opinion, and in terms of the court’s interpretation of what is meant by irretrievable break-down, be granted. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to discuss clause 4 now, because we have not got there yet, but if you must necessarily permit me to touch briefly on it. The judge must be allowed to use his discretion against the background of the Bill as a whole when he decides whether the provisions, not only of clause 3, but also of the clauses that follow, should be complied with. For that reason I do not think the hon. member should force the judge to comply with certain directives in a cold and clinical way. He must be able to take a decision within the limits of his discretion, but taking the provisions into account. For that reason I really do not think the hon. member should be so insistent at this stage that the word “may” be changed to “shall”.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the hon. member for Houghton. Clause 3 is a very simple one to understand. It reads—

I have no difficulty in accepting irretrievable breakdown of the marriage as a ground for divorce. Clause 4 merely supplies guidelines as to what irretrievable breakdown means. Clause 3(b) provides for another ground for divorce, namely—

These are now the grounds for divorce. I have the same difficulty with the word “may” as opposed to the word “shall”. In legal circles it may now be argued that the word “may”, as it stands in the clause at the moment, will have to be interpreted by the court as meaning that it “shall” grant the divorce. However, I have a little difficulty with that legal argument for the reason that the original draft of the Bill did contain the word “shall”. The commission, especially the British Commission, said that even though irretrievable breakdown of a marriage has been proved, the court will not grant the divorce if it would be detrimental to the parties concerned. In other words, even though irretrievable breakdown has been proved, the courts still has the right not to grant the divorce. Quite frankly, I think that approach is wrong, and I do not think we have accepted that approach as such.

The hon. member for Pretoria East has argued that there should be a discretion, and I also think the hon. the Minister himself said at Second Reading that there should be a discretion. I, however, have difficulty with this question of discretion. I think we are going to encounter great difficulties in practice. How does one advise parties to embark upon litigation when one knows that it is so very expensive today? We all know that only a person with a Rolls Royce is able to afford the cost of litigation in the Supreme Court.

Do you doubt the competence of the judge?

Let me finish my argument. In the light of it being so very expensive, how can a legal adviser in all conscience advise parties to go to court to obtain a divorce by saying that he thinks that as a result of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage the court may grant them a divorce, but that he cannot guarantee them that the court will grant them a divorce because the judge may not feel that he wants to grant them a divorce? It is the same as saying that a criminal court “may” in terms of a relevant law convict a man after the court has proved that he has stolen a certain article. What kind of a law would that be? The same thing is, however, being done in this Bill. If the court proves that the man has stolen an article, and all the elements required to prove theft are present, he must obviously be convicted by the court. Therefore, if one has proved that a marriage has irretrievably broken down, one is entitled to a decree of divorce. That is the argument. The hon. member for Pretoria East has argued …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he wants to advise his client exactly as to what the outcome of the case would be?

Yes, certainly. If the case is very involved, if it involves a lot of contentious matters, I would even get advice from senior counsel as to the probability of success. I am sure the hon. member has very often sought advice from senior counsel on the probability of success before embarking upon expensive litigation. We can only go so far as to say that, if it has been proved that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the divorce will be granted.

Do you want to prescribe to the judge?

Just like the hon. member, I cannot guarantee that the evidence will amount to a break-down or that the facts cannot be disputed under cross-examination, because in that regard the witness has to stand up to the rigours of court examination and court presentation. That is another story, but if one shows that there are grounds for divorce and that irretrievable break-down has taken place, then one is entitled to say to a client that he will get his decree of divorce. That is what we are looking for here.

The hon. member for Pretoria East has argued the case of discretion in respect of mental illness and asked how the court can guarantee that one will get a divorce on the grounds of mental illness. That hon. member knows as well as I do that mental illness is already a ground for divorce if it is incurable. In any event, when it comes to the grounds for a decree of divorce, as provision is made for an irretrievable break-down in clause 4, so provision is made for mental illness in clause 5. Therefore I think we should put the case in respect of the courts and the clientele—if I may use that word—those who seek divorces, beyond doubt. I do not think that the situation should be allowed to exist where one is dependent upon the decision of the judge, where the judge may be religiously or morally opposed to divorce in principle. Therefore I do not think that we should allow the situation to arise that, the case having been proved after the court has spent several days on it, it should end up a matter of discretion, but that, where everybody, including the court, is satisfied that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the court shall grant a divorce. I therefore support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thought I had understood both the clause as printed in the Bill and the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton until the hon. member for Pretoria East and the hon. member for Hillbrow got up and spoke on the particular clause. As far as I am concerned, they have apparently not read this clause correctly. There is nothing in the amendment of file hon. member for Houghton to this clause which says the judge has to grant the divorce.

Only if there is an irretrievable break-down.

The hon. member for Houghton’s amendment reads that “a decree of divorce shall after the commencement of this Act be granted on no other grounds”. That “shall” qualifies “on no other grounds”. So, even if in terms of this clause irretrievable break-down is proved, there is nothing in the clause, as proposed to be amended by the hon. member for Houghton, which says that the judge therefore has to grant the divorce.

That comes in clause 4.

We shall then argue about it at that stage. This amendment is simply a different wording of the clause as it stands in the Bill. Therefore, when the hon. member for Hillbrow goes into long flights of fancy about the judge having to grant the divorce if irretrievable break-down is proved in terms of this clause, he is totally off the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, until I came here today, I was under the impression that it was the function of the court to interpret what words meant to see what the intention was and that it was actually the function of Parliament to work out what its intention is and then to find the correct words in order to give effect to that intention. I should like to approach the matter in that fashion. It is perfectly true that the word “may” and the word “shall” have resulted in much litigation, and there are many decided cases on it. The same applies to the words “and” and “or”, which seem to have meanings that are not consistent with the words themselves. What I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to deal with specifically, so that we can actually know what is sought to be done here, is whether he intends to change the law in such a fashion that if there is an irretrievable break-down or if there is a mental illness or continued unconsciousness, as alleged, that in those circumstances there shall be a divorce, or is it his intention that in those circumstances, when those facts are proven, the judge should still have a discretion? What I therefore actually want to know is: What is the intention behind this piece of legislation?

