Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Mr. Speaker, I should like to be associated with the motion moved by the hon. the Prime Minister. It is with sadness that we say farewell to Louwrens Muller. I have known him for an even longer period than many hon. members in this House. I tried very hard, in 1956, to prevent him from being elected to the Cape Provincial Council, but in spite of a mammoth effort and lots of money spent by the then United Party, he was elected by exactly the same number of votes as his predecessor, Mr. C. W. R. Swart of Robertson.

We have come to know Mr. Louwrens Muller as a courteous, warm and friendly member of this House. We have appreciated the way he has acquitted himself of his task as the Leader of the House during the last session and saw to the smooth workings of the House. He is not abrasive, as some of us politicians may be. He is quietly competent. He is not only a friend of many people, but is also the kind of friend and politician on whom people can depend and whom they can trust. It is in these terms, and against this background, that we should like to be associated with the motion moved by the hon. the Prime Minister and should like to wish Mr. Louwrens Muller and his wife Hanlie everything of the best in their retirement.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NRP, I too should like to associate myself with the motion of the hon. the Prime Minister. I have had the opportunity, during the debate on another measure, to say what I felt about Mr. Muller as a person and his ability to be a friend, a man from whom one may differ politically but who is always sincere and has always commanded my respect throughout the time that we have been associated.

I want to wish him well. We will be sorry to lose him in his position as Leader of the House, but I hope that he may still choose to be with us in this House as an ordinary member, so that the friendship and the bonds we have built up over the years may not be broken. In all sincerity, we extend to him our very best wishes, our gratitude for the sort of man he is and the respect which he has earned from us.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches regret that the Leader of the House and Minister of Transport is going to retire. He has completed a long, successful and fruitful period of public service. It is particularly as a member of the House of Assembly that he is popular. He is a humble man, with no reason to be humble, because he achieved a great deal in the course of his career. He is a very courteous person, and that also applies to his behaviour in this House, where he has always acted in a calm and composed way. We wish him and Mrs. Muller a well-earned period of rest.

†We also wish him many holes-in-one on the golf course at Hermanus, and if there are any fish left in the sea at Hermanus, we wish him tight lines as well. We, in these benches, hold him in very high esteem for the way in which, as Leader of the House, he has looked after our interests in this House, and we shall also miss him as a person and as a friend.

On behalf of the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees, the Deputy Chairman of Committees and the Secretaries at the Table I should like to associate myself with the motion moved by the hon. the Prime Minister.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this motion deals with the question of the salary that is to be paid to the State President, but it also has other ramifications. Hon. members will know that the Constitution of the Republic provides in the clearest possible terms for the election of a State President, for his tenure of office and for the exercise of his powers and functions. It also provides in section 14(3) that—

It provides further that the actual amount of his salary shall be determined by a resolution of the Other Place and of this House. Then, in section 15(1), the Constitution provides that a pension shall be payable to a retired or resigned State President and that this shall be an amount equivalent to his annual salary as at the day on which he vacates his office.

I would have thought that the position of hon. members in these benches would be perfectly plain and I would not have thought that I would have to motivate our attitude towards this particular motion at all. In the first place, we have no quarrel whatsoever with the increase as it relates to the present incumbent, who was elected this morning and inaugurated at noon. In fact we would support the idea that there should be a substantial increase in the salary of the present new State President. But the matter goes further than that. Mr. Speaker, you will know that there have been increases in the salaries of certain other persons in public office, but we in these benches do not believe that that should necessarily have as a consequence that there should be a similar increase in the salary of the State President. We would have viewed, and in fact do view, the proposed increase in the salary payable to the hon. Mr. Marais Viljoen as to be decided upon on its merits, and we are quite happy with the 9,6% increase proposed.

Having said that, one has also to look at the terms of the motion, and here, I am afraid, there are tacked on at the end some words which take this particular motion far beyond the proper ambit of an ordinary increase in the salary of the present incumbent of the State Presidency. I do not want to get involved in a rehash of the events of recent times and the conduct of the present State President’s predecessor. I do not believe this is the occasion for that, but, Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that you would have realized that there was only one course that we could take. I suppose, at the risk of being petty, one would not have minded the back pay which in terms of this particular motion will go to Mr. B. J. Vorster. Presumably he will get R450 per month, or whatever the increase is, for the months April and May. That might have been bad enough, but having realized that the predecessor of the present State President was deeply involved in all the transactions and the conduct which have been analysed by Judge Erasmus.

How can you say that?

One only has to have in one’s hand the supplementary report of the Erasmus Commission … [Interjections.] … to realize that it is not possible … [Interjections.]

Order!

… for us in these benches to support a proposal that that particular gentleman, who was found to be jointly responsible for the misconduct by the former Department of Information, be now paid an extra amount of money from the taxpayers of this country. If it were a trifling amount, one might not have been particularly concerned, but I think we would be failing in our duty if we were not to realize that this House is, in fact, being asked to condone the spending of an extra R4 500 per year on the pension of the predecessor of the present State President. Without mincing words I want to say that I believe this is totally unacceptable in the present circumstances. If, at a later stage, the Government were to have introduced some kind of measure involving the present State President alone, there would certainly not have been this unpleasant episode. However, I think it shows a great degree of insensitivity to wrap up, with an increase in the salary of the present State President, a reference to his predecessor. This is an extremely insensitive and indelicate conjunction of ideas. For that reason we have no doubt about what our duty is, and that is to be in accord with the idea that the present State President’s salary should be increased, but that in no way should his predecessor benefit at the expense of the taxpayers of the country in any unnecessary way. I therefore move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, we shall support the motion moved by the hon. the Leader of the House. There are many reasons why one might feel disinclined to reward the previous State President, formerly the Prime Minister, in this way by increasing his salary, but I think this is a matter of constitutional procedure and procedure adopted by this Parliament. It is common knowledge that all the increases in salary which have taken place have been effective from 1 April, something by which all of us here, and the people outside this House, are bound. I therefore feel it would be unjustified if we were to oppose the motion simply because the person of the previous State President is involved in this particular case. On many occasions, in many places, we have voiced our opinions about the actions of the previous State President and former Prime Minister. There is no doubt, however, that this is something which will continue. It is not a matter which will be regarded as closed by this particular action. However, we feel that the normal decencies of Parliament dictate that we support the motion of the hon. the Leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker, all Public Servants received an increase at the beginning of April. Our attitude towards the office of the State Presidency and the holder of that office is one of deep respect, and we believe it should be above party politics. This is not the time for party politics in this House. We do not think that the right attitude is being adopted by the official Opposition and shall therefore vote for this motion and against their amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make use of the privilege to associate myself this once with the attitude adopted by the NRP and the SAP as far as this matter is concerned. I think it could be said that the attitude adopted by the official Opposition in this House will be regarded with contempt by the vast majority of South African citizens as it manifests a pettiness and small-mindedness which are out of place in this House. Consequently I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to say that if the official Opposition is of the opinion that this kind of petty conduct will bring them any votes, they are making a very big mistake. They are making a totally wrong evaluation of the large measure of appreciation prevailing throughout South Africa for the former State President and Prime Minister of this country. In these circumstances I, too, want to express my disapproval of the kind of action taken by the official Opposition on this occasion.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since the amendment contained in the Bill does nothing more than confirm the amendment previously effected, I do not think there will be any objection to the legislation.

In 1977, by the insertion of section 49A into the Group Areas Act, No. 36 of 1966, the restrictive provisions of this Act with regard to acquisition, possession and alienation of immovable property and occupation or utilization of land, buildings or premises were repealed in areas situated outside group areas and that have been zoned for industrial purposes in terms of any town planning scheme which is in operation or binding under any law. The object of this amendment was to make zoned industrial premises available, freely and without authorization by permit, to the other national groups as well for utilization for industrial purposes. In this regard I want to mention that it has been the policy in recent years not to include industrial areas in group areas and where it did happen in the past, steps are being taken, where possible, to deproclaim industrial areas that are not an integral part of a group area and to leave them controlled.

Since section 49A was included in the Act, it has come to light that there are certain areas, in Johannesburg for example, that were zoned in terms of the town planning scheme as “general”, which zoning includes different uses, inter alia, industrial.

As a result of a civil action, a verdict was returned in the Witwatersrand Division of the Supreme Court in terms of which it is deemed that the exemption contained in section 49A of the Act, also applies in respect of any land outside group areas where the zoning, inter alia, allows industrial uses. This verdict implies that a member of any national group may acquire a property zoned as “general” without authorization by permit and may use and occupy it for any purposes permissible in terms of this zoning, inter alia, for residential purposes. Of course a similar situation could arise in other towns and cities.

This state of affairs is contrary to Government policy. It was never the intention with section 49A to lift the restrictive provisions of the Group Areas Act for other than industrial purposes. In order to eliminate the anomaly and to define the initially contemplated scope of section 49A more comprehensively in order to eliminate all doubt on its interpretation, this Bill to substitute clear definitions for the words “area” and “zoned” so that the relevant provisions of the Act are being repealed only in respect of land or premises which has been specifically zoned and so that that land or premises may be used, without any further approval, for industrial purposes, as long as such land or premises is not used for purposes other than industrial purposes. This amendment has been inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment in 1977 of the Group Areas Act, when section 49A came into effect for the first time, was a sound step. It was in fact a step in the right direction and as such enjoyed the support of all parties in this House. It was a step away from race discrimination. I believe that that step was actually inspired to a certain extent by certain recommendations of the Erika Theron Commission.

†Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation with which we are dealing now, however, is a step backwards, in the sense that it limits the scope of section 49A. Of course, I am the first to concede that the hon. the Minister is correct in saying that section 49A was never intended to allow activity other than industrial usage in an area zoned for industrial purposes, or as has subsequently appeared from a court decision referred to by the hon. the Minister, zoned for general purposes. I agree that this has never been the intention. However, it has in fact been used. According to my information it has been used quite extensively, particularly in the Witwatersrand area. This is the kind of application of the exceptions enacted in section 49A to which the Government would refer as abuses. The concessions in terms of the Act allow for what the Government would refer to as an abuse, an abuse namely of living in an industrial area because one has nowhere else to go. I do not believe that people enjoy living in industrial areas. I do not believe that at all. It would be strange if anybody moved into an industrial area to settle there if alternative decent accommodation is available elsewhere. Whether such accommodation is available in an area zoned specifically for industrial purposes or for general purposes, I do not believe people would go there out of their own free will if there are any other alternatives open to them.

Have you checked your facts?

Yes, I have.

What are the facts?

I have a lot of information available.

Well, give us that information then.

In addition, local authorities would obviously try to enforce their own zoning arrangements. They would obviously try to prevent, as far as possible, people from taking up residence in industrial areas, or from in any other way violating their zoning arrangements. As such I believe that local authorities will try to enforce these measures. However, local authorities, being in the position where they are close to the public and close to the local problems, will be more aware of the housing shortages and of the housing problems prevalent in their own areas. As such I believe they would apply their own zoning by-laws in a more sympathetic manner.

This amending legislation seems to seek to close a loophole in the Group Areas Act, which has afforded some relief to many people who would otherwise have found themselves in distress as a result of the application of the principal Act People have in fact been forced to live in industrial areas. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Indians, particularly in the Witwatersrand area, who are being forced to live in industrial areas, and not only in industrial areas, but in many other places, merely as a result of the lack of proper accommodation elsewhere. I can quote numerous court cases in this connection. There are also numerous prosecutions pending, prosecutions in terms of the Group Areas Act in general. This happens because people move into areas in which they are not allowed; they move there as a result of the housing shortage generally prevailing in their own area.

The simple result of this amending legislation is that it is made impossible for Coloureds and Asians living in industrial areas which fall within White group areas, to continue to live there until alternative arrangements are made.

*The hon. the Minister now wants to know from me whether I can give him the facts. The fact is that there is an acute housing shortage for Coloureds and Indians on the Witwatersrand. A short while ago we had a very remarkable event in this House when the hon. the Minister of Community Development said in reply to a question by the hon. member for Rondebosch that as far as his department knew there was no shortage of accommodation for Coloureds and Asians on the Witwatersrand. That was a very strange statement to make, because one only has to take cognizance of what appears in the Press to realize how big the shortage in that area in fact is. In an area such as Lenasia there is tremendous overcrowding in the available houses. The hon. the Minister of Community Development said recently that he can sleep better now because of the fact that he had removed certain persons in terms of the provisions of the Group Areas Act from one area to another. I can only say that the hon. the Minister is sleeping in a bed of ignorance if one looks at the bitterness and misery caused by the implementation of this Act. The Group Areas Act and the amendment in this Bill, which effect a specific extension of the scope of the Act, are among those pieces of legislation on our Stature Book that cause the greatest degree of race bitterness in this country.

Order! Under no circumstances am I going to allow a general discussion of the Group Areas Act.

Mr. Speaker, here we have an extension …

Order! I said that under no circumstances am I going to allow a general discussion of the Group Areas Act and in my opinion the hon. member is interpreting the provisions of this Bill incorrectly.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I have perused it very thoroughly. These people, especially those on the Witwatersrand, have already used the loophole in the legislation to a large extent, as the hon. the Minister knows. Industrial areas are already being used to a large extent for purposes other than those which the Government originally had in mind and for our purposes which, as the hon. the Minister himself indicated, do not agree with Government policy. The position of those people will be made impossible if this amendment is accepted by this House. Their position will be made untenable and at this stage there is no alternative housing, for them in any case.

†We on this side of the House have no doubt whatsoever that we should oppose this legislation, and we oppose it mainly for three reasons. Firstly, it is a step in the direction of racial discrimination and not a step away from it. Secondly, it is, in fact, an extension of the provisions of the Group Areas Act, an extension away from the exceptions which have been created, even if it was not intentionally created, by the enactment of section 49A of the Act in 1977, and thirdly, it is a highly insensitive measure to enact at a time when the housing shortage, particularly on the Witwatersrand, for Indians and Coloureds is what it is at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer the hon. member for Green Point and other members of the Opposition to Hansard (Vol. 69 col. 8870) where it is stated very clearly that it—

The matter was argued at the time. Inter alia the hon. member for Bryanston also participated in this debate. I want to quote briefly his concluding words where he also confines himself merely to the term “industrial area”. He said (Hansard, 30 May 1977, col. 8874)—

He confined himself to commercial and industrial activities only. There was no intention whatsoever that there should be an extension of the Group Areas Act. The Group Areas Act still exists and we know its provisions. I am not going to discuss them now. The fact of the matter is that we are not trying now to effect any amendments to it. It has happened that, owing to circumstances, industrial areas have been used as residential areas under conditions that were in some respects utterly deplorable. It is the duty of this side of the House to ensure that we do not encourage such chaotic conditions. That is why we are simply putting the Group Areas Act into operation again here. I do not know whether the hon. member meant it when he said that it was a sound step when this legislation was initially passed or whether he perhaps meant that his party approved of the measure being misused for residential purposes. I do not think that any party that means well can advocate that areas that were zoned for industrial purposes and buildings that should be used for industrial purposes, may be used as residential areas and for residential purposes.

The hon. Opposition will simply have to accept that this side of the House is committed to groups areas as far as residential purposes are concerned. We do not believe in mixed living; this is a matter of policy to this side of the House and we adhere to it. That is why we cannot allow industrial areas and buildings to be used for residential purposes. Clause 1 of the Bill is very simply stated and reads—

The hon. the Minister explained the matter very clearly in his Second Reading speech and I do not think there can be any doubt whatsoever as to why this side of the House feels that the clause is essential, and for that reason I take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Aliwal has put it that the Government sees it as a duty that chaotic conditions do not develop, and I can only say to him that I wish they would look at all legislation in that light. The NRP looks at legislation that comes before this House and we ask ourselves: Firstly, is it an improvement?; secondly, will it cause hardship?; and thirdly, is it practical? There are of course, also other criteria by which one could measure legislation, but I confine myself for the moment to this type of legislation. I believe that the answer to those three particular questions can only be “no” when it comes to this Bill, because I do not think that this legislation is an improvement, and I want to tell the hon. the Minister why. It is no good his smiling. We have looked at it and we do not believe that it is an improvement. We do not believe that it is going to lessen hardship; we believe that it is going to cause more hardship and we do not believe that it is practical. I should therefore like briefly to motivate our case around those three issues.

It would appear that the amending legislation of two years ago was a great improvement. It was part of an opening up and a loosening up which I think gave us greater credibility in the outside world. I feel that today’s legislation is a case of advancing in the reverse, and I believe it is a great shame that we have this retrogressive step, because I do not believe that we really need it. It would appear that this amendment revolves around the fact that in certain industrial areas people of different race groups have moved in and started businesses similar to the small businesses one finds in any industrial area, i.e. the comer tearoom the comer café. It would appear that some of these people then sleep on these premises or in premises nearby.

Why do you say “it would appear”? Have you not established the fact?

I merely ask the hon. the Minister to tell us how many people are involved and why is there the need for this pretty harsh amendment before us. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister—he has figures which we do not find so easy to obtain—firstly, whether this is the case—and we believe it is—and, secondly, how many people are affected. Further, are there alternative homes these people can go to? If a small number of people is involved and if there are no alternative homes for them to go to, why do we not leave it as it is, or is this another question of ideology overtaking practical common sense and the country’s image suffering as a result of the absolutely insatiable desire of this Government to compartmentalize to the nth degree?

I believe I have said all I need to say to motivate our case. I do not intend taking the argument any further, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we feel strongly about this and that we shall therefore vote against the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, if one had listened to both of the previous speakers on the Opposition side, one would in fact have been able to say that there is no reason why industrial areas throughout the world are situated in places other than residential or commercial areas.

[Inaudible.]

Just keep quiet and give me a chance. If one listens to the hon. member for Berea, it sounds as though he believes that a Government—I am not referring specifically to the South African Government, but to any Government in the world—should in its physical planning simply allow matters to take their course and should allow industrial areas, commercial areas or residential areas to develop at random. No, there are after all specific reasons for certain areas being industrial areas and completely different reasons for other areas being suitable as residential areas. This is not only true of South Africa, but of the whole world as well. However, this is not the real reason why hon. speakers on that side of the House are objecting to this Bill. The hon. member for Green Point let the cat out of the bag in no uncertain way by saying that they want to use industrial areas as a lever to undermine the Group Areas Act.

We are trying to be humane.

The conditions in industrial areas are such that they are not suitable for human habitation. The best places for industries are near railway lines, sources of power and water, etc. Other considerations apply in the case of residential areas. What this Bill indicates is that industrial areas will remain industrial areas, that residential areas will remain residential areas; that industrial areas may be used by all South Africans, but that residential areas will have a group identity and a group character against the background of our situation in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I think that hon. members on that side of the House have misunderstood some of the things we on this side of the House have said. I want to put it absolutely clearly to hon. members on that side of the House that if South Africa had a normal type of society …

What is abnormal about it?

The whole Government is abnormal. [Interjections.] If South Africa had a normal type of society and if all South Africans, irrespective of their race or colour, could live where they wished to live and where it was convenient for them to live and where they had proper transport to take them to the industrial and commercial areas, the problems which arise, problems which this particular Bill seeks to correct, would not have occurred. But because this Government has created in South Africa a totally abnormal and unbalanced type of society, this particular problem arises. The situation is that White employers and workers can live as close to or as far away from the industrial areas in which they work as they please, but because of the laws of this particular Government this does not apply to Coloured and Indian owners and workers in business and industry. They have to live where the Government tells them to live, permits them to live or allows them to live, and in many cases this can be a very great distance from the places where they have their businesses or factories. This problem does not arise because the people want to live in industrial areas. The problem arises because the Government does not make it possible for them to live where they wish to live, in areas where they can reach their places of employment or the places that they own comfortably and easily. Therefore, where industrial areas have been opened to Indian and Coloured people it is obvious that there will be a tendency for them to choose to live in those industrial areas, if they find it more convenient and easier to live there, rather than in the very few distant residential areas designated for them by the Government. So it is not their fault. It is not their wish or preference to live there. They are forced to live there because of the circumstances created by the legislation of this Government.

The other point is that the Government is not really concerned, in this case, about people not living in industrial areas. They are not really concerned about whether the people have bad or good housing, or about whether the people have any housing at all. That is not the concern of the Government. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member cannot pursue the debate along those lines. If so, we must broaden the debate, but this is not a debate on housing.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about people living in industrial areas and about the type of housing they have there. What I am saying is that the Government is not concerned about where or how they live. The only thing that the Government does not want is for them to live in areas other than their group areas, which the Government has designated for them. That is what it is all about. It is an apartheid measure based on an apartheid attitude. It is not based on anything else. The point is that if one wants to solve this problem, one does not do so with an amendment of this nature. One solves the problem by removing the measures that make it necessary for the people to live within the industrial areas and by providing proper housing in close proximity to the areas where those people own factories or where they work.

The hon. the Minister mentioned that in some of the areas, designated or zoned as general areas, there is in fact housing available, there being many blocks of flats and other forms of housing in those areas. He said that there was a loophole and that in terms of section 49A Indian people are now living in those areas. He also said that this amendment is necessary to prevent the Indian people from living in the existing accommodation in those areas.

I never mentioned the Indians.

Well, people who are disqualified in terms of the hon. the Minister’s legislation. [Interjections.] What the hon. the Minister and the Government as a whole therefore want is to prevent people from living, even where housing is available. [Interjections.] This proves the point. It is not because the Government is opposed to people living in industrial areas. That is not their concern. The Government just does not want people, for whom the Government has defined certain designated group areas, to live there. Therefore, although we fully and completely agree that it is desirable that people do not live in industrial areas, we should like to see all the people of South Africa living in comfortable residential areas of their choice, as close to their places of employment as possible. That is what we should like to see. However, where people have no housing, where they are not entitled to live close to their places of employment and yet do find some sort of housing—in some cases completely acceptable and in other cases unacceptable—let the Government know that the way to solve this problem is not to drive these people out by means of harsh legislative measures such as this. The job of the Government is to see to it that those people are given proper housing close to their places of employment and that they are allowed to choose to live wherever they please.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston really spoke a lot of unfounded nonsense here. He tried to create the impression that the Government is creating residential areas in this country for certain groups of people only and are forcing certain groups—Coloureds, Indians and according to him Black people as well—to live in certain areas while Whites can live wherever they like. Surely this is not true. This is a malicious and incorrect impression the hon. member is trying to create. Just as Coloureds and Indians have their allotted residential areas, so Whites also have their allotted residential areas. They have to stay there and consequently cannot stay wherever they like. As Coloureds and Indians are being affected by the amendment in this legislation, so Whites are also being affected by it.

I shall leave the hon. member for Bryanston at that, because I want to react to what the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Berea had to say when, in spite of their better judgment, they adopted a completely inconsistent standpoint. They said that the amending legislation passed in 1977, was a step in the right direction. Of course it was a step in the right direction, because it was taken in terms of the policy of this Government. The hon. member for Green Point said very clearly at the beginning of his speech that he admitted that it was never the intention—in 1977, when the amendment was effected—to allow people to use these areas for purposes other than industrial purposes. Did the hon. member not say this?

