Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) Mr. Speaker may accelerate or postpone the date for the resumption of business;
2. (2) Select Committees may sit without the unanimous concurrence of all their members;
3. (3) Mr. Speaker may appoint members to serve on Select Committees; and
4. (4) Mr. Speaker may refer papers to Select Committees.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

We object.

That is not the way to handle the affairs of this House. [Interjections.]

We have only just been informed of that.

Mr. Speaker, we were informed that the order of business would be as printed on the Order Paper for today. We have just been in a Select Committee and I asked specifically that the Select Committee should adjourn so that we could come to see what was happening in the House. We walked into the House, after a majority of hon. members of the NP had wanted to continue sitting in the Select Committee, and suddenly found ourselves being faced with a proposal to change the order of business so that people who are not even in the House, people who are still involved in other things, suddenly find themselves faced with a debate. There is a manner of conducting proceedings in this House, and I should like to appeal, in all sincerity, to the hon. Leader of the House—and I do not do it in any carping fashion, but in a very sincere manner—to withdraw this motion. I think he will find that hon. members in these benches will want to co-operate with him to the full in order to run the business of the House smoothly. However, he should please not embarrass us in this kind of fashion. I am to be the first speaker on this matter and I shall get up and speak if I am forced to do so. However, my notes are lying in my office, because this is only the third item on the Order Paper. With great respect, if the hon. Leader of the House would co-operate with us, we will co-operate with him.

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the problem of the hon. member. The hon. member must understand, however, that at this late stage, where work has to be disposed of both in the Senate and here, we are trying to gain time.

I should like hon. members to keep on cooperating with me. If hon. members would co-operate with us properly as regards the time we are going to devote to this, I am prepared to accede to the request by the hon. member for Yeoville. Then we understand one another and the time that remains out of the total amount of time allotted to them, will be as short as possible. If they are prepared to do that, I shall accede to their request. Then we understand one another.

Just give us a few minutes. Then we shall be ready.

Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances I shall withdraw my motion.

Motion, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing now with the Third Reading Stage of a piece of legislation which has caused a considerable degree of acrimony. Firstly, it is a matter on which we have ideological differences. We believe that this measure will affect the lives of hundreds of people. Of that I am sure, because I have checked it out. It will affect the lives of hundreds of Coloured and Indian families, particularly in Johannesburg.

This legislation was introduced following a judgment given by Mr. Justice Margo earlier this year. In introducing this matter, the hon. the Minister sets himself the object of closing a loophole, as it does still exist in section 49A of the Group Areas Act, 1966. Immediately upon the promulgation of this Bill there will be hundreds of families who will have to move out of the areas in which they are living now.

As we all know, Johannesburg has to deal with the problem of a tremendous housing shortage for Coloureds and Indians. Indian people have nowhere to live within Johannesburg as such. They have to live in Lenasia, a township which is 35 miles away. That means that they have to get up at 04h00 in order to travel to their work by train. Indian waiters only get back home between midnight and 02h00, only to catch a train back to work at 04h00 or 06h00. That means they can spend only about two or three hours a day at home. One can well understand how this disrupts their entire lives.

Referring to the Coloured people, I want to point out that the Johannesburg city council begged the Government for many years for land on which housing schemes for the Coloured people could be developed. For reasons best known to the Government, that request was never granted. However, I must concede that that happened before the time of the present hon. Minister of Community Development. The result was that when the problem finally caught up with the Johannesburg city council, there was no appropriate land left for such a scheme to be launched. Consequently crash schemes were put into operation in an attempt to catch up. The result is that there is still today a considerable backlog in the supply of housing to Coloured people.

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member tell us how long ago the Coloured people moved into the areas to which he is referring?

Mr. Speaker, they have always been there.

At least 40 years.

I shall explain to the hon. the Minister why they have always been there. In terms of the Group Areas Act we are dealing here with controlled areas. We are not dealing with Group Areas as such, but with controlled areas, as defined in terms of the Group Areas Act. This means that in a controlled area occupation cannot be transferred from one race group to another without a permit.

What we are actually dealing with here is town planning in respect of land or premises specifically zoned for industrial purposes, and I am still referring to Johannesburg in particular. Firstly, when we deal with land zoned for industrial purposes, we must take note of the fact that, in terms of the definition that applies here, buildings erected in such an area can only be erected specifically for industrial purposes. On land zoned for industrial purposes one is, of course, also allowed to build on a lesser right One can, for example, erect warehouses, store-rooms and even residences in which people are permitted to live.

In Johannesburg, the CBD part of the area, the drill hall, the railway line running down to the controlled area of Marshall Street and also part of the Carlton centre, is a White area. The rest of the area is not a proclaimed White area and therefore the area running from Fordsburg, Jeppe down to what is called the mineral line in the south, is an area which may be occupied by Coloureds and Indians where it is zoned for this purpose. Even flats and shops may be erected. Hundreds of families are, in fact, living in this area. In terms of the provisions of the General Law Amendment Act of 1959 the central area was proclaimed “open” and the control vested in this area before, fell away. The difficulty which will arise from this clause is the interpretation that it should not be used for any purposes other than industrial purposes. In terms of town-planning schemes the concept “industrial purposes” has a wider connotation than the word “industrial” itself. On that basis, I submit that the local authorities are going to have difficulties in interpreting what the Government’s intention is, in this amendment, in regard to the word industrial as such.

In South Africa today it is the policy of the Government to move away from discrimination. It has undertaken to move away from discrimination, and this is a golden opportunity for the Government to cast a Nelsonian eye on the situation and allow these people to continue living there, because this smacks very much of ejectment in terms of the Slums Act. In terms of the Slums Act, however, people are afforded the opportunity of having alternative accommodation. In fact, a local authority is not even allowed to move people out until alternative accommodation can be provided. The hon. the Minister of Community Development will be able to tell the hon. the Minister of Transport what the housing backlog is for at least 5 000 Coloured families and a similar number of Indian families. Since these people have nowhere else to live, and since we are unable to catch up on the housing backlog, what are we now going to create? Are people going to be put on the street? Where are they going to go if they are to be ejected because unless they go they will be residing there unlawfully. The penalties provided for in the Group Areas Act are extremely severe. These people will have to be prosecuted, and these prosecutions will cause hardships. All this Bill is, therefore, going to achieve is to create tremendous hardships in the lives of hundreds of families who are living in this area and have been living there, albeit not under the best conditions, some admittedly living in virtually slum conditions. They do, however, have a roof over their heads, their families are together and they have somewhere to live in the meantime. They are now to be removed from such premises as they do occupy and virtually be put on the streets, because if the Indian people are forced to move to Lenasia they can only move into more crowded conditions which will create a further health hazard. What is going to happen to these people?

I now want to refer to the hon. the Minister to the case of Kathawaroo v. Mootala.

I know the case. I mentioned that when I introduced the Bill.

I want to quote the introduction to the House. It says the following—

Justice Margo’s judgment in the case then gave rise to the amending Bill which the hon. the Minister has introduced. By and large I believe that city councils like that of Johannesburg and other local authorities on the Reef who may be similarly affected would be only too pleased if the law were left as it is so as not to disturb the lives of hundreds of people who would be affected. For that reason we in the PFP remain implacably opposed to what is clearly an ideological issue which has been introduced and will affect the lives of hundreds of people.

Mr. Speaker, we are now reaching a stage where we have to look at the implications of the amendment before us, and I believe that we shall be taking a decision in a few minutes on a basis on which we should not be taking that decision. I say this advisedly. In the Second Reading debate I put a direct question to the hon. the Minister, and there have also been several speakers from the Government side. I asked them whether they could indicate to us how many people were affected, because the Government presumably on this basis took the decision to introduce this amendment. To my way of thinking, in the short time available to us we did not have the time to research these facts so as to be able to bring a documented case to put to this House. So I do believe that we were entitled to ask the hon. the Minister, who should be in possession of those facts, and who, having been asked, should have given us those facts so that we could then, as this party did in the Committee Stage, debate on the facts as they pertain. Having put a reasonable amendment in the Committee Stage, we are now having to vote for the Third Reading, totally in the dark as to the number of families or people concerned, totally in the dark as to where these people are going to go and totally in the dark as to whether there are homes for these people to go to. I therefore want to put it to hon. members opposite that if they expect reasonableness, courtesy and a practical approach to debates in this House, they should ask themselves whether we are not entitled to have those facts at our disposal before we and they presume to vote on these matters. I believe that this is something we are going to have to look at very carefully, because I regard it as a most unsatisfactory situation where one puts specific questions and one is in fact totally reasonable in one’s approach to a debate then find that the attitude is: “We have an overwhelming majority and we do not care what you say; we are going to push this measure through because we want it through.” If we are going to continue with a reasonable approach from this party—and I believe we have always shown to hon. members and hon. Ministers opposite a reasonable approach and we have been prepared to meet them where there are grounds for finding a compromise—we want to be in the situation when we debate in this House that reasonable requests for information are met. So I take great exception to hon. members on my left taking exception to these remarks. It is a prime requirement of democracy, if one believes in democracy, that if one takes a vote one should be in full possession of the facts pertaining to the situation. If hon. members do not agree with me I would be pleased to hear some hon. members on that side telling me exactly what their concept is in relation to decisions like this, where we are taking a decision in the dark. Do they believe that that is in the interests of this House and of the procedures of this House?

Mr. Speaker, we shall be voting against the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect to hon. members opposite, they have said nothing that was not a repetition of what was said at Second Reading and at Committee Stage, which last night also developed into a Second Reading debate. The hon. member for Hillbrow has made statements here that are well-founded neither in theory nor in fact. May I now explain this to him? In reply to a question of mine he said the people whom he had referred to and who were living in specific areas in Johannesburg, “have been living there for all times, as far as he knows”.

†But the hon. member refutes his own argument by that statement, because if that is factually true, then those people will not be affected by the legislation which we are discussing now, because we are dealing with a controlled area. If those areas, those houses, have been occupied for all times by a certain group of people, that is the qualifying group for that particular suburb. How on earth does the hon. member expect me to argue with him when his whole basis of argument is completely juristically unjustified? What in all! fairness is the essence of the Bill before us and what is the essence of what we are discussing? Its basis is a concept that has been accepted by the Government with the support of all the parties in this House, the concept that in industrial areas outside declared group areas the law can be changed to make provision for all population groups to participate in industrial activities. That was the purpose of that law. After that was passed and promulgated, a certain family moved into this area, which was intended for industrial development, and used it for occupational purposes. There was a court case, and the judge in his wisdom decided that, because of the fact that in the town planning scheme the area had been zoned for general purposes, this included residential rights. Consequently the objective of the Act of that time was not attained. In fact it was defeated. And that is; the issue involved in this amendment.

Last night we were told that thousands of people had moved into the area.

Can you not give Í us an indication of the number? After all, these are people.

I am not discussing a particular area, but a particular concept Figures have nothing to do with it. [Interjections.]

*I cannot conduct a fundamental conversation with the hon. members, because they are obsessed with a particular locality, whereas this legislation is applicable to industrial areas all over the country. What arose out of the court case, was that a problem was identified and that the objects for which the Act had been passed, had not been complied with.

This also has two other consequences about which I have heard nothing from the hon. members. The first of these is the exploitation that takes place by unscrupulous landowners.

That is because there is no alternative.

One hears no criticism of that. One hears no criticism from the hon. official Opposition when people are exploited and placed in such circumstances. There is also a third consequence to that. The Act was intended to afford people an opportunity to play a role in the industrial sector of our country. However, there is no protection for these people in respect of the lease and occupation rights they have to pay for. The third detrimental consequence that could arise out of this situation is, therefore, that these areas will never be developed for industrial purposes, as it is too profitable at the rate of rental which the lessees have to pay to the landowners. What are the hon. members opposite doing? In principle, they are actually depriving the other population groups that do not have the same share in our country’s economic life in respect of industrial activities, of the opportunity of participating in that [Interjections.] That is very interesting. [Interjections.] The hon. member can sit and laugh now, but that is what it amounts to in practice. [Interjections.] The hon. members say they have ideological differences with me. I thought if we had to give our people equal opportunities to participate in the economic life of our country, that should extend over the entire spectrum of economic activities. I thought it also included industries. From the action of the owners and of hon. members on that side of the House, it is obvious that they are doing two things. In the first place, they are seeking to frustrate the purpose of the Act, and in the second place they seek to restrict the due participation of these population groups in the economic life of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I think the Third Reading debate on this measure is actually a very sad moment, not only for this House, but also for the country as a whole. It is a sad moment, because we have to take stock, at the very end of this session of Parliament, of what has actually been achieved in respect of the Information matter after the drama and the trauma which stretched over a period of 18 months. One looks at it with a great degree of sadness, because one would have hoped that this could have been the turning point in the whole situation in South Africa, that South Africa as a whole would have been better off, that the Government would be functioning better and that we would all be getting on with the business of really governing and running South Africa. What, however, has really happened? The Government intended to bring the Information debacle to an end, but the way in which it has set about it certainly has not achieved that end and certainly will not achieve it. This is not the way in which the Information debacle should have been brought to an end. What has been done here, has been to introduce a measure in terms of which we are, in many respects, worse off than we have ever been in regard to this whole situation. We put a challenge to the hon. the Minister in a very simple form. We told him to enshrine in legislation the fact that one cannot use secret funds for party-political purposes. The hon. the Minister and his party, however, turned that down.

It was a test of the bona fides of the NP. It was a test of the bona fides of claims that this Fund could ever be used again, and what was significant was that one of the reasons that the hon. the Minister advanced for refusing to accept the amendment was that if he did accept the amendment there would be an argument in the future as to whether, in fact, money had been used for party political purposes or not. In other words, he does not want an argument on that issue because it will be the rest of the Government’s decision, in conjunction with that of this Minister, that will decide whether a thing is party-political or not. That is the reality of it.

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

I am not answering questions.

The reality of the situation is that they want to have a discretion to decide what is in the national interest, and included in the national interest is, in their view, the interest of the NP. That was admitted to in so many words by the hon. member for Von Brandis. It is on record in the Hansard of this House that they see no difference between a party-political interest and the interests of the country as a whole. That is the tragedy we are now facing, and that is why South Africa cannot go into the future assured of the fact that none of the money in this Fund is not going to be used to further the interests of the NP. That is the tragedy of it. What was the argument used against it? It was not a matter of logic or substance. It was argued that it is not necessary to put into legislation that one should not use such moneys for party-political purposes, the argument being that it would be wrong to do so from a draftmanship point of view. What nonsense is there not in such an argument! When one is dealing with the question of a species or a genus, one has the clearest example of the need to have introduced such an amendment. Let us take a simple example which even the hon. member for Mossel Bay will understand. I suggested that the hon. member’s name should be Tamatie van Rensburg, but he disagreed and said it is Patat van Rensburg. So I want to use the example of potatoes. If one says that one should not have any vegetables, one is entitled to say no vegetables, excluding potatoes. It is a completely legitimate argument and a provision can quite legitimately be drafted in those terms. It is perfectly proper to say that one can have information services but not for party-political purposes. It is so clear, so obvious to anybody who will see. So they came with a stupid technical argument to try and get away from this reality.

I think we should look at what will happen, as a result of this proposed legislation, to the whole Information debacle. There was, unbeknown to South Africa, or at least most South Africans, a secret fund for Information. Parliament did not know about it and the public did not know about it So what does this Bill do? This Bill now creates a secret fund by law so that now, legitimately, things can be done which previously were done illegitimately. That is the cynicism of the NP. Now one can start another Citizen or another To The Point, and it will be legitimate and proper to do so. So what has one achieved? We have taken a secret fund, unknown to Parliament, and made it a secret fund created by law. That is what we have achieved.

Let us take the second example. It is admitted that the secret fund was contrary to the Exchequer and Audit Act and that there were moneys which were not appropriated by Parliament for the former Department of Information but of which were used for that Department. This very Bill is an admission of that because it seeks to ratify what the Erasmus Commission found was wrong so that nobody can say that that is rubbish. It is fact, it is reality, it is beyond question. That will happen, and we must remember that former Department was operating with money which Parliament was told was being voted for Defence. It was not, however, used for Defence at all. It was used improperly by the former Department of Information. What do we have now? We have a proposed law in terms of which not only the wrongs of the past will be corrected, there will not only be retrospective validation of an appropriation which never took place, but in terms of which there will also be an NP majority able to create a secret fund for which money will be voted. How much better off are we? We are in exactly the same position, if not worse off, than 18 months ago.

Let us take the third point. It is clear that the secret funds of the former Department of Information were abused and used illegally, in part, for party-political purposes. We now have a secret fund which we are told is not going to be used for party-political purposes, but our proposed statutory restriction against the use for party-political purposes has been voted down by the NP majority in this House. How much better off are we? As a result of this measure South Africa is being plunged into a situation which in many respects is worse than it was 18 months ago.

Let us take the fourth example. As I have said, expenditure was not appropriated by Parliament, but we were told that the funds appropriated would be used for Defence purposes. This position is now retrospectively legitimated. The tragedy of it is that we are not told precisely what we are legitimating. The steam-roller NP majority in this House is being used to legitimatize things without our being told the details of what is being legitimated.

Let us take the fifth point. Settlements and compromises are said to be ratified without Parliament or the public being told what those settlements and compromises are. I have never heard—and nobody in business or in public life has ever heard—of one using a majority, a numerical majority one has in Parliament to ratify the compromises and settlements without telling people what one is ratifying. The Government is using its majority, the votes it has, and it is not going to tell the House what is being ratified or what is taking place. Well, it is the Government’s majority, but it is our money which is involved. It is the taxpayer of South Africa whose money is involved. The majority of the Government is being used to accomplish this.

I challenge the hon. the Minister to tell this House what the compromises and settlements are that have been concluded. Let us have a list of them. Let us be told what they are so that we know what has taken place and what this Parliament is supposed to be doing at this moment.

Let us take the sixth example, the disposal of assets. The NP majority is being used to validate the disposal of assets. We have been told about the disposal of The Citizen. We have debated the fact that we disapprove of it. Not only were the Treasury regulations not abided by, but the Tender Board regulations were not abided by either. All those regulations were swept aside and a decision was made to do this. That, however, is the only case we know about. What other assets have been disposed of? What other disposals of assets are being validated here today?

Let the hon. the Minister, when he replies to this debate, tell us what exactly was disposed of. Let him tell us to whom he disposed of assets and let him tell us what he got for those assets in every case. Let him tell us why he did not abide by Tender Board regulations. Let him tell us why the Treasury regulations were not taken into account. These are the things one should be told when one is supposed to validate something. A blank cheque cannot be given without anybody being entitled to know what is behind it.

The NP majority, the mighty steam-roller, with all those cracks in it, is still able to roll over us here in order to get these things through. That is not the way to govern a country. That is not the way to do it Do they know what is going to happen? What is going to happen is that they are going to pay the price for it themselves and in their own party, because in their own party they are going to have people who will say to them that this is not the state of affairs that can be allowed to continue. They cannot afford to maintain this state of affairs, because in their own ranks there are people today who resent this type of behaviour, people who resent this type of thing. [Interjections.]

Order!

The tragedy that is going to happen is that by the time that crack comes in the NP all these things will be validated. It will be said they had never taken place, and nobody will know what the situation is. [Interjections.]

Order!

However, let us make no mistake. The Government cannot continue to act in this kind of autocratic fashion. They cannot continue to act in this kind of way while we actually have a tradition in South Africa of people who want open government, of people who want to know what is happening. Their own people are going to resent it. Their own people are going to revolt against them, because this kind of behaviour is not going to be acceptable to all of them.

Are you worried about the NP?

I am very worried about the NP. I will tell the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture why I am worried about the NP. The NP happens to be governing the country, and this happens to be our country as well. Let us just make no mistake about that. When they crack upon with the destruction and the problems which their political structure will have in itself, the reflection of it will be on South Africa as a whole. That is why I am worried about the NP. That is why I am worried about their Transvaal leader attacking the hon. the Minister of Cooperation and Development. That is why I am worried about it. Their whole structure is crumbling because they are at each other’s throats. [Interjections.]

Order!

[Inaudible.]

I take no pleasure in anything that harms the country. When you are not capable of governing while you are in power, you will do more harm to the country in that kind of destructive mood in which you are now … [Interjections.] You will in fact not be able to govern effectively and efficiently … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must address the House through the Chair.

I am sorry, Sir. I will do so.

However, let me go on to another matter, and leave the hon. the Deputy Minister for a moment. I want to refer to expenditure out of the Secret Fund after 1 July 1978 which is ratified or which is sought to be ratified by Parliament without anybody in Parliament knowing on what that money was spent. We are used to having a budget in Parliament. We are used to having an accountability in Parliament. We are used to being told for what money is being voted. However, here we are told by the Government: “We spend money. It is our business how we spend it. We are not telling you how we spend it, but we are using our majority in Parliament in order to have it validated by Parliament”

Now, if there is nothing wrong with any of these expenditures, if it is all open and clear and above board, why are we not told about it? Why is there a necessity for secrecy? What the hon. the Minister is doing is creating a measure which is surrounded by a mist of secrecy, a mist of such a nature that it is enveloping it in a mystery which can only arouse suspicion. Who is to blame for it? Only the people who have created that mist of secrecy and that mist of suspicion are to be blamed for it. Those are the people governing South Africa, the NP Government.

Then, let us take another example. We are here today in a situation in which we are validating what was unauthorized. One of the classic things, something which I find unbelievable, is that the hon. the Minister himself does not know what the consequences are of what he is asking Parliament to do today. It is, of course, not what I am saying. He says it himself. Allow me to quote him. Hansard, 20 June 1979—

Has one ever heard of governing a country in a way like that? We are asked to pass a measure, and the hon. the Minister who is introducing that measure here is unable to tell us what the consequences are going to be of our passing that measure.

He does not know and he does not care. [Interjections.]

I think that is the most remarkable thing I have ever heard. I have never heard of the like. [Interjections.] The situation which we proposed yesterday— and it is a very simple legal principle, even though the hon. the Minister refers to it as a hypothetical legal point—is that when a man is given money in an unauthorized fashion, if there is no authority for giving him that money, one is entitled to reclaim that money. However, when one ratifies the authority under which it is given, one can no longer claim that money. Every law student learns that in the first year, but apparently it is not known in the highest forum in the land, in Parliament [Interjections.] With great respect, I for one am not prepared to vote to ratify unauthorized payments when I do not know what those payments are in all respects—we only know of some of them—and when I, in any case, believe that money should be reclaimed in compensation for those unauthorized payments.

In taking stock of this measure, let us ask what it really does. This measure does not bring the Information debacle to an end. It creates, as I have said, an even greater aura of mystery and suspicion. What has the whole Information debacle done to South Africa, and how much better off are we as a result of the exposure of all these things that were wrong in the former Department of Information? It brought about the downfall of two very prominent and leading politicians and it destroyed the careers of some officials, but what has it done other than that? I pose these questions specifically to the hon. the Minister whom I hope is listening, though it seems he is busy talking to other hon. members. [Interjections.] Firstly, we ask that all those who have committed crimes should be prosecuted. I ask the hon. the Minister to tell the House who have been prosecuted other than the journalists from the Rand Daily Mail? Who else is liable to be prosecuted as a result of the events that took place, particularly bearing in mind the provisions of this measure. Secondly, we ask for the recovery of all the assets, and there is still a major amount entirely unexplained. Only a portion of the amount has been explained. We are not told what the prospects are of recovering the rest. We are not told what our situation is in regard to the money which is in the USA. We are not told what our position is in regard to the Sacramento Union and we are not told what the position is in regard to the shares in the TV business that was bought with the South African taxpayers’ money. We are, therefore, not being told how the remaining assets are going to be recovered.

Thirdly, and perhaps most important of all, we ask for laws to prevent the recurrence of events such as those that have occurred, but is this a measure designed to prevent the recurrence of such events? On the contrary, this is a measure which creates new secret funds, legitimizes such operations, does not provide safeguards for the use of those secret funds and would make a second Citizen legal if it were to be established. The whole thing is a cynical move, a cynical piece of legislation summed up in the words of the hon. member for Von Brandis who said that the interests of the NP are the national interests of South Africa, there being no difference between the two. We have to say clearly, so there is no misunderstanding, that we have no confidence in this legislation in terms of which the Minister refuses to say that money cannot be used for party-political purposes. Therefore we believe that the Information debacle not only has not yet come to an end, but what is worse, has resulted in a new door being opened, and with such an open door we cannot be satisfied that there are the necessary safeguards to ensure that the taxpayers’ money is safe. In our view the taxpayer is entitled to know that his money is safe and that it will not be used for party-political purposes but will, in fact, be used in the interest of the country as a whole. That safeguard has not been given to us, and therefore we shall not support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that after Second Reading and the Committee Stage, the hon. member for Yeoville still has no idea of what this piece of legislation is all about. Let us state a few things clearly. Surely the hon. member knows what accurate bookkeeping means. The State has to introduce this legislation to perform a function in the finalization of the matters referred to here. After all, we conceded that it was wrong that certain things had been done in a certain way. But this has now to be put right, and it can only be done by way of legislation. After all, the Government has never furnished any details in this House with regard to what actually happened to secret funds. We have never done that After all, we are dealing with secret funds here. Now the hon. member wants us to spell out every detail concerning the secret funds of the former Department of Information. I have stated before that the former Department of Information made use of secret funds, and that not all of these were necessarily misappropriated. In fact, I think a great deal of those secret funds were well spent.