A second question to which I think an answer needs to be given is that, if it is correct—as I understood it from his reply to the Second Reading debate—that he then still wants the judge to have a discretion, on what grounds should the judge then exercise that discretion? I want to make it clear that I may have misunderstood it. That is the thing that troubles me most. Let me put a very simple point to the hon. the Minister: If one proves an irretrievable break-down of the marriage, but at the same time the defendant shows that the plaintiff is living in adultery, is that a ground upon which a discretion should be exercised not to dissolve the marriage? I do not know. What worries me, is that the moment we open the door to the exercise of a discretion once the facts are proved in regard to an irretrievable break-down, then we also have to assist the courts in some way to indicate on what grounds that discretion should be exercised. That is why I think that what we need to do in this particular debate is to establish what we want to put on the Statute Book, and then find the words to give effect to it.

If I may make my submission, I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that what we should be doing, is to say that if a court is satisfied—in other words, it is proved to the satisfaction of court—that there is an irretrievable break-down or there is mental illness or continuous unconsciousness—all as defined—in those circumstances there should not be a further discretion to decide that in these circumstances a divorce cannot be granted. That is the submission I make, and whether it means amendments to clause 3 or to clause 4 of this Bill or whether the hon. member for Houghton’s amendment gives full effect to what is involved, is another issue.

That is, however, the submission that I should like to make to the hon. the Minister, and I would like to ask him whether he agrees with that submission, because then we can set about having the wording which gives effect to it If he has another intention, i.e. that even though these facts are proved, there should still be a residual discretion, then we need to know on what grounds that residual discretion should then be exercised by the judge in the circumstances. I would ask the hon. the Minister to deal with that, because once that is clear, I think we can get the debate on the right track.

Mr. Chairman, I think that when we approach clause 3 it is necessary to bear in mind that this is a civil case in the first place. In the second place we also have to bear in mind that the plaintiff has to prove his case on a balance of probabilities. I think it is essential that the discretion of the judge should be left intact in a civil case. I think it is correct to say that in spite of the fact that it is provided here that there may be an irretrievable break-down of the marriage or that there may be unconsciousness, the judge must, in the circumstances of the case, have a discretion in deciding whether, on a balance of probabilities, there is proof as to whether the marriage has in fact broken down irretrievably or not. I think that it is very important in a civil case that the discretion of the judge be intact in all regards. For that reason I think that the amendment should not be accepted.

If I understand the hon. member for East London North’s argument correctly, he says that the word “may” in clause 3 does not quite exactly mean the same as the word “may” in clause 4.

That is correct.

If that is so, I am inclined to agree with him. That is a question of semantics and because the word “may” is in clause 3 and also in other clauses, I am quite prepared to state the case of hon. members of this side of the House quite clearly on this issue at this stage.

*I have a number of difficulties with words other than just the word “may” in this context. The first difficulty I have is with regard to clause 6(1). I quote—

In spite of the fact that there is an irretrievable break-down of the marriage, however, it is very clear that the court, that is the custodian of all children, has to be certain that the arrangements parents make for their children are absolutely satisfactory before a divorce can be granted. In that case, therefore, the word “may” has to be inserted. The words “is granted” cannot be inserted there.

†Clause 6(1) clearly states that it cannot be granted in certain circumstances. That is my first problem. My second problem is the possibility that in spite of the fact that one proves an irretrievable break-down of a marriage, there may be a personal factor relating to the couple or the person before the court. The judge may get the impression that in spite of file fact that a marriage is irretrievably broken down, due to the youthfulness of the parties and other factors he should postpone the matter.

Clause 4(4).

Clause 4(4). Although one party has come as dominus lites and is now suing for a divorce, in spite of the fact that he or she has proved their case, the judge may still feel that in certain circumstances a divorce should not be granted.

And if plaintiff is living in adultery?

I am not taking the most extreme case as the hon. member for Yeoville does. I am taking the cases very near to the border-line where it may well have been proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the marriage is irretrievably broken down. However, the judge may still have a certain amount of doubt and may feel that he is not going to grant a divorce for the simple reason that there is a hope that the marriage may be retrieved later on. There may be that possibility. [Interjections.] Hon. members must just give me an opportunity of stating my case.

*Another problem is that in spite of the fact that irretrievable break-down is proved, the financial arrangement between the parties might be of such a nature that the judge feels that a divorce should not be granted. During the Second Reading I gave an example of people who married without money and were married for 30 to 40 years. If this marriage breaks down, it is not possible to solve the financial relationship between those people properly as the court desires. In those circumstances the court will find that the parties are now dealing with a spes—something which might follow later—and that the divorce cannot be granted before there is clarity as regards the financial position of the parties.

I put this as a possibility. There is another consideration which makes me feel that the word “may” should not be changed. It is that it gives the court a discretion. However, I differ with the hon. member for Hillbrow in that that discretion does not mean that there is uncertainty. It must still be a judicial discretion that is exercised. The hon. member for Hillbrow is still entitled to say to his client that unless there are other factors on which he cannot advice his client at this stage, it still seems that the client can prove that there is an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Therefore the hon. member can assure his client that he will get his divorce. He is free to say that to his client He can say it because he is entitled to assume that when the evidence before the court is strong enough to prove a case, the court cannot exercise another discretion and therefore has to decide in favour of the applicant, because the court must exercise a judicial discretion.

In the first place I wish to refer the hon. member to Die Uitleg van Wette by L. C. Steyn. There is a reference to a decision in the case Custodian of Enemy Property v. Brakpan Mines Ltd. That is a 1922 case. The hon. member will recall that it was said in this decision that the exercise of a discretion cannot be arbitrary but that it must be a judicial discretion. In the case S.A.R. &H. v. Transvaal Consolidated Lands and Exploration Company, 1961, the judge said the following in his decision—

†Similarly, if an irretrievable breakdown of a marriage has been proved, it would be the duty of the court to grant a divorce. However, the word “may” would give the court a discretion. It would not be an arbitrary discretion, a discretion the court would exercise merely by virtue of its religious feeling or beliefs. It would be a discretion based on facts of which the court must take note. Even on appeal the court would be obliged to state what factors were taken into account, additional facts that made the court come to another decision. Therefore, in the circumstances, I think the word “may” is the correct word to use. It is the intention of the Government that the word “may” should be used.