I said that.

How can the hon. member then do an about face and allege that we are extending the legislation? All we are doing, is to draft the intention clearly in this legislation, an intention that already exists, as the hon. member admitted. The hon. member admitted that large scale misuse is being made of a loophole which arose in this regard.

There is no alternative.

The hon. member admits that the original intention of the legislation was deviated from and that some people misused it, while the legislature did not intend industrial areas to be used for that purpose. We cannot tolerate the situation any longer. The hon. member for Berea asked to be told by the hon. the Minister how many people were involved. However, the hon. member for Green Point replied to that question when he said that hundreds and thousands of people were in the process of …

I am merely asking for the facts.

The hon. member for Green Point said that he had examined the facts and found that hundreds and thousands of people were misusing the concessions made in 1977. Surely the Government cannot close its eyes to this misuse. Nor can the Government be accused—I do not want to elaborate on this—of not doing everything in its power to provide alternative and good housing. Yet the hon. member for Green Point alleged that there was none. It is true that in certain areas there are still people that have to be accommodated. However, this is not owing to unwillingness on the part of the Government, because the Government has done more in its time to provide housing than any other Government. However, that is not relevant here. What is relevant, is that the legislature made certain concessions in 1977 to afford all races a reasonable opportunity on an equal basis to carry out industrial activities in certain areas. This department is still engaged in extending that principle from time to time by deproclaiming more and more industrial areas situated within group areas, so that those areas may be freely utilized by the various races. However, the Government cannot allow a concession made to accommodate the people on the one hand, to be grossly exploited and for the Government to be placed in an embarrassing situation on the other. That is why it is necessary for this matter to be put into its correct perspective.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that this matter has developed into what is really an ideological difference between the Government side and our side. I think the issue is made very clear by the hon. the Minister himself in his Second Reading speech where he elaborated on a decision of the Supreme Court. I quote him because this is really the issue before us in this debate—

I do not think the issue really is that what has happened here led to section 49A being amended in 1977. It is clear that the amendment of 1977 left a loophole in the law enabling people of different groups to occupy industrial areas zoned as such.

The Government has introduced this amendment Bill to close that loophole. I think that that is common cause. They want to restore the position to what they intended it to be when they amended the principal Act in 1977. We are opposed to this not only on the ideological grounds of our concept of the Group Areas Act, but also on the grounds of the merits of the situation—and this was referred to by the hon. the Minister—in respect of Johannesburg. Therefore, I think it is pertinent to draw the attention of the House to the situation in Johannesburg. The hon. member for Aliwal said this state of affairs would bring about chaotic conditions. In actual fact, we want to have the chaotic conditions existing at present removed. That is what we are really after and that is why we are opposed to this amendment. In terms of the town planning scheme of a local authority a certain area is zoned “general”. Under the definition of “general” residential occupation is included. Thus we find that people of different groups have occupied the areas zoned “general”. Our plea, really, is that they should be left there.

Order! Does the Bill not deal with areas zoned for industrial purposes only?

Yes, Sir, but as the hon. the Minister indicated in his Second Reading speech with reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court, an area zoned “general” can be used—

That is precisely the point. That is why I am drawing your attention to that aspect.

I think a special case can be made out not only for Johannesburg, which I used as an example, but also for other cities where the same situation exists. The hon. the Minister may not be aware of what the situation in Johannesburg is. For years and years the Johannesburg city council has pleaded for an area to be set aside for occupation by the Coloured people. However, the Government, in its wisdom, did not do so.

Order! That is not relevant.

Well, Sir, I am trying to make out a case why on merit this should be allowed in Johannesburg, because the situation is chaotic there. Our plea, again, is that the situation should be left as it is. Local authorities like that of Johannesburg and others who would like to use areas zoned as “general” for occupation by these people, should be allowed to continue to do so. In fact, the opportunity should be seized with both hands to use the zoning of areas as “general” to enable people to occupy those areas where otherwise they would have to settle in an area 35 miles out of town as a result of which they would have to get up at 4 o’clock every morning to come into work and would also use a lot of petrol. Such an arrangement would generally be to their disadvantage. With regard to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s argument in respect of occupation not for Whites …

Order! I allowed the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply to the hon. member for Bryanston, whom I allowed to discuss side aspects of the Group Areas Act I am not, however, going to allow such a wide discussion any further.

Sir, may I submit why the hon. the Deputy Minister is wrong?

That does not have anything to do with the matter of residential occupation in industrially zoned areas. The matter of residential occupation in such areas is what the hon. member may discuss.

Sir, with respect, I should like you to allow me to answer the hon. the Deputy Minister, who has said that it applies to Whites, Coloureds and Indians.

Order! I shall not allow that. The hon. member for Bryanston and the hon. the Deputy Minister have already discussed that aspect.

Sir, I shall abide by your ruling. As far as this aspect is concerned, I shall then tell the hon. the Deputy Minister privately why he is wrong. [Interjections.] We on this side remain absolutely adamant that what we are faced with is an ideological attitude towards the Group Areas Act. We cannot get away from that. This attitude concerns our whole approach to our people’s right of occupation. I think very much that local authorities are able to control the situation and I think local authorities should use their opportunities to take every advantage to make use of their facilities in order to obviate the terrible situation which exists in the area. On those grounds we shall vote against the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston said that we were living in an abnormal society. I get the impression that abnormal members of the society occasionally gain access to this House.

Ask Jan Marais what he wrote in his little book.

Sir, I shall try to obey your ruling by saying at once that it seems one is never too old to learn. To me the hon. member for Green Point was the epitome of contradictory argumentation this afternoon. He most probably looked up the debates in Hansard. In it he then found that his party had supported the 1977 legislation. Not only did they support it, but they did so without amendment. He also said that he thought it was good legislation. When we want that good legislation to which he referred to comply with the objectives for which it was passed in 1977, he says it is a retrogressive step. I am so pleased that peoples’ guilt or innocence does not depend on the hon. member’s ability to argue and that there are other people who can make a sounder assessment than his. The hon. member is a lawyer—I give him credit for that—and he argues that there is an hiatus or omission in the legislation. I always thought that when lawyers feel that there is an hiatus or omission in legislation it is their duty to remove that hiatus and rectify the omission. Apparently he thinks it is his task to act differently here to the way he does outside.

Fundamentally the amendment introduced in 1977 has one important element, viz. the acceptance of the principle repeatedly expounded during debates. I am referring to a principle that because we have one economic system, we should like to afford people the opportunity of participating with the least impediment on every level in that economic system. As a result of the acceptance of this principle, it was accepted in principle and in practice in 1977 that industrial areas situated outside group areas need not have a group character and that people could make use of specific premises or buildings for industrial purposes. We are doing nothing but to ensure that the 1977 legislation, which was supported by hon. members on both sides of this House, will achieve its purpose.

It is very interesting that hon. members have made use of this opportunity in an attempt to achieve another object contrary to the objects they supported at that stage. In my opinion that approach of theirs was quite justifiably ruled out of order by you, Sir. Allow me to proceed. Not only was that principle accepted but to an increasing extent we have also tried to ensure that even where industrial areas are situated in group areas, they are deproclaimed so that all population groups may thus be afforded an opportunity of having free access to those industrial areas.

I conclude. The legislation has no other purpose, and purports to have no other motive than that found in the 1977 legislation, viz. to create industrial areas in which people may exercise their business activities freely. However, we must not attempt to make this an opportunity—as hon. members opposite have tried to do—by means of which we, as a result of the embarrassment and suffering of other people, wish to create integrated societies.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It will take little time, unfortunately, to outline the background to the Bill, but I shall do so as quickly as possible.

The company which is incorporated in terms of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1973, has become an integral part of our modem economic structure. Many reasons can be advanced for this state of affairs. I shall not go into all the characteristics of a company this afternoon, but I just want to point out that a company has a potentially unlimited life and a continued existence which is virtually undisturbed by any change in its membership.

The right of existence of a company applies in respect of the Republic as a whole. It is also possible, therefore, that when independence is attained by a State of which the territory used to form part of the Republic, a company incorporated in the Republic may want to continue its activities in that State. For the sake of convenience I shall refer to such a State as a “neighbouring country”.

Transkei became independent on 26 October 1976 and Bophuthatswana on 6 December 1977, and because the Government felt that it would be to the advantage of both the Republic and those neighbouring countries to maintain a uniform approach towards companies in the Republic and in the neighbouring countries concerned, it entered into an agreement on matters concerning companies with Transkei as well as Bophuthatswana, and these neighbouring countries accepted the Companies Act, 1973, as the legislation regulating companies in those neighbouring countries.

The agreement with the neighbouring countries concerned included the following terms: Firstly, that copies of the records in respect of companies which are incorporated or registered in the Republic and which have registered offices in one of those neighbouring countries be transmitted to that neighbouring country on or as soon as possible after the attainment of independence by the neighbouring country; and secondly, that every company which is incorporated or registered in the Republic and which has a place of business, but not a registered office, in the neighbouring country concerned, will be deemed in that neighbouring country to be a foreign company which has to register as such in the neighbouring country in terms of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1973.

In terms of its agreements with the Governments of Transkei and Bophuthatswana, the Government has already arranged for certified copies of the records of all the companies which have registered offices in either of these neighbouring countries to be sent to the neighbouring country concerned in accordance with the first undertaking to which I have referred.

It now appears, however, that there is uncertainty about the status of companies whose records have been transferred to a neighbouring country. It is alleged that the agreements entered into between the Government of the Republic and the Governments of Transkei and Bophuthatswana cannot affect the status of any company incorporated or registered in the Republic, because the South African courts of law have frequently ruled in the past that generally speaking, a treaty or agreement entered into by the Republic with another State does not have force of law in national law, unless the terms of the treaty or agreement concerned are embodied in legislation.

The question to which I have referred has been considered on several occasions by the Permanent Advisory Committee on Company Law and certain of its subcommittees. The advisory committee recommended, in the first place, that the matter can only be satisfactorily regulated by means of legislation passed by the Republic and by each of the neighbouring countries concerned. The Bill which is now before the House contains provisions intended to regulate the position of the companies concerned in the Republic.

†I wish to emphasize that the legislation which was recommended by the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law and which has been embodied in the Bill which we are now discussing, has a bearing on the position of companies in the Republic only. Since the South African Parliament does not make laws for independent neighbouring countries, each of those neighbouring countries will have to make laws in order to determine the status of any company incorporated or registered in the Republic when that company is registered in the neighbouring country.

I may add that, on the recommendation of the advisory committee, the Government approached the Governments of Transkei and Bophuthatswana to ascertain whether or not those neighbouring countries would be prepared to pass legislation to make provision for the registration in the neighbouring country of the companies, the records of which had been transmitted to such neighbouring country. The Government of Bophuthatswana has indicated that the necessary legislation will be introduced during this year. It is therefore necessary that the application of the proposed legislation to South African companies deemed to be registered in Bophuthatswana shall coincide with the commencement of the relevant legislation in that country.

The Bill makes provision for the insertion in the Companies Act, 1973, of a new heading and four new sections, the provisions of which have a bearing on companies which cease to be registered in the Republic of South Africa. The first of the new sections will empower the responsible Minister to designate, for the purposes of the proposed legislation, any neighbouring country with the Government of which the Government of the Republic has an agreement relating to the registration, in that neighbouring country, of certain South African companies. It follows that the designation of any particular country as a neighbouring country, for the purposes of the proposed legislation, will necessarily have to coincide with the commencement of legislation of that country relating to the registration of South African companies.

The second of the new sections provides that the provisions of the two further new sections shall, in accordance with the provisions of any agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of a designated neighbouring country, pertaining to South African companies deemed to be incorporated or registered in the neighbouring country, apply to such companies. The provisions of the section will recognize the significance of an agreement between the Government of the Republic and the Government of any country designated for the purposes of the proposed legislation and, at the same time, limit the application of the proposed legislation to companies in respect of which it should apply.

The third of the new sections makes provision for the procedures which have to be adopted when any particular South African company is registered in a neighbouring country designated for the purposes of the proposed legislation. Any particular South African company registered in a neighbouring country will necessarily have a registered office in that neighbouring country. Such a company may or may not have a place of business in the Republic. The Advisory Committee has pointed out that, even though a company, whose copies of the records have been transmitted to a neighbouring country has no place of business in the Republic, it would be undesirable to deregister that company, unless its status in the neighbouring country is determined by the legislation of that country.

The Advisory Committee has therefore specifically recommended that the Registrar of Companies should not deregister any company registered in a designated neighbouring country, unless such company has been given 90 days’ notice in writing of the intention of the Registrar to deregister the company and it has had the opportunity to make representations as to why it should not be deregistered. The Registrar will also be empowered to adjust the registration of any company registered in a neighbouring country if such company, after its registration in a neighbouring country, desires to carry on business in the Republic.

The fourth of the new sections contains certain provisos in respect of the application of the provisions of the first three of those sections. Firstly, provision is made for the fact that the winding up of a company or external company or the judicial management of a company which commenced before the application of the provisions of the third of the new sections to such company, shall continue as if the neighbouring country had not been designated for the purposes of the proposed legislation. It should be obvious that the creditors of such a company could be prejudiced if its status, in terms of the proposed legislation, should be altered or changed.

Secondly, provision is made for the preservation, under certain circumstances, of the rights and obligations of a company registered as an external company, or a company or an external company deregistered by virtue of the provisions of the proposed legislation. The provisions of the section will ensure that rights and obligations which stem from uncompleted legal proceedings, or from existing contractual relationships, shall not lapse merely by reason of a change in the status of the company or companies concerned.

Thirdly, provision is made for exemption from the payment of fees to the Registrar in respect of any adjustment, in terms of the proposed legislation, to the registration of a company. It is felt that it would be unfair to require payment of fees when the adjustments in question result from changes in the constitutional dispensation to which I have referred. I may also add that, in the light of the experience gained with the independence of Transkei and Bophuthatswana, the provisions of the four proposed new sections to be inserted in the Companies Act, 1973, have been framed in such a manner that those provisions could apply in the case of any other neighbouring country which in the future may become independent, and of course, in the case of Transkei, when it has adopted legislation relating to the South African companies which are deemed to be registered in that country.

In addition to the amendments to which I have referred, two further amendments to the Companies Act, 1973, are proposed in the Bill. The first of these relates to the chapter of the Act which makes provision for inquiry into the membership, ownership and control of a company. Under the existing provisions of the Act, any company is obliged to keep a register of its members. Such provisions have been in operation for more than a century.

Among other things, it has been suggested that the purpose of the register of members of a company is to enable the public to find out who controls the business in which they contemplate investing or to which they may be granting credit. However, the Companies Act, 1973, specifically provides that no company shall be bound to see to the execution of any trust relating to a share, whether express, implied or constructive. It is claimed that this provision is an indication that the legislature is aware of the fact that a registered shareholder might not be the person beneficially interested in the shares registered in his name.

Whatever the purpose of the provision may be, it would seem that it has given impetus to the practice whereby persons who acquire shares of a particular company and who do not wish to have their names entered in the register of members of that particular company, make use of nominees. The question arises whether beneficial ownership of shares should be disclosed. The principal grounds upon which it is claimed that beneficial ownership of shares should be disclosed are, firstly, that the public should be aware of the identity of those persons who are in control of important industries in the country. In the absence of such knowledge important industries might come into the hands of persons who could use their power to the detriment of our country.

Secondly, it is contended that any unscrupulous person may find it easier to make illegitimate use of inside information if he can conceal his dealings under the cloak of a nominee. Such dealings do take place despite the fact that they are presently prohibited by the Act. Finally, it is said that information as to the beneficial ownership of shares would be useful to a shareholder who wishes to consult his fellow shareholders as to the affairs of the company.

Whereas it can thus be argued that the shareholders of a company and the public should know in whom the control of the company is vested, it may not be practicable to require all companies to disclose who the beneficial owners of their shares are. Firstly, such a requirement could create a significant volume of administrative work for the company if its shares should often change hands and the company would be required to keep record of declarations made by beneficial owners of shares held by nominees. Secondly, such a requirement will not ensure that the prescribed information will be available at all times. Thirdly, foreigners who wish to invest in the Republic are often desirous to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals against themselves, and it is therefore possible that the requirement in question may discourage investment in the Republic or that existing investments by foreigners in the Republic may be withdrawn. Finally, it should also be borne in mind that control over a company may be exercised in many of several subtle ways.

*It is proposed, therefore, that section 255 of the Companies Act, 1973, which empowers the responsible Minister to require information concerning persons who have an interest in shares or debentures, be amended. The existing provisions of the section concerned are deficient in some respects and the proposed amendments to the section will remedy these deficiencies.

In terms of the proposed amendment of the section, the responsible Minister will be authorized to require certain persons by written notice to furnish specific information to him within 21 days concerning the persons who have or have had an interest in shares or debentures. The existing provisions of the section do not provide for the way in which the Minister is to require this information or for the period within which the required information is to be furnished. It is also deemed necessary to simplify the circumstances under which the Minister may exercise his power in terms of the section.

The persons whom the responsible Minister may require to furnish information to him in terms of the existing provisions of the section are persons concerning whom he has reason to believe that they have or have had an interest in shares or debentures or that they have acted or are acting as representatives of such interested persons. Because the directors or officers of a company are likely to have information concerning the beneficial share holders of the company, it is proposed that the persons whom the Minister may require to furnish information be extended to include the directors and officers of companies.

Furthermore, the section prescribes certain circumstances in which a person is deemed to have an interest in a share or debenture. It is proposed in the Bill that the circumstances concerned be extended to include the circumstances, firstly, where a person has the right to receive dividends or interest paid by a company in respect of a share or debenture; secondly, where a person is able materially to influence the exercise of voting right; and thirdly, where a person is the beneficiary in relation to a share or debenture. I want to point out that the responsible Minister has to exercise a discretionary power in terms of the section and that the proposed amendment does not materially change the circumstances under which the Minister may exercise the power concerned, because the Minister will in any event have to appoint an inspector if he cannot obtain the required information in response to a written request.

Furthermore, the information concerned must also be furnished to the responsible Minister. Anyone who furnishes information, therefore, will have the assurance that the information will not be disclosed if there is reason to believe that disclosure of the information would harm a company, any interested person or the country.

Finally, the Bill contains a proposed amendment to section 285(2) of the Act. This relates to the power of a company to change the date of the end of its financial year. Under the existing provisions of the Act, a company may at any time change the date of the end of any particular financial year, even after the closing date of that particular financial year has already expired. By changing the date of the end of its financial year, the company can avoid the payment of additional fees upon the late payment of the annual duty. Under these circumstances, however, the company also evades the obligation of disclosing certain information to its shareholders when that obligation has to be met.

It is proposed in the Bill that the section be amended to provide that a company may only change the date of the end of its financial year during the course of that year, in which case any future financial year will end on that i changed date. However, the company may change that date again. The proposed amendment has been recommended by the advisory committee.

Mr. Speaker, we see no reason to oppose any of the provisions of this legislation, and therefore it is not necessary for me to say very much in this connection. Clause 1 of the Bill, which inserts new sections into the principal Act after section 73, is actually the result, as the hon. the Minister explained, of the independence of Transkei and Bophuthatswana. It is clear to anyone that such problems are bound to arise under those circumstances. The question of how the situation should best be handled is a technical one, and we see no better method than the one proposed by the hon. the Minister. We are therefore prepared to give our approval to this and to see how it works. If it should subsequently appear that other methods may be more effective, there will always be an opportunity to change over to them.

As regards the proposed amendment to section 255 of the Act, the hon. the Minister already has a wide authority, as he indicated, to inquire into the shareholders and other information relating to companies, especially where nominees have been used on the records and lists of the company. What the hon. the Minister has in mind here is to extend this substantially and to make it easier for him and his officials to act, rather than to take essentially new powers to do things which he has not been able to do at all in the past. This system has advantages as well as disadvantages. It is true, for example, that certain investors, especially overseas investors, will want to make use of this, especially under the present circumstances. It is also true that it will be used on a large scale by a whole variety of companies and by investors in this country. The hon. the Minister is quite right in saying that that protection should not be removed, except where there is good reason for doing so. I believe the hon. the Minister must give the undertaking today that he has no such intention.

We see no reason for opposing that provision and even less reason for opposing clause 3, because it seeks to improve an existing administrative measure for the sake of convenience. We therefore support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are grateful that the official Opposition is supporting the legislation which in my opinion will supplement the Companies Act in a very important way. Our Companies Act is in fact a model which is already being followed by other countries in the world, with the necessary adjustments, of course, so that it may meet their local requirements. From the nature of the case, the Companies Act is a bulky piece of legislation and it regulates several facets of the activities and economic life of our companies, and for this reason, certain adjustments have to be made to the Act from time to time so that it may keep abreast of changed and new circumstances. However, I do not believe that the Act is intended to regulate the activities of companies in every particular, especially not in so far as their activities in the economic sphere are concerned. In fact, one would prefer to interfere as little as possible with the activities of companies.

In the first part of the Bill, the interests of companies on the one hand and of the State on the other hand are protected. In addition, the rights of the public are also protected. I believe that the public does have the right under specific circumstances to know what is going on in the internal functioning of a company. I want to emphasize that the public is entitled to this under certain circumstances.

However, it is not necessary to dwell on the first part of the Bill, since it merely resolves practical problems. Those problems have arisen because of the independence of Transkei and Bophuthatswana. Basically it means that it has already been ruled that a treaty or agreement between the RSA and another State does not have force of law in national law. It is with this in view that provision is being made in the Bill. I should also like to point out that legislation similar to that which is now before us will be passed in the other States that are affected.

To summarize, it may be said that the Bill recognizes an agreement entered into or embodied within the scope of the Act. It lays down certain guidelines with regard to procedures and also contains certain directions to the Registrar of Companies concerning the period of notice with regard to the deregistration of companies. Furthermore, certain arrangements are made as far as the winding-up of a company is concerned. It also contains certain provisions concerning the preservation of rights and obligations of an affected company. In my opinion, these are very important provisions, for if they were not placed on the Statute Book, such companies might be able to evade certain obligations. Provision is made for exemption from the payment of certain fees under specific circumstances.

The first chapter of the Companies Act already provides for inquiries concerning membership, ownership and control of companies. However, it often appears that the person who really has control over a specific company is not necessarily the registered shareholder of the company. Therefore it is necessary to provide in the Bill that certain powers be conferred upon the Minister. He will use those powers with great discretion.