Prove it.

Surely the Government cannot disclose all those facts. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that I am hoping this is my last speech in this House on the Information situation, and I trust it is also his last.

No, unfortunately not.

I wonder if we would have had half of the debate on the former Department of Information that we had this year if the question of The Citizen had not been at issue.

It was at issue.

The Citizen and To The Point are now the peg on which those hon. members hang their entire argument. Is it really so important that this should be related to that specific matter?

Are you saying it is not important?

I am not saying that the financing of The Citizen was right, but is it really so important? The fact remains that the Cabinet is now introducing an Amendment Bill to provide that the secret funds will now have to be audited, and consequently the secret funds of Information can also be audited.

They are now getting an account.

They are now getting a secret account and this has to be audited. The Advocate-General can look at certain things. The most important watchdog over State funds, namely the Select Committee on Public Accounts, will now get a report from the Auditor-General. Let us now forget about these things and not try to play party-politics. The hon. member for Yeoville is asking whether this will happen and whether that will happen, but if we consider what the Government has done, the answers are obvious. Surely the Government is not trying to hide anything in this connection. Hon. members themselves are going to obtain the evidence. The Erasmus Commission found there were still certain things that were not clear. If the legislation rectifies certain matters from an accounting point of view, that certainly does not mean that if there are people who have stolen State funds or who have unlawfully enriched themselves at the expense of the State, action will not be taken against those people. The hon. member is making a very big fuss about why nobody has been prosecuted. As a legal man, I should like to tell the hon. member that he knows himself what procedure has to be followed and how much time is taken up in investigating and building up a case so that when a man is charged, one at least has a reasonable measure of certainty that one can succeed. We cannot simply charge a man while knowing full well that we do not have a good case against him. This legislation does not prevent action being taken against people who have enriched themselves unlawfully, in a dishonest way, or in any way whatsoever, at the expense of the State. The legislation merely enables the Treasury to balance its books as far as the Information matter is concerned.

What about Van Rensburg’s R30 000?

These are secret funds that are being discussed here. Does the hon. member want us to have a debate of this nature on the Special Defence Account or the secret accounts of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of National Security? After all, that is not the idea at all.

I think hon. members are being somewhat petulant with regard to this Bill. I see nothing sinister in this Bill, which hon. members could now use in an attempt to make political capital.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to make a brief apology. Unfortunately I shall have to be leaving the House shortly after my speech and I therefore wish to apologize to the hon. the Minister and hon. members who might speak after me.

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke has mentioned that the criminal charges arising out of the whole Information affair will not be washed out by the fact that this Bill is passed. He is perfectly correct in that contention. Our contention does not relate to criminal liability, however, but to Cabinet responsibility and to the direct responsibility of the hon. the Ministers who made the money available from their Votes and facilitated the passing of that money from one department to another, while the actual passing of such money conflicts with the Statutes of this Parliament. That is our point. I should like to draw it to the attention of the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke that this Bill validates that action retrospectively. In other words, this is another piece of retrospective legislation, because clause 6 seeks to validate the expenditure voted by this Parliament as far back as 1973, six years ago. [Interjections.] While I am on this point, I want to say that I do not know whether there has ever been any finality about how much money actually is involved, how much we are making good and how much is deemed to have been appropriated for the former Department of Information. I should like the hon. the Minister to ultimately let us have the information about how much money we shall be appropriating, in terms of the proposed legislation, for the former Department of Information.

As this House is aware, the Erasmus Commission found that approximately R64 million had been utilized by the former Department of Information. However, since that date we have had the exposure of the $10 million that was sent to Switzerland through the hon. the Minister of Defence. There has been no subsequent clarification to indicate whether that $10 million was part of the R64 million that was given to the former Department of Information originally. I believe the hon. the Minister of Finance ultimately owes this House an explanation about how much money was illegally transferred or acquired by the former Department of Information and how much money we are actually having to make good in terms of this Bill.

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke has also said that we must do this for the reasons of good book-keeping. This is certainly a matter on which I cannot agree with him in any shape or form. The pure and simple reason for passing this clause 6 is to validate the position and the actions of the hon. the Minister of Defence and the hon. the Minister of Finance.

It covers up bad bookkeeping.

That is right. It covers up bad book-keeping, the fact that book-keeping errors have been made. This clause simply seeks to absolve the people involved from any responsibility in this regard. How are people in the future going to look at this particular Bill? The reason for this Third Reading is, of course, to look into the future and decide how things are going to be affected. Can the hon. the Minister imagine what the reaction of our descendants are going to be when they see that we have had to pass a Bill in this House with provisions such as those in clause 6 which states that—

This is, of course, the Department of Information. They are going to wonder why Parliament, back in 1979, had to pass legislation of that nature. When they go into the matter in further detail they will obviously dig up the whole mess of worms that has been exposed over the last year or so. They will say to themselves that it was certainly a strong Government, but that strong Government did not do the right thing by the people of South Africa. I think it was Dwight D. Eisenhower who made the point that the stronger the Government of a country becomes, the poorer the people within that country becomes in terms of their Government because there are no braking mechanisms. The sheer overwhelming majority of the NP in this House does not have the checks and balances that one should have in a normal democratic system. Obviously they hold 135 seats in this House.

Who is to blame for that?

To quite a large extent it was the misuse of public funds by that Government that was one of the causes. Why can that hon. Deputy Minister, who sits on that side of the House, not tell us why the previous Prime Minister called an election on 30 November 1977? [Interjections.] Did he call it because he knew that the

Order! What has this to do with the Bill?

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I was reacting to an interjection. You are quite right, the interjection had nothing to do with the Bill. Therefore, I shall leave that point here and now.

[Inaudible.]

I certainly do not want to get that hon. Deputy Minister into trouble with the Deputy Speaker twice in two days. [Interjections.]

As I have said, a strong Government is not a good thing for a country. I believe that the sort of situation that has now been exposed is a situation which the public of South Africa will take into consideration during the next election. They are certainly going to take it into account in the Black germ area of south coast. There is another question that one should ask in relation to this Bill. We have found that this Bill is a reaction to what has happened in the defunct Department of Information and is validating what went wrong. However, has this Government decided to introduce an amendment to the Defence Special Account Act, No. 6 of 1974 because that is where the whole situation originally went wrong. The money was taken out of this account and given to the defunct Department of Information, but that should not have happened. When we in the Opposition benches look at the Special Defence Account Act, we see that there is an omission. Certain provisions are laid down as to how the money is to be spent, but there is nothing that says that a contravention of that Act shall in any way be an offence. Perhaps one of the keys to the whole puzzle is that it was not in terms of that Act that the money was transferred, an Act that did not make provision for contravention of the Act to be regarded as an offence. I should like to challenge the Government to amend the Defence Special Account Act and to make it an offence, punishable by a large fine and/or a period of imprisonment, for anybody to contravene the provisions of that Act because we have learnt, from bitter experience, how very wrong things can go when such provisions are contravened. Members of the public can, for example, lose a lot of their own money, but the country can also lose a lot of its own stature in the eyes of the world. The Information debacle has certainly not done South Africa any good anywhere, and the whole root of the problem comes back to the fact that this happened because money was given to a department that should not have had that money in the first place. All the controls set up by the State, in the light of many, many years of experience, basically became null and void simply because of the fact that the money was transferred in a way that did not comply with any regulations. Therefore the regulations that did exist were not able to control what subsequently happened to that money. Having looked at this Bill, and in particular at clause 6, we certainly cannot support the Third Reading.

We still cannot support clause 7 either. In this regard I should again like to ask the hon. the Minister a question and pose a challenge to him in regard to clause 7, in terms of which we are going to be validating acts that have taken place since 1 July 1978. We are going to be validating settlements or any act performed on behalf of the State or any expenditure incurred on or after 1 July. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is going to report back to this House, or to a Select Committee of this House, on precisely what has been done, because we are now giving him power since that strong Government unfortunately has the power to vote this measure through. Talking about that, I have no doubt that had the hon. the Prime Minister not withdrawn the Advocate-General Bill and the clauses pertaining to Press-gagging, all those hon. members on that side of the House would have blindly voted for that legislation. We all now know and accept that the Press-gagging provisions were bad, but every hon. member on that side of the House would have voted for them just as they will be voting for this measure.

Order!

I have just returned to the Bill, Sir. Clause 7 of this Bill is, in our view, equally bad legislation. I would please like the hon. the Minister to report, where he possibly can, on what has been done with the powers that we are now granting. Can he report back and tell us, in due course, what acts and what settlements we have validated? I believe this Parliament is owed an explanation by the hon. the Minister of Finance.

I have already given it.

The hon. the Minister says that he has already given it, but I am talking of individual detail. We are going to have details of settlements in the future, because settlements are going to be made. I therefore want to be assured, as a member of this House, that we will have the right to judge the Government, in retrospect, by their actions in this matter, or is the whole thing once again going to be covered up? We in these benches will therefore certainly be voting against this Bill at Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London North has just said the most remarkable thing I have ever heard in this House.

A high point in your life.

He said a strong Government was not good for a country. I should like to suggest that what is not good for a country is a poor Opposition such as the one we are being afflicted with at the moment.

You made it weak by having The Citizen, not so? You cheated. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for East London North repeatedly bandied the allegation across the floor of the House that by passing this Bill, we should also thereby be validating and approving of the alleged improper actions of certain Ministers, namely the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Defence. We have already debated in detail the alleged share of these two hon. Ministers in the activities of the former Department of Information. We have proved conclusively that these two hon. members could not be blamed at all for any action in connection with the controversial activities of the former Department of Information. In fact, the Erasmus Commission made the same finding. Nevertheless the hon. member for East London North comes along and tries time and again to implicate these two hon. Ministers and to get at them and to hit them below the belt.

Without any supporting evidence.

Yes, without a shred of evidence. The hon. member simply makes an allegation and then leaves it at that I think it is high time for the hon. member to put a stop to that.

The hon. member requested the hon. the Minister of Finance that “he must give detailed information—individual details”. Could the hon. member be so naïve, then, as to expect that the projects and undertakings on which the former Department of Information spent money be spelled out in detail? Has the hon. member not heard, then, of the evaluation of the projects of the former Department of Information by the Pretorius Committee? Has he not taken cognizance, then, of the fact that approximately half of the undertakings in which the former Department of Information was engaged, were undertakings of so much merit that they could be continued with? The moment the information he desires were to be furnished here, all those undertakings which indeed have merit, would immediately be destroyed. This is therefore an absurd request on the part of the hon. member for East London North.

Only half have been approved. That is a low percentage.

I wish to come back to the hon. member for Yeoville who is unfortunately not present now. At the risk of repetition, I want to come back to the argument we had about clause 2 at Committee Stage of the Bill, and which the hon. member again referred to this morning. I am in full agreement with the hon. member that the species is included in the genus. That concept is very well known to me. In fact, I have myself advanced that argument on more than one occasion. However, the crux of the difference between the hon. member and me is that I maintain that the amendment the hon. member introduced at Committee Stage, was not a species of the genus established by the relevant clause. If one considers clause 2, one finds that it provides that the money involved here is utilized, or, as is stated more plainly in the English text, “shall be utilized”, in the national interest and in respect of matters which, owing to the secret or sensitive nature thereof, cannot be defrayed from the vote of the Information Service of South Africa, for the purpose of—

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

That is therefore the genus, the object for which this money has to be utilized.

The hon. members opposite—nobody stated it in stronger terms than that very hon. member for Yeoville—repeatedly took us to task on the basis that The Citizen was not a project that was undertaken in the interests of the promotion of the image of South Africa. They also said it was not a project designed to promote the image of, and a positive disposition towards, the Republic. Nor was the project designed to avert the psychological attacks on the Republic. The hon. members therefore consistently argued that The Citizen was not a project that was covered by what is envisaged with the clause. Consequently, this project is not a species of the genus established by the clause. Therefore, I maintain that the argument of the hon. member for Yeoville simply does not hold water. If this project was indeed of this genus, he would have had an argument, but his species is one of an altogether different genus, and it is not covered by the relevant clause at all. His argument does not, therefore, hold water.

You do not believe what you are saying, do you?

I should have liked to react further to the arguments of the hon. member, but owing to a lack of time I shall leave it at that.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill was published for the first time approximately a week ago and had to be debated amid all the other pressing activities of this House. Although the Bill was subjected to a sharp discussion, it did not receive the attention it could otherwise have received if it had not been published so late. I make so bold as to say that if the Bill had been introduced earlier in the course of the session, it would have resulted in one of the longest, fiercest and bitterest debates in the history of this House. And rightly so too, because as my hon. friend behind me indicated earlier, the cynicism behind this Bill is simply breath-taking. I have tried to recall another measure which I could use as a basis of comparison as far as cynicism is concerned, but all I can think of, is the Senate Act of the mid ’fifties. In that case, too, the Government simply made coldblooded use of its majority to achieve something it would not have been able to achieve through the normal channels. The Government is doing this again now with regard to offences committed in the course of the development of the Information scandal.

We are dealing with a Bill that makes it possible to cover up everything that was done or is not yet known to South Africa. I am not saying that this will happen, but the Bill makes it possible.

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke had to step in today for the umpteenth time to attempt to defend the indefensible. By the way, I think the hon. member deserves a special reward from the Government for his loyalty throughout this long episode. The hon. member was right in saying that clause 8 of the Bill provides that no person is being exempted from any liability to the State or from being prosecuted for any offence. That is true. One ought to say something in passing about that as well. The hon. member defended the state of affairs and said that everyone should realize that it takes a long time to assemble all the facts and to make out a case, before anyone can be prosecuted. That may be true. However, it did not take very long to assemble the necessary information in order to institute proceedings against Sparks and Fraser. Within days—one could almost say hours—they were prosecuted by the State because of their technical acts.

And Rhoodie is sitting overseas.

After all these months, this remains to this day the only prosecution instituted in connection with this whole long debacle. The hon. member for Yeoville has just pointed out that Dr. Eschel Rhoodie is sitting overseas. However, not all the Rhoodies are overseas. Not everyone involved in this case, is sitting overseas. Yet we do not see one single prosecution. Nevertheless we have legislation here in which it is being provided, not that people may not be prosecuted, but that things that were done, may be sanctioned. This is an sanction ex post facto by hon. members of the governing party.

The hon. the Minister and other hon. members opposite had a great deal to say about the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville and I had said during this debate that we realized that a time would come when Parliament would have to introduce a measure of this nature. Because we said that the measure, in the form in which it was introduced, was extremely premature, an effort was made to indicate that we were after all in favour of it in principle, and that our position to it was not really of a serious nature. Of course this is not true at all. The question of timing becomes a matter of principle here. Here it is of the utmost importance that the things being done here, may not be done, ought not to be done, before all the facts have been made known clearly. I said earlier that the hon. the Minister was closing the file without the case having been completed. That is true. However, perhaps one should draw another comparison. I would say the hon. the Minister is burying his patient before that patient is really dead.

Yes. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we had a fine example of this during the Committee Stage. The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to that a moment ago. The hon. member for Yeoville asked the hon. the Minister whether this legislation could possibly mean that the R30 000 cash paid to Chris van Rensburg from the secret fund, could no longer be recovered from him. What was the hon. the Minister’s reply? He said it was hypothetical. He said he was not sure. He said that it could possibly be true or not. However, he then said: “Let us proceed with the legislation.”

It is only R30 000.

Surely that is not what I said.

The hon. member for Yeoville quoted it this morning.

I was referring to the State Trust Board.

Let us read it again. Here I have it.

I was referring to the State Trust Board.

Mr. Speaker, I shall quote the words of the hon. the Minister again (Hansard, 20 June 1979)—

†Well, I do not know what is actually going to happen in practice. However, the hon. the Minister has conceded in these words, that he is taking the responsibility for introducing this Bill to the House when, for all he knows, it may mean that the R30 000 cannot be recovered from Chris van Rensburg.

Speak to the Bill.

It has a direct bearing on the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this again is breath-taking. We have here an hon. Minister who not only signs documents he cannot see, but who also introduces Bills he does not understand. He does not know what he is validating, but we have to validate it. He has to cover up at all costs, and very quickly, before we even know what is under the cover. That is what this legislation is about.

This is a sas day for the reputation of our country, our country’s reputation of good financial and administrative behaviour. Whatever may have been said against South Africa and against South Africa’s policies, against what we have done, the fact remains that until recently this country had a reputation, I believe, second to none in the world, for good, straight, clean financial administration. We have experienced the Information scandal. It has been a very bad scandal. However, that scandal by itself need not have blemished our reputation very seriously had it been crystally and cleanly and openly and publicly dealt with. However, instead of that, just as it appeared as though the whole thing was starting to draw to a close, we have the Government coming along and saying we should validate what has been done, whatever it may be, that we should now accept funds which were improperly transferred should be deemed to have been properly transferred, and that we should take powers in terms of which we can declare to have been correct that which was not correct.

The stain of this, I fear, on the escutcheon of South Africa’s reputation will remain for a long time. We shall oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with amazement to the so-called arguments of the Opposition. Either they do not understand what the Bill entails, or they are twisting the facts concerning it completely. It is either one or the other.

They are being obstreperous.

I think it is because they are being obstreperous. The hon. member for Parktown said that if this measure had been introduced earlier, it would have given rise to a much longer debate. What has the Opposition done during this parliamentary session of almost six months? They have tried to talk about Information practically every day. Whether it was relevant or not, made no difference to them. They only wanted to talk about Information. Now we are coming forward with a Bill which is aimed at establishing the correct procedure and now they take us to task for being cynical. It is very clear to hon. members on this side of the House—and the people of this country discovered this a long time ago—that the Opposition is deeply disappointed that they were unable to achieve anything with these rumours, insinuations and attacks which they have now been making for eight or nine months. [Interjections.]

†We had the judicial commission of inquiry for which they all shouted and that judicial commission of inquiry has repeatedly come to certain conclusions which the Opposition have brushed aside. As the hon. member for Mossel Bay has said, it is especially the hon. member for East London North who is not prepared to accept the findings of this judicial commission of inquiry. Yet he did not have the simple courage to go before that commission to put his case and tell them where the evidence is on which he used to reach his remarkable conclusions in this matter.

Do you accept their findings?

I have given evidence on many occasions; the facts are there.

But do you accept their findings?

The Government has stated its views absolutely clearly and categorically on that report; so the hon. member for Hillbrow must listen for a moment before he starts shouting. [Interjections.] If he had been so interested in this commission, why did he not go with the 90 page memorandum which he said was put before the commission?

Because my evidence would be hearsay.

The hon. member had an opportunity to speak, and should therefore now keep quiet.

Order! All the members who took part in this debate up to now have had a very fair hearing …

Mr. Speaker …

Order! Does the hon. member want to ask a question?

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to answer a question. The Opposition must not now try to make cheap politics out of the issue. They must rather look at the facts relating to the Bill. This Bill is an earnest attempt of a responsible Government’s absolute determination to place all its cards on the table and to put this matter squarely before the public.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member wants to be sarcastic, he must have a certain talent for that; otherwise it will fall just as flat as the Opposition’s case against this Bill. [Interjections.] Their whole case has fallen absolutely flat and they have tried their best to resuscitate it and to bring it to the fore again, but they simply could not succeed.

And they still forfeit their deposits.

And they still forfeit their deposists, one after the other, when these matters are put before the voting public.

What does this measure entail? This measure is validating certain transactions. If we did not do this what would the Opposition’s attitude have been then? Supposing we had ended this session without this simple piece of legislation, what would the attitude of the Opposition have been? They would have shouted to high heaven that we had gone away from Parliament, from this highest authority, without asking for the regularization of certain things that happened and which we inherited.

Inherited from whom?

Even with all this insinuation before it, the Erasmus Commission said this matter had been inherited.

From which party did you inherit it?

It is quite clear that as a result of their utter incompetence in this matter, the Opposition are in such a comer that all they can do is shout. They have had their opportunity to talk and I did not interrupt them. But let them shout. This House and the country as a whole have seen the absolute cynicism of their attitude and the hollowness of their case. And I repeat, because this is the issue at hand, that if the Government in the circumstances had not brought this measure before Parliament in this session, we would never have heard the end of it from the official Opposition and their newspapers. But the Government had the moral courage to do it. It had the candour to do it, and it tells the public that certain things did go wrong and that it is now formally putting them right and making the issue absolutely clear. All the Opposition can now say is: Tell us how much money is involved and how much are we going to recover. What does the Opposition think? Why did we set up, by law, a State Trust Board? Why did we set up this highly competent board to do just that? And the Opposition is now trying to anticipate, as they try to anticipate everything that happens here, what exactly will happen and they are trying to embarrass the State Trust Board by asking irrelevant and nonsensical questions.

The State Trust Board is going to continue with this great sustained effort to recover as much as we possibly can of the amount that is referred to in the Erasmus Commission report, the R64 million. It has been quite correctly said, especially by the hon. member for Mossel Bay, that a very substantial part of that money was well spent. It was spent on well-founded projects, projects which the Erasmus Commission has not been able to criticize. Furthermore, the Pretorius Committee, which went specifically into the matter, has said in its reports to the Government that there are a very large number of projects which were well founded and which should continue in the interests of the country. But that is not good enough for the Opposition because that does not suit them. They wanted all those projects to be irregular or not in the interest of the country. Unfortunately for them a very large part of them are in the interest of the country. In regard to the balance of the projects we are making every conceivable effort to recover just as much as can possibly be recovered. While we are hurling challenges around this House, as we have been hearing, I want to say that it is a remarkable thing that nobody among the Opposition members who like to be so critical without the facts before them and when they are given the facts and told that we have recovered and are in the process of recovering R29 million—not R3 million or R9 million, but R29 million at this stage—has told us what they think of that effort, because it does not suit them.

You have not recovered it yet.

It absolutely destroys their whole case. This process will continue, and I again ask the Opposition to give the State Trust Board an opportunity to continue with the excellent work that the Pretorius Committee and certain other bodies have already done, especially the Pretorius Committee. It has done outstanding work. We must give the State Trust Board an opportunity to continue, and when we come together and take stock of these things, let us then see what the amount is and let us see what can be said about individual things. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke and the hon. member for Mossel Bay are quite correct when they say that we cannot bandy all these matters about in public, because this has essentially to do with secret work. All countries that mean anything have secret operations today and so has South Africa, even though it be on a limited scale. I simply cannot today bandy about a whole lot of matters which are highly delicate, sensitive and secret.

But you do not know about them.

Well, then the hon. member must take our word for it. Is the acceptance of one another’s word not the basis on which we conduct our affairs in a civilized country? Or should I never accept the word of the hon. member for Yeoville?

But you do not listen to what I say.

Order!

I want to say that it is a highly irresponsible attitude that is being adopted by the Opposition in this whole affair, especially in regard to this matter. I think it is highly irresponsible of the hon. member for Parktown to say that this is a most cynical measure that has been introduced. I record my objection to that in public. He cannot sustain it, because this measure illustrates the attitude of a Government which is prepared to put its cards on the table. We are clearly telling the public that we shall deem this to have been regularized and that in the best interests of the country we shall continue with the effort to recover everything we can of what may have gone astray. We shall also report on our progress. As far as this question of reporting is concerned, I think it was the hon. member for East London North who had the effrontery to say that we are covering up. We have not covered up anything at all; that is a standing fact. I should like any hon. member to stand up and tell us when this Government under this Prime Minister has covered up on a single iota concerning this matter. In fact, our whole record shows exactly the opposite to be the case.

Are all the worms out of the can?

The hon. member for Hillbrow is very jittery this morning. We are not prepared to tell him about certain secret things if it is not in the interests of anybody in this country. He sits there like a Jack-in-the-box quoting all sorts of hypothetical, stupid idioms.

Are all the worms out of the can?

I do not think it necessary to hold the House up much longer. The hon. member for East London North has posed the question what our descendants will at some time in the future think of the action of the Government in moving this measure. I think any reasonable descendants of hon. members on that side of the House will at some future date most certainly be impressed by it. I do not apologize for this. On behalf of the Government I take credit for this measure. This is an honest measure and it puts the matter squarely before the public. If we were to believe the Opposition, we would not have introduced this measure.

You are putting nothing before the public.

The hon. member for Yeoville really excelled himself today. It is his habit to talk largely in terms of hypotheses and generalizations and he absolutely exceeded himself today in his generalizations. I shall come back to this. As an hon. Opposition member has said earlier on, it is perfectly clear that they have got themselves into a state of mind where they are deeply and darkly suspicious of everything that is done. They will not get out of it. They have got themselves into a psychological log-jam, and they will not get out of it. In the meantime the Government, by measures such as this, will continue to govern the country and to clarify this issue. The Government will not be deterred by this sort of hysterical, negative and absolutely pathetic attitude adopted by a party which, I would have thought, would have taken every opportunity to support this measure. I now want to put a question to the Opposition.

Ask them about Koedoespoort. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the Opposition parties what they have ever done from the start to the end of this matter to assist this Government to clear up this matter. What have they ever done to assist us to regularize irregular matters?

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Hillbrow has now made enough interjections.

The outcome of the by-elections already held prove the inability of the Opposition, and there is still a whole range of by-elections coming. I have no doubt that those fine Opposition parties on that side of the House will grab every opportunity to continue with their talkativeness. They will obviously nominate candidates for all these by-elections. They have every opportunity to talk until the cows come home. They will have every opportunity to talk about the Information scandal and I challenge them to do so. I challenge them specifically to put a fair and accurate interpretation and presentation of this measure before the public at these meetings. We shall see what happens to them. They will get the biggest drumming they have ever heard from the South African public.