*In English law we have exactly the same thing. The English legislator gives the court an explicit discretion to refuse the state of a divorce, even in spite of the prescribed ground. I believe it is correct to do that. I will give the hon. member another reason why I believe it is correct. This is a status action. It is not a question of “catch as catch can”. It is a matter of the lives of a man and a woman, as well as the interests of children. For that reason there are so many factors at stake which do not apply to ordinary court cases that the court must have a certain degree of discretion either to grant a divorce or to refuse it.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to deal with a few of the reasons that the hon. the Minister has given. Firstly, he gave us the example of youthfulness. Although it has been proved to the court that a marriage is irretrievably broken down, the youthfulness of the couple concerned would nevertheless give the judge cause for not granting a divorce.

That is quite impossible.

Well, that is one possibility the hon. the Minister mentioned. Surely, that is covered in clause 4, where it is stated that a decree of divorce may be granted by the court in the case of an irretrievable break-down of a marriage, provided that the court is satisfied that the marriage relationship between the parties to the marriage is in such a state of disintegration that there is no reasonable prospect of the restoration of a normal marriage relationship between them.

Surely, if the word “shall” were there, the court, if it were not satisfied, would still have some degree of discretion. I think it is the only discretion the court should have in order not to make the law so uncertain. So I think the hon. the Minister’s first example is covered by the fact that even if the word “shall” is inserted, there is still a degree of discretion allowed to the courts. I also have a great deal of sympathy with the other example he gave, the question of the financial reasons behind all this. One may well be dealing with one of those marriages in which the couple started with nothing. At the end of the marriage, when the stage of irretrievable break-down has been reached, it may be that a fairly substantial amount has accrued. The hon. the Minister wants a reasonable settlement to be reached for the wife, shall we say, because it is normally the wife who is left in such circumstances when the man, now affluent, is perhaps attracted to a younger woman or something like that. I understand and sympathize very fully with that reason.

You are arguing against yourself.

Well, it could even happen to me, who knows? Never mind, let us try to be objective for once, shall we? In those circumstances I fully agree that the wife has to be protected financially. It would certainly have been easier if the Matrimonial Property Amendment Bill had either been introduced simultaneously or had even preceded this Bill. I can see the hon. the Minister’s difficulty in that regard. Maybe he should delay the date of promulgation of this Bill until the Matrimonial Property Amendment Bill has been passed. I am not sure about that, but that is a possibility. That could be done instead of having this Bill come into effect from 1 July. To throw the whole question of the grounds for divorce into the realms of uncertainty for that reason is not, I think, a good thing. Rather let us either postpone the date or let us amend clause 7 which is the clause dealing with the division of assets and maintenance of the spouses. In that regard I think we could surely accept an amendment which would protect the wife in such a way that she would have some claim in the sense that the judge, in granting the divorce, would lay down certain conditions under which the wife would get her fair share of, for example, any pension that may accrue to her, or any annuity or paid-up insurance policy, etc. To throw the whole basis of divorce into this realm of uncertainty, however, is going to lead to the most tremendous difficulties in our divorce legislation as a whole in the future.

Order! I must point out to hon. members that I find myself in some difficulty. I have allowed a great deal of latitude, but I find myself in some difficulty because to my mind clause 3 is a summary of clauses 4 and 5.

That is right.

I do not, however, think that we should also be discussing clause 7 at the same time.

I was just doing that in the light of the hon. the Minister’s argument.

I hope that as far as possible hon. members will confine themselves to clause 3 now.

Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of discussing clause 7, clause 8 or any succeeding clauses. I should like to discuss the word “may”. I am indebted to the hon. the Minister for having indicated clearly what the intention is. May I, with respect, submit the following to the hon. the Minister. In the first place I think we are going to introduce a degree of uncertainty into litigation. I must say that I do not agree with the hon. member for Pretoria East about not wanting to advise a client, with any degree of certainty, about what the prospects of success are. I think that one of the evils of litigation in South Africa is uncertainty, which creates the extra costs that people cannot afford. I therefore cannot support a concept that increases uncertainty and therefore increases the cost of litigation. I was hoping—and I must be quite frank about this—that this Bill would result in a lot of the costs involved in matrimonial litigation at the moment being reduced substantially. That was my hope. Perhaps it is a vain hope, but I actually do hold that view. I thought that we could now get the grounds narrowed down in such a manner that we would not have to spend hours and hours and days and days in court in order to determine who has deserted whom, who has committed adultery and who has not, with all the untruths that one unfortunately finds in that type of litigation. I am worried that this discretion will, in fact, increase the uncertainty.

There is a second point I should like to make to the hon. the Minister. As I see his argument, he does not see the discretion as being the same kind of discretion that exists now. For example, if a plaintiff has committed adultery, either the adultery can be condoned or not condoned. That is no longer going to be an issue. The hon. the Minister is nodding his head and I am pleased about that, because that is how I interpret it. We are now going to have other factors coming into it, and I should like to analyse some of those factors. Let us take for example the property situation between spouses. At the present moment the situation is that if one is married in community of property and the parties cannot reach an agreement, the court grants an order for the division or for forfeiture, and if the parties then do not come to terms, it is a separate law-suit in which a liquidator is appointed and he then disposes of the property and solves the problem for the parties concerned. I would not like the statement by the hon. the Minister to be construed by litigants or potential parties to divorce cases as meaning that in future one is not going to be able to obtain a divorce until all the property matters have been settled, because then one is going to find what happens in some other countries in the world where a divorce case can last for years and years only because the parties concerned cannot agree on property matters.

Lawyers do not even read Hansard.

Well, I hope they do not because if they do they would be very worried about what is happening here at the moment. In respect of a status situation, where there is a break-down in the marriage and it is clear that the marriage cannot be saved, one needs to make an end to it, and the property issue can be dealt with as a separate issue. Otherwise one is getting back into this ransom situation where gold-digger spouses, of both sexes, hold others to ransom because of property situations. I would not like to see us getting back to that, and I am very worried at that suggestion. If there are factors in the Bill itself, for example the question of clause 6(1), where it is desired that in those circumstances that should be covered, I think one can very easily say that subject to the provisions of certain sections the marriage shall be dissolved, and that position is then covered. With great respect, I think we are entering a very tricky situation and creating more pitfalls for litigants.