I agree with the hon. member for Parktown that in the case of foreign interests that are specifically unwilling to have their identity disclosed, the discretion conferred under the Bill will have to be exercised with great circumspection. I think those people also have a right to protection. In my opinion, the discretion should only be exercised in a case where it really appears that the interests of South Africa are being prejudiced, if such foreign interests are concealing their shareholding so as to be able to engage in certain illegal practices. This is perhaps one of the most important provisions in the Bill and I believe the hon. the Minister will use it with the greatest discretion and circumspection.

Mr. Speaker, the first clause of the Bill amends the Companies Act in regard to the registration of companies. The object is to overcome problems resulting from the fact that certain of the former homelands of South Africa have now become independent. We in these benches feel that, clearly, this legislation is necessary, because the sovereignty over these former homelands has passed from this Parliament to their own Parliaments. We therefore have no arguments with this at all.

The other clauses, as has been stated by the hon. the Minister and previous speakers, concern the disclosure of the shareholding in various companies. We have no objection to these clauses either. I think that the necessary protection is provided for, as was printed out by the hon. member who has just sat down.

We are pleased to see that this Bill has been introduced as a result of the recommendations of the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law and also after consultation with the Governments of Transkei and Bophuthatswana. We therefore have no objection to the Bill and will support it.

Mr. Speaker, I am just rising to thank hon. members for the support which they have pledged to this Bill. This is one of the last pieces of legislation that I shall introduce as Minister responsible for the Department of Commerce. You will therefore allow me, Sir, to express my great appreciation for the co-operation of hon. members which I have enjoyed, not only in respect of this legislation, but also in respect of the legislation in this particular regard which we have discussed over the past four and a half years. I want to assure hon. members of my great appreciation in this regard. You will also allow me, Sir, to convey my sincere thanks to the officials of the Department of Commerce and of Industries for their assistance over the past few years. The past four and a half years, in which we have experienced an economic slump, have certainly not been the easiest years for the officials of those departments. I want to tell them, too, that I have the greatest appreciation for the dedication and loyalty with which they are doing their work.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise purely in response to what the hon. the Minister said a moment or two ago. I think he has to introduce another Bill or two this afternoon, but I personally do not normally take part in the discussion on Bills relating to the subjects they are concerned with. I would therefore like to say that I and, I think, hon. members on this side have enjoyed with the hon. the Minister a relationship of cordial cooperation. The hon. the Minister has been helpful in so far as it is possible for political adversaries to be helpful to each other and he has not been unduly difficult even when it was not possible to be helpful. Needless to say, we wish him very well in his new portfolio and we shall no doubt continue with the same sort of love-hate relationship we have had in the past.

Mr. Speaker, seeing that the hon. the Minister and the hon. member who has just sat down, have referred to the fact that the hon. the Minister will now be moving to another portfolio, I too should like to say that in the short time I have been chief spokesman on these matters for this side of the House, I have appreciated the debates we have had, even though at times we have had our disagreements. I am quite sure that, when the hon. the Minister moves to his new portfolio, we will continue debating in the same spirit in which we debated in the past since I am also my Party’s chief spokesman on transport matters. On behalf of my colleagues, I wish him all success in his new portfolio.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when I moved the adjournment of this debate—I forget how long ago—I think it was already agreed, at least tacitly, that we would not be opposing this Bill. It is a Bill which, as the hon. the Minister rightly remarked in his Second Reading speech, primarily consolidates the Iscor legislation of 1928, and some 15 amendment Acts which have succeeded that Act. It is also designed to bring this new constitution of Iscor into line with the Companies Act, and into line with the constitutions or “articles of association” of some of the other State corporations.

I think all of these objectives are admirable. We have studied the Bill in some detail and find that, considered as a modem constitution for Iscor, considered as—if you wish—articles of association for the Iscor Corporation, it is in fact aptly suited to its purpose. However, we have some difficulties, not so much with the Bill as with Iscor itself. The hon. the Minister and I have sometimes crossed swords about Iscor and its role but we have never really been able to come to grips with the problem. The hon. the Minister has pointed out to me that if I claim, as I often have done, that Iscor is not subjected to the disciplines of the market-place, nor to proper discipline in Parliament, I must take my parliamentary opportunities of arguing my point of view.

Now, anyone who is aware of the time schedules applying to the Votes in Committee of Supply in this House will realize that the time allowed is hardly suitable for an in-depth investigation of Iscor. I am sorely tempted to conduct such an investigation now. Once again, however, to my dismay I find that the time situation is not really appropriate for such a debate. However, there are a few points which I feel should be made in reply to the points which the hon. the Minister himself raised in his Second Reading speech. Not with the intention of deleting any material matter, but merely for the sake of brevity, I want to quote some of the remarks made by the hon. the Minister. To some extent defending Iscor against criticisms levelled in recent times, the hon. the Minister said, inter alia, the following (Hansard, 30 May 1979, col. 7613)—

There we have the anticipation of expansion and heavy capital investment. I skip one paragraph—

The hon. the Minister then refers to forced exports and ascribes also to these, and the lower prices on export markets, some of the difficulties experienced by Iscor. Now, all of this is perfectly true.

It is correct that Iscor did go through hard times, times of understandable miscalculation of the growth in the need for steel products in South Africa, over-estimates and therefore over-capitalization, and a difficult period of adjustment when the steel market diminished. I think that the story of the past ten years, as it relates to Iscor, is a story that could also be told of many other industries in South Africa because, while not necessarily producing steel, they also foresaw a period of expansion for the same sort of reasons. They also had to face a decline or recession and had to make adjustments at a time when the capital investments to which they had committed themselves were just coming to fruition.

I believe it is informative and useful to look at a corporation which is as closely related to Iscor as possible in the South African situation, and in this regard I want to refer to Highveld Steel and Vanadium. It so happens, very conveniently, that Iscor’s annual report for 1978 is produced in very much the same format as Highveld Steel and Vanadium’s report for 1978. Even more usefully, they have both included, in their reports, a ten-year review for the same years, namely 1969 to 1978, dealing with such matters as production, sales and operating and financial results. This makes a comparison useful for it hardly needs to be said, of course, that Highveld Steel and Vanadium experienced the same conditions over the same period, and met some of the same difficulties, as Iscor did. I concede immediately that the situation of Highveld Steel and Vanadium is not identical to that of Iscor. There are important differences, but for the purpose of comparing the effects of the economic climate, the vicissitudes experienced by both steel-producing companies over precisely the same period of years, and in the same country, I think such comparisons are nevertheless quite useful. If one compared the figures for Highveld Steel and Vanadium with those of Iscor, one finds that far from suffering from the detrimental effects of exports, in the period 1976-’78 Highveld Steel and Vanadium’s exports accounted for 55% of its total production.

In all fairness, you must remember that that included the export of Vanadium.

Yes, indeed. I admit right away that there are distinctions, but their exports were 55% of their total production, while the comparable figure for Iscor was in the region of 36%.

I want to make another comparison which is perhaps nearer the mark. In the case of Highveld Steel and Vanadium the funds employed over this period increased by 90%. In the case of Iscor the funds employed over the whole of this period increased by 687%. One is bound to ask oneself, in a rather uncertain world of occasionally predictable ups and downs and with thunder clouds on the horizon in the earlier stages, whether an increase of 687% in the employment of funds was prudent at that time. More important, at the end of the ten-year period Highveld Steel and Vanadium, which only employed about 5% of the funds utilized by Iscor, as it is a much smaller company, about one-twentieth of the size of Iscor in terms of funds employed, showed an average annual profit for 1977 and 1978 of R30,5 million, whereas Iscor’s average loss over those two years was R61,2 million. One does not want to be too critical of Iscor in the light of the difficulties it has encountered, but we need to ask ourselves in this Parliament, since we are from time to time required to vote money to make good the losses suffered by Iscor, whether we should not carefully examine whether the conduct of business at Iscor was as prudent, as wise and as far-sighted as might be expected of a great corporation playing a major role in South Africa’s economy. I think the hon. the Minister has already asked himself that question, because a committee was appointed to look into the conduct of business within Iscor, and we applaud the hon. the Minister for that He has perhaps been a little shy of showing us the report, but he has made an offer to make it available to us on a restricted basis.

I believe that the Board of Trade has also looked at this matter, and I think that on the basis of recommendations recently made it has been possible to improve Iscor’s internal productivity by something like 4,5% within the space of two or three years. If this indicates anything at all, since it is not easy to increase productivity in mechanized production systems of a corporation of this nature, I think it proves that there was some slackness in the corporation, and if there should be any doubt about that, we need only compare these two reports to see the tight administration and control within Highveld Steel and Vanadium, its ability to weather the stormy seas, which the hon. the Minister described so well for the steel industry, not only in South Africa, but world-wide, and to come out stronger at the end of that 10-year period, making a profit and paying large amounts in tax to the Government—which Iscor does not do. I think all these things speak of a need for closer supervision of State corporations which are not subject to the full disciplines of the market place.

One could go on at some length about this. I have many other figures I could quote, but I think it is sufficient to say that the new Bill is, in many respects, a model Bill which will help to create a more modem and streamlined constitutional base from which this corporation may proceed. It also makes provision for the accounts and the annual report to be sent to the hon. the Minister with admirable speed, and for the hon. the Minister to place these on the Table of the House. This, in our experience, does not make of this House a disciplinary force equal to that of the market place, most particularly because it is most difficult to find time, during the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote or during the random opportunities for discussions in a related Bill, to deal with the affairs of Iscor. In other words, the programme, the time at our disposal, in this House are not geared to deal with matters such as the internal affairs of a vast corporation. The difficulty is in having a corporation which is certainly immune to many of the forces of the market place and also to the criticisms and disciplines of Parliament, from which it receives its money when it is need of such money.

I believe there is only one solution, a pretty old one in the sense that in the case of the S.A.R. & H., which is really nothing more than a large State corporation, our legislative forefathers, in their wisdom, appointed a Standing Select Committee which annually, and in detail, reviews the affairs of the S.A.R. & H., makes recommendations and generally keeps a watchful and fatherly eye on the way it conducts the Government’s business. I think the S.A. Railways and Harbours has, in fact, become emancipated to the point where such close vigilance is hardly necessary any longer. There are other corporations which are, however, as I have pointed out, going through stormy times and which are less well-established and less traditionally rooted in the South African soil than the S.A. Railways and Harbours. I believe the time has come for this Parliament to seriously consider creating a Standing Select Committee to review the affairs of the State corporations. I believe it should be the sole duty of such a committee to annually look into the accounts and the reports of the State corporations and that they should have the power to call for evidence from the management of these corporations so that Parliament may satisfy itself that the affairs of these corporations are being sensibly conducted.

The SABC.

Yes, indeed, I am referring to all the corporations. In much the same way as the Select Committee on Public Accounts, such a committee must be able to specialize in the investigation of the affairs of these corporations and to require from the management such information as Parliament needs, from time to time, especially when it is expected to produce large quantities of money to make good the losses of such corporations. I think that what I am suggesting to the hon. the Minister is only reasonable, highly democratic and fair and would be to the great good of Parliament and the public conduct of affairs. I hope that when the hon. the Minister is transferred to another portfolio he will remember the lessons he has learnt in his present portfolio and that he will assist us in our effort to rationalize the control of Parliament over the State corporations. He will, in fact, be handling a portfolio in which the principle has already been admitted and is already successfully in operation, and I hope the principal will be extended, to the great benefit of the South African economy and the conduct of Parliamentary and public affairs, to the other State corporations as well.

This, in brief, is what I wanted to say. [Interjections.] There is a great deal more I could have said, and perhaps I have not been as brief as I said I would be. [Interjections.] There is one further point I wish to make, and that is that the Bill contains one clause which we find disturbing, not so much because of its intent, but because of its possible consequences. I am referring to clause 3, which reads as follows—

The meaning of the word “accomplish” is not exactly conveyed by the Afrikaans translation of it. It seems to me that the word conveys rather more than is intended, because it suggests that the object of the corporation, namely Iscor, shall be to accomplish, in other words achieve by its own efforts, or to bring about, the development of the iron and steel industry in South Africa. I believe that if Iscor were a unique monopoly in the iron and steel business in South Africa, it could achieve these things. However, in this endeavour it already has partners in the private sector and it may have partners in the future, so I do not believe that it should be entrusted with the job of achieving or accomplishing all these things by itself. I believe it would be better to say “implement, on behalf of the public sector, and promote, in the general interest”, the development of the iron and steel industry. I shall not argue this point any further. I merely want to give notice that in the Committee Stage I should like to move an amendment to that effect, an amendment which I believe would give better expression to what we hope will be a successful partnership, in the steel industry of South Africa, between the public sector as represented by Iscor and the growing contribution made by the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, it is an exceptional privilege for me to participate in this debate this afternoon. It is probable that this is virtually the last time that the hon. the Minister will act in his capacity of Minister of Economic Affairs in this House. On behalf of hon. members on this side of the House I want to say that it has been a very great pleasure for us in recent years to discuss the economic and planning affairs of South Africa with the hon. the Ministers and to investigate what is being done in the economic sector of South Africa under his guidance. We thank him most sincerely for the pleasant hours we were able to spend with him, and recently with the hon. the Deputy Minister as well. I want to give him the assurance that we learnt a great deal from him. He probably learnt a great deal from us too, but I think that we learnt more from him. I thank him most sincerely and hope that he will be just as successful in his new capacity in this House as he was in the portfolios of Economic Affairs and Environmental Planning and Energy.

What is fundamentally at issue here is the steel industry in South Africa. This legislation is a refinement of an Act that has been on the Statute Book of South Africa for many years now. We are grateful that the official Opposition supports this legislation, as was indicated by the hon. member for Constantia. Years ago the Opposition opposed it vehemently.

I think that the hon. member for Constantia was a little unfair this afternoon. I do not want to elaborate on that, because I think the hon. member will reply to that in full. However, I do want to say that I think that the hon. member for Constantia was unreasonable to compare Iscor with Highveld Steel. I think that there are so many contradictory economic factors which are applicable to Highveld Steel but not to Iscor, and vice versa. I just want to say that there is a basic difference in the philosophy concerning the manufacture of steel in South Africa, for the simple reason that Iscor has a special obligation to the steel industries in South Africa and to South Africa per se. This is an obligation that Highveld Steel does not have. Highveld Steel has only one obligation and that is to make as much profit for its shareholders as possible. That is the only obligation, while Iscor has a very heavy obligation even in respect of strategic steel, on which we do not want to elaborate this afternoon, but which we could say a great deal about, that not only places a tremendous financial burden, but also a deficit on its shoulders.

There is a second reason why the hon. member’s comparison is unreasonable. Steel is without doubt the most important basic raw material for all industries, not only in South Africa, but in the world as well. Because it is such an important basic raw material to South Africa, Iscor as such as a tremendous responsibility to the industries in South Africa, something that Highveld Steel does not have, and which it is not called upon to have either. We are not criticizing Highveld Steel on this score. We are very pleased that it is an enterprise that is showing good profits and operating soundly. I just want to make it clear that the comparison between Highveld Steel and Iscor on the basis on which the hon. member did so this afternoon, is a little unfair, although we agree with most aspects of his criticism of Iscor. We have already mentioned these things repeatedly in this House in the past. That is why we agree with him in this regard.

This afternoon we have a splendid Bill before this House. It is a Bill dealing fundamentally with the organization of Iscor. It deals with the search for minerals, the storing and refinement of minerals for our own use and for export as well. It deals with the processing and storage of the processed products for South African consumption and in the Iscor set-up as such.

If we compare this piece of legislation clause by clause with the legislation of 1928 this is a wonderful, refined piece of legislation which spells out beautifully in fine, neat and clear language the objects of this industry and how it will be controlled. It also spells out the powers that Iscor has at its disposal to create infrastructures with regard to railway lines, roads and water and electricity supplies to be able to carry on its business.

The legislation also has wonderful clauses on how staff matters should be dealt with. Reference is also made to contracts that can be concluded at home as well as abroad. The legislation also reveals Iscor’s financing responsibilities and the machinery that is being created so that it can exercise proper control over and report on its financing.

Another important aspect of the legislation is that Iscor is receiving the necessary powers to be able to provide technical training and also to carry out research into steel and related matters.

The legislation also provides for the establishment of a board of directors and also for the autonomy of this board of directors, so that Iscor may be managed like an ordinary, private organization by a board of directors. This board, as appointed by the hon. the Minister, will consist of people that have expert knowledge on the special levels of industrial management, industrial technology, industrial financing, etc.

I believe that we are dealing here with a piece of legislation relating to an industry that is technically speaking probably the best heavy industry in South Africa. All of us sitting here this afternoon who have already had the privilege of being able to pay a visit to Iscor in the company of the hon. the Minister, will agree with me that it is certainly the finest technological operation in heavy industry in South Africa. I think it is appropriate that this should be said in this House so that Iscor’s technological staff may know that what they have created, is not only the pride of the NP—I believe that fundamentally we have the right to be proud of it first, since we started it—but that it is the pride of this House of Assembly and the people of South Africa as well.

We should examine not only what Iscor has achieved in the technological field, but also what it is doing with regard to decentralization and the creation of growth points in South Africa. For example, wonderful growth points have arisen in Newcastle and Vanderbijlpark. We are also aware of the growth results of the area since the establishment of Iscor in Pretoria. To see further examples of this, one need only take a look at Sishen here in the North-Western Cape. These are only a few of the growth points which are being created where Iscor is decentralizing its activities.

As a result of this decentralization of its activities and also as a result of further provisions of the legislation, we see that Iscor is creating an asset for South Africa with regard to employment for example. At present Iscor employs 59 420 White and non-White persons. Iscor also has 260 bursary holders and consequently contributes in this way to the development of technological expertise in South Africa. At present Iscor employs 2 745 apprentices and this is a particularly important contribution to the education and training of technicians in South Africa, a level on which there is a great shortage. Furthermore, we find that even in the military sphere Iscor has also made a contribution to the defence of South Africa. A regular average of 1 332 of Iscor’s staff is undergoing military training. These people are paid while they render their military service.

The hon. member for Constantia, referred, inter alia, to the deficit situation of Iscor as well. We agree with him in this regard, because there is great concern about this situation on this side of the House as well. The hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that hon. members on this side of the House have repeatedly discussed the problems of Iscor in their study groups and that we have identified many of these problems, have mentioned them in this House and have also discussed them here. I should just like to refer to one of them, i.e. the question of financing. We see that borrowed capital comprises 65% of the total capital. This means that Iscor bore a burden of interest of R181 million last year. No enterprise can bear such a burden of interest. We have discussed this repeatedly and I just want to say that we note with pleasure and gratitude that, as the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading Speech, a commission has been appointed to look at Iscor’s financing programme and to consider how Iscor may escape from this financing problem caused by this burden of interest in order to become an economically viable industry in the years which lie ahead.

There is a final important matter which I should like to point out. It has repeatedly been said that the private sector should also have an interest in Iscor. I think if we examine clauses 16 to 24 of this Bill, we shall see that there are 500 000 A shares which are owned by the State, while there are 500 million B shares which are available to the private sector as well. This Bill provides that the remaining B shares that have not been taken up by the State, may be made available to the private sector with the consent of the Minister so that the private sector may also participate in the financing of Iscor.

Finally, with these few words, I want to say that it is a very great privilege for this side of the House and for this specific group on this side to support this Bill of the hon. the Minister, since it is the last time that he will act as Minister of Economic Affairs. Consequently we take great pleasure in supporting this Bill, together with the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Wonderboom has paid a great tribute to Iscor. He has told of the great contribution Iscor has made to the economy of South Africa, especially as far as the industrial sector is concerned. There can be no doubt that, as he has said, Iscor has contributed greatly to the technological developments in this field. I think South Africa can be justly proud of the standard the corporation as a whole has set as far as its operation, its handling of is employees and its production of its product are concerned. We may nevertheless question whether Iscor has achieved the financial standards we would have liked them to have achieved. In that regard we are pleased that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to set up a commission to look into this. Later I intend questioning the role Iscor plays in the allied industrial sectors. This is covered, I believe, by clause 3 of the Bill.

Looking at the Bill, one finds that, as has already been said, it is really just a consolidation of past Iscor legislation. There has also been an updating of the Act as far as the wording is concerned. In addition, existing legislation relating to Iscor is brought into line with that applicable to other State corporations like the Indian Industrial Development Corporation. Furthermore, it also brings it into line with the new requirements of the Companies Act as far as that is possible.

There is only one additional power which is being granted to Iscor in terms of this Bill. That is to be found in clause 4(s), which concerns the borrowing powers of Iscor. We have no objections to this. Therefore, we will be supporting this Bill.

However, I should like to discuss clause 3 with the hon. the Minister. Clause 3 reads as follows—

We agree with the principles which were initially formulated for Iscor. That is to develop an iron and steel industry within South Africa. After all, steel is the essential primary commodity of any industrial society. We can see the need for this. Our forefathers were indeed far-seeing to have established an industry such as Iscor many years ago. I believe it is correct that at that stage the Government should have seen fit to promote this development and to see to it that public funds were made available for this particular development However, it is the final words of clause 3 that causes us some concern. That is—

If one studies what has happened in Iscor during recent years, it becomes clear that, over the last decade or more, there has been a trend for Iscor to expand into what I would call secondary industry. Iscor, I believe, has now taken over, for instance, other companies such as engineering works. Iscor has, I believe, moved into the engineering sector, as well as into the structural steel fabrication industry. I believe it is also manufacturing irrigation pipes and so on. In so doing Iscor has adopted policies which, we believe, are very similar to those which one finds in the private sector, where one sees, for instance, large industrial corporations expanding into various fields. In this respect we find that Iscor is now competing with the private sector, especially with the secondary industrial sector.

I should like to point out again that Iscor is doing this knowing that it has access to public funds should things not go quite right. As the hon. member for Constantia pointed out earlier, when Iscor runs into trouble the hon. the Minister approaches this House and asks us to approve additional funds being granted to Iscor. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether these trends which we have seen in recent years, were really envisaged by our forefathers when they first established Iscor many years ago. I should in fact like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is really what South Africa wants, especially today. If I remember correctly it was during the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote that he said that the Government had now decided that the main thrust in the economy would be towards the private sector. We have in fact been very encouraged during this session to see a number of hon. Ministers intimating that they are going to place greater emphasis on the private sector and move away from what we have in the past termed, creeping socialism. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, when he replies to the debate, to give us his views in this particular regard.

The other question I should like to put to the hon. the Minister is the question of whether or not this development over the past few years has been partly responsible for the poor financial showing of Iscor recently. The financial position of Iscor was referred to earlier by the hon. member for Constantia. I know that the hon. the Minister himself, in his Second Reading speech, had quite a bit to say about the poor financial performance of Iscor in recent years. I am quite sure the hon. the Minister is aware—hon. members of the NRP are all aware—that Iscor became unstuck—if I may put it that way—in the financial sense, particularly in respect of a number of companies. I believe that in the engineering field several millions of rand were lost. I want to ask the hon. the Minister once again to tell us whether it was this involvement out of the area of producing the primary product—iron and steel—which contributed partly to the poor financial performance of Iscor in recent years. I think it is generally accepted today that the private sector can operate far more efficiently than the public sector. They are far more motivated. The hon. member for Constantia held up two annual reports …

In all fairness, he conceded that the two reports were not really comparable.