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

The effect of this amendment is, in the first place, that instead of the State President appointing the Advocate-General on the advice of the Cabinet, i.e. the political or executive power, the Chief Justice appoints a person as Advocate-General on his own responsibility and without advice from the political side. In the second place the amendment provides that it shall be a judge and no one else. In our opinion this will mean a considerable improvement in the status of the post of Advocate-General. At the same time it must be made very clear that in spite of the fact that we in the PFP are making this suggestion which might be accepted by the hon. the Minister, we are still opposed in principle to the creation of this post. Briefly our reasons are that we do not perceive the necessity of such a post because the existing machinery for the determining and exercising of rights is adequate, as it has been for the past 300 years, to counteract corruption in any sector, public or private. There is the S.A. Police with its division that is specially charged with this type of work, and there are the Attorneys-General that have to supervise the adjudication of cases submitted to the S.A. Police. The machinery has worked well and effectively up to now and we do not see the necessity of introducing this new unique institution in South Africa. That is the one objection we have to this specific measure. The other is the fact that there is still a suspicion surrounding the introduction of this post, and more than a suspicion, that the people that the Government wishes to get at in this way, are not the people who are corrupt or potentially corrupt, but principally the Press. I need merely point out a few facts in this regard to make this clear.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that the principle of the appointment of an Advocate-General was accepted during the Second Reading. Under the discussion of clause 1 every party was allowed to state its standpoint once again, and I am afraid that I shall now have to ask the hon. member to confine himself to the particulars of the clause under discussion.

Mr. Chairman, I abide by your ruling of course. I just want to explain that, although the amendment I moved entails an improvement, it will not salvage the matter as far as the standpoint of this party is concerned.

Let me go on to the merits of the motion itself. You will note, Mr. Chairman, on an analysis of the various clauses as they are likely to be moved in their final form by the hon. the Minister, that, as the hon. the Minister himself said, the Advocate-General will have a judicial function. The authority and powers being conferred on the Advocate-General or which are to be conferred on him in this Bill, amount in reality to the establishment of a court or something closely resembling a court Let me remind you that what the Bill, as we have it before us and as the hon. the Minister intends to amend it, refers to is the powers and functions of the Advocate-General.

Where do you see that in clause 2?

I am connecting the office of the Advocate-General with the powers and functions envisaged at a later stage in the Bill.

Let us then discuss them at that stage.

But then the cause is already lost as far as clause 2 is concerned. [Interjections.] No, Sir, I shall not allow myself to be hoodwinked in that way.

In that case, how did you find yourself in that party?

In terms of clauses 4 and 5 the power conferred on the Advocate-General entails that his decision on what is in the interests of South Africa is final. Therefore it is a very important decision he has to give. It affects the entire operation of the Bill and also the public of South Africa in its entirety. Clause 5 provides that the Advocate-General may decide on his own initiative to institute an investigation. In terms of clause 7 he may decide what documents a witness may examine when appearing before him, whether as an original witness or as a defending witness. The Advocate-General may decide what witnesses shall be examined, and the examination—this is important—is carried out by the Advocate-General. This is most definitely the characteristic of a court Furthermore, the Bill provides that the Advocate-General’s findings may not be anticipated. This is typically something which belongs in a court of law because it is conventionally in operation there. The Advocate-General has the right to compel people to appear as witnesses before him and to reply to questions. If they do not reply to questions—this is the most important provision of all—he may summarily fine or imprison them. With the exception of a court of law there is no other institution in South Africa of which the presiding officer has this power. This is the strongest argument as to why we are of the opinion that a judge, and no other person with lesser status in the administration of justice in South Africa, should be appointed to this post.

Are you interested in being appointed to this post?

It is imperative that the public should have confidence in the total impartiality of this official, because without that confidence, as the hon. the Minister himself said, some of the advantages that could be derived from this institution would be lost.

There is even the sub judice rule that no comment whatsoever may be made on any case which falls under the jurisdiction of the Advocate-General.

In our opinion all these elements make it absolutely essential for us to have a provision here that it should not be the Executive Authority, but the Judicial Authority that makes the appointment. No other person, whatever his qualifications may be, but a judge should be appointed to the post, and provision should be made for that in the Bill as well. There are jurists in South Africa that subscribe to this point of view.

Which judge do you want?

Who appoints the chief justice?

The hon. member apparently wants to know what the difference is between this appointment and the appointment of a judge. There is a vast difference because as far as the appointment of judges is concerned, there is a fixed convention. Up to now, however, there has been no convention in respect of the appointment of an Advocate-General. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, though we in the NRP understand some of the reasons and motivations for the amendment of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, we will not be able to support it I should like to deal briefly with our reasons for not being able to support the amendment.

When we look at this amendment we find it is quite indicative of the sad state of affairs which presently exists and which give rise to the amendment. As I see it, this amendment casts even a further shadow over the situation in South Africa. It also casts a shadow over the position of the State President and of the Executive Power in South Africa. We do not believe this to be the ideal atmosphere in which we should face the future. We know that the Select Committee received strong recommendations from the Association of Law Societies and from the Johannesburg Attorneys’ Association in connection with this matter. However, what is the true position? To my knowledge the Chief Justice makes no appointments. As far as I am aware judges do not even appoint their own registrars. Therefore, it is most important that we the people of South Africa should return to a situation in which we will have confidence in the executive Government in South Africa.

That is precisely what we are concerned with here.

As I see it the Executive power must bear the responsibility for governing the country well, and must be placed in a position in which they can be called upon to account for all possible failures, even on the part of someone such as the Advocate-General.

Now, if the Advocate-General is appointed by the judiciary or by the Chief Justice in person, what we will be doing then will be to exempt the executive power from its responsibility to govern and to govern well.

When did you see the light? [Interjections.]

Its responsibility is above all to prevent corruption. It is for that reason that we are unable to support this particular amendment Nevertheless, I do understand the hon. member’s motivation for moving this amendment However, I regard it as a kind of escapism. In the interests of South Africa we should place that responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the Government. It is the task of the Government to get on with the job and to see to it that the situation returns to normal, because we cannot afford to continue with a situation in which people do not have confidence in the executive power. This amendment, I am afraid, will not serve that purpose, but will have just the opposite effect.

Mr. Chairman, I shall try to reply to the arguments of the hon. member for Johannesburg North in the same calm atmosphere in which he put his case.

Thank you.

I hope we shall be able to discuss this serious subject in that spirit.

The fundamental statements of the hon. member are as follows. In the first place he stated that his party did not associate itself with the concept of the institution of the office of Advocate-General. In the second place—although having accepted that the principle of the introduction of such an office had already been passed during the Second Reading—the hon. member mentioned two other facets of importance. The first of these was who should appoint the official who is to be invested with this power. Secondly he asked what the qualifications of the incumbent of this office should be. The hon. member also had a few things to say about the powers of the Advocate-General. However, I want to suggest that we discuss them when we deal with the clauses separately. Then I shall reply to the hon. member’s standpoint in this regard.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North moved an amendment which I, in order to record it, just want to read again. It reads as follows—

Let us now see whether a motivation for the standpoint of the hon. member exists. In the first place it is true that the Chief Justice, as well as other judges, are appointed by the executive in terms of the provisions of the Supreme Court Act, Act No. 59 of 1959, i.e. by the State President on the advice of the Government. However, after the appointment has been made by the Executive, the judge himself is virtually immune to interference by the Executive in the execution of his functions. The hon. member will agree with me on that score.

Secondly, the hon. member will also agree with me that if a person examines the functions of a judge in the Supreme Court specifically and compares those functions with the functions being entrusted to the Advocate-General, there is one important distinguishing element, and that is that it is expected of a judge to give final decisions on the subject submitted to him for a decision. In other words, the judge’s functions with regard to a finding is final, and in spite of that, no one has ever objected to the fact that he is appointed by the Executive. On the other hand the functions of the Advocate-General may be distinguished from that of a judge because irrespective of what finding he may arrive at, that finding is not a final one, but is subject to acceptance, amendment or rejection by Parliament.

This is an important difference. Now I want to ask the hon. member: If it is acceptable in our system that the State President may appoint a judge who makes final decisions, what on earth is wrong with the Executive appointing a person to an office where he will not be able to make the final decisions? I think the hon. member will concede that that argument of mine is correct.

Up to a point.

[Inaudible.]

I really do not want to argue with the hon. member for Groote Schuur. I am replying to the arguments of the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

The hon. member went on to discuss the question of the establishment of the office of Advocate-General, and I should like to react to that. Last night I made an important statement when I said that there was one deficiency in our set-up. The hon. member said that we had the police to perform a part of the functions of the Advocate-General. He said too that we had the Attorneys-General to act in a supervisory capacity in this regard. But in all fairness, does the hon. member know that these persons and bodies are subject to the political authority? After all, it could happen—in fact, it has happened—that the police have to investigate their own colleagues. The hon. member knows that in spite of all the fine words, hon. members on the opposite side of this House are not prepared to accept that the political authority does not interfere with the Attorney-General’s functions and their execution. In fact, there has been proof of this during the present session in the decision of the Attorney-General of the Transvaal not to institute a prosecution. The people who questioned the impartiality of these specific institutions were hon. members on the opposite side of the House. Now the hon. member comes forward in this debate and argues the very opposite of the other accusations they had made. I think that one should try, when conducting a debate of this nature, to formulate one’s arguments so clinically that they do not conflict with standpoints advanced by one for other purposes in a different debate. There is a second reason why I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment, in spite of the good spirit in which it was intended. Whether we want to or not, the Executive is responsible for the administration of this country and various instruments were created to ensure this. In respect of the judiciary there are institutions to do this. As the hon. member for Durban Central said, it is an inescapable responsibility of the government of the day. However, there is a further argument that is important, and that is that the authority that manages the Advocate-General’s appointment, is the State President Only after he has been appointed does he work under the jurisdiction of this House, the highest institution in this country.

In what way?

In this respect that the Advocate-General’s reports, in respect of those matters that he has investigated, have to be submitted to this House. This House then has the power to analyse, investigate, accept, amend or reject those findings. I have argued, and I want to repeat this, that this office is the judicial equivalent of that of the Auditor-General and I maintain that its functions can to a large extent be preventative rather than remedial. For that reason the hon. member will understand that I cannot follow his arguments or accept his amendment.

The second part of the argument of the hon. member is that he prefers the appointment of a judge. The clause in its present form does not exclude the appointment of a judge. On the other hand it does not make this compulsory. However, what is an essential element of the clause is that the knowledge of law of the person that is appointed is a very important prerequisite. It is important. The office requires him to be a person who—

practised—

No, it does not say “practise”.

Just give me a chance. I did not say that either. I read that part of subsection (2) again—

It does not say “practise”.

Surely I did not say “practise”.

You did.

I read the subsection. The requirements laid down, are really a higher qualification than merely practising.

It could be a policeman.

Just listen to the cynical remark the hon. member for Groote Schuur is making! And he has an LL.B.! I do not know where he got it. The hon. member for Johannesburg North said just now that the Police were competent enough to discharge this function and now the hon. member for Groote Schuur has just made a derogatory remark about the Police. I think it is disgraceful. [Interjections.] As far as I know, it is not a requirement for the appointment of a judge that he first had to practise for four years. The hon. member agrees with me on that score. The minimum qualifications laid down by this Bill, are, in my opinion, theoretically higher than those that apply to the appointment of a judge. What does this imply? It implies that the Government regards the question of the qualifications of this man with the same seriousness as the hon. member for Johannesburg North. Although we may differ on the question whether this man should be a judge or not, we at least agree with each other on one important point and that is that his judicial ability should not be under suspicion, but above suspicion. That is why such a way of doing it is unacceptable to us.

The hon. member said that a convention exists in terms of which the judiciary is appointed by the State President and the executive. He said that there was no such convention in respect of the office of the Advocate-General. Of course not, because there has never been such an office. However, a convention must start somewhere. It usually begins at the beginning. There is no other place where it could start I say that the hon. member will agree with me once again that in view of what I have said and owing to the fact that this office is now being created for the first time in terms of this Bill, we are now standing at the point of departure of a new instrument in our Parliamentary system.

I thought that all hon. members who are so jealous of the powers and the responsibilities of members of this House, would welcome the fact that an instrument is being created so as to enable this Parliament to reach a decision in the most effective way on whether or not there is clean administration. For that reason I want to argue in all fairness that hon. members should agree with us in this specific regard instead of opposing us.

Mr. Chairman, I gladly avail myself of this opportunity to reply to the very reasonable and logical arguments of the hon. the Minister. What is at issue here is not the question of who has a monopoly of wisdom, but the fact that we are going to start with a new, unique institution. When I refer to a convention, I mean that the establishment of the office should take place in such a way that a fixed convention can be built up around it, because there is no convention yet such as that which applies in the appointment of judges. If we deal incorrectly with the first step, we are going to cause the whole intention, even that of the Government, to miscarry.

I just want to examine for a moment the question of prevention. The hon. the Minister discussed it last night and again today. After the establishment of such an office, the prevention of possible corruption will, of course, be very important. A prerequisite for the establishment of such an office is, however, that there should be public confidence. If all these things had not happened and the Government had said to Parliament under normal circumstances that it should like to make an appointment of this nature by means of the State President, the Opposition would probably have had no objection to it, but now we must see it against the background of the lack of confidence among the public about the events around which the office of Advocate-General is being created.

It is not a question of our being opposed to or in favour of an ombudsman in principle. We are simply of the opinion that in these circumstances, as they apply in South Africa today, the appointment of the Advocate-General and the way in which he is being appointed, is an incorrect step. That is why we shall oppose it and that is why we are of the opinion that if we want to instill public confidence in the institution and in the appointee, this must be done by a person standing outside the Executive Authority. In a memorandum of the Association of Law Societies of the Republic of South Africa it is said, and I quote—

We do not disagree with that.

The legal committee of the Johannesburg Law Society is of the opinion that—

Both of these communications indicate a lack of confidence. This is the whole issue here. Nothing else is involved. [Interjections.] Hon. members can carry on as much as they like and kick up a row as usual. However, it remains a fact that this matter is a question of confidence.

The hon. member for Durban Central said that we were shifting the responsibility from the political sphere to the judicial sphere here. The fact of the matter is that, in our opinion, this once again attests to a lack of confidence, as is clear from the opinion of the community on this matter we are dealing with.

The hon. the Minister said that there is a big difference between the Advocate-General and a judge. The judges give binding decisions and the Advocate-General does not. If there is a person in South Africa that believes that there is any real difference between the binding influence of a decision by the Advocate-General and the expression of an opinion by a judge, I say that that person is politically unaware. The findings of the Advocate-General will have enormous influence on the way of life and circumstances of people found guilty by him in his report, to such an extent in fact, that this House will probably not consider setting aside the decision. Consequently the public will never be convinced that there is something wrong with the finding of the Advocate-General.

In a political or practical sense the value of a decision by the Advocate-General will consequently be equal to that of a judge of the Supreme Court For that reason it is of the utmost importance that the appointments that are made here—as far as the appointment and the appointee is concerned—will mean that full confidence will be restored in fairness and impartiality in this country. As I understand it, it is after all the Government’s purpose to restore confidence. If the Government does not intend to accept this amendment—as the hon. the Minister has also already indicated—it is going to create a very unfavourable impression in this country. The object that this Government is seeking to achieve here, will not have been achieved then, for in my opinion we are beginning on a level that is unsound and will not achieve the object of counteracting corruption.

Mr. Chairman, one does not want to disturb the reasonable and calm tenor of this debate but one cannot but register one’s strongest objection to the insinuations contained in what was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat.

There we start with insinuations!

Those insinuations revolve around trust and deal with the fact that this Government is not to be trusted in its appointments; that the incumbent of the high office of State President is not to be trusted in the people he appoints. This also casts a shadow on the offices and the incumbents of the offices who have already been appointed by the present State President or his predecessors. I want to object most strongly to that insinuation. I want to go on to say that, as in the past, I believe that the offices being filled by appointees of the State President will be filled with the same degree of circumspection as in the past, that the same high standards that are set and that have been set, will continue to be set and that the incumbents of those offices will be expected as far as humanly possible to meet the demands made of them.

The hon. member now wants the Chief Justice to make this specific appointment. Now let us first look at the office of Chief Justice. The office of Chief Justice is unique in this country. It is an office sui generis. By whom is the Chief Justice appointed? By the State President of the Republic of South Africa. By whom is the Judge-President appointed? By the State President of South Africa. Every judge in this country is appointed by the State President of South Africa. Is the hon. member implying that that office, which he occupied once too, is a suspect office because its incumbent is appointed by the State President of the Republic of South Africa?

There could be a better system.

In what way? Do you want the American one where they elect their judges?

We can have an election committee.

Sir, this country is not being governed by the Opposition. It is being governed by the Government supported by the governing party, and it is not governed by Select Committees, neither now nor will it be in the future and the hon. member should get that out of his head. Now I want to tell the hon. member for Johannesburg North that he is casting suspicion on all offices because of the standpoint he is adopting, including the office of Chief Justice, Mr. Chairman, which I think he himself may have aspired to at one stage.

Oh no, please!

Where did you get that tale?

The office of Advocate-General is not exclusively a judicial office. It is an office which is investigative and judicial and reporting, it is investigative and adjudicative …

Those are ugly words.

I see my hon. friend here has great objection to those words.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that there is in fact—I agree with the hon. member—no convention here at this stage. The convention arises with the appointment of this office, and I do not foresee that this incumbent’s appointment, unlike other office-bearers appointed by the State President, will be questioned as a result of the fear that there may be other motives for the appointment. I want to tell that hon. member and his party that I think they are completely exaggerating the aspect of public confidence by saying that it is ostensibly so shocked. I think they are trying to capitalize on something that does not exist. In the weeks and months ahead, they will experience this. If confidence was shocked, I want to tell them that not one of those shock waves assisted in regenerating their political lives.

Order! I think the hon. member is really stretching the clause now.

As it pleases you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to sit down in a minute.

I want to content myself with the following remark. The Chief Justice in South Africa makes no appointments. He appoints neither Judge-Presidents nor judges. I think it would be wrong to involve the Chief Justice at this stage in the appointment of a person who does not even occupy a fully judicial office. I do not think that the present Chief Justice or any other Chief Justice would support an idea of this nature. Did the hon. member ask the Chief Justice what he thought of this idea? I do not believe the Chief Justice would express himself in favour of this.

He gives advice on other appointments.

But surely that is not in writing. It is a convention. I think that the Chief Justice could be involved by something of this nature in an appointment which may be contentious from time to time. One does not want to involve one’s Chief Justice in such an appointment because one places a very high premium on the office of Chief Justice. Other than in the application of the law in this country the Chief Justice is an uninvolved person. He sees to the administration of justice at the highest level and furthermore, the functions he fulfils are chiefly ceremonial such as, inter alia, administering the oath to members of Parliament at the beginning of each new Parliament. I believe that for the sake of the prestige and the status of that office, this position should be maintained in its present form.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Waterkloof, I want to point out that public confidence in this whole piece of legislation is extremely important. For the hon. member to take exception to our wanting to indicate that Government appointments do not instil confidence or deserve it, is really ridiculous. I just want to ask the hon. member whether he really thinks …

You are just trying to take advantage of the situation.

The hon. member should just listen. I want to ask him whether he really thinks that it did not influence public confidence when in the course of file unpleasant events surrounding Information a whole series of investigative bodies were appointed. There was Mr. Reynders, Gen. Van den Bergh, one committee and a further committee and then the Erasmus Commission. Does he really think that it does not influence public confidence when one commission and one investigative body and person is appointed after the other?

Order! The hon. member must not proceed too far with that argument.

No, Sir, I shall not. What I am trying to say, is that public confidence is tremendously important.

The hon. member himself said that this post is the judicial equal of the post of the Auditor-General. The hon. member for Durban Central as well as another member said that the executive is in the final instance responsible for sound and corruption-free administration. On the basis of that the hon.

member for Durban Central then said that the final responsibility for the appointment of such a person rested with the Executive too. I readily concede that. To tell the truth, one of the reasons why we are opposed to the establishment of the post as such is in fact that the responsibility for sound, corruption-free administration rests with the Executive in the final instance.

Once we have made an appointment to a post that has been established to ensure clean national administration in addition to the normal democratic process and to the normal executive, I think with all due respect that there is a lot to be said for the incumbent of the post in the first instance be made as independent as possible. In the second place the incumbent of the post should be seen to be as independent as possible. This is in fact where the question of the appointment of a judge and the fact that the appointment should be done by the Chief Justice is relevant. I want to know—this question is very relevant—whether hon. members do not think that it does in fact influence public confidence.

As you are arguing, we shall only be able to appoint a person as judge who is already a judge.

We should bear in mind that there were a considerable number of investigative bodies and investigators in the case of the Information scandal that simply failed. They failed firstly, as a result of their own involvement and secondly, as a result of their own weakness. That is why the element of public confidence is very important.

The hon. the Minister advanced good arguments as far as the appointment of judges is concerned. In my opinion he drew very meaningful comparisons with regard to the appointment of judges by the Executive and the appointment of the Advocate-General in the way in which the latter appointment is envisaged in the Bill. However, there is a very strong convention in regard to the appointment of judges namely that the appointment should take place on the recommendation of the Judge-President of the Provincial Division concerned. This is something which one should not take too lightly. The hon. the Minister concedes that in the case of the appointment of the Advocate-General there is no convention. He said that there could in any case be no convention. Very well, that is true, but if such a convention were necessary in regard to the appointment of an Advocate-General at any stage of a country’s history or in the national life of South Africa, that convention is necessary at this very moment. Unfortunately, such a convention does not exist. That is an additional reason then why public confidence in the appointment will simply not be the same.

Furthermore it was mentioned that if a person wishes to be appointed as Advocate-General, he has had to be involved in the administration of justice for at least 10 years. I am afraid that that is not good enough. An argument cannot even be advanced in support of it because the Bench of South Africa has most definitely to be divorced from any other involvement in the administration of justice in South Africa. There is, for example, the judge’s status as far as independence and integrity are concerned. There can be no doubt about that and we need not even argue on that score.

Once again, not only to make the incumbent of the post independent but also to make him seem to be independent, I think that there is a lot to be said for a judge being appointed to that post.

I know that it has often been said over the past few years that senior magistrates ought to be appointed as judges. All of us know what controversy followed that statement.

What has that got to do with this? [Interjections.]

It is not necessary for hon. members to make a fuss about this matter. I do not want to become involved in an argument on the merits of such a proposal; I am merely mentioning it Persons from the Public Service have already been appointed as judges and some of those appointments have been very successful. I concede that. I do not want to become involved in an argument on that score either. However, the fact of the matter is that as soon as a person is appointed as a judge from the post in the Public Service or from a post in respect of which the public to a man do not believe the incumbent is an independent thinker or if his training and whole background do not indicate that he is independent, there is dissatisfaction. If this happens there is a lack, great or small, of public confidence.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, we do not want to delay the House much longer on clause 2. However, there are one or two points, raised by the hon. the Minister, to which I feel I should react I am referring to the status of the Advocate-General and to the question of whether his decision is going to be final or not. The comparison was that a judge’s decisions are final, although even there the hon. the Minister will concede that a judge’s decision is subject to review on appeal and that the Executive can also adjust or even remit sentences. So, it is an on-going process.

That is not what I have said. In all fairness, I have not said that.

The hon. the Minister has said that a judge’s decision …

The finding is final in this instance.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has suggested that Parliament could be in a position to overrule findings of the Advocate-General. He has said that he would come to Parliament and that it would be Parliament who decided. That immediately detracts from the status and the intention of the office of the Advocate-General. Parliament can take a different decision, it can disagree with the Advocate-General, but what it cannot do is to undo his findings. So Parliament can review his findings. Parliament can make a different decision or have a different view. Parliament might even be motivated by a political consideration. We would have hoped, however, that this gentleman would be above politics. However, what Parliament cannot undo is the report he is going to make, a report in which he will make specific findings. As the hon. member for Johannesburg-North has pointed out, whatever the legal or juridical position may be, the findings of a commission or of the Advocate-General, in those circumstances, will be final and conclusive in so far as the people they effect are concerned.

We only have to take the instance of the findings of the Erasmus Commission. Those findings, in so far as they affected Mr. Vorster, Dr. Connie Mulder and Dr. Eschel Rhoodie, were effectively final in the political sense. Therefore, I should hope that we are not going to view this on the basis of it merely being a report to Parliament that can always overthrow the decision of the Advocate-General. It is for this reason that we would like to see the Advocate-General’s position enhanced. We are introducing not only a new post in the Public Service, but also a new convention. I therefore think it is appropriate for us to ask into which arm of government this new officer of the State most appropriately fits. The arm of government into which he fits least appropriately is the executive arm of government. After all, he is there supposedly to evaluate the performance of the executive and to report to the public of South Africa on the performance of the executive. Therefore, the lesser the connection between the executive and this person, even by way of appointment, the better it would be as far as his impartiality, or even the appearance of impartiality, is concerned.