The argument which the hon. member for Brakpan advanced in regard to the fact that the judge needs to have a discretion to see whether there is or there is not a break-down in the marriage, is a different point. The issue is that once the judge is satisfied that there is a break-down he exercises his discretion, after analysing the evidence to satisfy himself on that issue, as to whether the parties are entitled to be divorced or not.

Subject perhaps to the example which the hon. the Minister gave in respect of clause 6(1), it seems to me that as we are doing away with the other discretionary measures, we should not have a final discretion here. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider the whole issue between now and when the Bill is discussed in the Other Place. I immediately concede that it is a difficult issue, but perhaps an amendment can be introduced in the Other Place which will put all this beyond question.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville said that he did not intend speaking on clauses 6, 7 or 8 and yet he based his whole argument on clause 6.

The hon. member for Houghton once again referred to the difficulties she has with her amendment, and that is understandable. I want to put it to the hon. member that the law is not static. The law is not so static that one no longer needs a judge. If the law was as static as that, one could merely feed certain facts about law into a computer to get a decision. But surely that is not what it is all about and surely that is what the hon. the Minister has been trying to explain since the Second Reading. The hon. member does not want to accept that one cannot make the law so exact that one can say that if that is the consideration, the marriage should be dissolved. We are dealing with people and human values here. Furthermore the hon. member made a very contentious statement. The hon. member asked twice, “Why throw divorce into a realm of uncertainty?” What does the hon. member want to suggest by this? The hon. member says that one cannot trust the judge to provide security of justice. This is what is at issue here. When it suits the hon. member she wants to have a judge to provide security of justice. The hon. member says, however, that it should not be left to the judge in this case, that the judge should not exercise a discretion. That is the weak point in the argument of the hon. member. The hon. member for Yeoville, however, says that one should be able to advise one’s client exactly. But those of us who are lawyers know that there are unfortunately those people—surely the hon. member knows it as well—who tell a client that he will handle his case and win it. But surely the hon. member knows that it is not as simple as that. Of course one acts to the best of one’s ability as legal adviser to one’s client when one tells him that the outcome of the case, within the limits of the law, will be such that he should take it further, but as legal adviser one cannot, after all, swear to one’s client that he will win the case. That definitely does not happen. If the hon. member wants to tell me that it has happened that he has told his client that he will handle the case for him and win it for him, the hon. member does not belong here in Parliament. Then he needs wings. Surely it is only a perfect being who can say this.

I know why you are in politics.

As a legal technician one cannot feel that. The hon. member asked: “Why let the judge bring it to an end?” Who else must do it? The point is really whether it “may” or “shall” happen. The hon. member is prepared to say that the Bill implies that the judge “shall” decide so, if certain elements are present. It is very clear that the hon. member for Yeoville, just like the hon. member for Hillbrow, supports the hon. member for Houghton, but they are not doing so with much enthusiasm, because those hon. members know that it cannot be so. For that reason I believe that the hon. the Minister will never be able to accept that amendment.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I understand that part of the amendment which is printed in my name on the Order Paper is now out of order because the words “may” and “shall” hang together. I therefore do not move my first amendment to clause 4.

What I am trying to do is to omit the guidelines. The reason why I want to do this is because I have been informed by legal luminaries that where guidelines are laid down, there is the tendency for courts to consider these guidelines as the only reasons for granting a divorce.

[Inaudible.]

I am not sure about that. Looking at it now, I do not think I want to move my second amendment to clause 4. I shall only move my third and fourth amendments.

[Inaudible.]

I think we shall leave clause 4 (2) as it stands. I move my third amendment as printed on the Order Paper, as follows—

Clause 4(3) is the provision which lays down the guidelines. I also want to move my fourth amendment on the Order Paper, as follows—

If you want to scrap clause 4(2), I am with you.

Would the hon. the Minister like to scrap it?

Do you want to or not?

The hon. the Minister is now being so amenable that I am beginning to be suspicious. There must be something wrong with that. I think it must be necessary for the court to inquire into the attitude among the parties. It is the guidelines I am interested in. Therefore I do not want these three guidelines—the first of which is the living apart for one year, the second is the fact that adultery has been committed and the third is that the defendant has in terms of the sentence of the court been declared an habitual criminal—as proof of the irretrievable break-down.

Are you moving the deletion of subsection (2)?

I have already said: No. I thought the hon. the Minister had heard me. I am not moving the deletion of subsection (2), but I am moving the deletion of subsection (3) and the substitution of subsection (4). I hope the hon. the Minister understands that. The reason is that I want the court to inquire into the circumstances of the break-down in its entirety. I do not want it to fix its attention on the guidelines which the hon. the Minister seeks to lay down in this clause. It is as simple as that. As I have already said, I believe the tendency is going to be that a divorce will not be granted on the grounds of irretrievable break-down unless the court has examined such guidelines. If the court is not satisfied in that respect, it will not grant a divorce.

Mr. Chairman, as regards the amendments moved by the hon. member for Houghton, unfortunately I cannot share her misgivings as far as subsection (3) is concerned, because I have sufficient confidence and faith in the flexibility and the vitality of our judicial system and our judges not to be afraid that they would adopt an inflexible attitude with regard to such a provision, but would always take account of the realities of life and make their own decisions.

However, I also wish to move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This subsection makes provision for the mero motu postponement of divorce proceedings if the court is of the opinion that there is a reasonable possibility that the marriage may still be saved. It might be argued that this provision of this subsection is in itself contrary to the provisions of the Bill itself in so far as it stipulates the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage as a ground of divorce. It could therefore also be argued that if the possibility were still foreseen that the marriage might be saved, it could not be stated that such marriage had irretrievably broken down.

My respectful contention is again that it is a good thing that there should be such a provision in the Bill, particularly since under the near dispensation, we shall have a provision that the old Order for the Restitution of Conjugal Rights we had, will no longer exist Surely it is a known fact that the purpose of the Order for the Restitution of Conjugal Rights was specifically to give the parties an opportunity of again reflecting on the matter and possibly becoming reconciled. That is why, when the parties have become reconciled, advocates stand up in court on the return date and state that they are pleased to be able to inform the court that the parties have become reconciled.