I agree that Highveld Steel also exports vanadium. Maybe there is, however, a lot of merit in what the hon. member said. Perhaps Iscor should, like the Railways, be brought under the more direct control of Parliament so that we can debate in greater depth its investment policy and its efficiency and compare it with other industrial concerns of a similar nature.

I think we have got to take notice of what has happened in recent times. For example, in the United Kingdom there has been a great trend over the past 20 or 30 years towards greater State involvement in certain large corporations such as the steel industry, the coal industry, the transport industry and the motor industry. We know what has happened. A creeping socialism has developed in the minds of the people in Britain. What has been the result of this? We all know what has happened to the British economy in recent years. We find that the Conservative Party, which now forms the Government, is now starting to disinvest itself of these so-called State corporations. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is not a danger of this happening also with regard to Iscor. I should like the hon. the Minister to comment on this. Obviously he would prefer that I accept this and not raise this rather thorny problem. But I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will see fit to take this opportunity to clearly state the policy of Iscor as far its involvement in other sectors of the economy, and particularly the industrial sector, are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti dealt with the manifold activities of Iscor than its iron and steel activities. I shall deal with these subjects later on during the course of my speech.

This will probably be the last opportunity I shall have of addressing my remarks to the hon. the Minister while he is still Minister of Economic Affairs. On behalf of myself and my colleagues in the SAP I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for the assistance and co-operation that we have enjoyed from him over a period of many years. In fact, my association with the hon. the Minister goes back to the Cape Provincial Council. We have had our differences, some of them serious—for example, with regard to the St Croix-Saldanha scheme.

You have improved since then.

But by the end of the day, when we had done our best according to the way in which we saw circumstances in South Africa, we often agreed to differ. I was going to deal with the history of Iscor, but I can see that the mood of the House is such that hon. members are not interested in listening to history today.

What about the future?

Very well, I shall talk about the future. Today Iscor is an industrial giant producing as it does more than six million tons of steel compared to the 160 000 tons which was envisaged in 1928. According to the 1978 balance sheet of Iscor, the value of its fixed assets is in the vicinity of R1 900 million. Iscor, as we all know, suffered a net loss of approximately R73 million in 1978. I notice the future Minister frowning at this. The report draws attention to the fact that this loss position arose after making provision for R79,7 million for higher replacement costs. That is important. The report also mentions that as far as is known, only one overseas primary steel producer makes a similar provision.

It is also mentioned that other steel producers would, under similar circumstances, have declared a profit of R6,4 million. This is not much consolation, but it is some consolation, and Iscor is being realistic in making substantial provision for replacement costs. We in these benches have no quarrel with the fact that adequate provision is made. If Iscor effects replacements, it should at least have the necessary funds with which to do so. What is of obvious concern to us—and I should like to quote a few examples—is, firstly, the loans totalling R2 billion and the cost of servicing such loans; secondly, finance charges of approximately R63 million, which will obviously adversely affect the corporation; thirdly, the loss of R73 million, which is something that must be reduced and eliminated and, fourthly, the 59 420 employees, as at the end of the 1978 financial year, who must obviously all be gainfully employed. Iscor produces a vital product, and by selling at a loss on the local market it is helping to contain inflation, but at the same time, in view of this and export losses, it is made more difficult for Iscor to produce the sort of results we would like to see. That Iscor is a very vital steel-producing industry, and that with many of its activities it has a very significant role to play, more especially if we wish to be self-sufficient in difficult times, cannot be disputed. We believe that it is absolutely essential that Iscor and its subsidiaries must be confined to the activities that remain within the scope intended by its founders. Where Iscor has strayed into fields where private enterprise is already highly competitive, Iscor must sell off some of its interests. In fact, I should like to see the Competitions Board, or a special committee or commission, look very clinically at Iscor and its subsidiaries and then to decide which of its activities are not in the interests of South Africa, selling off those activities that are not in the interests of Iscor or the Government. I should like to quote just one example. Fowler Holdings is in the construction field, which is already a very highly competitive field in which private enterprise is already sufficiently geared up to meet requirements, so there can be no possible reasons for Fowler Holdings to continue as a subsidiary of Iscor. Fowler Holdings, as the hon. the Minister knows, has largely contributed to the loss …

Do you want to buy it now?

No, I do not want to buy it, but perhaps there are other people who may want to buy it. Fowler Holdings has substantially contributed to the Iscor loss, in fact in total write-offs and losses something like R20 million.

Some of us have had the privilege of seeing various Iscor works, and I have had the opportunity of seeing the vast and impressive development in various parts of the country. It is most impressive. A positive factor, of course, is that if one had delayed the expansion and the works of Iscor, and had had to build those works in future years, they would cost more than double what they have cost up to now. Foreign currency earnings from steel exports over the last years have been worth many hundreds of millions of rands to South Africa and must make a substantial contribution to the balance of payments position. Iscor’s exports have to be made at prices far below domestic prices. In fact, if the local market could have absorbed the entire production, Iscor could have operated on a profitable basis. According to the report, 1,6 million tons or 35,3% of the production of steel has to be exported at a loss. If there were sufficient local demand, at local prices the losses would be eliminated. However, Iscor will have to budget in the knowledge that at the present time it has to continue with export production at some cost to itself and that it has to supply the local market at a price that does not cause undue inflation. Although these are handicaps, we believe that with efficient operation, and with the selling off of unneeded subsidiaries, Iscor can be brought to the same pitch as Sasol, with its profits making private enterprise want to clamour for participation.

This Bill has mainly improved the existing legislation and the amendments introduced over the years, and these improvements meet with our approval. In the circumstances we shall therefore not oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank hon. members most sincerely for their contributions to the debate and also to thank them for their friendly remarks about our cooperation over recent years. I do not intend to take up too much of the time of this House, but there are a few fundamental aspects raised by on members to which I should like to refer.

†Let me start off by referring to the observations made by the hon. member for Constantia. He compared the achievements or non-achievements of Iscor with those of another steel manufacturing company, namely Highveld Steel. I have indicated—I think the hon. member will concede the point—that for many reasons these two companies cannot be compared. I should like to refer to only one of those reasons. Whilst Highveld Steel, like many other companies for that matter, has a choice as to the activities they like to undertake, the same does not apply to State corporations in general and not to Iscor in particular. There are many activities Iscor would like to cease tomorrow if they could consider the position from the point of view of profits only. We expect from Iscor, however, to supply to the country those steel commodities which cannot normally be supplied on a profitable basis. I think we owe it, in all fairness, to make this observation.

Let me take it further. The hon. member compared the capital investment of the two companies over a period of 10 years. I have no reason whatever to quarrel with him as to the conclusions he arrived at in terms of the figures he presented. We must, however, also try to assess the contribution Iscor made towards the creation of infrastructure in this country over the equivalent period. I do not say this in a critical way—I am merely stating the facts—when I point out that I believe Iscor holds a world record in planning and constructing a railway line over a distance of more than 800 km and in building an export harbour within two years.

*Let me say at once in this regard that this is one of the greatest engineering achievements of this country in the past decade.

It was unnecessary.

Since the hon. member says it was unnecessary, I think we had better agree to differ on the matter. However, the fact of the matter is that, if my memory does not fail me, we have exported more than 13 million tons of ore by means of that railway line and harbour over the past year. [Interjections.] I do not think we need argue further on that matter. Nevertheless the fact of the matter is that the hon. member cannot argue with me about the principle that that particular railway line has opened up a region and can do so to an even greater extent in future. Consequently I also intend to see to it that this is done. By doing this, a specific part of our country will be able to come into its own, economically speaking. The greatest single deficiency that the North-Western Cape labours under, is just that it does not have proper communications. I think that the generations that follow us will praise us for the work Iscor has done to give them those lines of communication.

However, I do not want to argue further with the hon. member, but just want to make the point that when we draw comparisons …

[Inaudible.]

I think the hon. member for Durban Central should rather discuss education matters. [Interjections.]

Order!

… we should bear in mind that Iscor has made an extremely important contribution as far as the industrial development of our country is concerned. I wonder whether we are prepared to ask ourselves what would have become of our industrial development if Iscor had not been there. When I say that, I am not alleging that no mistakes have been or are still not being made in this regard. What I am trying to say, is that Iscor is an undertaking that has served South Africa with great honour over the years. Secondly, I want to say that the State, because Iscor is a State corporation and because a State corporation does not necessarily have to pursue the profit motive to the same extent as the private sector, has expected of Iscor to render a national service. I want to emphasize that if Iscor had had a choice in respect of the activities it wanted to undertake, its profitability would obviously have been totally different to what it is now, but then, on the other hand, South Africa would have had to import a number of commodities now being manufactured by Iscor, with the attendant expenditure this entails.

For that reason I do not think it fair to compare the profit or loss figures of companies with one another, and I am not saying this critically. Of course Iscor has experienced financial problems over the past few years. I do not want to take up the time of the House by discussing this now, but the fact of the matter is that this is also caused by the financing policy followed. It was also caused by the price policy that the State followed, viz. to keep prices as low as possible. Let there be no doubt about that I am not saying this in a spirit of reproach. The fact of the matter is that Iscor’s debt ratio last year was poorer than in the ’sixties. This is due to the fact that it was not allowed to introduce reasonable increases in the prices of steel and in that way to contribute to a sufficient extent to its own reserves. I want to state that this, in turn, resulted in the situation to which hon. members have referred, and that is that the liabilities of R2 000 million made its financing costs very high. Let us once again admit to one another—because if we do so, we shall make progress in this debate—the fact that Iscor was dependent on a considerable amount of foreign financing capital. During the years after 1973 it was in difficult economic circumstances and was affected, for political and non-political reasons and for economic and non-economic reasons, by the shortage of capital flow. It is to the credit of Iscor’s people that they were prepared to examine themselves critically, because Iscor’s board of directors appointed the Pistorius Commission to investigate Iscor’s activities. After the committee had published its report, I went further in September 1978 and directed that a committee of inquiry be appointed to investigate certain facets of Iscor’s activities. The committee’s terms of reference were to institute an investigation into the steps necessary to overcome Iscor’s financing problems and related aspects. This committee consists of the Secretary of Industries as the chairman, the Secretary of Finance, the general manager of Iscor, Messrs. Olivier, Prins and Van Zyl of Iscor, and Prof. Pistorius. The committee was assisted by Mr. G. Croeser of the Department of Finance in his capacity as director of his department. It is very interesting—I pointed this out in my Second Reading speech—that owing to the work of this committee Iscor has, financially speaking, come a long way on the path of recovery. In this financial year, and possibly in the next financial year too, Iscor may suffer further losses although these will diminish rapidly. It is anticipated that Iscor’s deficit for this year, taking into account its method of writing off to which the hon. member for Walmer referred, will be less than it was last year without receiving any subsidy from the State.

I now also want to dispel a misconception that may exist and that is that the State has ever subsidized Iscor, except last year. The State has never subsidized Iscor. What is true, is that the State did not always receive dividends on its shares, but the State has never paid subsidies out of tax moneys, except last year, when R70 million was allocated.

A second positive point is that Iscor is not only improving its financial position, but is also fast improving its ratio of debt and consequently its financing costs. It is anticipated that this will be at an acceptable level during the 1981-’82 financial year. I want to say once again that this is an achievement for which I want to praise the departments concerned as well as the management of Iscor. Although there will now be a critical analysis of the capital expenditure of Iscor, and this will be viewed in the context of the total allocation of funds to the public sector by the priority committee, there will still be certain capital expenditure in the foreseeable future that is unavoidable. In the first place it will be unavoidable because existing loans have to be redeemed in so far as this cannot be done by a cash flow; secondly because its present level of production has to be maintained; and thirdly, because it is committed to certain projects, as a result of fixed obligations. In this regard, I shall only refer to the Grotegeluk Coal Mines and the Sishen Ore Mine. Fourthly, it is unavoidable because Iscor has to undertake additional less profitable projects that will increase costs at a given time.

I just want to make another remark and conclude with that in this regard. In cooperation with the National Productivity Institute an investigation has been instituted and measurements of productivity have been undertaken by this institute. The facts show that Iscor had an improvement in productivity of an average of 5,2% locally and 4,7% in the case of export.

The hon. member for Constantia referred to the question whether the public corporations should not, as in the case of the Railways, submit their accounts to investigation by a Select Committee.

I do not want to discuss this specific aspect at length. However, I want to make one important remark in this regard, viz. that we should realize that, in contrast to the Railways, the budgets of State Corporations in general and Iscor in particular, are not subject to parliamentary approval. The budgets of the Railways are in fact subject to parliamentary approval. Consequently there is another and important reason why there will be a Select Committee in respect of the account of the Railways.

Having said that, I want to emphasize one specific point, viz. that it is essential to examine two aspects: Firstly, the financing and the financial position of State corporations, and secondly, the activities of State corporations. In all fairness it is a fact that State corporations are at present undertaking activities as a result of the historic course of circumstances, but according to present-day standards it is no longer necessary for them to undertake these. [Interjections.] I readily concede that.

However, I also want to say—and I am not saying this reproachfully—that there was, after all, a stage when Iscor was deprived of raw materials and had to turn to the acquisition of raw materials or interests in companies that could supply it with raw materials. There was also a time—and I am stating the facts once again—when markets were denied it and it had to obtain markets. It could do this only by creating markets for itself by establishing companies or obtaining interests in other companies. That is why it is important that, in accordance with the Government’s economic philosophy, we should take a critical look at what activities Iscor can sell without detriment to its primary objective. On the other hand, such a sale or disposal of operations must be based on sound business principles, because we cannot make donations to people who want other people’s assets for nothing. I pledge that this will be the standpoint throughout. In fact, one of the most important instructions, to the Theron Committee as well, is to consider, on an ongoing basis, what activities could be undertaken just as well and profitably by the private sector.

In this specific regard the Government has not stopped short at formulation of its economic philosophy; it has also established a standing committee on State participation in economic life. The first point—this is important—is that no State department or State corporation may extend its activities without reference to this committee that consists of representatives of the private sector as well. Secondly, those parts of the private sector that feel aggrieved about the activities of the State corporations can submit their complaints to the committee, that in turn will report to the Cabinet on the matter. Therefore, in the fifth place we are creating a mechanism to prevent further unjustified extensions from taking place, and in the second place, the committee can investigate the existing situation to see how these activities can be reduced. Consequently I have already bound myself with regard to a large part of that which hon. members requested.

I should like to express my thanks to the hon. member for Wonderboom and should like to single out one aspect of his speech, because it does not perhaps always receive attention. That hon. member referred, inter alia, to the tremendous contribution made by Iscor with regard to manpower training in this country. If there is one bottleneck for our future economy, it is to be found in the very fact that our economic growth rate is largely determined by the available trained manpower in this country. I want to emphasize in this regard that there are few steel industries in the world that can compete technologically and otherwise with what Iscor has achieved.

There is another important factor to which I also want to refer. Iscor has to a large extent continued with its activities over the past few years in order to keep people employed. At Newcastle alone, approximately 13 000 people are employed, and hon. members will themselves realize how many other people are dependent on those 13 000 workers. If Iscor were a normal business undertaking, it would have adopted a totally different view on the continuance of certain activities. However, because Iscor promotes national objectives rather than pursuing the profit motive, its discipline is different, and I am not apologizing for that.

†I think I have referred to most of what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said and I have set out what my own approach is in this respect I think my successor will continue to do this, i.e. to divest State corporations from those functions that could as well be undertaken by the private sector to the same extent without jeopardizing the national situation and objectives that we all wish to serve. •

*I have already reacted to the contribution of the hon. member for Walmer, and I want to express my thanks to him once again for that contribution. I should also like to express my gratitude to all other hon. members who participated in this debate. The hon. member for Constantia proposed an amendment and I undertake to consider it between now and the Other Place. I shall inform him as to what I can do.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

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

When one sees the extremely long name—the South African Iron and Steel Industrial Corporation Limited—one does not realize at once that it is Iscor which is being referred to. The name “Iscor” is not only very well known locally and nationally, but is also known internationally. In my opinion there is a tremendous cost involved in a long name like that. When a typist has to type a letter, for example, she has to type this long name. This name also appears on their documents and printed material. I have brought this matter to the attention of the top management of Iscor and I have also discussed it with Dr. Tommie Muller, the chairman of the board of directors, and he, the department and everyone concerned agree that the name should be changed in this way.

Mr. Chairman, I am just rising to state that the amendment by the hon. member for Sunnyside, as he has moved it, is acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I gave notice during the Second Reading debate of my intention to move a minor amendment to the clause. The hon. the Minister has a copy of my amendment which he has undertaken to examine. I therefore move—

Mr. Chairman, I am rising merely to indicate that I shall consider the amendment and that if it is found acceptable in an amended form or in its present form, I shall move it in the Other Place. I shall keep the hon. member informed of what I intend to do in this regard. Consequently I request the hon. member to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, with leave of the House I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, with leave, agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. I do not rise to take the argument about the position of Iscor any further, but to say that the purpose of the submission this side of the House has made was not in fact to attack Iscor for the way it conducts its business. We admit that Iscor has experienced exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, we believe that the train of events has shown up certain weaknesses which needed investigation. What was said by way of comparison was designed to show the need for closer supervision of the management and policy of a large corporation of that kind. This was done, as I have said, by comparing it with a private corporation which in its management is subjected to the full discipline of the market place. I believe that where a corporation is not exposed to such discipline, other forms of discipline are necessary. In view of the fact that Iscor’s funds are derived, whether by way of a new share issue or in any other way, from Parliament, from public funds, I believe Parliament has a right to exercise that discipline and that it has a duty towards the tax-paying public to maintain such supervision. That was our only purpose and this is an argument I shall continue to raise in future years with other Ministers.

Since I am not sure whether I will have a chance to do so under the discussion of the next Bill, I want to make use of this opportunity to add to the remarks made in connection with the hon. the Minister’s change of portfolios. The hon. the Minister and I have over quite a long period debated together about many issues before the House. I should like to say that I have always found those debates pleasant, even if sometimes temperatures ran a little high. I look back with pleasure on them. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the very constructive and friendly manner in which he conducted all those discussions on a variety of disputes and other matters.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I promise to be very brief. This is not really a contentious measure and basically, all it means is that we shall also have to rationalize with regard to the regulation of the energy supply in this country.

In accordance with the stated policy of the hon. the Prime Minister of rationalization of the State and Government service, recent investigations have brought to light that the existing functions with which the Fuel Research Institute has been charged in terms of the Fuel Research Institute and Coal Act, 1963 (Act No. 35 of 1963), can be subdivided and managed as efficiently by a number of other existing institutions that are well equipped to perform similar functions and are already engaged in or participating in these functions to a certain extent. These functions are the following—

This task could be undertaken as well by the Geological Survey Division of the Department of Mines—

The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research is already undertaking certain fuel studies and can take over the institute’s functions in this regard, while the office of the State Mining Engineer can take over the Institute’s research with regard to better methods of mining coal—

I think hon. members will agree with me that the SABS could integrate this function with its existing functions with regard to standardization, and can also undertake the quality control.

†After discussion of the matter on 4 May 1979 by those concerned, it was decided that a recommendation be submitted to the Government that the institute be dissolved in its present form and that further negotiations be conducted to re-allocate the functions of the institute on the basis I have set out.

As it will only be possible to finalize the necessary negotiations and arrangements in this regard during the parliamentary recess, the purpose of this Bill is merely to enable the Minister of Economic Affairs in the meantime to proceed with the allocation of the functions, duties and funds of the institute, and to arrange for the secondment to the bodies concerned of the institute’s personnel for the performance of the relevant functions and duties. As soon as these arrangements have been concluded, a final Bill will be drafted for consideration by Parliament early in 1980. This is, in other words, only an empowering measure, and a final Bill will have to be presented to Parliament next year.

In conclusion I wish to say that I realize fully that the private sector—the coal industry in particular—has a vested interest in the services rendered by the institute, as well as in the facilities available to the institute in order to enable it to render these services. I therefore wish to put on record that the ultimate dissolution of the institute will not amount to the termination of these services but that the steps I have outlined are a serious attempt to bring about a more efficient service to everybody concerned.

Mr. Speaker, since we on this side have for a long time been advocating the co-ordination and rationalization of South Africa’s entire energy structure, we can hardly object to the Bill. As far as the proposed section 5A is concerned— it deals with the rationalization of the duties of the Fuel Research Institute—it enjoys our full support.

I come now to the proposed section 5C that deals with the secondment of persons to render service in other institutes, and in this connection I want to say that this also enjoys our support because it goes hand-in-hand with the proposed section 5A.

However, we do have one problem with the proposed section 5B, which is concerned with funds. According to the principal Act, Act 35 of 1963, funds for the Fuel Research Institute may be obtained in two ways. The first is, of course, by way of Parliamentary appropriation, but this relates to the capital fund. The second is by way of payments from coal production, power alcohol, etc. The proposed section 5B provides—

of the legislation.

The relevant section is “to any body or department of State”. I am a little concerned because it seems to me to be in conflict with the Exchequer and Audit Act that a Minister may decide on his own authority, after consultation with the Minister of Finance, to transfer funds that have been appropriated by Parliament for utilization by the institute or by the department that has to control the institute, to another Government department under which another institute such as the Bureau of Standards, to mention an example, may fall, without Parliamentary approval. Money is appropriated by Parliament for the Fuel Research Institute, but now that money may be transferred by the Minister to another institute which falls under another Government department. In terms of the provisions of the proposed section 5B the Minister may do this, but I consider it to be unlikely that something of this nature can be allowed under the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act. In fact, I think that such action is contrary to the provisions of that Act.

I do not know in full detail what the intention of the hon. the Minister is with the Bill. However, I support the Bill in principle as well as the general object that it sets out to achieve, but I think that what is contained in the proposed clause 5B is in conflict with the normal control of State moneys. I doubt whether the Minister has the right to transfer money summarily to another Government department, even after consultation with the Minister of Finance.

I request an explanation, and if the hon. the Minister can furnish an explanation to my satisfaction, I have no objection to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches shall support the Bill. We are rather pleased to see that the hon. the Minister and his advisers have looked into this whole problem of research into fuel, the manufacture of fuel and so forth.

I should like to remind the hon. the Minister that in about the second week of March I moved a private member’s motion containing two legs. In the one leg it was requested that the hon. the Minister look into legislation to see whether there was a need for more research to be done in regard to the manufacture of fuel from agricultural products and in the second leg it was requested that in regard to an agricultural industry, such as the sugar industry which is potentially a great producer of ethanol, a liquid fuel, he look into the legislation governing that industry to ensure that if such an industry were to produce fuel or could produce fuel, the Sugar Act be amended accordingly.