The next question is whether he is going to be part of legislature. No, he is not part of a legislative process. All he is required to do is to make a decision on executive action and to hand in a report to Parliament in which he would state whether certain suspicions were well-founded or not. So he is not essentially part of the legislative process of South Africa. If anything, he has a juridical function because he is going to make a decision on whether a suspicion is well-founded or not. If we are going to introduce this new post, this new structure in the administration of South Africa, if we are going to start on a new convention, it is our contention that that would most appropriately fit into the judiciary, and least appropriately into the other two arms of government.

There is one other aspect which was touched on last night and which I should like to raise again. The hon. the Minister referred to it when he said that he saw the Advocate General as being the counterpart of the Auditor-General. We are very concerned indeed about the fact that he is not going to be the counterpart of the Auditor-General because there is, in fact, going to be a conflict or an overlapping in the investigation and decision-making of those two officers.

The establishment of the post has already been accepted in principle.

Well, it could be structured differently. We believe that if one wants a separate structure it should be …

That principle has been accepted already.

I accept that. However, it should be created via the judiciary. Even if the Government wishes to have a person who could handle the work of the Advocate-General, we believe that that can more properly be done by adjusting the role of the Auditor-General rather than by creating a new and separate post.

Order! That is not relevant.

The whole question of whether this person should stand apart from the Auditor-General, Parliament or the Executive, is very material to this particular post, and while one cannot…

Order! The principle has been accepted and is not to be argued again.

Mr. Chairman, I am not arguing the principle of the acceptance of the Advocate-General as a functionary. The question is whether he should be related to the judiciary, as my hon. friend has suggested, or alternatively whether he should be related much more directly to the Auditor-General, because there is a machinery for examining the expenditure by the State. In fact, if one looks at the definition of the functions of the Advocate-General, one sees that it is very similar indeed to that of the functions of the Auditor-General. We hold, therefore, that it would have been preferable, in the first instance, for the Government to have linked this functionary’s activities with those of the Auditor-General because these two posts are complementary. If the Government is insistent on having a separate post, we believe that it should be clearly separate, from the Executive and the legislature, and more appropriately that it should be linked with the judiciary by way of judicial appointment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should rather leave legislation of this nature to the lawyers in his party. [Interjections.] Let us once again examine the position in all fairness. The hon. member for Johannesburg North has told us what is really the fundamental issue. The hon. member said that if this legislation was not being considered by this House in these specific circumstances—and he linked the circumstances in question to those surrounding the former Department of Information—his party would most probably have supported the institution of the post of Advocate-General, and the hon. member must now say in all fairness whether I have interpreted him incorrectly.

That is correct.

The hon. member says that is correct, but what is his leader doing now? His leader is now refuting the most advanced lawyer in his own ranks. [Interjections.] There is no other member on the opposite side of the House who has more experience of the administration of justice than the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I have high respect for that.

[Inaudible.]

With due respect to the hon. member for Green Point, he too should start where other people started. I have high respect for the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I have high respect for the fact that he was prepared to adopt an honest standpoint in respect of his attitude to the legislation. His standpoint is twofold. He says he would have supported the institution of the post of Advocate-General, in other words he would have accepted the principle, but his of reservation was the timing. He said that was too close to the circumstances so rounding the Information debacle. He confirmed that he had said that. Now I want to tell the hon. member for Green Point—it is important and I agree with him—that it is essential for the general public to have confidence in the institution of the post of Advocate-General, because confidence in its institution means confidence in the occupant of the post as well. However, there are various things that can undermine that confidence, and I should like to refer to them. The people who can make the most important contribution to the undermining of that confidence, are the creators of the institution, i.e. Parliament and consequently hon. members of Parliament. Therefore, if we place a high premium on the confidence of the general public in the institutions created by this Parliament, the first way to ensure that confidence is the way in which we conduct our discussions on the institution we envisage creating. That is why it is a mistake to cast or create suspicion in respect of an institution with which we all fundamentally agree. The hon. member for Johannesburg North differed with me on two points after his second speech in this regard, viz. the authority that is to appoint the official and what the qualifications of the official should be. At the same time I shall reply to the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said it was preferable for this office to be connected with the judiciary and not the legislature. Let us look at what this means. Does it mean that because the executive appoints the Judge President and the judges, it makes them agents of the Executive? If not, surely his argument is false and unfounded. In the second place, I say that the effectiveness of this office will be determined, firstly, by our approach to its creation and its institution and, secondly, by the person occupying that post. The hon. member for Johannesburg North will agree with me that the judge of today was the advocate of yesterday.

Secondly, and in this regard, too, the hon. member will agree with me, the responsibility of the judges themselves, of the judiciary, is to the legal system in terms of which they must dispense justice to the people falling under it. The Advocate-General’s function is different. The hon. member for Barberton is correct. He has a threefold function. It implies investigations, it implies findings and it implies reports. The judge has to fulfil a totally different function. I am not saying that a judge can fulfil these functions, but what I am saying is that the reports of the Advocate-General are discussed in this House by politicians. If one adopts that standpoint adopted by the hon. member for Johannesburg and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, one prejudices the stature and status of the judiciary. [Interjections.] The hon. member quoted the standpoint of the law societies and others and said that there was another method, if the judiciary did not appoint him, and that was that it be done by a majority decision of the Senate. What does the Senate consist of? The Senate consists of politicians. I thought we specifically wanted a person who was not subject to the influence of politicians. I thought that was their plea. Consequently, with great respect, I cannot understand how hon. members on the opposite side reconcile their different arguments.

I did not advance that argument [Interjections.]

The hon. member said that alternative methods had been proposed for the election of the Advocate-General.

As a sign of a lack of confidence.

Of course! I am still discussing that point. The hon. professor must give me a chance. [Interjections.] I apologize—the hon. member. The hon. member probably does not mind if I call him the hon. professor.

I want to conclude by making an appeal. Let us give this institution a chance as a concrete proof of our commitment to clean national administration. As far as the qualifications of a person that is to occupy the post are concerned—and I want to repeat this—the minimum qualifications are higher than those laid down for judges, although many judges have higher qualifications. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. Another consideration is that the executive cannot escape its responsibility. I just want to say that it is not always a pleasant responsibility, particularly in the times in which we are living. The executive cannot escape the responsibility to ensure clean administration. Why, then, should we deny it those instruments with which it can achieve those objectives?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked why the functions of the Auditor-General were not being extended. By advocating an extension of those functions, he confirmed the need for additional functions.

The principle has been accepted.

I do not want to argue with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on that score. I said that the Advocate-General would have to fulfil a different function to that of the Auditor-General. The latter fulfils an audit and accounting function. On the other hand the Advocate-General has to fulfil a quasi-judicial function. That is why this post must be created. In principle I therefore agree with the hon. member for Johannesburg North that the Advocate-General must fulfil a judicial function. He wants to go much further than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition advocated. He advocated that the Advocate-General should fulfil a judicial function, while the hon. the Leader of the Opposition advocated that the Auditor-General should fulfil this function.

Mr. Chairman, there are questions I should like to ask the hon. the Minister because I do not believe he has adequately covered the two grounds we have tried to explore today.

The first is who will appoint the Advocate-General. I do not think the hon. the Minister has gathered what the burden of our objection is. Who and what will the Advocate-General investigate? He will investigate reports of misappropriation and misuse of State moneys. In other words, his very job will be to investigate what we may loosely and widely call the executive arm of Government, namely the Civil Service, State Departments of, the senior officials of departments, and Cabinet Ministers for that matter. In other words, it is his job to investigate the executive. That is why we have a basic objection to the fact that it is to be the executive which appoints him. Rightly or wrongly we believe that the Government is opening up a field of public distrust in a situation in which the people who are going to be investigated, if there is going to be an investigation, will be those people who appoint that particular person.

Why do you not have the same objection with regard to the Auditor-General?

The hon. member for Waterkloof was surprised when I suggested that there might be a better system of appointing judges than by politicians. It is from Britain that we inherited this system of the appointment of judges by politicians.

Has it worked?

I would have thought that while we are moving away from the Westminster-type system, we might as well move away from this system, because in the USA the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court has, as hon. members ought to know, to be approved of by the Senate. That is why the quotations by the hon. member for Johannesburg North in regard to the Association of Law Societies are not all that far-fetched, because can there be more public trust in a person who has been appointed by the Opposition and the governing party together? That is the crux of the American Constitution. If one does not understand that, one will understand nothing. Apart from the question of the Senate, I think there is very great merit in judicial appointments being made by a committee, as is the case in many Western countries and in Israel. I think it is arrogant for the hon. member to suggest that it is essential to our system that the executive should appoint judicial officers. I want to make another point. The legal profession has a very well-grounded objection even to the use of this title “Advocate-General”. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister realizes that he is, in fact, playing with words and therefore playing with my profession, because the one thing this person need not be is an advocate. He does not have to be an advocate.

I did not say that.

Why then does the hon. the Minister call him an Advocate-General? He does not have to be an advocate. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister must give me a chance to complete my speech. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must not, however, go too far.

Mr. Chairman, subsection (1) states that there shall be an Advocate-General. [Interjections.] I am now suggesting that where the hon. the Minister, in subsection (2), seeks to have, as the only qualification for the Advocate-General, that he be qualified to become an advocate, he is really playing with words. In other words, he does not even have to be an advocate.

Ten years’ experience.

Ten years’ experience of what? [Interjections.] I should like to ask the hon. the Minister where he gets this extraordinary unique phrasing “was concerned in the application of the law”?

I have seen many Acts of Parliament in terms of which particular officers have had to be appointed. Such officer either has to be a judge, an advocate of ten years’ standing, a senior magistrate, etc. In other words, the legislature has always specified a particular discipline from which that person must come. However, where does this expression come from? Can the hon. the Minister point to a precedent? If he has used these words deliberately, what are we justified in assuming? We are justified in assuming that the appointee will not be a judge and will not necessarily be a magistrate, an advocate or an attorney. [Interjections.] I think the hon. the Minister must come clean with us. Does he have somebody in mind who does not, in fact, comply with the requirements of being an advocate, magistrate or a judge? If he does not have somebody in mind, why is he making the field for the appointment of an Advocate-General so wide? I cannot understand it. It is no good for the hon. the Minister asking why we are worried about public confidence.

I am concerned.

Yes, but if the hon. the Minister is genuine in saying that he is concerned about public confidence, he must take a look at his Bill and see whether, in fact he is going to engender the public confidence which he now says he is so concerned about.

I want to go a bit further. There is absolutely no reason why the hon. the Minister should not accept that the appointee be a judge. After all, what is the actual function of this man? Is it a judicial function? There is only one answer to that I think the hon. the Minister will grant me this.

I told you what it is.

Of course. It is a judicial function. The person has to evaluate evidence and obviously has to make findings on demeanour and credibility, and these are the particular functions of a judicial officer. So if he has to fill a judicial capacity, why not make him a judge, or certainly an advocate of ten years’ standing? I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister is being so coy about this particular aspect of the legislation. What is the reason for it? I cannot understand the reason. I have been following him closely and I cannot understand why, from the point of view of public confidence, the nature of his operations, which are judicial, and his actual title of Advocate-General, the hon. the Minister is not prepared to give substance and flesh to this particular office by either making him a judge or a senior advocate. Therefore I am afraid that we are highly suspicious of the hon. the Minister’s intentions. [Interjections.] The last thing the hon. the Minister should have said—because this is like a red rage to a bull, and we have heard it so many times before—is “give it a chance”. The last resort of a person without arguments is to say “give it a chance”. One remembers how we were asked to give detention without a trial and censorship a chance. We do not give things a chance unless we are absolutely certain that it is for the good of the people of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, confusion is really becoming the norm for hon. members opposite. Let us take the argument of the hon. member for Groote Schuur and compare it to the standpoint of his leader. His leader denies the fact that the function of this man is going to be judicial…

I said it was juridical.

Please give me a chance. The hon. member wants to transfer this function to the Auditor-General. Since when has the Auditor-General had a judicial function and been qualified in this field? Since when has it been a requirement for the Auditor-General to be a judge, as the hon. member for Johannesburg North wishes it? Hon. members must now decide what they want.

With all due respect to the hon. member for Groote Schuur, let us note the ridiculousness of his argument. That hon. member maintains that I am playing with his profession, but he is making a farce of it. The hon. member wanted to know why the post was called the Advocate-General whereas he was fulfilling a judicial function. We call the Attorney-General “ Attorney-General whereas he has to be an advocate. By calling him that are we making a farce of the profession of attorney? How naive can one be?

Let us look at a further example. When one pares away all the detail, the foundation of the hon. member’s argument was that the executive should not appoint the Advocate-General because he also has to investigate the executive. Let us examine the validity of this argument, because I believe that on paper it could look like a valid argument. Has the hon. member never ascertained what the function of the Auditor-General is? Does the hon. member know what the function of the Auditor-General is? His function is to monitor the expenditure by the Executive of the funds appropriated by Parliament. Who appoints the Auditor-General: Is it the auditing profession or is it the Executive? In past debates, both last year and this year, hon. members discussed the independence of the post of Auditor-General and also the independent way in which he set about his task. I maintain that they are not interested in creating confidence in this post. For that reason they are undermining the institution of the Advocate-General on the basis of the same principle that they recognize with regard to the Auditor-General. With all due respect, I cannot accommodate such arguments. In this regard the hon. member for Groote Schuur is quite right.

I believe that the hon. member for Groote Schuur, just like the hon. member for Johannesburg North, displayed his real sentiments by accident. Do hon. members know what they are? It is the suspicion they have as to who is to occupy this post. The hon. member wants to know from me who may occupy the post…

It is not only we. [Interjections.]

There you have it. There the hon. member for Johannesburg North confirms my conclusion by saying that it is not only the hon. member for Groote Schuur and he who are concerned about this, but other people and their newspapers too. [Interjections.]

Were we entitled to be suspicious about Reynders and Van den Bergh?

Give me a chance. I have often been suspicious of the hon. member for Groote Schuur, but that does not mean that I want him out of this House. The hon. member for Johannesburg North has now confirmed my suspicions for the second time. Clearly, something else is at issue here. I do not believe that the issue is who we want to appoint to the post, but who hon. members do not want appointed in the post. That is what is at issue. On behalf of the Government I wish to conclude by saying the following: The occupant of this post must at least have the status of a judge …

That is not contained in the legislation.

That is not necessary. Surely I have been arguing all day that his qualifications are minimum qualifications that are not even stipulated for judges. How can I explain this further to the hon. member? Surely I cannot take it any further. If I make an appeal that we should give this institution a chance, I do not do so because I feel uncertain about it, but for another reason. We must give the institution of the post a chance as an instrument to assist in ensuring clean national administration, like the Auditor-General, the judiciary and the police as well. This is a post with a specific task and a specific discipline. Let hon. members come and say after we have filled the post that it has been filled by a non-independent person. I will be prepared to reply to that then.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. B. R. Bamford, D. J. Dalling, Dr. Z. J. de Beer, Messrs. I. F. A. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. J. Lorimer, J. F. Marais, P. A. Myburgh, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. R. A. F. Swart, S. S. van der Merwe, H. E. J. van Rensburg and A. B. Widman) appeared on one side,

Clause declared agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move amendments Nos. (1) to (6) printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 6, in line 27, to omit “reason” and to substitute “reasonable grounds”;
2. (2) on page 6, in lines 41 and 42, to omit “the matter in question may in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) be laid” and to substitute:
   he may lay the matter in question in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2)
3. (3) on page 6, in line 47, to omit “Any person” and to substitute:
   A person referred to in subsection (1),
4. (4) on page 6, in lines 57 to 66, and on page 8, in lines 1 to 15, to omit subsection (3);
5. (5) on page 8, in lines 16 to 22, to omit subsection (4);
6. (6) on page 8, in lines 23 and 24, to omit subsection (5);

In so far as amendments Nos. (4), (5) and (6) are concerned, I see that they also stand on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, now the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. The latter three amendments deal with the deletion of the more obvious Press-gagging provisions in terms of the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister on 14 June.

I should like to look at the clause as it stands and in more particular to subsections (1) and (2). This clause, if any one, indicates what I call the anti-rumour-mongering aspect of this legislation. It lays down how a suspicion shall exist, what will be a suspicion and thereafter who may trigger off an inquiry and how one should deal with that inquiry.

Are you dealing with the clause as it is supposed to be amended or as it stands now?

I am leaving out subsections (3), (4) and (5).

But you are dealing with subsections (1) and (2) as they stand?

Yes, as they stand. I think the hon. the Minister has one or two amendments in mind, but they are not amendments of substance.

On subsection (4)? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I have moved the amendments printed in my name and I have said that amendments Nos. (4), (5) and (6) coincide with amendments Nos. (2), (3) and (4) printed in the name of the hon. the Minister. I am therefore assuming that those amendments will be accepted and that those subsections will be deleted. I am now dealing with subsections (1) and (2).

Subsections (1) and (2) state how this whole machinery for investigation shall be put into operation and who will have the right to put that machinery into operation. We differ with the Government on the question who shall take the initiative in setting this machinery in motion. Let us look at what will happen once subsections (1) and (2) come into play. It will mean that the Advocate-General then must institute an inquiry. He has no discretion in the matter and once a matter is laid before him, he must institute an inquiry. Therefore this is quite decisive. The whole machinery right up to the tabling of the report in Parliament will be initiated once one has taken the steps outlined in subsections (1) and (2).

If one goes to clause 8, one will also realize that from the moment the Advocate-General starts an inquiry, the restrictions on publication of various kinds will come into effect because of the operation of clause 8.

This, therefore, is the trigger mechanism both for an inquiry to commence and for the limitation to be placed on publication of a matter which is being inquired into. It has a dual effect and so one has to look very carefully at how this comes into play. The hon. the Minister has indicated during the Second Reading debate that the intention is that if a person has a suspicion about some dishonesty or irregularity, he should have the right to go to the Advocate-General to have that suspicion investigated.

That is not what this clause says. In subsection (1) it says that if any person has reason to suspect that there is dishonesty, then “a matter in question” will have been created. In other words, I have a suspicion, the hon. the Minister has a suspicion, Die Burger has a suspicion, Eschel Rhoodie has a suspicion; then “a matter in question” has been created. Thereafter not only that person, but also anyone else can ask for that suspicion to be investigated. In other words, not only the person who has reasonable grounds to suspect anything, but also any Tom, Dick or Harry who says that he has heard somebody speak, has listened to a member of Parliament or has read something in a paper, can request that the matter be investigated. I want to come back to what the Government said its original intention was. That was the creation of machinery for people …

You need not argue that. Would it help you if I indicated that I am prepared to accept your second amendment?

Well, provided that we understand what we mean by this …

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Order!

The first point I should like to make is that we believe that the person who lays the complaint should be the person who has the suspicion. In other words, it should not be somebody else, somebody who says …

I accept that. [Interjections.]

That is number three.

Order!

Yes, that is number three. The next point I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister concerns my first amendment. Surely one should have reasonable grounds for making an allegation. Surely one should not expect the elaborate and expensive procedure of the Advocate-General to start, the whole machine to be put in motion, without a person having reasonable grounds for suspecting something. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is also prepared to accept the concept that the person who lays the complaint should have reasonable grounds for doing so.

I do not accept that.

Well, then it really means that someone who has no reasonable grounds for suspecting that something is wrong, could ask the Advocate-General, not to investigate his doubts or his suspicions, but to investigate something which somebody else has stated. We believe this makes nonsense of what the Government has told us. [Interjections.]

Order!

Clearly there is a case to be made out—once we have accepted the principle—that if somebody has reasonable grounds to suspect some dishonesty or irregularity that the machinery should be created for those suspicions to be investigated. I cannot, for the life of me, see why someone, who himself has no reasonable grounds for suspecting an irregularity or some dishonesty, should set in motion the whole process of investigation. All our amendment seeks to do is to make it possible for people who have reasonable grounds for suspecting something to have those investigated.

What we do not accept is that anybody else can say he thinks Mr. X has grounds for suspecting something, and that therefore it should be investigated. We believe that the clause, as we have suggested it should be amended, will allow the ordinary citizen of South Africa to have his suspicions investigated. Furthermore, it will prevent people from having other people’s suspicions investigated, from starting up the machinery, having other people subpoenaed, compelling them to give evidence under oath, while the one who has in fact triggered off that particular inquiry has no interest in the matter himself.

It is for these reasons that I have moved the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not take up much time of the House. I am prepared to accept the second amendment of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. All it achieves is to clarify the meaning of the clause, without changing it. I take it that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not wish me to explain any further why I do not agree with his other arguments. Therefore I shall leave it at that.

Is my analysis of the meaning an accurate one? It is not the one who has the suspicion, but someone else, isn’t it?

The hon. member should please allow me to reply to his speech In his first amendment, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants the word “reason” to be replaced with “reasonable grounds”. However, let us examine the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with regard to reasonable grounds in the light of this legislation and of other legislation passed in this House. When the previous Minister of Justice and Police introduced legislation here with regard to the publication of Police conduct, legislation in which it was specified that there should be reasonable grounds for the specific publication, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition alleged that this was a means of restricting the Press. Now, in another debate, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is advocating the very thing which he opposed with regard to other legislation. [Interjections.] I really find that difficult to understand.

It makes me think of the advocate who did not read his brief. When the judge asked him “Have you read your brief?” he saw that he was on the wrong side.

†And what did he say? He said: “I am sorry, I was arguing the case of the opposition. Now I shall argue my own case.” [Interjections.]

*What do we wish to achieve with this proposed legislation? Let us examine its meaning again, for if we do not understand that, we shall not understand the wording of the Bill. This proposed legislation seeks to enable people, when they have suspicions— founded or unfounded—to take them to a person who is accessible to them, so that their suspicions may be either confirmed or contradicted. Is it not a fact that most stories which are told are based on suspicions and not on reasonable grounds? In other words, the hon. member wishes to narrow the scope of the legislation, while we wish to widen it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should support us. I would not say that he is one of those people who spread rumours, but he does listen to them. He does not close his ears to rumours. Therefore I want to tell the hon. member again that the scope of the matters to be investigated by the Advocate-General is widened by the existing wording, and that is what we want. The hon. member’s amendment seeks to limit it, to narrow it, and that is what we do not want, for if someone has reasonable grounds, in all probability he has such a strong case that he might as well go to the Police. Then the purpose of the measure would be frustrated, and therefore the hon. member will understand that I cannot accept his amendment in this connection.

The hon. member’s third amendment is actually consequential upon his second one, which I did accept. Therefore it is not necessary to accept his third amendment, because it is consequential on the acceptance of his second amendment. It refers back to the person who has the suspicion and who lodges a complaint.

The hon. member wants me to reply to him on the question of suspicion. It does not matter whether a person’s suspicion is based on information he got from someone else, or on direct evidence. The fact remains that he has a suspicion. I want to tell the hon. member again that the legislation will be more effective the way it is formulated at the moment than it would be if his amendment were accepted.

I now move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 6, in line 54, to omit all the words from “and” up to and including “manner” in line 56;
2. (2) on page 6, in lines 57 to 66, and on page 8, in lines 1 to 15, to omit subsection (3);
3. (3) on page 8, in lines 16 to 22, to omit subsection (4);
4. (4) on page 8, in lines 23 and 24, to omit subsection (5).

Mr. Chairman, now that the hon. the Minister has moved the amendments printed in his name on the Order Paper, I want to indicate how much we welcome the fact that these objectionable subsections are being removed. It is a pity that this was not done right at the beginning.

I am also very pleased that the hon. the Minister has accepted the second amendment moved by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. We have, however, a difficulty with the first amendment moved by the hon. Leader of the Opposition and we will not be able to support it. With this amendment the hon. Leader of the Opposition is seeking, as the hon. the Minister has said, to narrow the scope of the clause. If this amendment is accepted it will make it more difficult for people to go to the Advocate-General and to initiate an inquiry. What we must do here if we are really serious about combating corruption is to make it as easy as possible for people to seek the assistance of the Advocate-General in initiating an inquiry. It must also be borne in mind that this has to be done by means of an affidavit, and therefore one can take it that a person will only be prepared to sign an affidavit if he has reasonable grounds, but by insisting that this should be included in the Bill one will make it even more difficult As it is, it is going to be difficult for a person to attach his name to an affidavit. If he knows, however, that it is sufficient merely to have reason to believe something is wrong it will be easier for him to sign an affidavit. If provision is made in the legislation, however, that it has to be on reasonable grounds, it is going to be that much more difficult for him to initiate such an investigation and to have the courage to go to the Advocate-General. For that reason we will not be able to support the hon. Leader of the Opposition’s first amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there is a very good reason for the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Minister believes— with considerable justification, of course— that the scope should be made as wide as possible and that things should be made as easy as possible for people who have suspicions about corruption. But has the hon. the Minister considered that when the word “reason” is used in a law or a Bill, one has to be very careful, because a subjective test is being applied, while “reasonable grounds” naturally constitutes an objective test? It is not a question of narrowing the scope. That is not the problem. The problem is that people may go to the Advocate-General with a lot of nonsense. Under the legislation as it reads at the moment, it is the duty of the Advocate-General to go into every old wives’ tale—if I may use that term—which is submitted to him. [Interjections.] Wait a minute. Do not drag politics into this matter. The question is on what grounds the Advocate-General is going to refuse to investigate a long story and to submit a formal report to Parliament. He has no grounds for doing so, while if he has reasonable grounds, he may use reasonable grounds as his criterion, he may say: “There are no reasonable grounds here, when the matter is objectively viewed; I am not going to investigate it” When the hon. the Minister speaks of effectiveness, therefore, this is an aspect that should be very carefully considered. I do not think it is a joking matter. One can imagine that circumstances may arise where the Advocate-General is inundated with stories. The people who come to him with these stories all have some sort of reason, but reasonable grounds are nowhere to be seen. Therefore I must support my hon. Leader’s standpoint, i.e. that we should couch this legislation in pure juridical language to provide a criterion and that we should give the Advocate-General, Parliament, and all interested parties a truly juridical criterion, which “reason” does not provide.