In terms of the provisions contained in the Bill, there would normally not be this period, and one therefore welcomes the fact that the court is now obtaining a discretion after all to fix such a period to enable the parties to reconsider the matter.

I think as far as the practical application of this clause is concerned, and in view of the fact that it is possibly in itself contrary to the grounds of divorce, we could feel at liberty to leave this in the hands of the judiciary since, as I have stated, they would apply the legislation with vitality, not in a rigid way, and, in due course, would lay down a proper system, proper norms, and proper procedural requirements. In any event, I think that this subsection is not necessarily in conflict with the provision of the legislation. I can foresee circumstances where it might happen that for the purposes laid down in this subsection, the court might wish to postpone the proceedings even before evidence has been presented, in case the evidence is so destructive that once it has been led, the chances of reconciling the parties again, would be so much less. If, therefore, the case were to be postponed at a stage where the court could not yet come to a final decision, it could certainly not be argued that this was contrary to the provisions of the legislation as far as the ground of divorce was concerned.

I also agree that in all probability, the applicability of this subsection would particularly apply in practice in respect of marriages between young people, and particularly to those marriages which at that stage would have been of short duration. I also agree with the views of the hon. the Minister as expressed during the Second Reading debate, when he stated that this was not the sort of case where one should repeatedly recommend and permit a postponement from time to time. In order not to encourage such an approach on the part of our courts, I moved my amendment.

However, with all due respect I do not think that the mere omission of these words would in itself ensure that the case would be postponed only once. In order to ensure that the case is postponed only once, I think it would be necessary to replace these words by the word “once” so that the subsection would then read that the court could postpone the proceedings “once”. However, I am not moving the insertion of the word “once”, since I think that although the legislature could indicate an intention that the postponement should take place once only, the discretion of the court in this respect should not be restricted, and that if the court deemed it necessary in the specific circumstances to postpone the case a second time, it should be able to do so.

Finally, I think the words “from time to time”, as they appear in the subsection at present, are unnecessary in any event in the sense that they do not affect the discretion of the court to postpone cases from time to time. Therefore their omission would in any event result in more elegant legislation.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I would like to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Albany because I am a little worried that subsections (a), (b) and (c) will be taken as grounds for a divorce, and to prove irretrievable break-down as opposed to the guidelines followed in the drafting of this piece of legislation, arising out of the commissions of inquiry that sat in the United Kingdom and in South Africa. We use the words, in line 35, that “the courts may accept evidence of an irretrievable break-down, but if we say “may inter alia” accept evidence, then I think it would leave room for other aspects and this can be regarded more as guidelines. In the absence of the words “inter alia”, it would appear to me, on reading this, that what is going to happen gradually, by custom and by practice over a period of time, is that these are going to be the norms laid down for irretrievable break-down of marriage. That worries me very much.

The second point relates to clause 4(4). With the discretion granted to the court, one may prove one’s case up to the hilt but the court can nevertheless exercise its discretion by stating that a couple are too old or too young or should go to a marriage guidance council. Let me say at once that I am not entirely in favour of divorce. I am in favour of maintaining a marriage as far as possible. I serve on a marriage guidance committee and I have a lot of sympathy for the marriage guidance advisers who try to help people and mend marriages. However, having granted all this, I feel that we are now prescribing the sort of discretion the court is to go along with. I think that is going too far.

I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Albany in the sense that cases are protracted from time to time and that litigation can be drawn out indefinitely. However, there may be very good reasons why a divorce should be granted. Even though it may be a very young couple who have only been married a year and who may, in the eyes of the court, be very inexperienced, there may be good reasons why one party wants a divorce. The other party may have a lover or somebody else he or she wants to marry. It seems unreasonable that they should be bound together by the court when that is, in actual fact, merely postponing the fateful day and achieving nothing. One or other party may even get himself into serious trouble as a result.

I should therefore like to move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The first guideline for irretrievable breakdown states: “that the parties have not lived together as husband and wife in the same household for a continuous period of at least one year immediately prior to the date of the institution of the divorce action”.

I think it is a commonplace in law and a sound principle that marriage is based upon the provision of the marital privileges afforded by both husband or wife. That is a maxim in law and the whole essence of a marriage. In fact, if marital privileges have not been afforded, as the hon. the Minister well knows, the marriage can be set aside immediately on those grounds. Therefore, the whole essence is marital privileges.

If, as often happens and as has happened on many occasions, when there has been an irretrievable break-down of a marriage, the wife simply does not have anywhere to go, she may live in the same house but in a different room. So a couple live under the same roof but in different rooms. They are sometimes even sharing the same room without affording each other marital privileges which are the legal basis of a marriage. This being the case, one is in fact attacking the whole basis of marital privileges of a marriage. I think that is a wrong concept I think the hon. the Minister will be the first to see that there can be an irretrievable breakdown, even though the couple live in the same house.

There is also another aspect that worries me. I am aware of the fact that lawyers will simply be able to tell their clients to live apart for one year and then come back and sue for a divorce. I think one should try to obviate having a couple wait for one year, because if the marriage has irretrievably broken down it cannot be saved anyway, and such a principle would only be misguiding people. I do feel that my amendment is reasonable and quite necessary.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage I just wish to indicate what I am prepared to accept. In the first place I agree with the hon. member for Albany, and I am prepared to accept his amendment that the words “from time to time” should be deleted, since in actual fact they are not necessary. If the judge is entitled to grant a postponement, it need not be from time to time. I should imagine that there could indeed be times when he would grant a postponement. It happens in the courts every day that the judge, notwithstanding the fact that a case has already been proved, decides that the return date should be postponed. Perhaps he feels that the couple may still become reconciled. He therefore offers them the opportunity of again finding each other. That happens in our courts every day.

Consequently, in the present legislation we should also make provision that there should at least be one occasion when a case may be postponed. I cannot understand why there should be occasion for the court to grant postponement after the same case had already been postponed. That is unnecessary. If a case has been postponed once and the couple have not become reconciled, the case should be disposed of. However, if they have had one opportunity of finding one another and the judge believes that it is indeed possible, he should definitely have the opportunity of postponing the case.