The Bill, when promulgated, will enable the Fuel Research Institute to transfer some of its duties, personnel and money to other institutes, organizations or Government departments which can promote a research programme into the development of fuel. I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that the provisions of the Bill enable him to entrust to the Sugar Milling Research Institute personnel, funds and objectives to look into the production of, say, ethanol as an extension to the existing sugar industry apart from just producing sugar.

He could go further and entrust funds and personnel to the South African Sugar Association’s experimental station at Mount Edgecombe to proceed with a research project into how the fanning of sugar cane can be modified or changed so as to provide for a crop from which the industry could best produce ethanol. I must say that I am very pleased to see this happening. I therefore want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. When the time comes for these actions to be taken, he should give serious consideration to the whole subject of ethanol production. During the past week or two we have read in the Press that the Corporation for Economic Development has proposed, in conjunction with a major chemical company, to develop on the Makatini Flats in northern Zululand a large ethanol production unit using cassava as a base. It is stated in these Press reports that it is estimated that with an investment of some R18 million some 520 million litres of ethanol can be produced. I have read other reports that question this, and I see there is also a certain amount of concern about this major development, but I want to ask just how much research has gone into this project I cannot believe that it is only going to cost R18 million. I think it will cost a lot more than that. It is quite clear, however, that there is a great potential in South Africa for the production of ethanol from agricultural crops, not necessarily as a primary industry, because that would mean taking the total crops for the production of ethanol, but possibly as a secondary industry, as an extension to an existing industry, whether it be the maize industry, timber industry or even the sugar industry. There is a great deal of research required in this particular field.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister, because I believe that here we have legislation that I did not envisage when I moved my private member’s motion, but I had a hunch that this type of legislation was required.

In conclusion I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he still has to go one step further. I know that it does not concern this Bill directly, but I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to look at the Sugar Act, especially in respect of quotas and so on, so as to clear the way for the very active and dynamic private enterprise, which one does find in the sugar industry, to start looking into this matter. The hon. the Minister must give them an incentive because, who knows, we may find that they can produce fuel, even if it is only 3%, 4%, or 5% of our total production, as a secondary industry within the sugar industry, at a highly economical cost. We shall support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am merely rising to thank hon. members for their support of the legislation. I do not intend to deal with their speeches in full. In reply to the hon. member for Constantia I just want to say that what we are trying to do here, is to determine whether it is possible to transfer the functions of the Fuel Research Institute, as provided in section 2 of Act No. 35 of 1963, to other persons or bodies. I have already indicated that some of the functions with a view to quality control may in fact be transferred to the SABS and that certain research functions may be transferred to the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. In fact, they are already carrying out certain research in this specific regard. Certain other functions may be transferred to the Department of Mining, inter alia, those in respect of mining methods, and probably to the Institute of Metallurgy as well. In our opinion they can all play a part. It is not possible to do that allocation at this stage. There are technical implications, as the hon. member will understand, but there are staff implications as well, as the hon. member will also understand, because we have to make provision for the integration of the staff at the other body. I understand the hon. member’s problem—I am not arguing with him about the matter—viz. whether it is not perhaps in conflict with the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act. It could be noted that clause 2 provides that we may do this notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, as long as we obtain the consent of the Minister of Finance. Consequently the hon. member can understand, and I ask him to understand this, that through appropriations to the institute, through appropriations to the CSIR and to the SABS, Parliament appropriates funds for a specific purpose and they may be utilized for that purpose only. All that is being changed here, is the body that could possibly fulfil some of the functions. I would be pleased if the hon. member would understand the matter in this way. In other words, the purpose for which the funds are being appropriated does not change. Only the body spending the funds, could possibly change. In any event, the hon. the Minister of Finance will report next year during the Additional Appropriation if necessary on how the funds are being utilized. In the circumstances I should, therefore, be very pleased if the hon. member would support me in this specific regard.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has indicated, we are excited at the prospects that this Bill may bring to South Africa, because read in its full context and in relation to the objects of the institute in the original Act, I believe that we are opening a way for the hon. the Minister and his department to lead us into a new era as regards the fuel question in South Africa, all the alternative fields which the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has discussed at length in this House on other occasions. I believe that the proposed section 5A(1) does in fact give the Minister a very wide degree of influence—and we welcome this very, very strongly—as to the developments in the research and the application of that research of alternative fuels relating to the whole problem of the fuel crisis in this country at the moment and as it will undoubtedly unfold in the years ahead of us. The hon. the Minister has indicated, as I understand it, that it is the intention that there should be a greater degree of fluidity in the functions of the Fuel Research Institute, with perhaps more attention being given to issues which have become important in the light of recent developments. I am very pleased to see this, because I think we are moving away from an era of error into an era of action and awareness. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that in the whole context of fuel—the alternatives we are seeking in this country and the research which is being done—ethanol or ethyl alcohol is of great importance to us. It is one of the most important alternative fuels available to us. Because a great deal of research has been done in this field, we know that the production of ethanol is totally viable. We roughly know what sort of quantities can be produced from various agricultural products in South Africa.

What the people of South Africa would like the hon. the Minister or his successor to do, within the new framework he envisages and within the new set-up he has indicated we shall be discussing again when legislation to this effect is introduced in the House next year, is to create an Ethanol Research Institute as a division of this whole industry to liaise with industries that have the knowledge and the background for the production of ethanol and to co-ordinate in all matters relating to the production of ethanol and its use as an additive fuel in the total concept of the fuel problem facing us. We should like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that he will consider this. He now has the power to appoint anybody to these positions, and he can look, throughout the industries involved, for talented and imaginative people who can see possibilities for this fuel as one of the major answers to the problem facing us. He can obtain the services of these people and slot them into the overall effort to combat the fuel problem that faces this country, in such a way that we in South Africa will be able to enter a new era of new fuels, as Brazil has done and is doing today, to the extent, in fact, that they believe that in a few years they will be able to depend entirely on the alcohol fuels, thereby becoming almost totally independent of imported oil.

In view of the quantities we are talking about, I do not believe it is unreasonable to estimate that South Africa, using all sources available to it, could be producing 4 000 million litres of ethanol per annum within the foreseeable future. I notice that the hon. the Minister does not disagree with me, and I find it an encouraging sign. The production of 4 000 million litres of ethanol per annum will save South Africa about R1 000 million per annum. So we are therefore talking about an enormous amount of money and tremendous scope for job opportunities. We should like this Ethanol Research Institute to operate in the broader sense, in accordance with the provisions of section 2(2)(b) which reads as follows—

I want to make the positive suggestion that the research institute could make proposals to the hon. the Minister relating to the marketing of alcohol fuels so that they do not present a threat to our Sasol investment, because I believe this to be a sine qua non. If we pose a threat to our Sasol investment, there will be people who will be against alcohol fuels because they do not appreciate the position or slot into which these fuels can fit.

Order! I am being very indulgent as far as the hon. member is concerned, but he must not abuse my hospitality.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, what we are discussing is a clause with very wide and far-reaching implications.

Yes, but not as wide as the hon. member is ranging. It is not necessary to solve all the problems tonight.

Not quite as wide as that, I agree. Mr. Chairman, would you allow me to perhaps make one or two final observations? Along the lines of what I have been saying, we should like to see the alcohol fuels marketed in conjunction with Sasol. We could call them “Sasahol fuels”. Then we would have a blend at the pumps which was ready to go into the tank. If we did this, people would understand the contribution that the alcohol fuels can make and they would not be regarded as a threat to Sasol. I believe that the hon. the Minister would then also be providing a very useful alternative to South African motorists, an alternative which might even enable them to do away with that 70 km/h limit, which we are finding very hard to keep to.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to return to the question that we dealt with at Second Reading, and I am referring to the proposed new section 5B. I do not believe that it would really avail the hon. the Minister to say that he may transfer funds from one State department to another State department simply because they have the same objective. The argument was heard in the House this morning that Defence secret fund transfers to the defunct Department of Information were justified because the defunct Department of Information was defending South Africa against the world’s onslaught. It obviously does not work. One has to have specific authority and approval by Parliament for moneys to be spent by a department. This cannot be transferred by departmental authority, or by ministerial authority alone, not even with the concurrence of the hon. the Minister of Finance. I am merely telling the hon. the Minister that I understand that he is only making provisional arrangements in this case and that he has undertaken to come back to the House for formal authorization of any further steps which he proposes to take. In so far as he requires a going-on authority to make these arrangements, we are in favour of such steps being taken. I do want to caution him about the transfer of moneys contrary to the meaning and intention of the Exchequer and Audit Act I do not think that is something the House would condone. I believe that this exercise should be conducted with great care in that respect.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the hon. member that what I am trying to do in terms of the Bill that we are now considering is not to be compared with the other example the hon. member used a moment ago. In this respect I am coming to Parliament to ask for the authority to have funds, which have, in fact, already been approved by Parliament for specific purposes, used for those very purposes. However, if we rationalize the activities of the institute, it might be necessary for some other institute, body or institution to fulfil that function. All we are asking—and this has been cleared with the hon. the Minister of Finance—is that with his approval the money be transferred to that institution or body that will do that very same work which the empowering Act has imposed upon such body as its responsibility. That is the answer to that one. However, I take heed of what the hon. member had said, viz. that we should not, as a normal practice, do things this way. However, I do not want to retard a development if it is found expedient that it should be done in the interests of the country itself.

The hon. member for Berea has raised his point before, and I do not want to go into any detail in this reply. However, allow me to explain two things very briefly. There are two reasons why one might want to go to agricultural products as the raw material for the production of liquid fuels. One is the fact that one has a surplus of a certain agricultural product, as we happen to have in the case of sugar.

[Inaudible.]

Just give me a chance. I am now trying to reply to the hon. member’s question. In that particular case the objective of such an exercise would be to assist that particular farming community with a problem that it has. There is at the moment a corporation that is investigating the possibility of producing ethanol as an extension to the refining activities of the sugar refinery. My own approach in this regard has been that such a development should be undertaken, if it is to be undertaken, in the closest possible co-operation and liaison with the sugar industry itself. I personally believe that if we reach that stage—and I have a completely open mind about it—then one would have to regulate these quotas in terms of an Act so as to ensure that one does not create another problem while trying to solve an existing one. I cannot foresee—and I might be wrong—that one would allow the production of ethanol out of sugar without controlling the allocation of specific quotas for specific purposes, otherwise one may kill the industry itself. I think the hon. member will agree with me in that regard.

Secondly, the hon. member will agree with me that very important research is already being done in this particular field, the production of ethanol. It has been done for instance by the research institute of the University of Natal. Research at these various institutes are also partially funded by the NSI. The Government is therefore very well aware of the alternative roads that can be travelled. At this stage I would say—I do not pretend to be an authority in this field because I am not technically trained—that it would not be a proposition to start ethanol production facilities as a separate entity, because I think the cost involved is going to be prohibitive. If it is to be undertaken—and if it is to be a feasible undertaking—it would have to be done as an extension of existing facilities.

I want to conclude by saying that when one discusses these matters, one must always be aware that in one’s discussions—I am not accusing anyone—one does not create the impression with the liquid fuel consuming public that there is a solution to our present problem around the comer. There is no such solution.

I have said before that South Africa has imported 40% less oil during the first quarter of this year compared to the last quarter of 1978. This must surely impress everybody in this country what the extent of this problem is. I have no private war with the media, but I maintain that it is not in the interests of this country to criticize certain elements of our conservation programme for their own benefit, because by doing that they are hurting the country. It is not possible to have a set of rules and regulations that would suit the requirements of all consumers. I believe it is wrong, however, to destroy the involvement of all those people who are reacting favourably to our measures merely because we do not like a particular element. We must also remember that when various sectors of the economy comment on measures of this nature, they would naturally do it from their interests’ point of view, and I do not blame them for doing it. As far as we are concerned, I should like to believe that we as members of Parliament should be in agreement about this issue because the outcome is going to affect the lives of all the people in this country.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill gives effect to the recommendations contained in the report of the Select Committee on Pensions. As hon. members are aware, these recommendations have already been approved both by this House and the Other Place.

Mr. Speaker, in the confidence that I too can set my colleagues an example worth following, I merely want to say that we fully support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches wish to support the Bill in all its stages. As has been indicated, it gives legislative effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions. There is only one comment we should like to make, and that is that we are pleased to see that, as is indicated in the schedule, all the recommendations are effective from 1 July 1979. It is hoped that, where others are effective from 1 October this year, in the future perhaps the hon. the Minister can give consideration to making all the increases in pensions applicable from the date indicated in the schedule to this Bill, viz. 1 July 1979.

Then, with your permission, Sir, I should like to take this opportunity on behalf of these benches to thank the hon. the Minister for his services in the portfolio of Social Welfare and Pensions where he is now for the last time acting in his present capacity. We should also like to wish him well in his new portfolio as Minister of Industries and of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. We want to express the hope that, as a medical practitioner, he will be able to give us the right prescription for the economic ills which face the country from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their support of this Bill, and in particular the hon. member for Umbilo for his friendly words to me.

As regards his request concerning the advancement of the date for general pensions, he will, of course, realize that the person who has the solution in this case is the hon. the Minister of Finance. I can assure the hon. member that I will convey his request to him.

You will have to submit it to him in code.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we remain opposed to the principle of this Bill, and we are going to vote against the Third Reading. We believe this is part of the game of playing political charades in South Africa, something I have mentioned before. It is a pretence at independence, because its effect is merely to give a degree of local regional autonomy to a small ethnic group, which will otherwise remain totally dependent on the rest of South Africa and the people of which will be denuded of rights in the rest of South Africa. The territory will not, we believe, become independent in the true sense of the word. We believe it will become nothing more than an independent dependency of South Africa.

The Bill gives de jure independence, and in that sense represents a further fragmentation of South Africa, with all its attendant disadvantages and dangers. It attacks the rights of citizenship of the Venda people, their right to South African citizenship, and promises no economic viability. Worst of all it makes no attempt whatsoever to indicate what the future dispensation will be between Venda and the Republic of South Africa. It makes no attempt whatsoever to indicate what future formal associations Venda will have with the Republic of South Africa. Of course, it denies to the Venda their rights—particularly those who remain in the Republic—to participate in the affairs of the Republic. So it is simply an ethnic dispensation by which the Venda group is excised from South Africa. In that sense it is totally negative and unrealistic. If it is more than that the Bill does not say so, nor does the Government.

The policy of the PFP has been stated on more than one occasion in regard to local autonomy in areas of South Africa. We say that where there are regions in South Africa where, because of the community of interests or the special circumstances of their people and if they commend themselves as semi-autonomous areas, appropriate local administration could be set up, that sort of administration should be set up. After all, we are in favour of decentralization. However, we believe one has to be very careful with regard to the circumstances that exist. South Africa is a country of diversity as far as its population and many other aspects are concerned. As I have said, the PFP subscribes to the principle of decentralization where the necessary factors are present. In other words, if that diversity in any particular area has to be recognized, one will have to have regard sometimes to ethnic considerations, but not necessarily so—to all the circumstances which obtain. However, it is our view that in these circumstances regions that would invite a degree of autonomy will have to be linked to the rest of South Africa. We in this party have stated very clearly for a number of years that we believe that whatever dispensation is given to these regions, they have to be linked to the rest of South Africa within the framework of a federal or a confederal constitutional set-up on this country. We believe that is absolutely vital because one cannot simply excise regions from South Africa on an ethnic or any other basis and leave them isolated from the rest of South Africa.

This is where the country is totally in the dark—even now as we deal with this Venda Bill—-about what the Government’s future intentions are in its relations with Venda. In what possible way is the so-called independent homeland of Venda going to be linked with the rest of South Africa?

I must also say that we believe that when one looks at these regions and talks about giving autonomy to these regions, even if one is attempting, in that way, to cater for diversity, one cannot have different standards and principles operating in the constituent parts of South Africa. In other words, one cannot say to any ethnic group that it will be free in its own area, but in the next area it will be discriminated against and denied opportunities on the grounds of race or on grounds of the ethnic group to which your members belong. We believe that there have to be common standards, common norms and common values which will apply equally to individuals in the various component parts of any subdivision of South Africa. These are basic standards and norms, as between one human being and another, which will have to apply all over South Africa in regard to these matters.

We believe further that this is the only way that one can cater for a degree of diversity in South Africa, but at the same time build up a unity of purpose which a strong nation demands. In our view, that can only be achieved by a rejection of race discrimination throughout South Africa and by a grouping together, as I have said, of the semi-autonomous States within the framework of a federal or confederal constitution in South Africa.

From time to time one hears interesting and encouraging sounds coming from the Government benches. In this regard I want to refer to reports of comments made by the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations who is, at present, in the United States of America. Last week he is reported to have told an audience in America that great things were happening in South Africa and that there was great hope for the future in regard to race relations. He said that South Africa was well on the way to achieving full human rights for all people. The newspaper goes on to quote him as saying—

It almost sounded like a report of a congress of the PFP. It almost sounded as if the hon. the Minister were reading from the 14 principles of the Kowie Marais Commission, because this was a direct allusion, one might have thought, to the policy of the PFP. Those were, however, the encouraging words uttered by the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development in the United States. Applying those words to this Bill, one has to ask where the evidence is of any of this in the Bill before the House, or in any other similar legislation. We have to ask whether these things, about which the hon. the Minister spoke in the USA, apply at the present time in South Africa in regard to the Venda people who live within the Republic of South Africa. Can they talk about equal opportunity before the law? Can they talk about equal chances? Can they talk about full citizenship rights for all people, or about full participation of people in the decision-making process? We know that the answer is “No, they cannot” because the Venda who is going to be living within the Republic of South Africa is not going to have these opportunities within the Republic of South Africa. He is going to be told, wherever he lives or wherever he words, that if he wants to exercise his political rights those political rights will have to be confined to the Venda Legislative Assembly, which he may never have seen and may never see. What we are doing here is something quite different. In this legislation we are talking about a separate sovereign independency. We are saying to the Vendas who live in Venda that that segment of South Africa is their land and that is where they will live, find their opportunities and exercise their political rights. At the same time we are saying to the Vendas who live outside Venda that they can bring their manpower into the Republic of South Africa and that while they work here they may live and die here, but they will never have political rights in the Republic of South Africa. We are telling them that they will never have political rights, opportunities equal to the others who work around them and we are telling them that they will be subjected to laws but will have no say in the making of those laws. We are telling them that they may live here, in fact spend their whole lives in South Africa, but they will have no say in the making of those laws. This is an intolerable and indefensible situation. I believe it will negate any possible good that might be done by the development aspects of the Government’s homeland policy and any possible good that might be done in creating a regional infrastructure in regard to the administration of territories of this kind.

We know that the Government is preoccupied with ethnic considerations, but ethnic considerations are only part of the factors which will determine whether or not we have peaceful co-existence in South Africa. It is true that they exist—this nobody can deny—and that they are taken into account, but ethnic considerations are not the beginning and the end of the problem in South Africa. I believe that to base one’s entire political philosophy, as the National Party does, on the need to accentuate and to reinforce ethnic differences by legislating them into watertight ethnic compartments, is totally fallacious thinking which can also be very divisive indeed. This is perhaps the basic fallacy in Government thinking, namely its total preoccupation with the whole question of ethnicity. Of course, we do not deny that there are ethnic considerations, that there are different backgrounds, that there can be an ethnic side to the question and that there can be language, cultural and other considerations, but I believe that the Blacks of South Africa look far beyond mere ethnic horizons, and the sooner the Government realizes that, the better. I believe—and we have had evidence of this time and time again in the debates this year and in previous years—that the Government misreads Black objections for example, to references, to urban and rural Blacks in South Africa, as if this is a total commitment to absolute ethnicity. On a number of occasions the hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and others have alluded to the fact that Chief Buthelezi, for example, has said that he disagrees with the suggestion that there is a difference between the rural Zulu and the urban Zulu, adding that they are all his people. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development uses that argument as if it is an admission on the part of Chief Buthelezi that he is in favour of the ethnicity of the separate development policy of the Government. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. What Chief Buthelezi is saying perfectly clearly—and it should be very clear to the hon. the Minister—is that he is not going to separate the aspirations of Zulu people who happen to live in the urban areas from the aspirations of the Zulu people who happen to live in the rural areas, but that does not mean that he confines their aspirations to their own ethnic horizons. The reverse is, in fact, the case. The case which is made out by Chief Buthelezi and other Black leaders is that the urban people have as much right to share the whole of South Africa as do the rural people, the people in the homelands, but it is not a commitment to separate development and to absolute ethnicity. Their circumstances may be different, that is true. The rural Blacks may be less sophisticated than the people who live in the urban areas, but they are all people entitled to rights and opportunities, as such, all over South Africa together with the other population groups of South Africa. This is what I believe the majority of Blacks in South Africa see the situation to be. In the eyes of the Government, of course, it is a convenient way of dealing with some of the aspirations of a particular group in a rural area or in a homeland area—as they are doing now with the Venda people—where there is a concentration of a population of a particular ethnic group. The Government knows, however, that it is not so easy to deal with the aspirations of the Black people who live in the urban areas of South Africa. We know, too, that the Government is committed to a policy which states that it will not give political rights or proper, full economic rights or equal opportunities to Blacks in the urban areas. So this is where their dilemma lies.

These are some of the reasons why we are opposed to this legislation. We have dealt, in the Second Reading and in the Committee Stages, with our objections based upon the whole question of citizenship in so far as the Venda people are concerned, and we have also dealt with the fact that there is no indication of real economic viability in an area like Venda, and we again emphasize that there has got to be some indication of how the independent State of Venda is going to be linked up with the rest of the component parts of the Republic of South Africa.

Where does it go from here? We are launching it into some sort of orbit, but we are not suggesting, in any way, what its link will be with the rest of South Africa. We believe that if one is going to genuinely look to the interests of people within a region of this kind, one cannot isolate them from the rest of South Africa. We believe that we can cater, as I have said, for diversity and for local interests, within their own regional areas, but that inevitably those areas will have to be linked up with the rest of South Africa and, in fact, this Parliament, in which many of these people should be represented and, one of these days, will inevitably have to be represented. We believe that if the Government does not face up to that fact, it is not facing up to reality in South Africa. We therefore believe that this Bill has to be opposed.

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the Third Reading of this Bill, and as is customary one now looks at the effects of a Bill of this nature. Now that this Bill has gone through the Committee Stage, I think that the question one should ask is what the Government really believes it has achieved with this Bill. I think I am being absolutely fair to hon. members when I say— and I think they will agree with me—that the Government hopes to secure the future of the White man in South Africa by means of this Bill and its two predecessors, namely the Status of Transkei Act and the Status of Bophuthatswana Act. During the Second Reading debate we had great play being made about the fact that there are three down and six or seven to go. Is there any hon. member on that side of the House who can safely say that he is convinced that once this Bill has been implemented he will feel more secure or safer in South Africa than before.