There is a second matter I should like to mention which has not yet been referred to in respect of clause 4(2). It concerns a person who makes an affidavit or affirmed declaration specifying—

1. (a) The nature of the suspicion;
2. (b) the grounds, in so far as they are known to him, on which the suspicion is based; and
3. (c) all other relevant information …

If he is subpoenaed, he must answer questions under penalty of a fine or imprisonment if he refuses. What about the anonymity of a complainant? Has attention been given to the fact that such an ombudsman—this is the situation we should like to see, of course—may receive anonymous complaints, well-substantiated, with reasonable grounds, but the complainant does not want his name to be mentioned anywhere? That is the way things are with the police. They never mention the name of an informer unless he is called as a witness and is willing to give evidence. This is an absolute rule. The hon. the Minister talked about narrowing the scope if our proposal is accepted, but this is a way of frightening people away. If an official says that he has a suspicion about his senior, will he be prepared even to contemplate the possibility that his name may be mentioned? Never, unless he is a reckless man as far as his work is concerned. I believe that the hon. the Minister could give attention to this. Of course, I believe that the clause is so badly drafted and that this is such a bad measure that one cannot really improve it by means of an amendment. That is why I have moved no amendment. However, I think the hon. the Minister would do well to reconsider these two aspects, i.e. the question of reasonable grounds and the question of absolute secrecy as to the identity of the complainant.

Mr. Chairman, to simplify the matter I shall indicate that I do not accept the first amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, that I do accept his second amendment and that I do not accept his third one. This is consequential upon his second amendment in any case. The amendments I moved read as follows—

1. (1) On page 6, in line 54, to omit all the words from “and” up to and including “manner” in line 56;
2. (2) on page 6, in lines 57 to 66, and on page 8, in lines 1 to 15, to omit subsection (3);
3. (3) on page 8, in lines 16 to 22, to omit subsection (4);
4. (4) on page 8, in lines 23 and 24, to omit subsection (5).

I want to try to explain the matter again. I do not think our views are so much at variance as we seem to be suggesting, except that I want to widen the scope of this Bill and those hon. members want to limit it Let us look for a moment at the reasonableness of my standpoint. Let us also provide an objective test, as the hon. member for Johannesburg North wants, and not a subjective one. What does it say in clause 4(1)? It does not refer to anyone who has a suspicion, but to anyone who has reason to suspect something. In other words, the concept of reasonableness is already built into the clause. I want to prove this. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Johannesburg North must listen to me very carefully now. He cannot say “no” before I have finished my argument, because that is not what a good judge would do.

I am listening very carefully.

We should not regard these clauses in isolation, but in conjunction with one another. Clause 4(1) refers to any person who has reason to suspect something, not to any person who simply has a suspicion.

Is that subjective or objective?

It is objective, just as the question of reasonable grounds is objective.

No.

How can the hon. member say “no”? [Interjections.] Hon. members should please give me a chance to finish my argument After all, I did not interrupt them. If the legislator specifies that a person must have reason to suspect something, the test for that is the same as the one which applies in the case of reasonable grounds. I now want to refer to clause 4(2). The hon. member for Johannesburg North drew my attention to this—and I want to give him credit for this in all fairness—and asked what was to be done by the person who had reason to suspect something. He has to make an affidavit in terms of clause 4(2), hasn’t he?

Yes.

What are to be the contents of that statement, according to the legislator? Let us see.

Whatever he does, he must not lie.

He must explain the nature of his suspicion.

It could be wild speculation.

Give me a chance. That is not all he has to say. He must say something else as well. He must say what the grounds are on which his suspicion is based.

[Inaudible.]

Of course. Surely we cannot argue with each other like this. The concept of “reasonable grounds” implies that a person must have reason to suspect something. Surely it cannot be interpreted in any other way. I need not lecture the hon. member about that.

You are wrong.

I am not wrong. I think the hon. member will concede that I have not yet been wrong in the course of this debate! Before a person can be a complainant, he must have a reason for his suspicion. He must even do more than just this. He must set out the reason for his suspicion in his statement.

He must formulate it.

He must formulate it and affirm it under oath. I do not want to take this any further now.

What has the hon. member for Johannesburg North done? He has said that a complainant to the police remains anonymous. This is the first time in my life I have heard that a complainant in a criminal case can remain anonymous.

I said an informer.

No, the hon. member said “complainant”.

A similar question was put to the hon. the Minister of Justice.

That hon. member must not try to argue with me. He will run into trouble.

[Inaudible.]

I accept it now …

Then there is no reason to have a song and dance about it.

Please, do not give me advice. [Interjections.]

*The fact is that the Advocate-General can order an inquiry on his own initiative, without an informer. If there is an anonymous informer, he can also do so. However, I think the hon. member is right in the sense that we should examine the possibility of enabling an informer to remain anonymous if he prefers. The hon. member will concede, however, that not every informer who gives information to the police remains anonymous. This is only the case with the informers they use themselves. The hon. member and his party will concede that. However, I think this is a valid point the hon. member has made. I shall look at it in the Other Place. If I cannot manage to do it, I shall give attention to it at a later stage.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. C. W. Eglin negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. C. W. Eglin agreed to.

Amendment (3) moved by Mr. C. W. Eglin negatived.

Amendment (1) moved by the Minister of Transport Affairs agreed to.

Amendment (2) moved by the Minister of Transport Affairs agreed to and amendment (4) moved by Mr. C. W. Eglin dropped.

Amendment (3) moved by the Minister of Transport Affairs agreed to and amendment (5) moved by Mr. C. W. Eglin dropped.

Amendment (4) moved by the Minister of Transport Affairs agreed to and amendment (6) moved by Mr. C. W. Eglin dropped.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 5:

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

1. (1) On page 8, in line 36, after “Parliament” to insert:
   : Provided that for the purposes of the publication of the contents of the said report such handing over to the Speaker of the House of Assembly shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (2), be deemed to constitute such laying upon the Table
2. (2) on page 8, in line 40, to omit “a report referred to in section 4(3)” and to substitute “the contents of his report”;
3. (3) on page 8, in lines 42 and 43, to omit “the publication of such first-mentioned report” and to substitute “such publication”.

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

1. (1) On page 8, in line 27, after “and” to insert:
   , within one month after such matter has been so laid before him
2. (2) on page 8, in lines 40 and 41, to omit “not be in the interest of’ and to substitute “be harmful to”;
3. (3) on page 10, after line 5, to add:

I wish to motivate these amendments only briefly because I think they are really self-evident. The idea behind the first amendment is really to try and set a time limit within which the Advocate-General is expected to conclude his investigations. If this is not done, we feel that these investigations could drag on for months and months, and in the view of the later provisions in the Bill, which make any anticipation of the hearings a criminal offence, we foresee many difficulties in the sense that many charges may be brought and many penalties may be imposed as a result of this. We therefore want to cut down the time factor of these investigations. We do not want them to drag on for months and months.

My second amendment is simply making a much more positive statement, because we have learnt from experience that the interpretation of the words “not in the interest of the security of the State” can be very wide indeed. We therefore want to narrow this down to something that can actually “be harmful to” the security of the State.

My third amendment also relates to the sub judice stricture that we find later in clause 8(l)(a) of the Bill. In other words, the public must know that the report has been handed in, after which the sub judice rule would fall away. If this does not happen, the Advocate-General might hand in his report but nobody knows that the report had been handed in if, for instance, Parliament were not in session. All comment on any such investigation would, in the interim, be inhibited.

Mr. Chairman, we gladly support the hon. the Minister’s amendments, because we believe that they improve the proposed legislation. We also support the amendments of the hon. member for Houghton. As far as the hon. member’s first amendment is concerned, I just want to say that it is absolutely essential that there should be some indication of a timetable somewhere. If the hon. the Minister feels that one month is too short, he may consider making an amendment in the Other Place to fix the period at two months, a month and a half, or whatever the case may be. I believe it is very important that a timetable should be set so that one may see the results of this legislation. It may also place the Advocate-General in such a position that the public may know that the case is not just gathering dust on a shelf somewhere. For that reason we support all the amendments, but especially the first amendment by the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Chairman, I would so much like to accommodate the hon. member for Houghton …

Come on.

Quite seriously. The hon. member will have to take my word for it.

I do.

The hon. member’s first amendment is, however, an impracticable one.

You can extend it to two months, for instance.

How does one know how far to extend this period? Maybe one can think of something else, for example that a preliminary report be submitted within that period, but I want to know how it will be possible to suggest that the investigation should be concluded within a month or two? What I am prepared to consider, in all fairness, before I get to the Other Place, is a possible amendment to the effect that a preliminary report should be submitted, because in that case the Advocate-General would have to submit reasons indicating why he has not concluded his investigations.

That would help.

I agree, and if the hon. member would accept that assurance from me, I shall see what can be done without, of course, necessarily committing myself to it. That goes to show how fair I am trying to be towards the hon. member for Houghton.

Perhaps you can do even better than that.

I cannot accept the hon. member’s second amendment, however, for two reasons, the first being that her amendment merely implies that there must be a positive finding that it is harmful to the safety of the State. I concede that point, but the hon. member will understand that one cannot in these circumstances have an exact yardstick to measure with. Let me, however, put it the other way. In terms of this clause the Advocate-General would have to submit his report to the Leader of the House or to the Speaker. From there it goes to the House or a Select Committee, depending on whether Parliament is in session or not. In that report he would have to give his reasons for finding that it might affect the safety of the State. Then Parliament could be the judge of it. I would ask the hon. member not to take this further, because I have a problem in this regard for the simple reason that one has no exact yardstick with which to measure this sort of thing. In all fairness, it is a concept on which people can agree or disagree.

*I hope the hon. member will accept that.

Then the hon. member asked me to amend the legislation to provide for notice to be given of the report submitted by the Advocate-General. Once again I cannot accept this. As the hon. member for Johannesburg North said—and I agree with that—we are actually concerned here with a quasi-judicial process. Except when the Advocate-General decides, just like the presiding judicial officer in a court, that he has to go in camera, he will act in public. Therefore it is possible for people who want to obtain information to go to that office. Let me give an example. When a criminal case or even a civil case is being heard and the judge reserves judgment, he does not give notice that he will give his judgment on the case on a specific date. Therefore I cannot understand why we should make provision in this specific case for something which does not apply in the ordinary course of affairs. Therefore I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendments, unfortunately, except that I shall look again at the question of whether we should not have a preliminary report submitted by the Advocate-General.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister one or two questions arising out of his response. Firstly, I want to refer to the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton concerning the words “harmful to”. That was in fact taken from the words of the hon. the Prime Minister when he announced in the House that we should refer the evidence of the Erasmus Commission to a Select Committee of Parliament “om te sien waar dit nadelig is vir die veiligheid van die Staat”. We have therefore taken the words of the hon. the Prime Minister with reference to the evidence of the Erasmus Commission. We feel that it would be more appropriate to phrase it in that way than to phrase it less precisely and less definitely as “in the interests of”. It is very difficult to determine whether something must have a positive content “to be in the interest of’, or whether it must have a negative content and “be harmful to”. I think that the latter is more appropriate, but we shall not press that further.

What does worry us is the effect of notice not being given that the Advocate-General is commencing an investigation or has concluded an investigation. We are concerned about the impact of that on the operation and functioning of clause 8. While a matter is being investigated, clause 8 in a sense makes it sub judice because one may not anticipate the proceedings and the findings. One therefore has the situation that the Press, politicians and the public are precluded from making comments which may anticipate the proceedings and the findings. On the other hand they are not told that the matter has been laid before the Attorney-General. There was a specific provision in this regard in clause 4, but as a result of the hon. the Minister’s amendment, it has been deleted. I am wondering whether, to make it possible for people to comply with clause 8, the hon. the Minister should not consider some formal way of advising the public when a matter is being considered and when it is no longer being considered. If that is not done, it is quite impossible for the public to know. In fact, one could even argue that they could anticipate the proceedings because, unless there is some formal notice given that the proceedings are in motion, they should be completely free to comment. It is only when the law formally triggers off the investigation and formal notices given that in our opinion clause 8 can come into play. For these reasons we would ask the hon. the Minister to think again about the possibility of giving notice of both the commencement and the completion dates.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to argue at any length about this, except for saying once again that we are concerned here with circumstances equivalent to those that obtain in a legal procedure. No one gives notice that a specific process is going to be initiated in a criminal case, for example. No one gives notice that a verdict has been given. The people who want to talk about it know that they can go to the office of the Advocate-General to find out what the matters are that have been laid before him. Having said this, I shall bear in mind the points made by the hon. member.

Can they do that?

Of course they can do that.

A member of the public can go to the office of the Advocate-General and ask him?

Yes. There is no prohibition whatever in the Bill. In fact, other provisions are explicit. In terms of those provisions the hearing, or inquiry to mention the correct name, by the Advocate-General is to be held in the open, unless the Advocate-General decides to exclude a certain group of people or all people from the investigation. That, is the position at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will be prepared to insert a provision that any member of the public is entitled, on application to the office of the Advocate-General, to know what matters are attending before him?

Quite obviously I cannot do it; it depends upon the provision we shall deal with later on. The decision as to whether those facts are going to be made public rests with the Advocate-General.

Not the facts.

Yes, even the facts. The point is, in all fairness, that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Act that the public is entitled to do that, but the public has a right to go to the court Similarly the public will be entitled to attend the hearings …

But court rolls are made public.

Yes, but there is no prohibition in the Bill to prohibit anybody inquiring from the Advocate-General. On the other hand there is no provision to compel the Advocate-General to release the information. That is all I am saying.

Therefore he can refuse?

Of course he can refuse.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister did not explain how clause 8(1)(a) was going to be implemented.

I shall deal with that when we discuss the clause.

But shall we be able, perhaps, to insert an amendment afterwards?

No.

We have a practical problem here. Clause 8(l)(a) provides, inter alia, that no person shall anticipate the findings of the Advocate-General. Therefore one cannot say or publish anything which will anticipate those proceedings, but how is one to comply with that provision?

How is it done in court?

Mr. Chairman, the point is that once it comes to the court, it becomes known. One can comment on anything while there is an investigation. When the police are investigating a matter, there is no bar on that at all. When it comes to the court, however, a different situation obtains. We therefore say that if it is provided here that neither the findings nor the investigation nor the proceedings may be anticipated …

It is also not permitted to influence.

Yes, that is so … then quite clearly one should know that the Advocate-General is investigating. All we want from the hon. the Minister is that he should explain now—now is the appropriate time to bring about amendments—how the clause is going to operate in the absence of a specific provision in terms of which the Advocate-General will have to give these notices.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss this problem when we come to clause 8. The problem which is being experienced here is identical to the one which is experienced in connection with all commissions. Exactly the same principle is applicable.

One knows when a commission is appointed.

But how is one to know when it begins its proceedings and how is one to know on what days it will sit? Surely that is the same problem. But, I do not want to argue this point with the hon. member at any length; I suggest, however, that we discuss this matter further when we come to clause 8. I think there is also a misunderstanding as far as the sub judice rule is concerned.

That is certain.

There is no such rule; there is only a rule with regard to contempt of a commission. However, I shall deal with that later.

Amendment (1) moved by Mrs. H. Suzman negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendments (1) and (2) moved by the Minister of Transport Affairs agreed to.

Amendment (2) moved by Mrs. H. Suzman negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (3) moved by the Minister of Transport Affairs agreed to.

Amendment (3) moved by Mrs. H. Suzman negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 6:

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

1. (1) On page 10, in lines 10 and 11, to omit “not necessary or desirable” and to substitute:
   undesirable in that it is harmful to State security or not desirable in order to protect a particular witness
2. (2) on page 10, in line 12, after “thereof” to insert:
   : Provided that otherwise all hearings of evidence shall be open to the public Clause 6 deals with the procedure to be followed when investigations are held by the Advocate-General. The discretion given to the Advocate-General in terms of this Bill is very far-reaching. We object very strongly to that. We do not want to see any Ku-Klux-Klan type of inquiries. We also do not want to have any secret inquiries with evidence being kept away from the public. We do not want any sort of inquiry to which the public will not have access. I must say, however, that I feel reassured after listening to what the hon. the Minister had to say in connection with clause 5. He stated that he would like to see members of the public attend those investigations. However, the power of discretion granted to the Attorney-General enables him to exclude people from attending investigations. This discretion of the Advocate-General can be exercised on two bases. He can firstly rule that the presence of people is not necessary, and secondly, that it is not desirable.

Our first amendment deals with both these aspects. However, I should first like to refer to that of “not necessary”. As I understand it the discretion of the Advocate-General to rule that attendance of its proceedings is not necessary, refers only to investigations in which the matter of State security plays a part. In this respect, I should like to refer to what happened recently when the Attorney-General of the Transvaal refused to institute a prosecution against Gen. Hendrik van den Bergh. That was a decision which was widely publicized by the media. People wondered why such a decision was made. In order to protect the Advocate-General in similar circumstances, and also to allay public fears and suspicions, we feel that discretion should be exercised only in matters in which the subject of the security of the State is broached. That is why our amendment is formulated in this manner. In no other circumstances, we believe, should the Advocate-General be allowed to exercise his discretion in this particular manner.

In connection with the words “not desirable” we feel that the discretion of the Advocate-General should be narrowed, especially with regard to the interpretation of the word “desirable”. We believe that this particular discretion should be exercised purely in order to protect a witness. In other words, only when it is necessary to protect a witness will it be “not desirable” to allow the public to attend an investigation. I am sure that fundamentally the hon. the Minister will also agree with the motivation behind our second amendment. The hon. the Minister has just resumed his seat. During his absence I have said …

Do not worry. I know exactly what you’ve said.

I have said during his absence that we have been reassured by listening to what he said during the discussion of clause 5 in connection with members of the public being allowed to attend investigations by the Advocate-General. I believe the hon. the Minister appreciates the principle of justice being allowed to be seen to be done. He will agree with us when we say that we are in favour of open courts, not of secret courts. In an open court the Press is able to report on the proceedings, except in certain circumstances, which we have already set out. I submit that it is necessary for the public to know what is happening during an investigation. It is necessary for the public to know how the investigation is handled. It is necessary for the public to know how reports and affidavits made to the Advocate-General are being handled. This will come out in Press reports if the hearing is held in an open one and people can be present.

Another point I think the hon. the Minister should bear in mind is that this Bill, when it becomes law, will act, to a certain extent, as a deterrent. So people who want to put their fingers in the till will have to be very careful because there will be a lot of people around watching them. On the other hand there is always the question of jealousy and personal animosity. Some people may feel that they have been wronged, for example that their promotion has been overlooked. Personal grudges and status are present in a large organization such as the Public Service and could perhaps lead to reports which are a little malicious. Therefore it is necessary, in the circumstances, to have these matters aired openly. We would not like to see the Information situation repeat itself. The advantage of having the evidence published is that if anybody’s name is mentioned—in spite of the fact that clause 7 empowers the Advocate-General to subpoena that person— it may well be that the person whose name is being defamed or bandied about in an undesirable fashion at the inquiry should come forward but that the Advocate-General is unable to trace him. People change their addresses or drop out of the public eye. If such a person should read in a Press report that his name has been linked, he will come forward of his own accord in order to clear his name. I think we have learnt, to a large extent from the experience of the Erasmus Commission, that this aspect can give rise to a number of problems. If a person is able to come forward to defend himself and be cross-examined, problems such as people being condemned without a hearing and the acceptance of findings based on untested evidence, in the sense that witnesses have not been subjected to cross-examination, will be eliminated. Recommendations can then be made to Parliament on the findings of the Advocate-General. Already we find people like Dr. Mulder and Mr. Vorster rejecting the findings of a commission and calling for the evidence to be published. I am merely using this as an example to show the importance of haying open hearings and the publication of evidence wherever necessary, subject only to such restrictions as the protection of witnesses and State security, as provided for already in the Bill.

The evidence would also help the Government members of Parliament and everybody else involved, when the evidence has eventually been sifted by a Select Committee, to come to a proper finding. We do not want a situation in which, once the Advocate-General has reported—and he may head an investigation like Judge Erasmus himself— certain members of the Government find themselves unable to accept the findings.

I now come to the making of regulations. The State President will make regulations by proclamation in the Gazette in terms of the provisions of clause 10.

In Clause 6(3) it is provided that “no person shall without the permission of the Advocate-General disclose to any other person the contents of any document in the possession of the Advocate-General or of an assistant to or a member of the staff of the Advocate-General …”. I think the term “any other person” must be given a wide interpretation to embrace its normal meaning. “Any other person” can perhaps be held to include one’s wife, friends or acquaintances. It therefore has a very wide connotation, and there is a heavy penalty of R500 or six months’ imprisonment for the contravention of this provision. This provision, therefore, gives us tremendous difficulties, because there is a provision which covers the situation of evidence being excluded and witnesses being protected under certain circumstances, but by and large we have to accept the principle of open hearings, of the public being able to attend and of there not being any kind of muzzling, suppressing or sweeping of evidence under the carpet. This is necessary so that everybody concerned can know what is involved. Under those circumstances I hope the hon. the Minister will see fit to accept the amendments we have moved.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin with the last remark of the hon. member for Hillbrow. The hon. member said that the public should know what all the evidence is which came before the Advocate-General. I think he forgot that it is compulsory for all the evidence to be made public later on. Therefore, all that evidence will in fact come before the public in time. He also said at some stage that a person could perhaps be incriminated by an investigation and that such a person should be able to read about the inquiry in the newspaper so that he had an opportunity to defend himself. But he forgot that the Bill provides that when any person is incriminated, the Advocate-General has to give such a person a specific opportunity to defend himself. I think the hon. member for Hillbrow was making a grave mistake in his approach to this clause, because he wanted to put the inquiry which is held on a par with a court. It should be borne in mind, however, that the circumstances are very different. When a court settles a dispute, the matter has already been investigated. The police have already taken down statements, have already found documents and there is knowledge in broad outline as to what the case is going to deal with and what the charge is going to be. In this particular case, where the Advocate-General is involved, the position is different. In this case one does not know what the outcome is going to be. Nor does one know what the witnesses are going to say. By opening up this inquiry, the problem exists that—in spite of the advantage which the hon. member mentioned that further evidence could be brought to light— witnesses might abscond and that persons who are involved might try to cover their tracks. This is precisely what we want to prevent. Therefore I am not in favour of the, case being open to the public and open to reports on what is being said in that investigation in all circumstances, except for the two circumstances which are mentioned—to protect a particular witness and to safeguard the security of the State.

The hon. member for Hillbrow is prepared to give the Advocate-General a discretion. This matter has already been decided and I think that even the hon. members on that side of the House now accept that the Advocate-General will be a person with a proper legal background. We on this side of the House are quite satisfied to leave the handling of the proceedings to the good discretion of the Advocate-General, in which cases the matter is of such a nature that he should rather keep the inquiry closed so that people do not perhaps obliterate their tracks and so that he is able to complete his inquiry in a proper way because he knows that all the evidence will eventually be brought to light. It is not a case of our being bound to what happens in other countries, but it is nevertheless interesting to refer to the provisions in the identically worded English Parliamentary Commissioner Act, section 7 of which deals with “procedure in respect of investigations”. Subsection (2) reads—

and no exception is made in the direction for which our investigations make provision. In view of these arguments, I think there is sufficient reason for leaving the matter to the discretion of the Advocate-General.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the hon. member for Albany, he did not listen to the argument which was put forward from these benches and if he did listen, he missed the point of the argument. The hon. member for Albany has both missed the point and misunderstood the argument. In the first place I have made it very clear that clause 7 does make provision for the Advocate-General to call in a person, whose name is involved, as a witness. However, as I see it, it is not always that easy to find those people. He may be looking for them, but not be able to find them. A person who reads in a newspaper that he is involved, however, will come forward and give evidence in order to defend himself and avoid being wronged in the way people have said they were wronged by the Erasmus Commission report. I think there were such cases. The hon. member, however, has missed the point. He said that the evidence would eventually be laid before this House. That is correct.

I also said in my speech that the evidence would eventually be laid before this House and be referred to a Select Committee, which would sift it and report back to the House. By that time the Advocate-General will, in terms of clause 5, have made his report containing his findings and recommendations on the evidence he had before him. The report is then placed before this House and is referred to a Select Committee, which will consider it and then report its findings to the House. If a witness only comes forward at that stage, look at all that time that will have been wasted, because such a witness may well change the recommendations or the report of the Select Committee because he may submit evidence that is vital and which might influence the findings of the Select Committee. What do we do when the witness only comes forward at that stage and says that he was not aware of what was happening, that was the first time he had heard about an inquiry? All those findings might therefore be found to have been wrong and the matter will have to be referred back to the Advocate-General, who will then have to start his investigation all over again. That is what the hon. member’s argument implied. That is why it is very important to accept this amendment which provides that “otherwise” all hearing of evidence shall be open to the public. The word “otherwise”, of course, is very important. The amendment makes provision for the two reasons why that person should not be present.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to concentrate on the clause as it reads at present, because it is very important that we should deduce from the construction of the provision in the Bill what the intention of the legislature is. Let us look at what elements are contained in clause 6(1). The first is that the Advocate-General himself determines how he wants to conduct the investigation. Furthermore the clause provides, however, that he may conduct it in camera in certain cases. In the first instance, this implies that it is the normal practice to conduct an open investigation.