The other amendment I should like to accept, is the one moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

†I refer now to the amendment which seeks to omit the words “in the same household”. I agree with the argument put forward by the hon. member. I think he is quite correct. Therefore, I am prepared to accept his amendment I am prepared to delete the words “in the same household”.

Mr. Chairman, quite honestly I find myself in a rather difficult and invidious position with regard to one of the amendments suggested by the hon. member for Houghton. I was prepared to accept it. However, my difficulty arises from the fact that the hon. member for Houghton has such a suspicious mind that the moment I give an indication that I am prepared to accept her amendment she immediately thinks there must be a catch somewhere and declines to move her amendment.

Well, it will really not make any difference.

It will make a difference. I will tell the hon. member why I have been prepared to accept it. Should the hon. member then be prepared to move her amendment formally, I am still prepared to accept it. The argument used by the hon. member for Houghton was actually based on an argument put forward during Second Reading by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. The hon. member for Johannesburg North pointed out that clause 4(2) in fact makes the court a court of inquiry in which case the dominus litis falls away, as in all normal court cases. This means that the court can mero motu call witnesses to give evidence on the merits of the case. This is something that is most unusual. The hon. member for Johannesburg North felt that it was undesirable that the litigants should be called upon to submit the necessary evidence in order either to prove or to disprove their case. That is why the hon. member felt this provision should be deleted. I agreed with that argument of his.

However, the hon. member for Houghton evidently became so suspicious because I was in agreement with her; she immediately thought I was setting a trap for her, and therefore decided not to move her amendment.

[Inaudible.]

Should the hon. member for Houghton wish to accept my argument she may still move her amendment, in which case I am still prepared to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I did explain to the hon. the Minister that I was not thinking in purely legal terms about the argument advanced by the hon. member for Johannesburg North during the Second Reading debate. In fact, to be quite honest, I had clean forgotten about his argument. Simply reading it now, without that legal argument, it seemed to me that the court was going to inquire in any case. Therefore, it does not seem really to matter whether clause 4(2) is there or not. However, now that the hon. the Minister has reminded me of that very valid legal argument, I move the amendment as I intended to, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment as moved by the hon. member for Houghton. Should the hon. member for Yeoville formally move his amendments I am now prepared to argue them.

Mr. Chairman, as requested by the hon. the Minister I now move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 4, in line 45, to omit “proof” and to substitute “evidence”;
2. (2) on page 4, in line 49, after the second “time” to insert:

Allow me to motivate them very briefly. Where I seek that the word “proof” should be substituted by “evidence”, I do so because I believe that the use of the “proof” of an irretrievable break-down of a marriage would actually remove the very discretion to which the hon. member for Pretoria East and the hon. member for Brakpan referred in connection with the judge being satisfied with regard to the facts of the matter. I prefer the word “evidence” rather than the word “proof”.

My second amendment is in line with the arguments used by other hon. members who spoke before me. The hon. the Minister said one postponement is enough. In my view, however, it may well be that if a case is postponed once there may be reason for postponing it again. Therefore there should be a limitation on all postponements, and that is why I suggest a limitation of not more than six months. In her fourth amendment the hon. member for Houghton seeks that the following words be inserted—

Now, with respect, I do not find that at all acceptable. Why must we say “may postpone the proceedings for six months”? It may be for one month, three months, or any length of time. I think a maximum of six months would create a better situation. It will limit the judge and prevent the issue from hanging over the parties indefinitely, without a final decision being reached.

Do you suggest “not more than six months”?

Mr. Chairman, in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton it says “for six months”, whereas I propose the wording “for not more than six months”.

Well, I accept that.

I prefer mine to that of the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Chairman, for the sake of clarity I shall just indicate briefly which amendments I am prepared to accept and which I am not prepared to accept. I accept the amendment by the hon. member for Albany in which he proposes that the words “from time to time” be deleted. As far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, I do not accept her first amendment. We have disposed of that argument I do not wish to take the matter further.

Order! That amendment is not permissible in any case.

That is correct. The amendment is not permissible. I am accepting the second amendment by the hon. member for Houghton, but I cannot accept her third amendment. I shall say in a moment why I cannot accept it. I do not accept her fourth amendment either. I shall still argue that matter with her as well. In this case, the argument will also apply to the second amendment by the hon. member for Yeoville, an amendment which I cannot accept either.

I have already intimated that I am accepting the amendment by the hon. member for Hillbrow in which he seeks to delete the words “in the same household”. I now just wish to furnish my reasons with regard to the other amendments I am not accepting.

Order! The hon. the Minister has not yet referred to the first amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Chairman, that, too, is an amendment which I do not accept. I shall now furnish my reasons for that as well.

†In connection with that amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville, I should just like to point out the following. If we look at clause 4(3) we see it reads as follows—

It is important to take note of the word “evidence”. In this amendment the hon. member for Yeoville seeks—

If we did this it would mean that the court would accept evidence as evidence of the irretrievable break-down of a marriage. We believe that the word “proof” is preferable. It is true that in this context the two words may mean the same thing. However, I believe “proof” is the better word to use in this instance.

Would it not be better to transpose “evidence” and “proof”? Is the “proof”, in clause 4(3)(c) not the “evidence” in clause 4(3)?

One needs evidence in order to arrive at the proof. Therefore, I submit the wording is correct as it stands. Both words have very much the same meaning and therefore I am not prepared to accept any change in this instance. It is all a question of semantics.

*In clause 4(3) we find three important aspects. According to clause 4(3)(a), if—

That is the first directive which the court has. The second is if adultery has been committed, and the third is if the defendant has been declared a habitual criminal in terms of a sentence of a court. In the Second Reading the hon. member for Johannesburg North gave us a very clear picture of the procedure in a Supreme Court in the case of uncontested divorce cases. They go through the courts at a rate of 60 a day, and this is not going to change merely as a result of this Bill. It is correct that these factors will in time be, in fact, the directives for uncontested divorce cases. When people have been apart for a year—and here I differ with the hon. member for Hillbrow—that is proof of an irretrievable break-down, even though they might have told each other that they should remain apart for a year so that they might obtain a divorce. There is no doubt about that. If a couple have deliberately stayed away from each other for a whole year, that is very clear proof that they are finished with each other. It would be an altogether different matter if people were not intentionally separated for a year. A person might be sent to South West Africa on military service. An entire year passes, and when he returns he finds that all of a sudden his wife does not want him any more. She runs to the court and says they have been apart for a year and consequently their marriage has broken down irretrievably. However, she could not state that the marriage had irretrievably broken-down, since the State had sent her husband to South West Africa to perform his duty, and he had now returned.