Politically.

I am talking about political security. Strictly speaking, I do not think any hon. member on that side of the House can validly argue that because three of the nine or 10 homelands have become independent in terms of the three measures that will have been passed since 1976—of course after this Bill is passed—our political security has improved by 30%. In fact, one should also ask whether the attacks on South Africa from outside and the international pressure on us have lessened during the last two or three years.

That is not a criterion.

The hon. member says that it is not a criterion. Later on I shall try to show why it is important. The Government is hoping that in the end the effect of this will be that all of us, the Whites and the members of other nations or groups, will have a future and will feel politically secure. Listening to what has been said during this debate, and during other debates this session, one would have that hon. members on that side of the House were trying to prove the contrary because they have told us that the onslaught against South Africa has intensified and that the situation has deteriorated. There are hon. members here who represent constituencies in the northern and north-eastern Transvaal bordering on, or in close proximity to, this small area of Venda. I wonder whether there is one hon. member here who can safely say that he can go back to his constituency and tell his constituents to take note of what has been achieved to enable them to sleep safely and to secure their future forever. Can it be said that the granting of independence to Venda, in terms of this Bill, is such a safeguard?

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment I asked whether, if this Bill were to succeed in its prime objective, any hon. member on that side could safely say that the political security situation in South Africa would, in fact, have improved. I have already pointed out that the two other pieces of independence legislation should have effected a marked improvement in the situation in South Africa. I know, however, that no hon. member can say that. In the constituencies bordering on this area there will be no paeans of joy as a result of this Bill being passed. At this stage the hon. the Deputy Minister should realize that this Bill will fail in its prime objective of bringing about greater security for all the people of this country. I think it is common cause among the political parties represented in this House that South Africa’s greatest political dilemma is the fact that the political power is effectively in the hands of just one group, and that group happens to be the White people of this country.

We need not, however, go into the reasons for this, but the insecurity and all the problems they would like to solve flow from that. Nobody can deny that this is an intolerable situation. Even the Government concedes that it is an intolerable situation. That is why the Government has come with this type of legislation.

However, as long as effective political power remains in the hands of the Whites, we shall run a risk. We can forget about all the lovely speeches we heard from hon. members in the House. The hon. member for Port Natal waxed so eloquent about morality, and several other hon. members spoke about the virtues of nationalism. Many of them said, in so many words, that this Bill has been introduced to grant independence to the Venda out of love for nationalism. My point is that independence is granted, however, in order to escape from this political dilemma in which the Government finds itself, and it would like to escape from that political dilemma purely through a system of division of power. Viewing the Bill from this angle, we can only look on it as an exercise in futility. Neither is it an effective means of breaking free of our political dilemma, nor does it provide greater security, least of all to the White people of this country. I want the hon. the Minister to realize that I do not necessarily think that the security situation will deteriorate. All I want to say in support of my argument in this debate is that what we are busy with at present is not going to improve the situation. There is no reason for any improvement. Hence my claim that it is an exercise in futility. The problem is that if one could get the Government to see that what is needed in South Africa is not just a division of power, but also a system of the sharing of power, one would be able to escape from this political dilemma and to provide security. In order to bring about that system, one has to accept that ethnicity is, in fact, a reality and not merely a swear word in South Africa.

During the debate I listened to the hon. member for Musgrave. He also conceded that the federal set-up of his party could well have an ethnic base. It is not a matter of “could well have”, because if one effectively wants to divide power in this country, one has to accept that it must…

Not necessarily, but it can be taken into consideration.

He says, “Not necessarily, but it can be taken into consideration.”

The hon. member for Durban Point says that the hon. member for Musgrave said it is not necessarily so, but that it can be taken into consideration. All I want to say is that the NRP’s philosophy is such that we accept it as a reality, and it would be irresponsible to deny that.

We accept the fact that one must have a geographical federation in one’s confederation, but in reality it will also take, as its basis, a division of power based on ethnic lines. It was refreshing to see that our latest convert, even if he had to travel as far as Washington to discover everything about a federal-confederal solution, is the very Minister who should have been piloting this legislation through Parliament today. [Interjections.] We have explained that philosophy on several occasions in this House. Unless hon. members on that side of the House are prepared to accept the fact that there should be a division and a system of sharing of power in South Africa, they will not be able to provide the much-needed security which all the peoples of this country require. Hon. members on that side of the House made it quite clear—even the hon. member for Lydenburg who is to be the new Deputy Minister of Finance—that the reason why they want independence is because they hate colonialism. This is a strange word. Bearing in mind the way in which this legislation will be implemented, that is indeed a strange argument, coming as it does from one of the few remaining colonial powers in the world …

Who are they?

When this piece of legislation is implemented, the hon. member will see that it is the NP of South Africa. I say this is a strange statement, because if it is true—as several hon. members have told us it is—that they do not want to be a colonial or imperialist power, if this legislation must be seen as a measure of decolonization, the reverse then must be true because at this point in time the Government is still applying a colonial system of government to over 5 million Zulus, the people of the Ciskei, the people of Qwaqwa and the people of Lebowa.

That is right. [Interjections.]

Hon. members on that side of the House cannot have it both ways. The hon. the Deputy Minister cannot say that this Bill is a decolonizing process, because if that is so the other homelands, which have not yet undergone this process, would, according to the hon. the Minister, have to believe that they are subject to a system of colonialism. [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Just let me finish this point. This Bill was, of course, conceived in a typically blue-blooded, colonial fashion. We find that there are several rules which colonialists throughout the world always adhere to. The first of these rules is to see to it that the colonies—in this case the almost ex-colony of Venda—are excluded from the decision-making processes concerning their own future and their own State. They did not play a part in that. The second rule is: Take the decision for them, give them their independence and then tell them, as hon. members opposite did, how grateful they should be for this present they are getting from a benevolent Government which no longer believes in colonialism. This is the typical reaction of all imperialist powers when they grant independence to their colonies. The third rule is: Make sure that after independence the erstwhile colonies will still be dependent on the former mother country, especially economically. Can any hon. member opposite doubt that, even after the implementation of this Bill, Venda will, economically, still be virtually entirely dependent on its former mother country? In other words, in this type of legislation and the situation in which South Africa finds itself, we have here a classical example of a system of neo-colonialism still surviving in this day and age.

Venda will also find that, in the application of this Bill, everything will have been done to them by a colonial power which, as I say, happens to be South Africa. My advice to Government members is that, when they participate in debates like this, they should keep quiet about things like colonialism and imperialism, because they must think of the reaction that will follow on the implementation of this Bill. It does not take long for a newly independent country to discover its defects. If Venda itself had entirely determined the extent of its own country, one could expect them to carry their burden in silence—and they could have done so proudly. Can this, however, be the case when they find themselves on an island in a white ocean and when that island has entirely been the creation of the colonial power? I have no doubt that they will love their own little island, it being all they have, but the colonial power must expect that they will have very little reason to love their erstwhile master, especially when they discover, as Venda will, that, although their citizens are supposedly as independent as nationals of Portugal or Spain, in South Africa they will be treated differently to the nationals of Portugal. Whereas all doors will be open for Portuguese nationals, for instance, except in respect of a few international hotels all doors are still closed to the Venda nationals in what is their own mother country.

The hon. member for Klip River—and unfortunately he is not here—said he believed in freedom of association. I nearly fell out of my bench when I heard that. He was, however, quite quick to add something about categories and the types of work one can do. Then I understood that what he really wanted to say was that there is not discrimination or differentiation along racial lines, but purely along class lines. There will be little comfort for Venda nationals when they find that in practice the so-called class struggle the hon. member for Klip River spoke about follows strictly racial lines. I must ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what he is going to do in the circumstances to prevent the nationals of an independent Venda feeling that, as far as South Africa is concerned, they will be treated not as first-class visitors from Portugal but as second-class visitors from Venda. You see, Sir, several hon. members opposite mentioned that citizens of the Transkei and Bophuthatswana can travel all over the world on their own passports and that the same will apply to the citizens of Venda. Wherever they go in the world, they will be treated as first-class visitors.

How are we going to explain to Venda that this can be done all over the world except in South Africa? How will that be possible after all the debates in this House in which hon. members opposite have been telling the citizens of Venda everything about nationalism and what a good and wonderful thing it is? What are we going to say to them when they ultimately discover that this is in fact the way in which they are being treated in what is supposed to be their own country? [Interjections.] What does that sort of independence mean, if anything at all?

Finally, I should like to refer again to a statement made by the hon. member for Klip River. When he spoke it was evident that he had done a good deal of study of the subject. It was also quite obvious that he must have read a good deal of NRP literature on this specific topic. [Interjections.] Among other things he referred to the Act in terms of which the Union of South Africa came into being. However, I must point out that the hon. member, by the time he delivered his speech here in the House, had apparently forgotten a lot of what he had read in NRP literature. He said, for instance, that the only participants in the forming of the Union of South Africa were the English- and Afrikaans-speaking Whites of the Transvaal, Natal, the Orange River colony and the Cape colony. He said no Blacks, Indians or Coloureds had taken any party in the Unification of South Africa. That is quite correct However, the hon. member, quite remarkably, also pointed out that that had been inadequate arrangement. [Interjections.] Well, what is happening here at this very moment? [Interjections.] At this very moment we still find that in the Constitution drafting machinery in South Africa Blacks play no part at all.

You are a real Prog!

Now the hon. member says that I am a Prog. [Interjections.]

Order!

That hon. member should rather talk with the hon. member for Klip River, because he was the one who criticized the situation that prevailed in 1910. He pointed out personally that no Black had taken part in the process of Unification. It was quite clear that he was criticizing that very fact [Interjections.]

Now, what is in fact happening here? Let us concede that the 1910 arrangement was an inadequate arrangement at the time, because only Afrikaans- and English-speaking White people in the various colonies took part in it However, at this particular moment, what is the situation? If we want legislation of this nature to achieve the success we wish it to achieve …

Rather say you begrudge them that.

No, it is not a matter of denying them, or wanting to deny them this. However, by passing legislation in terms of which Venda achieves its independence, and simultaneously, in that very same legislation, reserving some form of security for ourselves, it is necessary for us to realize that the end product will also be one in which those people will essentially have to take part in the decision-making process. As long as the Government denies them that right, we will run a security risk in South Africa. That is the reason why the NRP has always made it abundantly clear that the way we should like to see a Constitution for South Africa drafted is through consultation and the participation of all the various communities in South Africa. [Interjections.]

You are really a Prog! [Interjections.]

That is only possible on a basis of a federal confederal constitutional process. [Interjections.] Well, seeing that hon. members are cheering and encouraging me so much, I hope they realize that this is merely a repetition for their reception of the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development, when he arrives back in South Africa. I can only hope that they will afford him the welcome he deserves for having gone overseas and for advocating NRP policy in Washington. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to argue with hon. members of the NRP about the question of pluralism. South Africa is a plural community because it consists of a wide variety of peoples and nations. [Interjections.] That is a fact. It is as unalterable as the mountains of South Africa themselves. It has nothing to do with policy. No party that overlooks that can call itself a meaningful political party. [Interjections.] The only matter about which we could perhaps differ is how this is to be handled, how it is to be handled politically so that one group does not dominate another.

I want to speak very briefly and only advance a few ideas, particularly since the Second Reading of this Bill has already been agreed to and it is an accomplished fact that Venda will shortly be an independent State. I am sorry that the circumstances are not such that Parliament could give its unanimous support to the Bill. It would undoubtedly have been a fine occasion if Parliament could have given its unanimous blessing to the State that is now to be established. However, as hon. members on this side of the House stated clearly during the Second Reading debate— and I do not want to repeat the arguments—it is not that we regard the Venda people as being too small or incapable of standing on its own two feet. Indeed, the contrary is true. Nor is it that we want to deny the Venda people the right to have a State of their own, if it is their honest and proven desire to do so.

But surely that is so.

The preamble of this Bill provides that “whereas the Government of Venda is desirous that Venda should be an independent State”, it is deemed expedient to grant independence to Venda. That is where our problem lies—not the independence, the establishing of a State, as such, but the way in which the change is being brought about. In brief, we do not want any reproaches levelled at us, as Whites, at a later stage, particularly in regard to the question of citizenship rights.

I should like to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Government to ensure, if there are other peoples that seek self determination and want an independent State in the future, that a proper referendum takes place in the territory concerned, as South Africa itself had when it became a Republic, so that the leaders of that territory can subsequently approach Parliament and convince Parliament as a whole that they have a real desire and that they are interpreting the desire of their people to become independent and that no problems remain in regard to the question of borders and citizenship. I am sure that if this is done, if they take those steps, then they will have the unanimous support of Parliament for any steps leading to decentralization and devolution.

As I have said, it will shortly be an accomplished fact that Venda will be an independent republic, however we may vote here. I therefore wish to express the hope that South Africa will know its duty and will afford the new State all possible economic and moral support. I also want to say that I hope Venda is not going to devote too much of its energies to trying to obtain international recognition in the near future. There are other priorities that are far more important to it than international recognition, inter alia, its own internal development, and as far as this is concerned, it will be afforded all the necessary aid from this side of the House as well.

As regards the question of international recognition, it is not true that Venda will not be afforded international recognition purely because the international community is opposed to separate development. That of course is a fact. But the true reason is something else. The OAU, whose opinion in this regard is decisive in the UN, is opposed in principle to an alteration of the old colonial borders of Africa. The basic reason for that is the many secession movements in Africa and the unrest and difficulties this has created in so many States. Consequently they are opposed on principle to a change of borders. It is the after-effect of the efforts to secede of Katanga, Biafra and a whole series of others that I could mention that such a policy and principle has become established in the OAU. That is why I said that we should encourage the new State to put its own development first and not to fret about a lack of international recognition.

To that I want to add that after the independence of Venda, we as a Republic will also have to get our priorities straight with regard to the new State. After the independence of Venda there will be three territories that have become independent republics out of the body of South Africa. They are Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. It is now time that we ought to establish a political framework, in the interests of all, which will make co-operation on matters of common interest among the four republics in South Africa possible. This is our top priority.

If, for example, one looks at the countries of Eastern Europe—and I could mention many examples in other parts of the world as well—with their multiplicity of peoples and nationalities, one finds a very interesting pattern. A country like Yugoslavia, officially known as the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, comprises six republics and two autonomous territories, all constituted on an ethnic geographical basis. Not one of those six republics is separately recognized internationally and the sixth republic and two autonomous territories act in the international sphere as a co-operating multinational State. Our greatest opponent, the Soviet Union, the Union of Soviet Socialist republics, consists of 16 republics, and only two of those republics, the republic of the Ukraine and the Republic of White Russia, are recognized separately in the UN. They have separate representation there, but the other 13 republics of which the Russian Federal Republic is the main unit, also act in the international sphere as a multinational unit. There are many other examples I could mention. In Switzerland each canton has the status of a republic, but they form a cooperating political constellation.

I want to conclude by saying that for whatever reason we may vote for or against the Bill, if the independence of Venda can move us to take positive steps to from a formal constellation or union of co-operatinz republics in Southern Africa consisting of our republic and the Republics of Venda, Bophuthatswana and Transkei for the purposes of our common interests—nor would it be unwise if we were even to create an overall citizenship for defined purposes to surmount that problem—I am sure that the people within and outside South Africa may in the future look with new eyes at this kind of legislation that we are considering today.

Mr. Speaker, in one respect I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, viz. his statement that the international recognition of Venda as a State will be very closely linked to its internal development. That is a factor which will determine to a large extent what recognition it will or will not enjoy. The other day we had an interjection from the hon. member for Houghton when she said: What if oil is discovered in Venda? I am absolutely convinced that on the basis of what one sees happening in the world today, if oil were to be discovered in Venda this evening, Mr. Carter would recognize Venda within a month. On the same day that America recognized Venda, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would telephone Mr. McHenry to ask whether the PFP should not also recognize Venda. If Venda developed as a result of, say, the discovery of oil, it would be assured of recognition throughout the world.

And if oil is not discovered there?

Then they will obtain recognition due to other economic development which will take place there. After all, a country need not have oil to be a factor in the world. Venda has a tremendous potential for development. I do not want to refer again to the tremendous process of development that is under way there. One could compare the position of Venda with that of other States in Africa. Venda’s rate of growth, the projects being launched there, the tea, coffee, timber and fishing industry, tourism and agriculture are laying the foundation for its future. The great things of which the hon. member spoke will be realized there in the future and the recognition of Venda will be assured in the long term. Therefore I am not concerned about the recognition of Venda at the international level because the recognition of Venda will come as soon as its development potential has become a reality.

I want to differ with the hon. member in another respect. He said that if a referendum had been held they would probably have supported this Bill.

No, not only that.

That is the impression left by the hon. member. He said that if public opinion had been tested and every individual had given it its support, they would have approached this Bill in a different way. If that is not what the hon. member said …

I was referring to the whole method.

Surely a referendum was advocated by the hon. member as a method.

I want it, yes.

I now want to put a question to the hon. member. In Rhodesia no referendum was held, but is there any doubt in the hon. member’s mind about how the majority of people in Rhodesia feel? By way of an election the will of the people was tested and proved over and over again. In Venda exactly the same thing happened. A referendum will not provide any new information. The will of the people has been tested in an election and it was evident that the people want to become independent.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister why, in that case, we in the Republic held a referendum? Must we not draw a distinction between an election, in which many questions are at issue, and a referendum, in which only a specific question is at issue?

We held a referendum because we had been promised from the start that the will of the public as a whole would be tested. We were told from the start that the will of the people would be tested in accordance with this method. But surely that is not the only method in accordance with which the will of the people can be tested. In Venda the will of the people was tested in a clear and unambiguous way by way of an election in which all the parties took part, and no one opposed independence.

The hon. member for Durban Central asked what the Government was achieving by means of this Bill. I want to say that by means of this Bill we have achieved the greatest ideal which a nation can achieve. The nation, the Venda nation, is being made one with Vendaland, which is a unit and which has belonged to that nation for two centuries or more. That country is now being given to that people unconditionally so that they themselves can map out their own and their country’s future. The greatest gift one can give a nation is to give it its freedom within its own fatherland.

Is South Africa not their fatherland?

That hon. member also said that the Venda nation had been forced into this, but surely that is not so. The Venda’s own Government, established by themselves, came to Cape Town and asked the former Prime Minister for their independence. But the hon. member said that the Venda were not consulted in the matter.

But where is your fatherland, Transvaal or South Africa?

Surely the Venda were consulted in the matter. The Venda nation made a request and it was acceded to. That is why I say that this Bill gives effect to the wishes of a nation which chose to possess and control its own father-land in the full and true sense of the word. This Bill gives those people a fatherland in the true sense of the word. The hon. member for Durban Central asked whether this placed us in a better position from a security point of view. He states that the onslaughts on South Africa are not lessening. I want to tell the hon. member that the onslaughts on South Africa and Southern Africa have not yet lessened because the minerals here are still the bait. The strategic value of South Africa is still a major factor. It is as a result of this that the onslaughts on South Africa are continuing. What is more, by means of this Bill the principle of the right of self-determination is being promoted, and that is not what the communist world wants. Democracy is being furthered hereby, free entrepreneurship is being promoted and the freedom of nations is being promoted—all things which the communist world does not want. Therefore we must not expect the onslaught to lessen. However, South Africa is in a far better position to avert those onslaughts as a result of this Bill and the constitution which the Legislative Assembly of Venda has adopted. If the independence of Venda does not come into being, our alternative is a unitary State …

A federal State …

… in which the various ethnic groups would have to negotiate in one geographic unit and would have to struggle for their survival. Not one of those population groups—because all the groups in South Africa are minorities—would have the guarantee that its ethnicity would remain unimpaired. In other words, one would be unleashing a power struggle and that is what is being eliminated by means of this Bill. The conflict situation is being eliminated, because each nation is obtaining its own sovereignty and say over its own affairs. Because the potential for threatening one another is being eliminated, the various nations can now discuss matters of common interest with one another. They can cooperate wholeheartedly for the common good without one of them having to be exposed to domination. There will be independence and co-operation among sovereign States. The hon. members ask what the relationship is going to be between South Africa and Venda after the latter’s independence, because this Bill says nothing about that. What we are going to have here are two sovereign States which will co-operate with one another. The clause which provides for the agreements states that two sovereign States will cooperate with one another in those fields for which provision is being made. We have said that we seek co-operation between these different States in the areas of common interest. In this regard there is talk of a power bloc or of a free association of States.

Your Minister talks about a federation.

That is only a concept One can ask what this will look like. I say that such an association of States must come into being among these free sovereign States, and that we must negotiate on the matter together. Let me mention a few things we could bear in mind when discussing this. The first is: Do we want to create a monster like the UN, with a platform on which there will be interference in one another’s affairs? That is not what we want in South Africa. On one occasion the former Prime Minister said that when one brought people together to speak politics, they fought, but that when one had them talk business, they co-operated. Surely there are examples, for example the EEC, of people not talking politics but discussing technological, economic, trade and financial matters and co-operating well. That is the direction South Africa wants to move in.

Are you not moving in a confederal direction?

Surely it is a confederal concept when States confer with one another; when one has a free association of States, one surely creates a platform for States to confer with one another. Hon. members talk about discrimination, but on the basis of what they propose, one cannot eliminate discrimination. That is impossible. On the contrary, one would really get something worse than discrimination viz. a situation such as prevails at present in Angola, where three different population groups are competing with one another. One does not merely find discrimination there. Extermination is taking place, and that is far worse than discrimination. The only way to eliminate discrimination is by implementing the policy of separate development, a policy in accordance with which peoples are made free and sovereign. How can one discriminate against a nation when it has the right to self-determination and decides on its own future? If the nation alone decides on that, then surely there can be no question of discrimination. That is the big difference between this side of the House and that side of the House with regard to this great and massive national awakening that is taking place in Southern Africa and that is being given concrete form in this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, clause 1 serves to establish the Information Service of South Africa Special Account As we indicated at the Second Reading, we are not altogether persuaded that there needs to be a special account for the Information Service. The history of the last few years has, of course, been such that everybody has become accustomed to the fact that the former Department of Information was a kind of specialist in secret accounts. On the other hand, there is really nothing in that precedent we ought to be very anxious to follow. We have conceded—and we stated it specifically in the amendment web moved to the Second Reading of the Bill—that any Government does need certain secret funds. We recognize that there are certain activities in which modem Governments need to indulge and for which funds are required which cannot be fully accounted for in public. However, we ask ourselves why the Information Service specifically should be blessed with one of these institutions. The purpose of the Information Service is presumably what the word says. It is to disseminate information. It is to disseminate facts. Wherever facts are to be disseminated we see no reason why funds albeit in very generous amounts should not be voted by Parliament for that purpose. Of course, in saying this I am fully aware of certain speeches that were made during the Second Reading debate by hon. members opposite—the hon. member for Malmesbury springs to mind—who said that they had friends in the world who had told them it was no good giving information which came avowedly from the South African Government because then people abroad would say it was merely propaganda, and they would not believe it My answer to that is twofold. Firstly, if that is so it is a great pity that it should be so, and we ought to set about forthwith building up a reputation that whatever may be thought of our policies and of our attitudes, when we publish something it is true, factual and accurate. If we did that for a while I believe the information published by our Information Service would be information and would be accepted as such.