†I hope the hon. member follows my argument.

I understand.

If one looks at the construction of the clause, the intention of the legislator becomes perfectly clear. It says that the Advocate-General will determine the procedure to be followed during an investigation. Then it gives him the right, under certain general circumstances, to conduct an inquiry in camera. This presupposes that if there are no reasons why a certain person should be excluded, the proceedings should be open.

Do you realize that there will be people whose presence is “not necessary”?

I understand that. Let me refer to an equivalent case. If one looks at the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act in terms of which a presiding officer can decide that proceedings must be held in camera, one sees that certain specific factors are applicable. The first one is the safety of the State.

[Inaudible.]

Just give me a chance. If I remember correctly, the second one relates to the protection of the morals of a society. The third relates to the interest of the application of justice, which is as wide as one can go.

No.

Oh yes. Let me just finish the argument. Firstly, in my opinion the clause makes it clear that an investigation must be held in the open.

It does not say so.

It says so. It says further that the Advocate-General shall have the right under certain general and undefined circumstances to determine that it be held in camera. In subsection (2) he will find the statute more specific. When it comes to matters relating to secret funds, it must be held in camera. In the one case it is optional and in the second case obligatory. However, the whole concept, the whole intention is to keep it open. In this case a discretion is given to the presiding officer, to the Advocate-General. Can I just take it a bit further? If I accept the amendment of the hon. member, there is an exhaustive list of circumstances under which it can be held in camera. The hon. member, having knowledge of the application and the practice of law, will understand that to try to define and give an exhaustive list of circumstances under which the investigation or the trial must be in camera, will be impossible. Let me give an example. Let us assume for the moment that it does not affect the safety of the State or the position of a witness. However, let us assume that it affects the position of another country and its protocol and it is not defined in the Act. Then in terms of the law it has to be open. It may then jeopardize the relationship of this country with another country. It would not jeopardize the safety of the State, but the interests of the country. I am just using this as an example.

I wonder whether the hon. member would not be prepared to accept from me that the spirit and the intention of the clause as it stands is that it must be open.

I accept that.

Fine.

But it is not in the clause.

It is there. In terms of the construction of the clause it states—and I am using my own words now—that the Advocate-General can under certain circumstances exclude certain persons or groups. Then it becomes specific in subsection (2) where it is stated that under certain circumstances it has to be held in camera.

We shall not argue with that.

Fine. I believe that the hon. member will accept my assurance in this regard that it is the intention of it to be open, unless circumstances arise which indicate that it should be in camera. We cannot take that discretionary power away from the presiding officer, in this case the Advocate-General. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister and I are coming a little bit closer together in our thinking. It seems we share a basic approach, namely that the court should be open. The hon. the Minister knows very well that courts cannot take into consideration discussions in this House. They have to administer the law. On that premise I ask the hon. the Minister to place himself in the role of the Advocate-General. He is then told that he must exercise his opinion in regard to people who should be present. If, in his opinion, people are not necessary there … Let us just deal with the words “not necessary”. Then he will have no discretion there, because the law says that if they are not necessary in his opinion, they must be excluded.

They can be excluded.

No, it says “shall not be present”. It is mandatory. Why is it not necessary? Is it not necessary for the proceedings or for evidence …

Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt the hon. member to ask him to just read subsection (1) again.

Yes. Clause 6(1) states—

“May” and not “shall”.

I quote further—

Yes.

Even if a court of law “may” decide who should be present and who not, it is not an open court. The words “not necessary” are so wide that they need a definition. That is the whole purpose of our amendment. We delete the word “necessary” and say “undesirable in that it is harmful to State security”. This provision would even affect complete outsiders who may perhaps just want to attend the inquiry. It can happen, for example, that members of the National Council of Women may just want to attend the inquiry. The Advocate-General may then say that their presence is “not necessary” in his opinion, and they will then have to leave. By doing this, he can exclude a whole category of people.

He can do that?

Yes.

In all fairness, that is the whole point. I said a moment ago that there is an obligation on the Advocate-General. That is why the provision reads “may” and not “shall”.

I think the hon. the Minister does want it to be an open hearing, but he is making things difficult for himself. There is honestly no harm in our amendment, which reads: “Provided that otherwise all hearings of evidence shall be open to the public.” I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to give very serious consideration to this amendment. If, before he gets to the Other Place, he decides to do what I suggest, I think he might find it very favourably received.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to delay the proceedings. I simply want to make the following observation. In the first place it is perfectly clear from the clause, as it is framed, that it is the intention that the hearing should be open. Secondly, it is also clear that the Advocate-General has a discretion to hold the proceedings in camera. Thirdly, it is not peremptory, but only permissible, to exclude certain persons whose presence is not required. I can refer hon. members to the Criminal Procedure Act. There they will find an equivalent provision …

No. That is not so.

I shall quote it to hon. members. The relevant provision in section [153 refers to the safety of the State, but we are not arguing about that now, but also to amongst other things, the “good order” or “public morals” or “the administration of justice”. In other words, this is much wider, and remember, this relates to a criminal case.

But the presiding officer has to exercise a judicial discretion …

In this case it is the same.

No. It is not.

Of course it is.

It is merely a question of his opinion.

How can the hon. member now argue that this is a political decision? The hon. member for Johannesburg North and I have agreed that this man serves in a judicial capacity, and because he performs a judicial function, he has to be a judge.

May I ask you a question?

One moment. The hon. member for Groote Schuur is now arguing that this is not a judicial function, but a political one. I simply cannot argue with people who argue like that.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are not taking this particular aspect lightly. We are not playing games, because this aspect is absolutely vital.

Neither do I.

Let us assume, for the moment, that we have to have the institution of an Advocate-General. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that we are not taking up time lightly. As I have said, we are not playing games with this one, because it is absolutely vital. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, if hon. members are not careful, we will start playing games, which will mean that we shall still be sitting here on Monday. [Interjections.] I should like to ask the hon. the Minister two questions. Does he not agree that in terms of section 153 of the Criminal Procedure Act it is possible to take a judicial officer on review? One would set out in one’s application that he had not properly considered what was “the administration of justice” for the purposes of clearing his court? Right? There is authority on that One can obviously take that decision on review.

[Inaudible.]

Right, then we are at one. In the second place I would ask him whether he would not agree that according to the provisions in subsection (1) one could not take the Advocate-General on review if he said: “I decided that it was not necessary to have certain persons at my inquiry, and I cleared my office.” Does the hon. the Minister not agree with me that that is not reviewable?

Why do you argue that one cannot?

Because it is totally in his discretion, while it is not totally in the discretion of a judicial officer under section 153. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister has already accepted that a decision under section 153 is reviewable.

Argue the case why this is not reviewable; then I shall reply to you.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he says that a decision by the Advocate-General, taken at his discretion, that the presence of certain persons is not necessary is in fact reviewable. Does he argue that?

I shall reply to that in a moment.

Mr. Chairman …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question before he continues?

Yes, the hon. member can put his question.

Will you not answer…

I am coming to that hon. member. What is the question the hon. member for Hillbrow wants to put?

We have talked about subsections (1) and (2), but I want to ask the hon. the Minister please to deal with my argument in regard to subsection (3), which provides that “no person shall … disclose …”. What about the case where it is a rumour, or a verbal … [Interjections.]

Sir, I do not want to be hypercritical of the hon. member, but he has not read subsection (3). If he will read it, he will see that it deals with documents which are in the possession of the Advocate-General which may not be removed. This has nothing to do with evidence. Just let him read the subsection. He is making the same mistake he made with regard to subsection (1). Basically he is under the impression that there is an obligation on the Advocate-General not to admit certain people, which is not the case.

In reply to the hon. member for Groote Schuur, I want to say that, as I interpret the provision, the investigation has to be open in principle, except when, in the discretion of the Advocate-General, certain circumstances are applicable. If he exercises that discretion with malicious intentions, his decision may in my opinion be reviewed. That is my interpretation of the provision. We can argue about that until we are blue in the face and I do not suppose we shall now agree about that, but that is my opinion of it. I want to assure the hon. members—and I ask them to accept it from me—that it is the intention that the investigation should take place in public and should be accessible to members of the public. That is its intention and that is the assurance I want to give. There have to be other circumstances, therefore, before the discretionary power of the Advocate-General can be applied. That is my reply to the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise one further point with the hon. the Minister, because I think that in our sentiments we are finding one another on this. The hon. the Minister has assured us as to the intention. We ask him what his objection is to adding the words: “Provided that otherwise all hearings of evidence shall be open to the public.” I want to put it to him that there is an element of doubt Let me put my point to him very clearly. The relevant subsection consists of two parts. The first is neutral as to whether the hearing should be open or closed. It says—

I think the hon. the Minister will concede that that is absolutely neutral as regards the question whether it is open or closed.

But it is qualified by the fact that …

Let me get on to the next part. The hon. the Minister keeps on saying: “… but the Advocate-General”. In the provision the words used are not “… but the Advocate-General”; they are: “… and the Advocate-General may in his discretion”. In other words, that is another concept.

That makes it stronger.

The second part merely states—

I say that is neutral. It is for him to decide, on the basis of whether it is necessary or not, that people should be removed from the area. It does not give people a right. It does not even say that it is necessary in order to ensure that the inquiry function properly. The provision is therefore not one which can be quantified; it is a simple statement that if in his opinion people are not necessary, they shall not be present. One finds that at inquiries there are always people present whose presence is not necessary for the purposes of the inquiry.

Order! That point has already been made a couple of times.

Sir, far from this being weighed heavily in favour of it being an open inquiry—I think the hon. the Minister will not put it stronger than that—it is neutral. It is silent on what the intention is. If the hon. the Minister says that his intention is that it should be an open inquiry, then we ask him to remove the doubt by adding that simple proviso.

Mr. Chairman, I am unable to add the proviso because it has a bearing on the amendment which the hon. member moved in the first place.

No, it is on its own.

It is not on its own. The second amendment has a bearing on the first one. If one adds the amendment, the clause provides that the circumstances in which it can be conducted in camera, depend on (a) whether the security of the State will be affected and (b) whether it is a particular witness. In all other circumstances the inquiry has to be open. The one of course qualifies the other one.

The hon. member is not reading the clause correctly. Let us start all over again.

It is not necessary.

The fact that the word “but” does not appear there, but that the word “and” does, makes my argument even stronger. In the first instance it is said that the Advocate-General determines his own procedure and then the clause further provides that he has the right to decide that certain hearings or inquiries, or parts thereof should be conducted in camera. Surely that cannot mean anything else than that it has to be open in all other cases. Surely that is the crux of the matter.

The reason why the amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow is unacceptable, is that he suggests a list of restrictive circumstances in which it can be conducted in camera. What happens if a circumstance arises which is not contained in his list? As a jurist, he will be able to understand our problem in this regard.

†If one has a list containing specifics, one is bound by the list. One cannot do something for any other reason, but only for those contained in the list. There could be sound, solid reasons why there should be hearings in camera, but if they are not included in the list, such hearings cannot take place. I am prepared to co-operate with hon. members, but I cannot accept the amendments.

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, clause 8 is giving rise to great concern on this side of the House and it will undoubtedly have the same effect on the public, and especially the media, when they realize the implications of this clause, because this clause creates a peculiar situation. The hon. the Minister and I have argued about judicial, quasi-judicial, adjudication and investigation, but what do we have here? We have an investigatory body which is invested with the same sovereign powers and status as a court of law.

Clause 8 provides, after all, that if any person anticipates or later influences the findings of this investigatory body, he will be guilty of contempt of that body, and that body—in other words, the Advocate-General—may summarily sentence him to six months’ imprisonment or a fine of R500 or both. In other words, we have an absolute confusion of ideas in clause 8, and something which will not work in practice, not effectively and not even uneffectively. Therefore I now move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 12, in lines 12 to 15, to omit paragraph (a);
2. (2) on page 12, in lines 19 to 25, to omit paragraph (c);
3. (3) on page 12, in lines 28 to 31, to omit subsection (3).

I want to explain briefly why paragraph (a) of clause 8(1) is acceptable to us. In the first place, and this may be a minor point, the assistant of the Advocate-General, who need not have any specific qualifications, will enjoy the same protection as the Advocate-General himself. I just want to point out that it seems to me that there is a slight discrepancy (“diskrepans”) between the two. The important thing, however, is when we come to the anticipation of proceedings. This is the first time in my life I have heard that one can anticipate proceedings.

What is a “diskrepans”?

The hon. member for Innesdal can look it up in a dictionary if he does not know the word. [Interjections.] It is given in the dictionaries.

However, I have never come across a statement to the effect that one can anticipate proceedings. Because this is uncertain, unclear and vague, it will have an inhibiting effect on any person in public or in private conversation or in any other way. It will have an inhibiting effect, not only on the publication of material, but also on the disclosure of new evidence. Suppose the proceedings take place behind closed doors …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? I understood the hon. member to say that he does not object to paragraph (a) of clause 8(1). Is that correct?

If I may just repeat, I object to clause 8(1)(a), 8(l)(c) and 8(3).

I understood the hon. member to say that he did not object to clause 8(1)(a), because the assistant of the Advocate-General should have the same protection as the Advocate-General himself.

It is just the other way round. This is a minor point. The assistant of the Advocate-General has no prescribed qualifications. Therefore it is a little peculiar that he should be placed in the same position of protection as the Advocate-General himself. However, this is a minor objection.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he has read paragraph (a) of clause 2(13), where it expressly says “subject to the provisions of subsection (2)”?

I wish hon. members would take the trouble of reading the clauses after we have been arguing about this thing for almost a full day. After all, it is a very short Bill.

Answer the question.

The paragraph says that the State President may appoint assistants and the provisions of subsection (3) up to and including (10) are applicable, but subsection (2), in which the qualifications are laid down, is specifically excluded. Really, Mr. Chairman, when one has to argue with such people!

I now want to come back to the problem I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. Suppose proceedings are taking place behind closed doors for good reasons, but there are people who know that there are friends, family or other persons giving evidence, and others who also have information in that connection. Now they are being prohibited from writing or saying anything.

Does that not apply to legal aid as well?

Yes, to a certain extent, but legal aid is 99,9% in public.

How do you know that will not apply to this as well?

How do I know it will apply? The hon. the Minister has just conducted a long discourse about why the rule of disclosure or publicity should not be put in so many words. He relies on interpretations.

Be fair towards me.

Why is the hon. the Minister reluctant to say so in so many words? It is very simple to say so, then it is finished and done with. Why does it have to be interpreted and explained?

In clause 8(l)(c), reference is made to “contempt of court”. In other words, contempt of court can now be committed in respect of the Advocate-General, not only while he is hearing the case, but also while he is conducting an inquiry. This is another extension of the sub judice rule, that one is not allowed to do anything here which would be regarded as contempt of court with regard to a Supreme Court or any other court I repeat: The ordinary courts are 99,9% open and are not investigative bodies like the Advocate-General. A court of law begins with documents either setting out all the points at issue or submitting the findings of the police and others in the form of evidence. Here the Advocate-General may in some cases begin with nothing, with a mere suspicion. And over that whole period, and perhaps behind closed doors as well, everyone is silenced, including the media, and no one is allowed to say anything about that matter.

Surely that is not correct.

But it is. Clause 8(1)(c) clearly implies that this is the case. My amendment to clause 8(3) is concerned with the question of the extraordinary power conferred upon the Advocate-General to tell a person, behind closed doors if necessary, that he is guilty of contempt of court and that he is therefore sentenced to six months’ imprisonment or a fine of R500. Throughout the civilized world, this power is only conferred upon a judge who has judicial power. In this case, it is conferred upon an investigative body. This is completely contrary to the general view. In my humble opinion, it proves that this is an ill-considered clause which was composed from a confusion of ideas and principles which are simply untenable. Therefore I ask that these three amendments be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Johannesburg North suggested that the hon. member for Albany had asked him a very foolish question.

He did.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North now confirms that he did say that. I want to put it to the hon. member for Johannesburg North that he should rather confine himself to the two official languages of the country instead of making use of an alien terminology. The English text of clause 2(13) reads—

The clause expressly states “subject to the provisions of subsection (2)”. In other words, an assistant Advocate-General must in fact have the same qualifications as the Advocate-General.

That is correct.

The hon. member for Johannesburg concedes the point to me. I want to suggest to him that he should not be so quick to write off an hon. member by saying that he has asked a foolish question.

He is always very reasonable and accommodating.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North also said that he had never heard of a situation where one can anticipate proceedings. I should like to help him in this respect as well. If it were alleged in a report, or anywhere else, that the Advocate-General is going to investigate the activities of a certain department, is going to question Mr. X, is going to reject Mr. Y’s evidence, or is going to do anything else, it would be anticipating the proceedings of the Advocate-General’s inquiries. That is what is prohibited in terms of this clause.

I also want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that not a word is said about the sub judice rule anywhere in this clause. It does not refer to the sub judice rule of the courts. It is expressly stated that we are concerned here with contempt of the Advocate-General. That is what the clause is concerned with. Furthermore, it expressly provides what will be regarded as contempt. In other words, an argument about all the things that are included or excluded under the sub judice rule as it applies to the courts is totally irrelevant. The wording of the clause is specific on this point.

I think the hon. member for Johannesburg North has forgotten the discussion in the Select Committee. We discussed the same things there, and I gained the impression there that he understood and in fact agreed with us about the matter. However, the hon. member seems to have forgotten it now.

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that we are having quite a number of problems with this clause. Consequently I move the amendments printed in the name of the hon. member for East London North on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 12, in lines 16 to 18, to omit paragraph (b);
2. (2) on page 12, in lines 28 to 31, to omit subsection (3).

The first amendment is concerned with the deletion of clause 8(1)(b).

†Hon. members may think that by deleting this we are in favour of somebody wilfully interrupting the proceedings. However, this is not the case. We believe that the provisions in clause 8(1)(b) are in fact completely covered by (c). Clause 8(1)(c) states that—

It is therefore unnecessary to have clause 8(1)(b) as well. The hon. member for Johannesburg North is in fact suggesting that this subsection should be deleted. However, we feel that subsection (c) as it stands is in line with section 3 of the Commissions Act.

Paragraph (c) makes it quite clear that the Attorney-General will enjoy that protection which a court will have when it comes to matters of contempt of court Anybody who wilfully interrupts the proceedings of a court, will obviously be charged with contempt of court. Therefore, as long as clause 8(1)(c) is there, it is not necessary to have paragraph (b) as well.

Then we also feel very strong about the second amendment However, I think it has already been moved by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. This concerns the power of the Attorney-General to summarily impose severe penalties as prescribed in clause 11(b). This is something which we cannot agree to.

Mr. Chairman, let us examine the object of the clause. I think it is always a good thing to take the argument from there. Clause 8(1)(a) is intended only to uphold the dignity of the Advocate-General. Surely no one can argue with that.

That is the first part.

That is the first subsection. It also applies to the assistant of the Advocate-General. The hon. member for Johannesburg North concedes that the assistant must also have the qualifications required of the Advocate-General himself. Surely no one can argue about the dignity of the office and the fact that it has to be protected. However, the hon. member wants to delete that.

Clause 8(1)(b) provides that the proceedings shall not be interrupted. Surely this is a good and an orderly arrangement. If someone runs through a court and causes an uproar, he is interrupting the proceedings of the court. It is provided here that no one may do that.

What about clause 8(l)(a)?

I am coming to that. The hon. member should please give me a chance so that I may explain it to him. [Interjections.] Clause 8(l)(c) is intended to protect the proceedings at an inquiry in the same way as court proceedings are protected.

There is a specific misconception which I want to deal with first. There is great misunderstanding about the question of a sub judice rule.

†What are we dealing with? In the first place we are dealing with the concept of contempt of court. That is the concept we deal with. Let us look at a definition of this concept, because that is what is involved in this particular clause. The definition is—

*Now compare this definition with the provisions of clause 8(1)(a).

And subsection (3).

Yes, with subsection (3) as well, but first with clause 8(a). The hon. member should just give me a chance. I shall definitely react to all the arguments advanced by hon. members.

Order!

Actually there is no such thing as a sub judice rule in the sense that a case may not be discussed or written about while it is pending. I believe the hon. member for Johannesburg North will understand that better than any other member. Normally the concept is only applied in the sense that contempt of court—“minagting van die hof”—is usually committed with regard to a case which is under consideration or sub judice. The hon. member will agree with me in this connection.

Let us take the argument just a little further. Under clause 8(2), a contravention of the provision in clause 8(1) is a criminal offence. No one can argue about that. Surely one cannot have a prohibition without a penalty provision with regard to its contravention.

No one is saying that.

Of course not. The hon. member is coming closer to my argument now. What is the object of clause 8(3)? Clause 8(3) confers upon the Advocate-General the same power as the Supreme Court would have under the same circumstances …

But he is not a court.

Hon. members must please give me a chance to explain. The hon. member for Durban Central says he is not a court, but I want to ask hon. members please to decide now what he is, for heaven knows, they cannot argue with me about the fact that this man has a judicial function.

But he may not be a judge.

He may be a judge, but he does not have to be one. [Interjections.] Hon. members must not be so noisy, please.

Order!

There is nothing to prevent him from being a judge …

But he does not have to be one.

Of course not After all, a judge is not appointed from judges, but from the advocates.

Order! The hon. member for Johannesburg North strongly objected to the constant noise while he was speaking. It seemed to me that he did not care for interjections. He must please give the hon. the Minister an opportunity now to state his case. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I want to ask the hon. member whether or not, under the provisions of the Commissions Act, a commissioner is a judge.

He is not a judge.

In other words, he does not need protection either.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member wants the best of both worlds, but he cannot have it, because life is not like that. Let us examine the provisions of the Commissions Act of 1947. We cannot regard this matter in isolation, so I shall quote two relevant provisions from this legislation. The first one to which I wish to refer is in connection with public sittings. The hon. member would do well to look at section 4 of the Act. Section 4 provides that such an inquiry shall be open, as I maintain the clause also provides. [Interjections.] Hon. members must please give me a chance. I cannot discuss technical legal aspects through a shower of interjections. After all, I expect the same courtesy as I showed hon. members on that side of the House. The article reads—

I believe the hon. member for Johannesburg North will concede this point to me, i.e. that the responsibility of the Advocate-General will generally be of a higher order than that of a commissioner under the Commissions Act. But even the commissioner is protected against contempt. He is also protected against people who want to interrupt his proceedings. I do not know whether the hon. member wishes me to read all these provisions, but here they are.

I have them before me.

Very well.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Let me just finish my argument. Then the hon. member can put his question.

*The hon. member wants the person who holds the office of Advocate-General to comply with exacting requirements. The functions of the Advocate-General are in certain respects wider than those of the judiciary, for he has an investigative, a judicial and a recommendatory function. In all fairness, then, surely the hon. member cannot argue that his protection should be less than the protection enjoyed by commissioners. Surely that is contrary to any concept of logic.

The Commissions Act provides too much protection as it is.

Sir, now the Commissions Act provides too much protection! [Interjections.] The hon. member for Groote Schuur may ask his question now.

Does the Commission Act empower a commission summarily to deal on its own with a case of contempt of court?

It does not.

That is right.

But, Sir, I did not advance that argument. There are three provisions in clause 8 which have a bearing on the argument, not so? I say, firstly, that in terms of the Commission Act it is possible to commit contempt of a commission and therefore I say provision must also be made for the commission of contempt of the Advocate-General.

That is fair.

But the hon. member proposes the deletion of that provision.

We do not agree with him.

In that case do not interrupt me when I am arguing about it with him. Secondly, provision is made for the proceedings not to be interrupted. The hon. member wants that to be deleted as well. Thirdly, provision is made for a summary trial for contempt of court. The hon. member wants that to be deleted as well. You know what the argument is he advances? He says that because the court proceedings are generally in the open, it is not wrong in that case to give the presiding officer the right summarily to fine or sentence a man for contempt of court, while because he supposes or has a suspicion that the proceedings in this case will generally be in camera, that right should not be given to the Advocate-General.

That is another reason. A court of law is a court of record. Do you know what that means?

I am not arguing with the hon. member for Groote Schuur. I am replying to the issues raised by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. The hon. member must give me a chance to do that. I submit in all fairness that we have refuted every argument the hon. member has put forward in substantiation of his amendment on the Order Paper. Therefore I agree with the hon. member for Mossel Bay and I cannot accept the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to make quite sure that the hon. the Minister understands our standpoint in respect of this matter. We do not believe it should be possible to treat the Advocate-General with contempt. However, we believe that clause 8(1)(c) provides perfectly adequate protection to the Advocate-General against any wilful interruption of proceedings by any person, and against any statements by any person which may cause the Advocate-General to be insulted or held in contempt. Paragraph (c) makes it clear that in such cases, the same protection against contempt should be afforded that is applicable in the case of proceedings in a court of law. Therefore the whole question of contempt is covered by this. That is why we do not agree with the proposal of the hon. member for Johannesburg North that paragraph (c) be deleted. If one retains (c), (a) and (b) are unnecessary. They are then superfluous and can fall away. In respect of (a), there is an additional point, i.e. the anticipation of proceedings, with which we do not agree, because it is a completely new concept.