†These are only guidelines. They can still bring evidence to prove that the marriage can go on.

But she says she will not have him back.

That may be a factor, but the man may say that it cannot be said that the fact that he and his wife have been apart for a year means that there has been an irretrievable break-down in their marriage. His wife can tell him she does not want him back, but it cannot be said that the marriage has irretrievably broken down because he has been away for a year. If she does not defend the action, however, and he makes the allegation that they have been apart for a year, that surely is an assumption of fact. They have been apart for a year, and unless the defendant offers some explanation of why they have been apart for a year, the court should be entitled to assume that there has been an irretrievable break-down of the marriage.

The same applies to adultery. I mean, one can have condonation of adultery, but then the court must be told that the adultery was condoned. It must be stated that adultery had been committed, but that the couple had subsequently lived together as husband and wife. The wife can therefore not come to court and say that adultery was the cause of the irretrievably break-down. If the husband does not defend the action, however, and the wife makes an initial prima facie allegation of adultery, the court is again entitled to consider this as proof of irretrievable breakdown in the marriage. The same applies to a sentence of a court declaring a person to be an habitual criminal. The person may say that he is forced, as an habitual criminal, to live apart from his wife because he is in prison and that there is, in actual fact, no irretrievable break-down of his marriage. He may point out that his wife visits him every month. There is therefore quite clear evidence that there is no irretrievable break-down. If the wife, however, makes the allegation that the husband is an habitual criminal, and there is no defence or other proof that there is no irretrievable break-down, the court is entitled to say that there is proof of irretrievable break-down. That is why the guidelines are so important.

*We know that most divorce cases are uncontested. A man can advance one of those three reasons, and then it becomes part of the evidence in an uncontested divorce case. That is correct. Those three reasons can be advanced. It has to be that way, because if the case is not defended, this is in itself a very clear indication that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.

Mr. Chairman, I gather then that the hon. the Minister is not going to accept the deletion of clause 4(3).

No.

Well, I wonder whether he would then consider other amendments to clause 4(3) as it stands. I want to move the following amendments—

I gave this amendment to the hon. the Minister just before the House resumed. I want to omit the words “habitual criminal” and to substitute “criminal offence” because it may well be that a man has committed a crime which his wife finds has made it impossible for her to accept him back as a husband. It may be some sexual crime or some other crime which has made it impossible for her to reconcile herself with the continued marriage relationship.

It may be a petty crime.

It may well be, but the judge has the discretion and he can consider this. But even if the hon. the Minister wants to leave the wording of paragraph (c) as it is, I want to ask him to consider very seriously—since these guidelines have been laid down and I have a very strong suspicion that they are going to end up as the only proof of irretrievable break-down—to agree to the addition of “persistent drunkenness or cruelty”. I am not talking so much of mental cruelty, but one does find cases of physical cruelty and drunkenness which I believe is one of the main causes why women find it impossible to continue living with their husbands. If one is going to have guidelines one might as well add this one to it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was kind enough to hand me her amendment in advance and this gave me the opportunity to think the matter over. I must, however, tell the hon. member that I am unfortunately not prepared to accept her amendment. Where she talks of a “criminal offence” she in no way indicates the degree of such a criminal offence. It could, for instance, be a very sensitive woman and her husband could have committed a very minor offence, a criminal offence, but something which has now disturbed her to such an extent that her marriage is suddenly breaking down irretrievably. I do not think that this is the idea. It could even be a constant series of traffic offences or something similar which is irritating her tremendously. In any case, I can tell the hon. member for Houghton that if those offences on the part of the husband are really breaking down the marriage irretrievably, she could in any case advance this as a reason for divorce. These indications are, as I have said, more for an undefended case.

Why cannot it be habitual?

“Habitual” keeps one away from the common home by force.

But you get seven-year sentences.

Well, seven years is a long time to be away from the common home, and the fact remains that if one shows no inclination of ever coming to see such a person, the court may well say, if there is no defence, that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. In the case of an ordinary criminal offence it depends on the sensitivity of the other partner.

There is a rider. She finds it irreconcilable …

Of course, but as I have said she may be over-sensitive.

The second amendment of the hon. member relates to persistent drunkenness or cruelty.

*In the first place, some people regard drunkenness as an illness. Drink causes one to fall into a condition where one actually harms one’s marriage, although you do not necessarily mean to break the marriage bonds. Such a person is very often not only the product of a broken-down marriage, but a pitiable figure who has to be helped. I would not say that we should automatically accept that reason as a reason for divorce or as a guideline. The same applies to cruelty. It could be that cruelty has perhaps taken place only once or twice.

What if it is persistent?

No, it is not persistent. There is such a thing as persistent drunkenness, but cruelty is not persistent. I should not like to bring cruelty into this, because, again, people may be cruel to each other because they love each other very much. I do not believe this reason is good enough.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. the Minister can dismiss this point quite so lightly. I think experience over years has actually shown …

Order! Which point? With which amendment is the hon. member dealing now?

I am now dealing with the hon. member for Houghton’s last amendment with regard to persistent drunkenness and assault. There are many marriages which are suffering under these conditions. [Interjections.] I think that experience has shown that up to now the woman who has complained could obtain a judicial separation. In fact, many judicial separations have been obtained on that ground alone. The hon. the Minister knows that. Now there does not exist grounds for judicial separation. If she goes to the police, they will tell her that they cannot interfere as it is a domestic matter. She can therefore obtain very little relief.

She can be granted a divorce on that.

Well, it is hard to obtain a divorce purely for this reason if one does not advance it as a ground. One actually has to show that the marriage has broken down. I therefore think that this matter does require a bit of attention.