One recognizes that the Information Service has engaged itself in recent years in other activities, for example, in influencing people in public life, people with some degree of influence over the course of affairs in other countries, and in employing these people as fronts in order to affect the course of events in those countries in our favour.

Give us one example.

Well, I was thinking of Mr. McGoff, for example. Mr. McGoff bought the Sacramento Union, and almost also the Washington Star. I suppose he is typical of this sort of contact Now, if it is necessary to do this kind of thing—and in order to make the hon. member for Von Brandis happy, I can tell him that I am not persuaded that it is desirable to do this kind of thing—I can understand that it warrants a secret fund. If it does warrant a secret fund it seems to me that, as I understand it, like in most countries, that secret fund could be administered by the Department of National Security. That seems to be the appropriate organization to do this.

Of course, I can say in passing that it is necessary for the Department of Defence to have a secret fund. I need not talk about that. However, we are not certain that this is the particular department that ought to have a secret fund.

*Should it happen that we have to do things abroad, which have to remain secret, things which no one must know about, neither in South Africa nor anywhere else, it is best that such things be done by the Department of National Security, as I have already said, rather than by the Information Service. After all, it is the tendency that. Information people are usually from the ranks of journalists or former public relations or advertising people. They are not really people who, due to their background, have gained this type of experience which makes them secretly-orientated. They are more inclined to be very open, as appeared to be the case, eventually with those gentlemen who were responsible for our own Department of Information. Another fact that supports our opinion—our opinion that this department, of all departments, is not really suited to have a secret fund—is of course that the hon. the Minister told us so himself. This was little more than a year ago.

During the Second Reading debate I quoted from what the hon. the Minister said in March 1978 in this House when he introduced the Secret Services Account Bill. I do not want to quote those extracts again, but instead will quote another extract (Hansard, 16 March 1978, col. 3171)—

†So, only a little over a year ago, we were told that the only three secret funds that were necessary were those for Foreign Affairs, for Defence and for the State Security. We are a little bit inclined to feel that this is still the position and that what is really necessary in South Africa, more particularly if we want to resuscitate the reputation of our Information Service, is that we should do our secret funding in the departments that obviously need secret funds, and that we should leave the Information Service to disseminate information. Therefore, we are opposed to this clause.

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

I propose this deletion because provision was made for a State Trust Board in legislation which was recently passed by the House and the moneys will be paid in there. In other words, all the moneys of the former Department of Information which are collected and which were used illegally, will be paid into the State Trust Board and will then be repaid to the Treasury. It is therefore unnecessary that that particular provision should form a part of the clause.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Parktown, who surprised me somewhat. He said that he objected to the Information Service having secret funds, but was not at all opposed to the Department of Foreign Affairs handling secret funds. He agrees with that. If the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Information Service fall under the same Minister and both are engaged in secret projects abroad, does it make any difference? The hon. the Minister said last year there were three departments which had secret funds. The fourth one is now being added— the Information Service, which has skilled staff who distribute information. The hon. member supported that If the same skilled staff distribute information abroad and make use of secret funds, what on earth is wrong with that? Surely there is nothing wrong with that, because it is still the same Minister, the same Government and the funds are voted by Parliament in the same way.

All the secret funds, whatever department they are used by, are audited by the Auditor-General and there can be nothing wrong. The hon. member is allowing the fact that in the past secret funds were not audited in the same way as other funds, to run away with him. If the hon. member were to abandon that attitude, he would not experience problems with this new arrangement. I am therefore quite unable to see what the problem of the hon. member for Parktown is, and I am of the opinion that such a problem does not exist.

Mr. Chairman, it does not happen very often in this House, but the hon. member for Sunnyside has at least half a point. The fact is that things have indeed changed, in the sense that the Information Service of South Africa is now no longer a separate department and falls under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If it were the case that it should now simply be regarded as being a part of the Department of Foreign Affairs, this legislation before the House would be unnecessary. The Bill is before the House because we want to establish a separate and special fund for the Information Service of South Africa. I do not know what the reason for this is. The contact of the hon. member for Sunnyside with the hon. the Minister is probably far better than mine and he will be able to establish what the true reason for this is.

I do remember, however, that in the past the Department of Foreign Affairs had only a very small secret fund and used it for specific purposes. I do not know what those specific purposes are and it would probably be impossible to finance the requirements of the Information Service, if they were to continue with secret activities, together with the existing activities of the Department of Foreign Affairs, from that fund. Whatever the case may be, we are here dealing in public with a Bill to establish a secret fund for our Information Service and we have suggested that, as far as we have an understanding for the secret services the Government has to provide, for the secret activities for which the Government has to be responsible, it would be better if this could fall under other departments.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the hon. member for Parktown that although the two departments fall under the same Minister, last year, when the Department of Information was abolished, it was made abundantly clear that it fell under a Director-General and not under the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Therefore it is a totally different department with its own officials. It is not a case of the two departments merging, as the hon. member sees it.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the hon. member for Sunnyside for the amendment he moved. We have investigated this thoroughly, and in view of the establishment of the State Trust Board and the provisions in that regard, it is perhaps as well that we should delete clause 1(d) as is proposed. I have no problems with that and I am therefore prepared to accept it.

I think the world is really a little more sophisticated in its venom and a little more dangerous than the hon. member for Parktown puts it. The Pretorius Committee itself investigated the whole matter very thoroughly to evaluate the projects already under way and to advise the Government as to whether some of them should be continued with in the national interest. That committee made certain positive recommendations. The Council for State Security itself and the Government agreed with them. We feel that there could be circumstances in which it could be necessary to regard certain of these funds as being secret funds. That is why provision is being made for establishing this account I feel it is in the national interest, and I think that this Bill, and the other Bill introduced last year, which, as it were, consolidate all the secret accounts, make very thorough provision for effective control over the spending of the funds, for its appropriation and spending by the Treasury and for auditing thereof by the Auditor-General. I have to stress that the Auditor-General is in the service of Parliament. He is responsible to this Parliament I think this is a very important point. Therefore I feel that we have a very strong case for establishing this account as proposed in clause 1.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the following amendment—

I want to say that this is actually a test of the bona fides of the whole measure, because if this amendment is not accepted, it would mean that we are creating a fund for the Information Service which can be used for the stated “purpose of (a) promoting the image of, and a positive disposition towards, the Republic; and (b) averting the psychological attacks on the Republic”. These same arguments were used by the former Minister of Information and supported by many of the hon. members still sitting in the Government benches, could then be used to justify the starting up of a new Citizen, a Son of Citizen or a Citizen 2. Then it could then be said in this House that they had obtained statutory authority and that it was therefore legitimate, permissible and quite proper to have done it.

How about “The Citizen rides again”?

I should like The Citizen to ride into the sunset never to be seen again.

Were you not interested in buying it at one stage?

That is an untruth, and this is the second time the hon. the Minister has come up with that I find it flattering that the hon. the Minister thinks I have the means to buy The Citizen, but I wish he would tell my bank manager that. That kind of remark really ill becomes the hon. the Minister. I do not think it is right to make such a remark. I was about to pay the hon. the Minister a compliment, but I shall still pay him a compliment, despite that interjection. He was one of the people who said publicly that he disapproved of The Citizen and of its being used for party-political purposes. That is, however, what I want to hear again today. He must now say that these funds cannot be used for any party-political purposes in South Africa. That is why I say that this amendment is …

If The Citizen could have obliterated you, I would have approved of it.

That proves the point.

That actually proves the whole point. It is sometimes said that out of the mouths of babes and sucklings, but also sometimes out of the mouths of members of Parliament who do not quite know what they are saying, comes the truth, because that is the whole give-away. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Von Brandis proves the point, and this is a test of the bona fides of the Government in relation to this matter. I do not want to deal with the rest of the clause at this stage. I want to test the bona fides of the Government, however, by asking whether it ever intends to use any of these funds for a party-political purpose in the Republic? If it does not intend to do so, the hon. the Minister has no choice but to accept the amendment, but if it does intend to do so, the whole thing is a deception from beginning to end and the public of South Africa are being bluffed. I therefore say that this is the crucial moment for the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, all the hon. member for Yeoville has done by way of his amendment is to try and score a political point off the Government. The hon. member knows just as well as any hon. member of this House that it is not the intention to use this money for the purpose against which the hon. member’s amendment is aimed.

That is what Connie Mulder said.

Therefore what the hon. member envisages with his amendment is self-evident. However there are many other things, too, for which this money is not earmarked. Are we now to insert all those in the Bill as well? Surely that will be ridiculous. The hon. member for Yeoville is a lawyer. I have on occasion had reason to hold the hon. member’s knowledge of law in considerable esteem. Surely the hon. member knows just as well and perhaps better than many other people that it is simply not correct when drafting laws to drag in all kinds of irrelevant matters, but that the wording of a measure has to be stated positively in order to provide for what is envisaged, without adding that it will not have the following effect and that certain things are not envisaged. That is simply not the practice. On these grounds alone, therefore, the amendment moved by the hon. member simply cannot be accepted. It is not proper legal draftmanship. That is simply not how it is done.

That is nonsense.

The hon. member says, “That is nonsense”. I challenge him to reply to this argument and prove that it does indeed constitute proper legal draftmanship to set out in the Bill what the Bill does not envisage. [Interjections.] I should like to see examples of where it occurs so frequently, as the hon. member for Johannesburg North says.

Apart from this consideration I want to make the further statement that the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville is totally unnecessary and irrelevant for the simple reason that the Government has repeatedly proved that it does not tolerate the sort of conduct that the hon. member is seeking to prevent by way of his amendment … [Interjections.] Now the hon. members all want to sing together in a choir, but that cannot be done. [Interjections.] After it had occurred in the past that money from the former Department of Information was used to finance a newspaper, this Government, when this came to its attention, took immediate action and immediately terminated the financing of that newspaper. [Interjections.] This Government, under the leadership of the present hon. Prime Minister, took immediate action against that.

The hon. members opposite are making use of vague terminology. When we speak about this Government, we mean this Government and not any previous Government [Interjections.] This Government has at all times proved and stated its bona fides beyond any reasonable doubt. There is no justification whatsoever for the hon. member for Yeoville or anyone else to expect that this Government should state its bona fides in a Bill in a manner that is in conflict with proper legal draftmanship.

Mr. Chairman, …

Order! I must warn hon. members now that I cannot allow a general discussion of the Information scandal. Hon. members must confine themselves to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Mossel Bay got to his feet, I thought that the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville was a good one. When the hon. member for Mossel Bay had finished speaking, I came to the conclusion that the amendment was an excellent one since it was quite apparent that the lessons of the past had not been learnt by that hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, what are the objectives of the amendment proposed? The objective is simply to get the Government to put its mouth where our money went, in other words to agree that they will not do the sort of thing that they did with The Citizen again in the future. The purpose of this legislation is to control money voted from Parliament and which ultimately ends up being utilized by the Information Service. We in these benches have learnt through experience that when one does this type of thing, one has to exercise a measure of control which we had not thought necessary to exercise in the past. From experience we have learnt that this actual Parliament has been let down by reason of the money being used for the wrong purposes. Money was used according, to Cabinet Ministers themselves, for wrong purposes. So they themselves should be the first to welcome a clause of this nature. If they do not welcome it, then one must wonder about their reasons and their objectives for not agreeing to what is essentially a simple amendment, one which purely states that the public’s money must not be used for the purposes of publicizing the NP. That is what it boils down to. We in these benches will certainly support this amendment.

I want to come back to something the hon. member for Mossel Bay said. He said that this Government—we must forget about all previous ones—had of course not done anything of this kind at all. That is basically and simply not the truth, because this Government, the Government which is now in power, continued to support To The Point with the public money long after the hon. the Prime Minister took over as Prime Minister. Is that not exactly the same situation as existed in the old Department of Information with The Citizen?

Mr. Chairman, I do just want to react to what the hon. member for Mossel Bay said. I have considerable respect for that hon. member. He advanced an argument here which was really a direct attack on all logic. He said by implication that he was in favour of Government money being utilized for party political purposes. [Interjections.] How else am I to understand his opposing the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville? We are not arguing about the clause, but about the amendment. Surely the amendment makes it very clear that we support in principle the fact that such a thing can be done on condition that Government money is not used to further party-political purposes.

The other argument that the hon. member advanced here was to say that exceptions cannot be formulated in any legislation.

[Inaudible.]

But of course the hon. member said that. Surely that is not what is being said here. Our aim here is to insert a clear qualification which specifies under what circumstances money may not be spent. This is a very simple principle and one encounters it everywhere. We have just had in the Venda legislation which contains a schedule providing who does not qualify. That is the same principle. The issue here is a very direct question: Are the Government, the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Mossel Bay in favour of the principle that Government money should not be used for party-political purposes in regard to the distribution of information about South Africa—yes or no? If they say “yes” then in the nature of the matter they must accept this amendment and if they say “no”, we are simply going to repeat the mistakes of the past. That is why the hon. member for Yeoville moved this amendment. It is as clear as daylight.

Mr. Chairman, I really had not thought that the hon. member who has just spoken was capable of such faulty logic. If I ever heard a non sequitur, I have just heard one from him. In the first place, the hon. member tried to put words into my mouth which I had not said.

No, that is not true.

It is true. I had to correct the hon. member, and only after I had done so by way of an interjection did he quote me correctly. We can go and look at his Hansard later.

In the second place, the hon. member quoted examples which were totally irrelevant as far as the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned. Before I go further, allow me to state categorically that I am by no means in favour of Government money being used for a party-political newspaper. But there are many other things, too, that I am not in favour of. I am not in favour of Government money being used to hold wild parties, either. However one does not put this all down expressly in legislation. There are many other things, too, that I could mention, which I do not want to see financed by Government money. If we were to put all this in the Bill, we would make a book of it.

A new testament.

Surely the idea that one should set down in a Bill all the things one does not want done with Government money, is too ridiculous for words. It is simply not the practice. That is what I am trying to explain to the hon. member. That is not how one drafts one’s laws. One does not state what one does not want to do. One states what one wants to do, and one says so expressly and with such emphasis that it follows very clearly that anything that is not covered by that is, or would be, unauthorized. That is the end of the matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mossel Bay is now intimating that the addition contained in the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville is superfluous or unnecessary.

Of course.

However, if we analyse the clause in question we will see that the main purport of what is said is that among other things, a positive disposition towards the Republic must be built up by the Information Service, in other words a positive disposition abroad and also in the interior. I do not know whether the hon. member for Mossel Bay agrees with that. That is a little doubtful to me.

Go on.

A positive disposition may be built up both abroad and internally because a Government or a State can be attacked internally and abroad. As far as the psychological attacks are concerned, they can find expression internally or abroad. All the hon. member for Yeoville is seeking to intimate by way of his amendment is that we should insert a proviso, viz.: Provided that …

That is a technical point.

… where one seeks to promote a good disposition internally or seeks to avert an internal attack, it will not have a party-political content. That is all that the hon. member’s amendment entails.

Mr. Chairman, the only argument that has been advanced against the amendment has been the argument of the hon. member for Mossel Bay who said that it is unnecessary to include this provision and that it will be bad draftsmanship because one cannot in fact exclude everything one would want to exclude. That is, I think, a fair summary of what the hon. member said. That point of view is actually quite fascinating. Looking through the Bills I have with me, I find, for example, that we are still going to deal with the Sales Tax Amendment Bill tomorrow. That whole Bill is full of the exact things we are talking about. In the Bill they say tax is being imposed on this, that and the other thing, provided this, that and the other thing is not done. The Bill says one can do this or that, but one is not allowed to do this or that [Interjections.] The whole Bill, from beginning to end, is one mass of it. [Interjections.] Even if he does not want to take that as an example—because he does not like sales tax, and I do not blame him for not liking sales tax—let us take this very Bill as an example. If hon. members care to look at clause 6 and clause 7, which we have not read yet, they will see there that certain general facets are stated. Then, when we get to clause 8, in order to make sure that there is no provision in terms of which people escape from their liabilities, it is stated—

They do not list all the things which could happen. They list those specific ones which are important.

That is exactly my point.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay knows—and that is the tragedy of it, because he is a lawyer, quite a good lawyer—that what he is talking about is utter nonsense. [Interjections.] He knows it, and that is what makes such a farce of this. [Interjections.] That is the tragedy of this whole thing that he can find no single argument, no single valid argument against this particular provision.

Let me test’ hon. members’ arguments. Let us test them in a very simple way. The hon. member for Mossel Bay says: “This Government has never done the things of which you are accusing the previous Government.” Right? Is that correct? The hon. member must tell me whether it is correct. I do not want to misquote him. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Koos Millionaire would do well to keep quiet [Interjections.]

The difficulty which I have is that this very Government actually ran The Citizen for a period of time. This very Government, for all I know, … [Interjections.] This very Government, yes. [Interjections.] Of course it did. Hon. members can ask the hon. the Minister. They ran The Citizen, and then abandoned their shares to Mr., whatever his name is.

Van Zyl Slabbert.

Mr. Van Zyl Alberts. His name is mentioned in the Erasmus Commission report. This very Government ran it. This very Government, for all I know, is still subsidizing To The Point even today. The other day I quoted examples from that publication to show that that was a party-political publication. It advocated a party-political cause. [Interjections.]

If that is so, the question I want to ask is whether we can accept today—despite his seniority, despite his status—the words of the hon. member for Mossel Bay who says this Government would never do so terrible a thing as to run a party-political newspaper? I sat in this House and I looked across the floor of this House—funnily enough, just about exactly where the hon. the Minister of Finance is sitting this evening—and I remember a man getting up in that same bench, a man who said the Government had no money in The Citizen, nothing at all. [Interjections.] We are entitled to say to the hon. the Minister this evening that this is a test of his bona fides. It is the test of whether he is actually intending to carry out what he is saying here, that nothing will be spent for party-political purposes. If I may, I should also like to …

Harry, what did you say about the Afrikaners?

That kind of smear will not help you at all, because I have never said anything adverse about Afrikaners.

I want to deal specifically, if I may, with the issue of the Information Service as such and why this becomes important from a point of view of credibility. The one thing that is clear is—as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has admitted—that the credibility of the Information Service of South Africa is in fact the one thing that needs to be re-established. [Interjections.] But can that be re-established by voting against an amendment in terms of which money cannot be used for party political purposes? If South Africa’s case is to be put, a situation of credibility has to be created. What do we need? We need an Information Service and not a secret service that can be abused. We want an Information Service which puts South Africa’s case openly, clearly and without hesitation. That is what South Africa requires. The one thing that South Africa does not require in the existing circumstances is another situation where money is channelled to publications which encourage people to vote for the Nationalist Party in South Africa and which discourage them to vote for Opposition parties. South Africa does not require publications which take up partisan positions.

[Inaudible.]

I challenge the hon. member for Von Brandis to get up and deny it that To The Point took up a partisan position between the Department of Information and the Department of Foreign Affairs slamming away at the Department of Foreign Affairs …

It is nonsense …

These are the facts … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause and not deliberate on all the details.

I am saying that the possibility exists that money that has been put into this fund can be used for party-political purposes, and that this is the crucial issue in this whole debate. This is the test of the Government’s bona fides. It is the test as to whether this Government has reformed or whether it has not reformed. It is a test of whether the Information scandal is over or whether it shall be continued. That is the crucial question. [Interjections.]

I cannot permit the hon. member for Yeoville to mislead the House by maintaining that there are several examples in legislation where matters are stated negatively. The examples mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville were instances of general provisions in a measure …

Why are you so afraid?

… and consequently it was necessary to mention the exceptions expressly. [Interjections.] But in the case under discussion there is no general statement, exceptions to which need to be stipulated. The purposes for which this money is to be used are specifically stipulated in the Bill. If the money is not used for that, then in the nature of the matter the expenditure will be unauthorized. The examples quoted by the hon. member for Yeoville are therefore totally irrelevant to the present situation. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Mooi River, who has no idea whatsoever about these matters, must not come and tell me where I should go. I challenge any hon. member of the Opposition to come with me to an objective arbitrator and debate the matter there. I challenge hon. members of the Opposition to show me one legal draftsman who would agree that where legislation contains specific provisions stating what money may be used for, a provision should be added stating what it may not be used for. [Interjections.] That is a totally ridiculous way to go about it.

In conclusion, since the hon. member for Yeoville maintained that this Government ran The Citizen, I just want to tell him that this Government did not begin The Citizen. This Government inherited that situation and terminated it without delay.

Order! I want to point out to hon. members that I do not see anything in this clause about The Citizen.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mossel Bay is working himself up, and one must beware of that. The hon. member is now becoming angry, whereas we should in fact debate this matter in a peaceful atmosphere. The argument we are advancing here is a very simple one.

You make any good Christian angry.

The amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville makes it very clear that as far as the Information Service of South Africa is concerned, no Government money should be used to further party-political purposes. That is the principle, and it is a very general principle. It is not a specific principle. It is a general principle that applies throughout the world where one has a form of parliamentary democracy. Why? Because a dangerous situation could arise in which the Government of the day could be tempted to make use of the State’s money, the money of the man in the street, to further its own short-term party-political interests. That is what we want to avert, and it is not for nothing that we want to do this.

We want to prevent this because for the past six months we have had protestations because just this has happened, viz. there has been misuse of State funds to further party-political interests. I do not want to go into this further now because I know that you, Mr. Chairman, feel that we should not stray too far in that direction. I merely mention this because the hon. member for Mossel Bay has totally overlooked this entire point. AU we are asking of the hon. the Minister and every member on the Government side is whether the point being made here is not a very simple one, viz. that State money may not be used for party-political purposes. If the hon. the Minister does not want to accept the amendment, then he is stating by implication that Government money may in fact be used for party-political purposes in the future, and then we must oppose it, because we are speaking against the background of a debacle which has taken place here in South Africa and which we want to avoid at all costs. That is what the hon. member for Yeoville is trying to do here.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mossel Bay has issued a challenge in connection with this particular clause. He says he is prepared to appear in front of any authority and to debate this matter. Presumably the hon. member, who is sitting in a Government bench, has some influence with members of the Cabinet. I should therefore like to ask him to use his influence so that we can debate this particular clause and the need for the type of amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville, the amendment that says that the Government may not use money for their own political purposes, on television.

Order! That is quite irrelevant. The matter must be debated here and now.