As regards the proposed deletion of subsection (3), I think the hon. the Minister should consider it carefully once again. We are prepared to concede that when it comes to a question of contempt, the Advocate-General should be treated in the same way as a court. That he should have the same powers in his inquiry as a court of law has, however, is something we are not prepared to agree to. The Advocate-General should not have the power summarily to impose the fines and other penalties provided for.

Mr. Chairman, I should prefer not to take the matter any further, but there is something I do want to explain once again. Let us have another look at clause 8(2). In terms of clause 8(2), it is an offence to do what is prohibited under clause 8(1). Does the hon. member follow that?

Yes.

Now we come to clause 8(3), and that is important. The powers conferred upon the Advocate-General in terms of this subsection correspond to the powers of a court in a case of contempt of court. Let us look again at the requirements that have to be met by the person who occupies the post. We must do this in order to ascertain whether the danger exists that he may behave like a cowboy by summarily imposing fines or imprisonment on people. That kind of thing would not be in the spirit of what we envisage. Therefore I cannot accept the amendments of the hon. member for East London North either.

Mr. Chairman, there are one or two questions I should like to ask the hon. the Minister. The first one concerns a very important matter. I do not know what the phrase “to anticipate the proceedings of a body” means. I just do not happen to understand what it means.

Do you understand neither English nor Afrikaans?

The meaning of this phrase is going to be rather important for the Press. Let us assume for the moment that the Press will be permitted to have access to these inquiries or to a certain percentage of them. What may they not do when it is prohibited that they shall anticipate the proceedings of the Advocate-General? I want to ask some practical questions. Let us say that a Pressman attends the proceedings on a Wednesday and he gathers on that day that on the following day the Advocate-General is not going to conduct a hearing in Cape Town, but in Bellville where he is going to hear evidence from Mr. X. May the newspapers report those two facts?

Surely they do not affect the findings.

No, the hon. the Minister should look at clause 8(1)(a)—

I want to know what contents the hon. the Minister can give to the prohibition on anticipating the proceedings of an inquiry. Does that not mean in the ordinary, everyday language that one may not even indicate what the future programme …

I shall reply to that.

I now come to the second question. The hon. the Minister, I think in so many words, indicated that his view was that the Advocate-General, because he had a judicial, an investigative and a recommendatory function, should in fact have, if not as much, certainly in some cases more, rights than a judge.

I did not say that.

Well, the hon. the Minister came very close to suggesting it. If he is correct in that surely he will concede that the Advocate-General should have corresponding responsibilities. If he is going to be treated virtually as a judicial officer, or let me say as a judge, which he is after all because he is given the protections, such as the right to sentences of summary imprisonment for contempt I believe he should be given corresponding responsibilities. I do not want to give the hon. the Minister a lecture. He surely knows there are two important aspects to the maxim that justice must be done and must be seen to be done. The one is that the proceedings should be in open court. That is very important.

We have already dealt with that.

However, there is another one which is just as important, and what is that? This, of course, has evolved over the centuries. I am referring to the fact that a court of law is a court of record, and that is very important. I often wonder whether we realize how important it really is. It means that the file of the case is not in the hands of the judge. It is in the hands of the court. It is in the hands of the registrar, the personal registrar of the judge, and through him, the registrar of the court. That means that an independent authority notes everything that the court does. The judge cannot just fine somebody without its being put on record. The judge’s registrar states: “10h15: Constable Van der Merwe fined R50 summarily for contempt of court” That forms part of a public document which goes into the archives after 10 or 15 years.

Where is the record requirement however, in this clause? One cannot have it both ways. If one wants to give these great powers and status to this particular judicial officer, at least he should be made to keep minutes. His proceedings should be given some of the aspects of a court of record. I happen to be suspicious by nature, and I do not apologize for that, because I think we have, in fact, achieved a form of democracy through trials and wars and all sorts of horrible things. One of the things that is terribly important, therefore, is that the administration of justice should be clean, and this is administration of justice, because the Advocate-General is a judicial officer. So why does the hon. the Minister not give his proceedings, at least as far as he can, the aspect of a court of record? Why does he not provide for a secretariat and for the keeping of minutes? [Interjections.]

Have you read clause 10(1)?

All right. However, is there a provision stating that all the proceedings shall be minuted?

Read clause 10(1)(a).

Where does it say that?

Regulations.

What does that say? [Interjections.]

Read it [Interjections.]

Order!

All right, clause 10(l)(a) says—

The State President has powers. It is not mandatory. He does not have to do this. [Interjections.] It is inconceivable to me that a person who is not, in fact a practising lawyer or a judge could be given powers of punishment of R500 or six months’ imprisonment or both. [Interjections.] We can have someone who is qualified as an advocate, but who has never practised as one, yet he can be given wide powers of punishment. I think it is wrong in principle. Until we can get some explanation of these two points—firstly, what “anticipate the proceedings” means and, secondly, why there should be this power of punishment without a proper mandatory recording of the proceedings—we shall be forced to oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I fully expected, of course, that the PFP would oppose the provisions of this clause. [Interjections.] I must say in all fairness that it does not serve any purpose for us to be witty and to split hairs about these things. The hon. member has asked me a question. He wants to know what anticipating the proceedings means. If the Advocate-General announces that he is going to conduct an investigation in loco in Bellville tomorrow, surely this is a reportable fact, and there is nothing wrong with it. However, if one starts to speculate about the witnesses he is going to call tomorrow, or about the witnesses he ought to call, that would be a contravention of this provision. The hon. member knows that.

I want to say in all fairness that if the hon. member had read the provisions of all the clauses, he would have known that clause 8(3) does not turn the Advocate-General into a court. However, it does give him the power of a court under certain circumstances. That is all. The hon. member should know that. In the third place, the hon. member makes a statement which appears to be valid theoretically. He says that a record is kept of the evidence in an ordinary court, but that this does not apply here. The hon. member knows as well as I do that if the Advocate-General summarily convicts a person and imposes a penalty on him, without any record of the case, his action would be subject to review. He knows that.

He could not be admitted to prison without a document.

That is correct.

That depends upon his duties.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Groote Schuur has not read all the clauses. What would be the purpose of inserting clause 8 into the Bill, and including in it a provision with regard to the recording of the proceedings, if the whole intention behind it were not to record evidence? The hon. member really must not expect me to waste any more time of the House on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the hon. the Minister, with regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central, whether paragraph (c) of clause 8, which deals with contempt, does not cover paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 8 as well. What can be done that is not covered under paragraph (c)?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister still owes us an explanation which stands over from the discussion on clause 5 and which he said he would deal with later. I really would like the hon. the Minister to do this because I think the whole of South Africa is watching to see the interpretation placed on “anticipating the proceedings”. I want to put it in practical terms. Let us assume that somebody takes a case to the Advocate-General. In terms of the provisions of clause 4 the Advocate-General will then immediately start an inquiry. Can the Press or anybody publish facts, or alleged facts, which could be or may become evidence at an inquiry which is to be held? Can anything which is relevant be published and which could be anticipated would be either admitted as evidence or could be admitted as evidence in respect of that particular inquiry? In other words, is there a blanket ban on news or facts, or alleged facts, while that inquiry is taking place?

Secondly, as far as the proceedings are concerned, is there anything here which in any way would prohibit the publication of the proceedings in detail except in matters of national security? Is there any blanket ban or limitation on the publication in full in the Press of the proceedings? These two points are of critical importance. Can the Press publish or print any fact which may become evidence or could become evidence, and have they got access to the proceedings and the right to publish those proceedings in full?

Thirdly, can this rule apply in any case if they do not know that the Advocate-General is making an inquiry and if they do not know when he is concluding such an inquiry?

That is why we asked in clause 5, by way of the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton, that when an inquiry starts the public is alerted thereof and when the inquiry ends the public is advised of this fact.

Mr. Chairman, for the information of the hon. member for Durban Point I just want to mention that I have already replied to the argument of the hon. member for Durban Central. If the hon. member would read clause 8, he would see that paragraph (a) of this clause protects the office of the Advocate-General or his assistant, while paragraphs (b) and (c) are concerned with the proceedings themselves, an entirely different concept. Why do I have to explain this matter twice?

But paragraph (c) protects both.

I shall repeat it for the umpteenth time. Clause 8(2) provides that any person who contravenes a provision of subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence. I have said this several times. Clause 8(3) confers upon the Advocate-General the powers corresponding to those of a court, under specific circumstances. How many times must I explain this?

I come now to the arguments of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Surely words have a meaning, a straightforward meaning. If the Advocate-General makes a statement about a matter, it can be reported. It refers to the proceedings themselves; it refers to the findings, and nothing else. I really cannot take the matter any further.

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

1. (1) On page 12, in line 37, after “shall” to insert:
   by way of direct communication to the Advocate-General or an assistant to the Advocate-General
2. (2) on page 12, in line 37, after “to” to insert “improperly”.

In other words, we want to restrict the clause to direct communications. If the Advocate-General hears, therefore, that something has been published which may influence him, he should do what some hon. members also do, and that is to cover it with his hand or not to read it at all. That is the intention of the words “direct communication”.

As far as the question of influencing is concerned, we want the word “improperly” to be inserted before the words “influence”. We want the clause to provide that the Advocate-General may not be improperly influenced. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this clause is necessary in the light of the provisions of clause 8.

Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member has been so brief in his discussion of this, I shall be just as brief. The hon. member must know that unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment, for his amendment implies that if someone wanted to write an article expressing opinions about what the Advocate-General should do, he would be able to write it.

The second argument I want to advance is that there is a proper way of influencing and an improper way of influencing. Both ways of influencing are basically covered by this clause. This clause does not deprive a witness of the right to convince the Advocate-General and therefore to influence him by means of his direct evidence in support of his standpoint during the proceedings. This would be proper influencing. The clause provides by implication that it is improper to influence him in any other way. I ask the hon. member to accept my standpoint. I am afraid I cannot accept that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the title of this clause reads “prohibition of improper influencing”. We were going to move that the word “improperly” be inserted in the clause where it belongs, otherwise the title of the clause says one thing and the clause says something else.

If this is prohibition of improper influencing, why do we not say that no person should do anything calculated improperly to influence? It seems logic to me.

Vause Raw speaks! [Interjections.]

And the people were there to listen.

Mr. Chairman, even in view of the non-acceptance, by the hon. the Minister, of the amendment of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, I should still like to move the amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for East London North on the Order Paper, as follows—

The only reason why this differs from the amendment of the hon. member for Johannesburg North is that in the English context one runs into the difficulty of the split infinitive, because it would read: “to improperly influence”.

Mr. Chairman, just to prove my good faith, I am prepared to insert the word “improperly” into the clause as proposed by the hon. member.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. J. F. Marais negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper agreed to and amendment (2) moved by Mr. J. F. Marais dropped.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 10:

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say briefly that I cannot accept this, because I can accept only the one or the other amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 11:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since I introduced my budget in March this year there have been a number of new developments in the world economy which have important implications for the South African economy and for our fiscal, monetary and other economic policies.

Some of these developments have been unfavourable from our point of view. The most important of these has been the substantial further increase in the world oil price, particularly on the free market. This increase, which has been accompanied in many countries by actual shortages of liquid fuels, has upset the world economic apple-cart and sent Government economists in most countries back to the drawing boards. The truth is that world economic conditions and prospects have been materially altered by the latest energy crisis, and for most non-oil-producing countries this has not been a change for the better.

The impact of the new oil situation on the world economy will be inflationary in one sense and deflationary in another. It will be inflationary in the sense that it is bound to exert a marked upward influence on costs and prices in virtually all countries. It will be deflationary in the sense that it is likely to retard the growth of total real spending, by business enterprises and consumers, on other goods and services. For this reason it might well serve to slow down and shorten the current moderate cyclical economic upswing in the major industrial countries and to deepen the next recession. The change in the oil situation can therefore be said to have raised the spectre of “stagflation” in the world once again.

As an important trading nation, South Africa is bound to be adversely affected by both these inflationary and deflationary influences as they materialize. The inflationary effects will be felt almost immediately. It is therefore only realistic to expect that the rate of inflation in South Africa in the months ahead will, in all likelihood, be higher than it would otherwise have been. As Minister of Finance I am deeply concerned about this prospect Inflation is an evil which does incalculable harm to the economy and which, as businessmen have increasingly discovered in recent years, does not even have the redeeming feature of being conducive to long-run economic growth. With due regard to its other main economic objectives, the Government will therefore redouble its efforts to curb inflation and to mitigate its adverse effects wherever possible. I shall presently return to this point briefly.

The deflationary effects of the oil price increase will probably be felt by both the world economy and by South Africa at a somewhat later stage. In the opinion of many experts, the United States is likely to move into a recessionary phase within the next six to 12 months, and in due course the present cyclical upswing in Western Europe should also peter out and be followed by the next downward phase. South Africa, of course, also has a business cycle, and it is well known that this cycle normally lags behind that of Western Europe by up to one year or more. This well-established pattern of behaviour, together with the fact that the South African economy is at present in the middle of an upswing which, although moderate, is likely to gather further momentum, would suggest that our next cyclical downswing is still some way off and that the prospects for the year ahead remain very good.

This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that certain other recent developments in the world economy have been extremely favourable, from our point of view, and have served to strengthen the South African economy in certain fundamental aspects. The basic fact is that the changed oil situation in the world has understandably been accompanied by a changed gold and international currency situation, which has resulted in sharp increases in the prices of gold and certain other so-called “store of value” commodities such as platinum. Moreover, these increases have occurred, not only in terms of United States dollars but in terms of all currencies, including the German mark, the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen.

What we have witnessed during recent months has, in fact, been a world-wide depreciation of currencies against gold. This has not only greatly increased the value of South Africa’s gold output, but has also raised the value of our official gold reserves in terms of other currencies. Valued at the average market price of the last ten days of May, minus 10%—the official method of gold valuation used in South Africa during the past year—the gold holdings of the Reserve Bank at the end of May 1979 amounted to nearly R2 billion, while the Bank’s gold and other foreign assets, as a whole, attained the record month-end figure of R2,6 billion.

South Africa is therefore in the fortunate position that, unlike many other non-oil-producing countries, it should not experience any significant deterioration in its balance of payments in 1979. On the contrary, despite the expected large increase in the oil import bill, our balance of payments should show another substantial surplus this year, both on current account and in the so-called “basic balance”, i.e. the current account plus long-term capital movements. In other words, what we lose on the swings we tend to gain on the roundabouts.

Thus far in 1979 our balance of payments has done particularly well. It is now known that during the first quarter the seasonally adjusted current account surplus amounted to a new record annual rate of about R3 455 million, or more than 7% of the gross domestic product.

It is, of course, impossible to predict our future balance of payments behaviour with any accuracy in a world in which current payments surpluses and deficits are in the process of being reshuffled, the reason being that the oil price increases are affecting some countries much more adversely than others. But the indications are that in this “reshuffling” South Africa, as a major producer of gold, platinum, diamonds and coal, should fare relatively well.

The recent behaviour of both the commercial rand and the financial rand clearly supports this conclusion. Since the institution of the new exchange rate system in South Africa towards the end of January 1979, the commercial rand has shown an average effective appreciation, against all other currencies, of about 4%. During this same period the new financial rand has appreciate from about 64 US cents to levels exceeding the financial rand has declined from about 46% to the vicinity of 20%. These movements clearly reflect increased foreign confidence and interest in the South African economy and a further strengthening of the underlying balance of payments position. To this must be added the fact that, after increasing by R479 million during 1978, the net gold and other foreign reserves, i.e. the gross figure less foreign liabilities, increased by a further R313 million in the first quarter of 1979.

These developments have, of course, not gone unnoticed in world financial circles and South Africa’s credit rating is higher now than it has been for many years. In this regard I am pleased to announce that after an absence of six years from the Swiss capital market, South Africa has made arrangements to raise a loan in that market by way of a SF100 million note issue to be placed by a leading Swiss bank. The notes will be competitively priced and have a maturity of five years. The proceeds will be used for general Exchequer financing.

The last loan issue by the South African Government on the Swiss capital market—I am not talking about syndicated loans made through Swiss banks, but of the Swiss capital market itself—was in 1973 and was for a similar amount. On that occasion the notes had a seven year maturity and were subject to a coupon rate of 6¾%. I expect the coupon rate for this issue to be substantially lower.

The recent gold developments, including the important monetary role assigned to gold in the new European Monetary System and the decision announced last week by the British Government to abolish controls on gold coins, provide further evidence of gold’s underlying strength and continuing monetary significance. The views I expressed on this subject in Washington in 1975, after the announcement by the International Monetary Fund of the so-called new “understanding” on gold, where it was confidently predicted that at that point gold was finally demonetized or phased out of the world’s monetary system, have now been completely vindicated.

As far as the price of gold is concerned, I wish to reiterate my view that it will in all probability continue to show large fluctuations but that in the long term it should remain on an upward trend. Our fiscal and monetary policies will, however, continue to be based on conservative assumptions regarding the gold price.

I turn now briefly to the implications for our own fiscal and monetary policies of the recent world economic developments.

In any assessment of these implications, account must be taken not only of the various influences I have already mentioned, but also of the fact that the policy of financial discipline applied in South Africa during particularly the past three years has resulted in an economic situation which is fundamentally sounder than it was in 1975— Government spending, bank credit and the money supply are now under much better control and the current account of the balance of payments is showing a record surplus, whereas it was in substantial deficit in 1975.

In these circumstances the Government has decided not to deviate from its basic economic and financial policy of “growth from strength” as announced in the budget speech in March this year. Obviously certain sectors of the economy will be adversely affected by the increased prices and reduced supplies of liquid fuels and related products. However, certain other sectors, such as mining, should derive substantial net benefits from the recent developments. The oil problem confronting South Africa is therefore basically one of restructuring production and re-allocating resources. There will have to be marked changes in the pattern and methods of production. It is only realistic to accept that these unavoidable adjustments will take time and may have certain disruptive effects in the short term. On balance, however, we should undoubtedly still be able to attain the desired acceleration of the rate of real economic growth, and our fiscal and monetary policies remain directed towards that objective.

To conclude this brief survey of the South African economy at the moment, I do believe that our official strategy in the last year or two or three years has been very successful and I am confident that our present economic upswing, although moderate, will continue and that our rate of real economic growth will undoubtedly accelerate during the period ahead.

*Sir, I wish to avail myself of this opportunity of saying something about exchange control. I should like to make an announcement in this connection.

Exchange control

As I stated in this House on 4 May this year, the Government has decided, as a part of its new exchange rate policy, to simplify and, where possible, gradually to relax exchange control, with the intention of eventually abolishing it in respect of non-residents. Such abolition in the case of non-residents would form an integral part of the proposed return in the long term to a unitary exchange rate for the rand, to take the place of the dual exchange rate system or blocked rand system which has existed since the introduction of comprehensive exchange control over non-residents in 1961.

Exchange control is still performing an essential function in South Africa, and in accordance with the recommendations of the De Kock Commission, it will be retained in the short term with regard to non-residents as well as residents. Even in the long term, exchange control over residents will probably be retained in some form. However, I consider it desirable to proceed as rapidly as possible with the process of simplification and relaxation to which I have referred.

Exchange control has certain important disadvantages. Firstly, no matter how diligently it is applied, exchange control can be effective only up to a point and it cannot under all circumstances and at all times protect the official reserves against considerable erosion. Experience all over the world has shown that exchange control measures can be circumvented in several legal and illegal ways.

Secondly, exchange control is an expensive and time-consuming exercise, not only for the Reserve Bank and the other banks that have to apply it, but for the economy as a whole. This is especially true when the system of control requires a considerable number of administrative decisions of a discretionary nature and when growing pressure on the system leads to delays in the handling of applications.

Thirdly, exchange control may at times be an economically inefficient way, compared with the operation of normal market forces, of allocating the available foreign exchange to the various domestic uses. With the best will in the world it is often difficult for exchange control officials to determine what particular allocation of exchange will be in the best economic interests of the country.

Fourthly, if applied to non-residents, exchange control may deter the influx of foreign capital. This was definitely the case with our earlier system of the blocked rand or securities rand. Entrepreneurs are understandably reluctant to invest capital in another country if the conditions for the withdrawal of such capital are much more restrictive and unfavourable than the conditions of investment. Excessive exchange control over non-residents also tends to create an impression of weakness and a lack of confidence in the economy concerned and in the financial policy of the authorities.

These were the principal considerations which gave rise to the Government’s decision to place relatively more reliance on sound financial policy and market-related exchange rates and relatively less on exchange control in its future handling of the inevitable fluctuations in the balance of payments.

Considerable progress has been made in recent months with the process of the simplifying and relaxing exchange control. In this way, for example, we have already put into operation the new financial rand system, thereby removing one of the major obstacles to productive foreign investment in South Africa. This was followed, in May 1979, by a rationalization and relaxation of tourist and business travel allowances—a step which was well received, and which should reduce the number of applications for additional allowances, thereby helping to relieve the administrative burden on exchange control.

I am in a position today to announce further important changes in the South African exchange control system.

Generally speaking, these changes have three broad objectives. The first is to take the application of the recommendations of the De Kock Commission in respect of the financial rand one stage further. The second is to relax and/or rationalize certain exchange control requirements and to remove unnecessary red tape. And the third is to apply more effectively the exchange control measures which will exist in the future.

Full particulars of the new exchange control adjustments will be furnished in the usual way by the Reserve Bank to the authorized exchange dealers, but the major changes can perhaps be summarized as follows:

Outward capital transfers by residents

As recommended by the De Kock Commission, the market for the financial rand will henceforth be made accessible to residents as well: Outward transfers of capital by residents will henceforth take place in the normal way at the financial rand rate, instead of at the commercial rand rate, as in the past. As before, it will still be necessary to obtain prior exchange control approval for such transfers, and in considering applications for such approval, the authorities will apply the same criteria as in the past. Because outward capital movements which go through the market for financial rand, unlike those that are channelled through the commercial rand market, will not have an adverse effect on the official gold and other foreign reserves, it will be possible in the future to grant such approval more readily in deserving cases than has been the case in the past. This change therefore represents a relaxation of the existing exchange control. Furthermore, it is a logical development of the present dual exchange rate system, which should reduce illegal transfers and the pressure on the present exchange control.

Emigrants

In terms of existing arrangements, emigrant families are allowed to take with them, at the existing rate for commercial rand, up to one half of their net assets in cash as a settlement allowance, with a minimum of R10 000 if their assets do not exceed R20 000 and with a maximum of R30 000 otherwise. The other half of their assets up to a maximum of R30 000 can be invested in special non-residents’ bonds which are payable in any foreign currency after five years, also at the commercial rand rate. The remainder of their assets are blocked here.

In an attempt to simplify the procedures considerably and to offer relief to emigrants without making greater demands on the country in terms of foreign exchange, I should like to announce the following changes—

1. (a) Any emigrant wishing to leave the country will be entitled to the normal travel allowance at the rate for commercial rand, which at present is R3 000 per adult and R1 200 per child under 12 years of age.
2. (b) In addition, emigrant families will be able to take out up to R100 000 per family in the form of financial rand. The remainder of their local assets will remain blocked, as is the case at present, but they will of course retain the use of it inside South Africa, subject to certain limitations, and their income from it will still, as in the past, be transferable to other countries up to R100 000 per unit at the commercial rate.
3. (c) Emigrants who have left the country in the past will also be allowed to transfer up to R100 000 in the form of financial rand. This amount will be reduced by any settlement facilities they have already used in the past.
4. (d) Emigrants will furthermore be allowed to export household and personal possessions, excluding motor vehicles, up to the value of R10 000 per family, instead of the present R4 000.

These simpler and more streamlined arrangements will come into operation on 3 July, and no further non-residents’ or securities rand bonds will be issued thereafter. The existing bonds which have been issued will be redeemed in the normal way at the redemption date and are not affected by these arrangements.

Immigrants

Under the present rules, immigrants are allowed for a period of three years after their arrival in South Africa to manage their overseas assets without exchange control supervision, although all overseas income has to be transferred to South Africa. After this three-year period, all available cash funds must be imported, and any cash resulting from sales of assets must also be brought to South Africa. The object of this arrangement was to afford immigrants an opportunity finally to decide where they want to settle. Immigrants are also allowed, subject to certain restrictions, to transfer their foreign assets to South Africa by means of financial rand.

However, South Africa has great need of the management and technical expertise of new arrivals in the years to come, and I should like to make it more attractive for them to help us to develop South Africa and to make the country flourish. Therefore I now wish to announce that all exchange control restrictions on immigrants relating to the control and management of their overseas assets, including their cash balances, are being removed. This means that immigrants, with the exception of previous South African residents, will no longer be expected to transfer any of their foreign assets to the Republic. They will only be expected to give an undertaking upon their arrival in the Republic that their foreign assets will not be made available to other South African residents, and in addition, they will still be obliged to import their income from their foreign assets to South Africa at the commercial rate, unless prior exemption from this has been obtained from Exchange Control. They will also be expected, as in the past, to give a full account of their foreign assets and liabilities to Exchange Control. If immigrants do wish to transfer some of their foreign assets to South Africa, this can be done in the form of financial rand, and they remain free to transfer their assets abroad again through the same channel within the first three years after their arrival. These concessions and simplifications will apply to all future immigrants as well as to those who have already settled here, but have not yet transferred their foreign assets to this country.