There are two aspects I want to mention in respect of clause 4(3)(a), (b) and (c). The hon. the Minister gave an example just now of a husband who is sent to, say South West Africa. As the law stands today, he can demand that his wife follow him to South West Africa or wherever he goes. If she refuses, she is guilty of desertion and on the grounds of desertion he can obtain a divorce. In terms of this Bill he cannot. In terms of clause 4(3)(a) he will have to wait a year before he can obtain a divorce. His wife will have a year in which to make up her mind whether or not she is going to follow him to South West Africa, Timbuktu or wherever he has been transferred to. I therefore think this provision is going to put a strain on the situation.

Arising out of this, there is a second point I want to make. Clause 4(3)(a) stipulates that the court may accept as proof evidence that the parties have not lived together as husband and wife for a continuous period of at least one year. This contains a degree of qualification in that the court “may accept” that as proof. I am really looking for guidance in this respect I think many legal practitioners are looking for guidance in this respect Assuming that the husband and wife submit an agreement to court to the effect that their marriage has irretrievably broken down, does the hon. the Minister feel that this will or can serve as proof to the court that the marriage has in fact broken down or will they still have to submit further proof? I want to submit that, surely, the parties to the marriage are the ones to decide that the marriage has broken down and can then submit an agreement to that effect At present in the case of a desertion or when the defendant states that he will not restore conjugal rights, it is generally accepted that the marriage has broken down. Why must the position be changed now? If they both agree that the marriage has broken down, why must they go to all that expense? We must bear in mind that the British commission stated in their report that Britons are now granted divorces purely on the strength of affidavits. The parties do not even have to go to court if no children are involved. I do not know, however, whether we shall reach that stage. However, I want to submit that there should be room in the case where the parties both agree that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, for them to be granted a speedy divorce, without them having to go through the farce of living apart for a year, etc.

Mr. Chairman, …

Order! I call upon hon. members to give a specific indication as to which of the ten amendments they are discussing, because otherwise things will be very confusing.

I should just like to reply to what the hon. member for Hillbrow said. At this late stage he is saying that the courts are prepared to accept that the parties agree that the marriage cannot survive. If this is really so, it leaves room for collusion. Surely the hon. member for Hillbrow should know that even where there is an agreement, the court will still require evidence to prove that malicious desertion, adultery or whatever, has taken place, i.e. grounds for dissolving the marriage. The court does not accept without further ado that there has been an irretrievable break-down of the marriage simply on the grounds of the agreement submitted to the court. Surely this is clear. Apart from that subsections (3)(a), (b) and (c) do not however, prohibit the parties from going to court and saying that they have made an agreement; that there is an irretrievable break-down in the marriage and that they consequently ask that the marriage be dissolved. Those three subsections do not prohibit this, and what is very important, is that we should not permit collusion between the parties, nor should we permit collusion to be organized by the parties to facilitate a divorce.

Mr. Chairman, I want to be very brief and I want to indicate that I regret that I do not support the last amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. I think if one merely would refer to a criminal offence without specifying the nature of the offence and without indicating that that is the kind of thing a woman would reasonably be entitled to object to, one would be opening up the whole situation in a manner which is quite undesirable.

There is another problem which arises and that is that I should not like this debate to create the impression that habitual drunkenness of a particular nature is not a ground for the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage, because at the present moment the conduct on the part of a spouse in a marriage, with the intention of bringing the marriage to an end, and knowing it is going to bring the marriage to an end, can be regarded as a form of constructive desertion. Therefore in my view, as the clause merely gives examples, there can be drunkenness of a particular nature which is calculated to bring the marriage to an end. One should therefore not, as a result of this debate, create the impression that continued drunkenness of a particular nature is not a ground which could result in a court coming to a conclusion on irretrievable break-down. I do not think it is necessary to include it, because the clause makes it quite clear that these are just three examples. I am so worried that the impression will be created that these are the only three grounds on which a divorce will be granted. I think that is a dangerous situation and that is why I think it is very important that we make it clear to the public at large that irretrievable break-down is a broad concept, that there can be a whole series of factors which contribute towards it and these are merely examples which the legislature has stated; they are not exclusive. I think it is vital that the public understand that.

Mr. Chairman, in support of the last argument advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville, I suggest we insert a provision that in the case of an irretrievable break-down of a marriage, the court may, inter alia, accept evidence. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could consider moving an amendment to that effect in the Other Place. I think such provision would show that these are not the only grounds for divorce and I think it would then cover the point.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow that the position in our courts today is such that even if it is written into an agreement that one party has deserted the other, that agreement is not regarded as evidence that one person has left the other. Evidence has nevertheless to be submitted. The argument of the hon. member for Hillbrow is very important because he now wishes to propose that under this Bill, it must be possible that an agreement in which the parties state that a marriage has broken down irretrievably, can serve as evidence that that marriage has broken down irretrievably. This cannot be so, for then a divorce can simply be effected by way of agreement. The Law Commission went into this matter in depth and came to that conclusion.

If it is an affidavit?

Whether it is an affidavit or not surely there must still be evidence to support it. In spite of an affidavit, one must still go to the witness-box and state on which facts one based the fact that one’s marriage has broken down irretrievably. The couple cannot simply say that both have made an affidavit to the effect that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. The judge is entitled to ask them on what grounds they based that affidavit. That is the one problem.

I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that persistent drunkenness, where one party deliberately drinks persistently with a view to breaking down his marriage, or to insult his wife, can be a ground for divorce. This is constructive desertion. I have emphasized that evidence of this nature can, in any case, be led under this Bill to prove that the marriage has broken down entirely. I did say that alcoholism as such—if a person drinks persistently because he experiences a tremendous psychological urge to do so, which probably has nothing to do with his marriage, or he does not do it deliberately to cause the break-down of his marriage, but is the victim of some emotional or psychological shortcoming which causes him to drink persistently—surely cannot be advanced as evidence that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.

But she may not want to stand that.

She may. Some men are married to angels. I do not know whether the hon. member knows that. There are women who stand by these alcoholics through thick and thin.

In that case nobody is going to sue for divorce.

The point is that one cannot simply advance alcoholism and persistent drunkenness as a ground for divorce. She must advance something more than the mere fact that her husband drinks persistently. As regards the criminal aspect and cruelty, I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville. Cruelty can cause the marriage to break down, but not necessarily.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.