We are desperately attempting to persuade the hon. member for Mossel Bay that there is a very good point to be made for this amendment because of the precedent that has been created by the actions of this very Government. What reason have we in these benches to believe that the basic principles of that party have changed? We have no reason at all. Thus we have got to be deeply and darkly suspicious of their actions. It is no good for hon. members in those benches to think that we can revert to the situation prevailing a year and a half ago when we did not know anything about this. The sorts of scandals that have happened over the last year and a half must naturally create a climate in which we now have to look in that light at Bills which are before the House. I should like to hear what the hon. the Minister of Finance has to say in regard to this amendment, because, quite frankly, if he does not accept it, we must, as I have said, have deep and very dark thoughts about it.

Mr. Chairman, it is very clear that a lot of politicking is going on here.

†I think the hon. member for East London North has given himself away by saying that he has to be “deeply and darkly suspicious”. I have noticed that attitude on many occasions in this House. This is not the first time I have noticed it. That is apparently the way in which he conducts a constructive debate.

Perhaps we might just take the trouble to look at clause 2(2). I quote—

I want to stress “national interest”—

1. (a) promoting the image of, and a positive disposition towards the Republic; and
2. (b) averting the psychological attacks on the Republic.

I submit that as the Bill reads, it prohibits the use of moneys in the secret fund to further the objects or activities of any political party.

No.

The Bill specifically authorizes the use of such moneys only to further the interests of the Republic, and therefore the promotion of any other interests would in my opinion be ruled out as being irrelevant. The control of expenditure by more than one Minister is in itself a safeguard whereby the misuse of the moneys will be prevented.

It did not happen last year.

Oh, do keep quiet. The hon. member has asked me to answer him. I did not interrupt him once.

The Auditor-General, who is a servant of this Parliament, will audit all expenditure and will report to the Minister of Finance and also to the Prime Minister. In effect that means that the Minister of Finance will have consulted the Prime Minister and the Auditor-General. I therefore submit that any reasonable man will find that there are reasonable safeguards here to prevent the abuse of secret funds. I want to remind the hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members that when under the previous arrangement the Cabinet discovered the use of secret funds to finance a certain newspaper, steps were immediately taken, as the hon. member for Mossel Bay correctly said, to put a stop to it.

*I say that should this amendment be accepted, malicious attempts can always be made to interpret practically anything which is being done and which people do not agree with, as party-political interests in contrast to the national interest [Interjections.]

†There is an old saying in Afrikaans which says: “Ek is darem nie onder ’n kalkoen uitgebroei nie.” That is an example of the sort of logic that we had to listen to tonight. The hon. member for Rondebosch said that if we did not accept this amendment, it would mean that we were prepared to finance party-political newspapers from public funds. [Interjections.] I expected something better than that. It reminds me of the logic of the saying that “all men are liars; liars are all men; therefore women are not liars”. This is the sort of logic we have to deal with here tonight.

The hon. member for Yeoville says that this is a test of our bona fides. I take the challenge. I accept it. It is a test of our bona fides.

Don’t accept the challenge; accept the amendment.

Why does the hon. member not include “provided that public funds are not spent on dog racing”.

Horse racing!

Hon. members can choose any kind of racing they prefer. The hon. member for Hillbrow is obviously a much better authority on racing than I am [Interjections.] The hon. member for Mossel Bay is absolutely correct when he says that one does not draft this sort of legislation in that way, because if anything is left out, they will say …

There is a particular background to this legislation.

Yes, of course there is a background and the hon. member has to be darkly and deeply suspicious. [Interjections.] Of course there is a background. This Information affair is going to haunt that hon. member and his party for the rest of their lives. It is going to make them miserable. [Interjections.]

What we are trying to do here is to ensure in a constructive and objective way that these moneys are properly spent, under proper control and in a way where it can be audited by the Auditor-General. These are the things that we were challenged to do and we are doing them here. But now it is not good enough. In the light of what I have said, I regret that I cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to respond to a few of the points the hon. the Minister has just made. I agree with him that on a certain level and as far as logical arguments are concerned, he can score a point here. However, it is not simply a matter of logic. It is also one of experience. The hon. the Minister has referred to three conditions which apply under this legislation and which he says is a guarantee against the abuse of funds for party-political purposes. Firstly, he said it is stated quite clearly that it must be in the national interest. We have heard in the past from an hon. Minister that when it concerns national interests, no rules apply. [Interjections.] Secondly, he said that it is under the control of a Minister. However, we have had occasions in the past where this has not stopped the abuse. Thirdly, he mentioned the fact that the Auditor-General must audit the expenditure of funds. But we know that in the past the Auditor-General was kept in the dark He was not aware of what was happening and he could not find out.

It was secret funds.

We are not saying this. The commission appointed by the Government itself said this. We say that, given these guarantees—which appear to be inadequate—all we are asking for is to exclude quite clearly in the Bill the possibility of State funds being used for party-political purposes. Fourthly, the hon. the Minister said that when it was found that there was abuse, steps were taken immediately. I do not want to enter into a whole debate on this, but obviously this was not the case. Steps were not taken immediately.

What do you know about it?

What I know about it, is that Mr. Justice Mostert was dismissed and that a new Commission was then appointed. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, it is not I who spoke of “steps” which were “taken immediately”. The hon. the Minister referred to them. [Interjections.]

*In any case, I shall not take that argument any further, Sir. I do just wish to point out that it is not as simple as the hon. the Minister wants to make out. Therefore I say that on the one hand it is a matter of logic, while on the other it concerns the practical experiences we have had. I believe the hon. the Minister of Finance when he says he wants to prevent this happening again in future. But if he is in earnest about this, surely there is no reason why he has to vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville. It is a simple amendment and can harm no one. Surely the aims of the legislation are set out very clearly therein.

Order! I wish to point out to hon. members that they should not continue to repeat the same arguments.

Mr. Chairman, I have brand-new arguments.

I like to listen to new arguments.

I want to be reasonable and helpful in my contribution to this debate. The hon. member for Mossel Bay made a very generous offer in his last speech when he said that he was prepared to offer, on behalf of the Government, that this particular amendment be submitted to arbitration, i.e. that he would offer on behalf of the Government…

You cannot be right in the head.

But this is what the hon. member said. The hon. member said that he was prepared to take the amendment to an objective and independent person and allow him to give an opinion as to whether it is proper to include in legislation an amendment of this nature which specifically precludes expenditure of a particular nature. I think it is only fair that we accept the offer made by the hon. member for Mossel Bay …

You are being silly, man.

… and delay the passage of this legislation …

Order! That is not a relevant offer in any case.

Then you should have ruled the hon. member for Mossel Bay out of order, Sir. I have been sitting here, thinking about what an exciting prospect this is …

I did rule that challenge out of order.

Mr. Chairman, now you have absolutely destroyed a very good argument, what is more, it would have been a new point altogether.

The other point I want to raise is also a new one, i.e. that one of the reasons why we feel so strongly that there should be provision in this legislation to preclude expenditure of a particular type, is that we have been had once before. We have been taken for a ride once before. It happened in the case of the Special Defence Account. This whole Parliament thought that we were voting money for defence purposes, while back at the ranch that money was being quietly, unobtrusively, and unbeknown to the Parliament of South Africa, passed to the Department of Information to finance a newspaper and a magazine which was, in turn, used against the Opposition in South Africa. Nobody can therefore blame us if we feel a bit sore about that After all, it was our money that we had paid in the form of taxes that was being used against us in the last general election. [Interjections.] If it could happen once, it can surely happen again. The leopard never changes its spots, and if the Government was guilty of a transgression like that on one occasion, they are potentially capable of another transgression of the same nature sometime in the future. We want to guard against it, because we do not want it to happen again, and furthermore, it is not good as it reflects on the Government and on South Africa. As good patriots we do not want something like that to happen in our country. The hon. member for Mossel Bay said that it was not this Government that had taken taxpayers’ money to invest it for political purposes in magazines and in newspapers which participated in South African politics. He said it was some other Government. It is hard to believe that it was some other Government, because we thought it was the same Government, the NP Government, that was responsible for this corruption. I really am very pleased to hear this evening that it was in fact another Government that was responsible for these misdemeanours.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause now. I am not going to allow a general debate any longer.

I accept your ruling, Sir, but let me say that since another Government was capable of this, we must protect this Government from making the same mistake. After all, anybody can do something that is wrong and improper, and it is Parliament’s job to see to it that this Government is not allowed to succumb to the same temptation. I felt that possibly we could move another amendment to the effect that whenever cheques are signed for passing money, known or unknown, from one department to another, the Minister who signs those cheques …

Order! The hon. member is now setting up his own puppets and shooting them down. He cannot argue about an amendment that should have been there. There is no such amendment before us.

There are many other good amendments I can think of which will improve this legislation.

The hon. member must first move them. Then he may discuss them.

I shall most probably do so, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.]

Stop trifling with the Chair.

I am not trifling with the Chair. The Chairman knows I would never trifle with him.

There is one other point I wish to raise. Both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Mossel Bay made the point that this has nothing to do with the NP or party-political purposes, but that it is the national interest that is involved. We have, however, been told by the Government over the past 30 years that the NP and the national interest of South Africa are one and the same thing. I think there are a large number of members in the benches opposite who actually believe that. [Interjections.] Do not tell me, Sir, that the hon. member for Von Brandis, for instance, does not think that the national interest and the NP are one and the same thing.

Yes, certainly.

You see, Sir, he believes that!

Order! I am not allowing a general discussion anymore. If the hon. member does not come back to the clause now, he must resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, the clause contains the words “as being in the national interest”. We say that we do not want “the national interest” to be interpreted as being in the interest of the NP. What if the hon. member for Von Brandis should become the responsible Minister? [Interjections.] He has just said across the floor that there is no difference between the national interest and the interests of the NP. If he is therefore asked to supply money, in terms of the Bill, for the interests of the NP, he will say: “Of course I will do it. I will not even cover up the document when I sign it. I shall read it, and where I see ‘national interest’ I shall take it to be the interests of the NP.” If we do not include the provision we propose, we will land up in the unfortunate and tragic situation that taxpayers’ money will once again be used for NP purposes. Therefore I think that the Government owes it to South Africa to give credibility to the Bill and to enable South Africa once again to believe that the Government is not going to spend the taxpayers’ money for political purposes. It owes it to South Africa and to itself to prove its credibility by accepting this amendment. If that were done, this state of affairs could not arise again. What is more, just look at the service that will be done to South Africa by the Government’s acceptance of this particular amendment. It simply means that South Africa and the Opposition will believe that Government members mean what they say when they say they are not going to spend the taxpayers’ money for political purposes in South Africa in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to address a few words to the hon. the Minister. I want to ask him to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. What we are requesting in asking the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment is a little reassurance. The hon. the Minister argued that we were not including clauses against dog racing or any other evils that might have been mentioned in the clause, because it was not necessary to do so. What we are asking is a reassurance because of the background of what has happened in the past, where there has been a consistent mixing up of the interests of the Republic and the interests of the NP itself.

Why do you not just sit down?

Now, we have heard from that hon. member for Von Brandis, and the hon. member for Bryanston has already … [Interjections.]

Why do you not just sit down?

Order!

Mr. Chairman, everything that the hon. member for Von Brandis says simply reinforces all our arguments that it is necessary to pass this amendment. [Interjections.] I know that the hon. member for Von Brandis sits down and does not get to his feet and argue as one is supposed to do in this House. He does not do it because he cannot do it. He contents himself with sitting there and insulting hon. members who are trying to put forward proper arguments. [Interjections.]

The argument has been advanced by the hon. the Minister that in terms of the clause as it stands everybody would be precluded from doing anything other than that which is expressly outlined in subsection (2)(a) and (b). Subsection (2)(a) reads as follows—

Now, if one is promoting a positive disposition towards the Republic, does the hon. the Minister not perhaps believe that there might be a temptation from the Government side to promote a positive disposition towards the NP? That conclusion does exist in their minds. They are incapable of divorcing the interests of the NP from the interests of the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] Well, the hon. member for Von Brandis has confirmed that. We are not asking anything unreasonable. Against the background of very recent history we are simply asking for a little reassurance. We are asking the hon. the Minister to say that he is prepared to accept this, because it is no skin off his nose if he does. He says it is impossible, in terms of the way in which the clause is phrased, but we believe his interpretation to be incorrect.

All we are saying is that it will not hurt him. I simply request the hon. the Minister to allow this particular amendment to go forward. It cannot do any harm. By the hon. the Minister’s own admission it will not add to the clause, not as far as his argument is concerned. Therefore, we can see no good reason at all why he should not allow the amendment to go forward. It would certainly give credibility to his argument. It would give us reassurance. It would give South Africa reassurance.

We do not need it.

We would feel better about it. However, I become a little suspicious, I must admit, at the continual refusal to accept this amendment.

Deeply and darkly suspicious.

Quite so. I become deeply and darkly suspicious. [Interjections.] I become suspicious because one then calls to mind what might still be going on which might be really interpreted as being to the advantage of the Republic, but which is in fact to the advantage of the NP. [Interjections.]

What you say now is contemptible.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister says that what I say is contemptible. Perhaps he will then be prepared to answer a question that I shall put to him now. Would he regard the writings in the publication To The Point as in the interests of South Africa? Perhaps he could answer that question.

Always the same old arguments.

Now the hon. the Minister is absolutely silent Not a word comes from his mouth. I do not hear him at all. I cannot hear what the hon. the Minister is saying. [Interjections.]

Go on with your speech.

You see, Mr. Chairman, this is what makes us suspicious. We believe that the reason why he is refusing to allow this amendment to go forward is because he has something to cover up. That cover-up is possibly To The Point.

That is a downright lie! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to call the hon. member for Orange Grove a liar? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for Orange Grove suggests is a lie. I have never tried to cover up anything. There is no other way of describing it save by calling it an outright lie. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister did not call the hon. member for Orange Grove a liar. He said the hon. member’s statement was a lie. The hon. member for Orange Grove may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, if I can make a statement and the hon. the Minister can say it is a lie, then if the hon. the Minister makes a statement I am quite prepared to say that some of the statements the hon. the Minister makes are lies too. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Orange Grove has just said that some of the statements made by the hon. the Minister are absolute lies. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I want to ask for your ruling on whether the hon. member should be made to withdraw that remark.

Order! I have just given a ruling on that.

Mr. Chairman, I want to return to my argument. I say that it makes us very suspicious indeed that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment, because we believe that by refusing to do so there is a possibility that something is being covered up.

Repeat outside the House what you said the first time.

The hon. the Minister is threatening me by suggesting that I say outside the House what I am suggesting now. The hon. the Minister has a very big mouth …

You have a bigger mouth.

Order! The hon. the Minister and the hon. member must contain themselves.

Mr. Chairman, I shall try to contain myself under what I consider to be extreme provocation. I want to suggest again, in all reasonableness to the hon. the Minister, that this is an amendment that does no harm. He must appreciate that there are a considerable number of people in South Africa today who are very suspicious of what has been going on as far as Government spending—and in particular money spent by the former Department of Information—is concerned and that he would alleviate this suspicion if he were prepared to accept this amendment. His total argument against it is that it is unnecessary and that one does not draft legislation that way, that one does not put clauses like these into legislation. We disagree with him. We can cite many instances of provisos of this nature in legislation. Only yesterday we argued about a proviso in another Bill. Provisos are something that one sees in many laws on our Statute Book. I therefore want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he reconsiders this amendment in the light of these arguments. It can do no damage to him or to the legislation, but it can certainly do a lot to enhance the trust and confidence of all South Africans in the legislation before the House.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to sail in somewhat more tranquil waters with the hon. the Minister. I want to direct his attention to a couple of portions of the clause and ask him whether he would be so kind as to assist us in interpreting them. This clause has a somewhat different wording to other clauses in terms of which the Minister of Finance is involved, with a Minister of another department, in making a decision. Clause 2(2) reads, inter alia, as follows—

How does the hon. the Minister see his function, in relation to that of the Minister responsible for the Information Service, in determining what the categories are and what the consequence of such determination would be, because to some extent, as the hon. the Minister indicated in his earlier reply, the fact that the two Ministers have to act together is said to be a safeguard. The question, however, is how he sees that function being exercised.

Secondly, the hon. the Minister also said in his earlier reply that he sees a problem in regard to interpretation, in other words that something could be done internally in the Republic in order to either avert a psychological attack on, promote the image of, or create a positive disposition towards, the Republic, and that there could then be a dispute about whether that was or was not of a party-political nature, this being largely a matter of interpretation. How does the hon. the Minister see that problem being resolved? Does he think it is then merely going to be the Government that decides that it is not a party-political matter, or is there some means of resolving this, because at the moment I can see no means of resolving it in terms of the clause as such.

I should therefore like to make a final appeal to the hon. the Minister. He has put his party’s and his Government’s point of view that it is not the intention of the Government to use the funds in this account for any purpose which can be regarded as being a party political purpose. Under all circumstances that must be the objective viewpoint exercised at a particular moment of time, and if it is to be an objective viewpoint, it does seem to us that a strong case can be made out for having that principle, which has become so vital over the last year or so in respect of the whole question of Information, enshrined in the legislation. Therefore my final appeal to the hon. the Minister, seeing that he agrees with the amendment, or so we understand—and there can be problems if the amendment is not accepted—is to reconsider the position by accepting this amendment, because his acceptance of it would be welcomed throughout the length and breadth of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I have already explained my position on this amendment. I have made it perfectly clear tonight, as on many other occasions, that I am not prepared to support any action by which State funds are used to promote party political purposes, whether in the form of a newspaper or anything else. That is perfectly clear. I am on record as having said that many times. The word “concur” is a simple word. I have to concur with my colleague. There is nothing more I can say on that. For the rest I think, with respect, that the hon. member for Yeoville has raised some pretty hypothetical issues. Therefore I am unable to take this matter further and I regret that I am unable to accept this amendment. The issue which has featured during this debate has been the suggestion that we might be prepared to try to subvert the use of public funds to further the interests of a political party, but that is absolutely untrue and there is nothing more I can say on that issue.

Mr. Chairman, it is not particularly easy, in this Bill, to discern which of its clauses give the greatest offence, but certainly clause 6 is a very strong candidate for that dubious honour, because clause 6 contains the mischievous provision requesting ex post facto approval for the irregular transfer of funds for which this Government made itself responsible in funding the activities that led to the Information scandal. The clause could hardly be plainer. It refers to—

This brings us back to something which we on this side of the House have been endeavouring to pinpoint for a very long time. We have been saying that among the other wrongful acts that were committed, in the course of the development of the Information scandal, one of the worst was the deliberate deception of this House that was carried out over so many years.

By whom?

The hon. member asks by whom. We have been saying that the hon. the Minister and the Government as a whole was responsible for the Defence Account, the Bureau for State Security and, of course, not least for the Department of Information itself. The hon. the Minister was responsible for transferring funds. All these gentlemen participated in a process whereby Parliament was simply hoodwinked. Parliament was led to believe that it was voting funds either for the defence of South Africa or, to some small extent for the national security, as the case may be, and those funds were transferred to the Department of Information.

Firstly, we tried to establish whether this had been so. That took us a very long time indeed. Finally, only with the introduction of this Bill, or perhaps with the final report of the Erasmus Commission did it become quite clear that all this had been done. In the Second Reading debate on this Bill the hon. the Minister presented us with that very apt description of the process that had taken place, when he said that it was “buitewetlik”, without the law. In our amendment we used the phrase “contrary to the law”. We are simply asked, however, to approve this and to say that these funds are to be regarded as having been appropriated for the Department of Information. We are not in the least inclined to do so. At Second Reading we accepted the argument that the time would come when something of this kind would have to be done, simply so that South Africa can go into the future without an unresolved or open item on its balance sheet. We have accepted that. However, we have said quite clearly that as reasonable legislators and reasonable businessmen we are only going to do that when we know the full story of how these defalcations took place. We have indicated that we wish to have full information about how this was done. We now know who the Ministers were who were responsible for this, but we do not know who else was involved in this. The hon. the Minister of Defence, the present Prime Minister, has told us that he has always been opposed to this process. The hon. the Minister of Finance has told us that while he was giving the money to the former Department of Information, he did not know what he was giving it to the Department of Information for. The Erasmus Commission has informed us that these gentlemen were terrorized by a cabal consisting of the former Prime Minister, the former Minister of Information and the former Secretary for Information. These are the bits and pieces, the threads and patches of knowledge that we have picked up over a long period of time. Here we are faced with a clause, however, which simply asks us to approve of all this, and our answer is that we are not going to put our signature of approval on the process until we have been given more detailed information about what took place.

In anticipation of the fact that the Government may prove as unbending and unyielding on this clause as it was on the clause that we debated a few minutes ago, I move the following amendment—

If the amendment is accepted, it will do no more than make the clause slightly less offensive than it is already, but I want to make it quite clear that the clause will still remain thoroughly offensive, even if the amendment is accepted. It will still mean that we have approved the extralegal, the “buitewetlike”, activities of the Government in a way we certainly would not want to, and we are certainly not going to vote for it. This amendment will, however, at least make it clear that this was only done some time afterwards, after certain investigations, but by no means all the investigations that are necessary, had been conducted. From our point of view it would be slightly less offensive to see these expenditures approved in that way than to see them approved as the Bill stands now. The hon. the Minister has got the message that he is not going to get our approval for the clause either way, but he can make his clause look a little less offensive to posterity by accepting our amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have no amendment to this clause, because we do not believe that this clause has any saving graces whatsoever. Clause 6 and clause 7 are the prime reasons why we in these benches decided at Second Reading to move that the Bill be read this day six months.

They are the cover-up clauses.

As I have said during the Second Reading debate, clause 6 is the admission-of-guilt clause. It is an admission by the hon. the Minister of Finance that he contravened the regulations of this Parliament and this country by administering the transfer of funds from one department to another, that he contravened, in fact, the provisions of two particular Acts, i.e. the Exchequer and Audit Act and the Defence Special Account Act of 1974. I have no intention whatsoever of reiterating all my arguments at the Second Reading. I think it is sufficient, at this stage, to say that we intend voting as strongly as we possibly can against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, in the last minute or two tonight I cannot resist commenting on what I believe is a most remarkable aspect of the argument put forward by the hon. member for Parktown. He says that as his party stated during the Second Reading debate, they are not against doing this at some point, but are not going to do it now. We have been talking about admissions tonight, but what an admission is that not to the country as a whole! The hon. member says that it has to be done at some point and that a responsible Government would do it. He says: they are not against doing it but are not going to do it now. The hon. member accordingly moves an amendment to insert a date which lies in the future. What can conceivably be the meaning of saying that it should be done on 1 July 1979? I hope the hon. member will address himself to that overnight and perhaps be able to inform us, on another occasion, of his reasons for choosing that remarkable date.

Mr. Chairman, I find the hon. the Minister just as irresistible as he finds me. [Interjections.]

Order!

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.