In the case of citizens of other countries who are temporarily employed in South Africa under contract, certain relaxations will also be effected. The most important of these is that they will no longer be obliged to transfer the income from their foreign assets to South Africa.

Maintenance, gifts, study fees

These allowances also need to be adjusted, and the present maximum of R100 a month in respect of maintenance transfers is being increased to R150 a month, while a similar amount may be transferred as a gift every year. The present allowances of R400 a month per single person and R800 a month for married couples studying overseas are effectively being increased by allowing any school, university or training fees to be transferred without these allowances being affected.

Foreign bank notes

At the moment, travel agents, hotels and shops are not allowed to accept foreign notes or traveller’s cheques from overseas visitors without prior approval of their bankers. Because of the inconvenience to travellers of converting their foreign money into rand, especially after the banks have closed, I believe it is necessary to simplify this procedure by allowing any enterprise in the tourist industry to accept foreign bank notes and traveller’s cheques in payment of goods or services sold to authorized dealers. All such concerns must make the necessary arrangements for this with their bankers.

More effective application of exchange control measures

As hon. members know, a commission is sitting at the moment under the chairmanship of Mr. Hennie van der Walt, MP, to investigate, inter alia, the circumstances of exchange control, and to submit proposals for the prevention of such unlawful transfers. After mature consideration I consider it desirable to announce a few measures to ensure that the present rules and regulations, as they have now been simplified and relaxed, are in fact properly observed.

(a) Authorized Dealers

For some considerable time, unfortunately, some of the employees of authorized dealers have deliberately ignored the exchange control requirements, thereby rendering their employers as well as themselves liable to prosecution. In fact, a few have already been prosecuted and convicted as a result of this. Sometimes it has appeared in court that the accused would not have been able to commit the exchange control contravention if they had not been assisted by such bank officials. Under these circumstances, I believe, it has become necessary to put into operation exchange control regulation 18, i.e. to request authorized exchange dealers to provide an amount of money by way of security. This amount will then be wholly or partly forfeited if cases occur in which the exchange control requirements have not been strictly adhered to by authorized dealers. Further particulars of this will soon be conveyed to authorized dealers by the Reserve Bank.

(b) Travel facilities and departure procedures

For quite some time there have been indications of irregular exportation of exchange, bank notes and valuable articles by travellers. I have ordered a departmental inquiry into methods of curtailing these irregularities and also of rendering more effective the procedures at points of departure from the Republic. Certain forms will be combined and others will be simplified or abolished. As far as the exportation of personal possession and jewellery is concerned, a simplified form will have to be filled in by all travellers.

Arrangements are now being made by the international departure hall at Jan Smuts Airport for giving advice to travellers and combating contraventions more effectively. It is the intention that similar facilities should be introduced at other international points of departure in due course.

These steps do not constitute new control measures, but are merely an attempt on the part of Exchange Control to ensure that existing although relaxed requirements are met. I trust that the increased travel allowances recently announced, together with the simplified procedures which will be disclosed in greater detail at a later stage, will make it easier and more convenient for bona fide travellers to comply with the necessary formalities.

Full particulars about each of the measures I have just announced, as well as a whole number of smaller adjustments, simplifications and relaxations, will soon be furnished to authorized dealers, travel agents and others, and they will be able to handle all inquiries. I trust that this streamlining will be a further step in placing the whole exchange control system on a sounder basis.

†I believe these measures are another indication of the earnestness of this Government to create the best possible economic climate for all in this country to work together towards a greater and more prosperous South Africa. To my mind one of the most important requisites for that great aim is confidence, confidence in South Africa and confidence of the people outside in South Africa. I believe that these measures which I have just announced, and which are the result of the most careful studies by the financial authorities in South Africa in close consultation with many experts in this field, ought to go a significant way towards achieving that greater and more prosperous South Africa which I am sure is the aim of all of us.

Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me correctly, there is a verse in the Good Book that says—

I shall not take it amiss if during the course of the evening the hon. the Minister is seen to be contemplating his toes. He has certainly been able to bring us some good news. What he said at the end of his speech about confidence is certainly true and has been true for a long time. I think that while there may be details in the new measures which he has announced here that require examination and possibly discussion, there can be no reasonable doubt that they bespeak a growing confidence on his part. I believe they should succeed in stimulating the confidence of people outside in this country’s economic life.

What is also true, is that the changed economic circumstances to which the hon. the Minister referred in the earlier part of his speech and to which I propose to refer at some length in a few minutes, do place upon the Government altered and very special responsibilities in the economic management in South Africa in the interests of our own people. The hon. the Minister may in his reply or on another occasion reply to this, but I hope that the country will not be long left in doubt as to what the approach of the Government is going to be to the internal problems to which I shall presently refer.

This session has been a highly eventful one in many ways and, as the hon. the Minister has shown, file financial and economic scene has been no exception. We began the year with an improved balance of payments, with definite signs of an economic upturn and with the weight of expert opinion believing that inflation had stabilized and that, if anything, the rate of inflation was likely to diminish as the year went on. I think it was the balance of informed opinion that a growth rate in real terms of something like 3% to 4% was likely to be possible. It was judged that this ought to be sufficient, if not actually to reduce the unemployment rate in the country, then at least to prevent it rising any higher. On the negative side there was a continued capital outflow, but that too was showing signs of diminution at the beginning of this year when we had the first debate of this session. Of course, even then it was being more than offset by the healthy current account. The anxiety in many people’s minds was and remains that the high rate of unemployment we have in our country is no longer merely to be regarded as cyclical, but as structural in present circumstances and needs to be dealt with as such. Earlier this year we received the very fine report of the De Kock Commission. It constituted on the Government side a most welcome declaration of faith in the free enterprise system and a most welcome recognition that willy-nilly ours is an open economy which must live with its trading partners because it cannot live without them. Most of what the hon. the Minister mentioned this evening has flowed in a real sense from the De Kock Commission’s report and is in that same sense welcome. It carries us further towards an economy based on market forces, rather than upon imposed controls. I believe that this can only be healthy for economic progress.

The implementation of the De Kock report, as far as it has been implemented in recent months, has been, I think, appropriately cautious, but can certainly be said to have been successful. Everybody, as the hon. the Minister did in his speech, has noted with pleasure the upward progress of the value of the financial rand until the discount, to put it that way, on employing the financial rand to move funds out of the country, has become something which is quite tolerable in the right circumstances. I imagine it is that which has made the hon. the Minister and his advisers feel able to announce the further relaxation which he has done this evening. Barring some unforeseen disaster, it would seem as though we are not likely to encounter exchange control problems in the sharp form in which we did encounter them a year or two ago, in the foreseeable future. Again, today’s speech of the hon. the Minister bears witness to his confidence in that regard.

As the hon. the Minister has said, the financial scene during this session has really been dominated by the meteoric rise in price of the two commodities to which he has referred. I think they are probably the two most important commodities to us. I am referring to gold and oil. It is the impact of these two price rises on the economy which must very largely determine what the direction of Government policy ought to be in the foreseeable future.

Let us take stock for a moment of the situation as we find it now. The hon. the Minister has largely done this for me. The rise in the revenue from gold, supported importantly by other mineral exports—the hon. the Minister mentioned platinum, but it is appropriate to mention coal and several of our other minerals in this regard, which are showing signs of improvement—has been far more than sufficient to offset the rising expenditure on crude oil. This will not necessarily continue to be the case, although there is no reason why it should not be the case, at least in the short term. I shall say a word about that later on. However, at least for the time being as the hon. the Minister made perfectly clear, our problem is not a problem of balance of payments. The hon. the Minister told us what an excellent first quarter we had. There is no reason to believe that a similar picture is not continuing today.

The twin effects that the oil price per se will have are exactly as he put it—a sharp boost to inflation rates and an important diminution in the purchasing power available for other commodities. The prospects for growth, which were relatively bright at the beginning of this year, must be considerably dimmed by the diminution in purchasing power, which the increased oil price will bring about At the same time the increased oil price, rippling out into other prices and finally into wage demands, is bound to result in a considerable increase in the rate of inflation. Prophecy is a dangerous game, but I do not think any of us will be surprised if we see inflation rise towards 15% within the next 12 months.

As the hon. the Minister has also said, inflation in a boom is bad enough, but inflation in the presence of diminishing real purchasing power or stagflation is almost the worst of all economic worlds. Unemployment remains high and must be a subject of continued anxiety on the part of all conscientious legislators.

Therefore, there is a tight-rope which the hon. the Minister and the Government as a whole have to walk. On the one hand they must stimulate the economy in the hope of further job creation and on the other hand they have to run the risk of a very rapid inflation—a runaway inflation. I do not envy the authorities their task in striking the right balance. This is of course something that has to be kept under constant review in the light of the movement of the gold and oil prices and other perhaps less important factors.

As the hon. the Minister traverses his tight-rope, I may perhaps be forgiven for expressing the hope that he will neither do it on a bicycle nor in a dark room. [Interjections.] To what extent can a strong gold market, if it persists, continue to offset the affects of the oil price rise? The high gold price will put a great deal of money into the Government’s coffers in the form of increased tax, and depending upon how this is handled, this may perhaps be a stimulating effect on growth. It will encourage the mines to invest in capital projects. In so far as this expenditure is made locally and not on imports, this will again provide employment and increased purchasing power.

Finally, there will be increased dividends to shareholders, most of whom are in South Africa, and again there will be a stimulatory effect. What Parliament must take very seriously into account—and I am not the first to make this observation—is that the beneficial effects of the higher gold price will to a considerable extent be felt by the more affluent section of our population, while we must expect that the dangerous rate of inflation will hit everybody and will be especially serious for the less privileged part of the population. If this combination of circumstances is not combated by determined and effective action, it will aggravate what is already the most dangerous long-term problem facing this country. In this regard I am of course referring to the wealth gap. In any country it is a destabilizing factor when the gap in living standards between rich and poor is too wide and too obvious. It tends to generate a sense of grievance, it tends towards jealousy and it tends towards resentment. Everyone of us knows that when that circumstance of a wide wealth gap exists, and is complicated by the additional factor of race differences, the risk is all the greater. If there is a race factor and if there are real or even apparent barriers for the less privileged towards advancement and towards the narrowing of the gap, the threatening destabilization is all the more serious. For this reason it is my major purpose today to urge upon the Government that it should, without losing sight of the need for prudent economic management, make every use of its budget as an instrument of social policy as well. This would be true in any country with a wealth gap such as ours, but there is a special responsibility on the Government in this regard, and on all of us in Parliament, where it is the case that most of the poorest people in the country are not in a position to influence the political process by exercising the vote.

When I plead that the narrowing of the wealth gap should be the major priority of economic policy, I am not asking for the elimination of the incentive factor from our economy. I realize that management in order to maintain the incentive factor and to narrow the wealth gap simultaneously, poses challenges, but I believe they are challenges that can be overcome. I am certainly not asking for any needless increase in Government management of the economy or any other old-fashioned socialist policy. What I am saying, is that in pursuing what may be called the De Kock policy in economic matters— which we on this side of the House fully subscribe to—the Government must temper the wind to the shorn lamb. In this regard I think, for example, of the plea that we have made many times from these benches, i.e. that indirect taxation should not be levied on basic foodstuffs.

I would like to say a general word about direct and indirect taxation in this context. Last year when the General Sales Tax Bill was introduced we opposed it, believing that the time was not appropriate to introduce it because of its effect of shifting the tax burden towards the poorer members of the community. We also expressed certain other apprehensions about the effects of the tax and the problems in regard to its introduction which—let me concede—have not been fully borne out by events. The introduction of the tax went more smoothly than we expected, and it is working better on the whole than we then forecast I think it is only fair to accept that. When, however, one increases indirect taxation and reduces direct taxation, it might well have the desirable effect of increasing incentive among the management class of the population, but it must necessarily affect the standard of living of the lower classes of the population. The reason why countries in Western Europe, for example, can carry the very high rates of indirect taxation that they do, is to my mind quite largely due to the fact that there is very little real poverty in those countries. It is therefore appropriate that the tax burden be shifted in that way as, for example, the United Kingdom has just done in order to increase the incentive factor. For us this really is more complicated.

As the hon. member for Yeoville pointed out in a debate the other day, even in England, which has far less poverty than we have here, they do not apply their indirect taxation to basic foodstuffs. It is therefore very important that this principle should be part of our taxation, particularly if the hon. the Minister intends to continue—I think it is his policy—to shift the emphasis of taxation away from the direct towards the indirect.

Secondly, I think there is a need to direct public expenditure towards improving the quality of life of the poor. That is not to say that everything the poor require should be given them through Government machinery. On the contrary, that is not my view: I should like to see a larger private sector involvement and more direct ownership of homes and of other things by the people themselves. But in planning a public expenditure programme under the circumstances in which South Africa is going to find itself with an increased inflation rate over the next few years, it is extremely important to do what can be done to improve the quality of life of our poorest people. I think of the need to improve social pensions. This is not the time to argue the matter in detail, but, again, we now know for sure that pensioners are going to face a rising inflation rate. Judging from the hon. the Minister’s expression, he is rather more optimistic than I am about how much it is going to rise, but he concedes that it is going to rise and this must immediately raise the question of the plight of all our social pensioners.

Finally, I am concerned that everything should be done that can be done in the way of incentives to increase employment opportunities. I would be less than honest if I pretended that radical improvement in the provision of employment opportunities could be provided by any means other than balanced economic growth. I think that that must be the main thrust of any policy which attempts to do this. Still, there are at the periphery, as it were, opportunities for the Government to follow taxation and other policies which will make it worthwhile and attractive for employers to offer more jobs. Everything that can be done in that way needs to be done.

It is perfectly obvious that these steps in social policy for which I am pleading cannot be carried out without somebody paying the price. These things cost money and the money has to be found. Within reasonable limits and, I repeat, without any infraction of the free enterprise system, it is to the more affluent section of the population that we shall have to look for the sacrifices that have to be made.

*Now I want to return to the prospects for the economy as such and the guidelines for its management in the coming years. As has been said on more than one occasion, the oil crisis in the world has materialized sooner than expected and has been aggravated by the fall of the Shah of Iran. However, it was bound to happen in any event and reasonably soon as well. The world’s oil resources are exhaustible, they are exhaustible within the foreseeable future, and the producer of oil who knows very well that there are shortages would in any event have exploited the state of affairs to send prices soaring. However, it could happen in the short term that we shall see a levelling off of the price either as a result of increased production by Iran or conservation measures by the consumer nations or the substitution for oil, for certain purposes anyway, of other energy resources or simply the threat of such replacement and the realization on the part of producers that if the price soars even further this will cause the substitution for oil of other energy resources to take place sooner. The latter might prove to be wishful thinking, for it is of course true that as long as large volumes of liquid fuel are absolutely essential the producers will always have a weapon in their hands if they stand together, as they have in fact done, to sell less oil at an ever-increasing price. But it could happen that we shall see some levelling-off of the price.

In any case, it is a fact—and I shall return to this—that the price of oil has now reached the level where other energy resources must be utilized where possible and where they are competitive as far as the price is concerned. At this stage it is no longer a question of other resources merely being used for strategic reasons or with a view to the balance of payments position, but that strictly on a price basis they have become competitive and attractive. Of course, that has important implications for our own country.

As far as the gold price is concerned, who really knows what is going to happen? The hon. the Minister I believe is certainly right when he says that further fluctuations will take place. Like him, I am also inclined to believe that Governments everywhere will probably continue rather to adhere to the short-term wishes of their electorates than to the principles of economic wisdom and circumspection and that this will result in a tendency towards a shortage of foreign capital and an upward tendency in the gold price. However, this does not guarantee the price pattern in the short term. Fluctuations could take place.

The next extremely important aspect of economic policy must be our own energy policy. The hon. member for Constantia knows far more about this than I do, and I assume that he will enter the debate at a later stage. Where other energy resources have now become competitive pricewise, we must now concentrate on exploiting them as soon as possible. I want to say in passing that I am one of those people who believe that we should use our extremely valuable coal resources as soon as possible. I know there are people with good intentions who ask whether we should not be careful and rather stockpile our coal resources and protect them for the morrow because, they say, no matter how vast they are, sooner or later they will be exhausted. I believe those people who argue like that lose sight of the fact that there are other nations in the world that are not blessed with the coal reserves that we have and that are being forced, to an ever-increasing extent to utilize nuclear energy, and that those nations are going to ensure that technology in the sphere of nuclear energy will continue to improve and that a point will be reached where nuclear energy and not other forms of energy will become the obvious and most probably the most economic source of energy. With that day in mind, as well as other short-term considerations, it is clear to me that the best and fastest utilization of our coal resources is in the interests of our country. Obviously there are enormous capital problems. Everybody realizes this and Rome cannot be built in a day. However, from now on we must follow that way as soon as practically possible.

Gold, in spite of all the good news of the gold industry in recent times, remains a dwindling asset in the end. It is true that we can utilize certain gold reserves now which we could not a year or two ago. This is as a result of the high price, but our gold resources will be exhausted one day and we shall have to plan for that day. For that purpose an energy policy is absolutely fundamental. If we are to prosper in the fact of our ever-growing population, our high inflation rate and the growth rate which is somewhat hampered by the energy problem, and provide more job opportunities, it will be more and more necessary to utilize our coal resources to the fullest extent.

†It is also of major importance that during this session we have received the reports of the two commissions that we have discussed in this House in recent weeks, namely the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions. Both these reports recommended far-reaching changes in our race laws, changes designed to procure industrial peace, to promote productivity and economic progress and to improve the quality of life of our working people. Looking to the further future when we cannot rely on gold, nothing is more vital than that industrial productivity must be developed to a far higher level than we in South Africa have yet achieved, in order to enable us to trade in manufactured articles. In the case of the Wiehahn report the Government responded by issuing a White Paper which in somewhat guarded terms announced acceptance of the Wiehahn recommendations, and it then proceeded to introduce legislation which did not go even half way towards implementing the recommendations of the report.

In the case of the Riekert report the White Paper which we received yesterday already rejects key provisions. In both cases the Government has seemed to lack the will or the courage, or both, to implement boldly the enlightened, progressive recommendations of the senior public servants who have headed the two commissions. The voice of reason is not heard. It is the voice of the Ayatollah from the Waterberg, preaching the pure doctrine of apartheid, which prevails in the Cabinet. [Interjections.]

I have already said that we need to consider the social impact of our economic policies. We must also be very much aware of the economic effects of our political and social policies. From this point of view it is good that the Government appointed a Select Committee this year, with wide open terms of reference, to study our constitutional problems. What we do in the constitutional field is also going to affect the tensions and the strains which may or may not exist among our different population groups in future. The work that committee does will be of the very greatest importance in determining our future in all fields, not least the economic field. Some of my colleagues will return to this field during the course of this debate.

While I agree fully with the hon. the Minister that we are one of the more fortunate nations on earth at the moment, and while I agree with him fully that we are in a strong position, in a position for which we can be grateful, nonetheless the economic future in the coming years is not going to be easy to manage. The Government is going to learn the hard way that however many separate institutions it may create in South Africa, there is one economy. In the economic sense at least, there is only one nation in South Africa. The prosperity or the poverty of that one nation is in the long run indivisible. If we want to stay rich our first duty is to uplift the poor.

Mr. Speaker, there is very little this evening in respect of which I wish to cross swords with the hon. member for Parktown. I regard his speech as a sort of compliment to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I think he has indicated that the official Opposition in fact subscribe to the basic financial policy of the Government. I do not recall the official Opposition having said anything—at least not at this stage—to indicate that they did not support this outstanding budget in all its glory. The hon. member for Parktown referred to unemployment. He maintained that unemployment in South Africa was of a structural nature and that it was no longer a cyclical phenomenon.

Obviously, I too am very concerned about the question of unemployment. I do think, however, that this budget will certainly more than any other factor assist in meeting this problem to a large extent. I should like to return to this subject at a later stage.

The hon. member for Parktown also expressed his concern about the question of inflation, something which naturally has become a serious problem throughout the world. I have very strong views on this matter myself. I should therefore like to say something about it in the course of my speech. The hon. member also put his so-called social financial policy. I take it that that is also the policy of his party. I must admit that as far as this is concerned I think the hon. member has been a little more clear than he was in the past. In fact, I believe that the impression was created that when one talked about the distribution of wealth, it meant that something had to be taken away from some people and given to others. From the nature of things there is a lot of merit in that point of view. I do believe, however, that this principle is very much inherent in our system of financing in South Africa as evidenced by our system of a differentiated tax structure and the subsidization of certain basic food products. However, one should be very careful in respect of this matter. One cannot accept this principle unconditionally. One must guard against a process of socialism, as well as against the pressure that is exerted on the Government for more and more social services.

Neither should one in the process harm incentive, as the hon. member has called it. And last but not least one should of course not take what people have in order to distribute it among others. As a matter of fact, that is what is happening in the world today.

I shall not comment on what the hon. member has said about the reports of the Riekert and Wiehahn Commissions. I think the hon. member made a few silly remarks in that connection. However, in the course of the debate other hon. members will deal with those very thoroughly.

It is customary during the Third Reading debate on an appropriation Bill to review the effects and implications of the budget that was presented earlier in the year. I think the hon. the Minister should be thanked for the very clear explanation he has given the House as to what can be expected in the ensuing year. In view of the changed circumstances—and circumstances have changed considerably in the past few months—it is very difficult to make any forecasts, not only as a result of what has happened in the economic field but also as a result of happenings which were beyond the control of South Africa, happenings of which hon. members are fully aware. However, it has already become abundantly clear that the hon. the Minister was absolutely correct in the expectations on which he based the budget which he introduced earlier this year.

Economically the signs are there of a revival of confidence, that consumer spending is increasing and that there is a meaningful increase in business activity in general. As the hon. the Minister has indicated, the position in respect of the balance of payments and foreign reserves position has in fact improved very nicely. In spite of these changed circumstances and problems, we can confidently look forward to a good year from an economic point of view.

As I indicated during the Second Reading debate, it is difficult to evaluate the present budget. Even at this stage, after a certain lapse of time, it is difficult to do so unless one considers the steps that have been taken over a number of years in order to bring us where we are today and to put our financial planning in its true perspective. The present financial year is more or less the final year in an unofficial five-year plan that was launched by the Minister of Finance during his term of office. I have on a previous occasion dealt in detail with the chronological evolution of this plan over the past few years and I shall therefore not repeat it. The fact of the matter is that the financial policy of the hon. the Minister is working well, and that is what is most important. It is a policy of financial discipline in which there is no question of our outgrowing our problems. Other countries in the world have tried this with catastrophic results because it has resulted in extremely high inflation rates.

When one considers the past financial year one can only describe the financial achievements of the Government as a result of this policy of discipline, as remarkable. During the past year expenditure increased by only 1,9% in comparison with that of the previous year. Revenue rose by 5,4% and the deficit prior to loans was reduced by R227 million. The deficit prior to loans, as a percentage of expenditure, dropped by 2,6% and there was a remarkable increase of 22,5% in the redemption of loans.

In regard to financing, internal loans yielded 15,7% more than expected, and I think that of itself indicates fresh economic activity. As far as foreign loans are concerned, we raised R25 million more than expected and consequently it was not necessary to use R355 million out of the Stabilization Fund from the previous year as planned. As far as this matter is concerned, I just want to mention that during the budget debate last year I appealed to the hon. the Minister of Finance to relax exchange control and the inflow and outflow of foreign capital. I said that I thought that in view of the fact that South Africa offered such wonderful opportunities for foreign investment, financiers would be more willing to invest in South Africa if the restrictions on the outflow of foreign capital were considerably relaxed because it was a fact that any person or body who knew that it would be able to get its money back once the investment had run its full term, would be far more willing to invest than otherwise.

The promise the hon. the Minister made was an idle one. Earlier this year the report of the De Kock Commission did, in fact, bring about large-scale relief in this connection. The operation of the financial rand has already proved to be very successful. Subsequently, in May, the hon. the Minister announced further relief to tourists, an announcement which was widely welcomed. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the announcement he has made. I believe that the very important problem referred to by the hon. member for Parktown in respect of unemployment will only be solved if we succeed in attracting substantial foreign capital. I believe that due to these new financial arrangements we are on the threshold of achieving a great deal in this sphere as well. I am also grateful to the hon. the Minister for having indicated that the financial arrangements in respect of immigrants, emigrants, study fees, gifts and the use of bank notes, will be relaxed. These are matters that have been discussed by our study group for years and we believe that we are now moving in the right direction.

I have good reason to believe that the achievements of the past year can be repeated, as I have said, in spite of the problems that have arisen in respect of increased fuel costs and fuel supplies, as well as the problems connected with the economic recession which our trading partners overseas are experiencing. The favourable balance of payments position, in fact, leaves more room than last year for an escalation in our growth rate. We realize that the real growth rate of 2,5% is not sufficient, especially in view of the fact that we are aiming at providing more work opportunities and at raising our standard of living. However, one must bear in mind that during the previous year the gross national product increased by 4% which is a sure sign of increased internal activity. I think that this tendency will continue to the extent to which the effects of this budget on our economy are felt.

However, the key to success remains the fact that private consumer spending in particular will have to increase. That is practically a prerequisite that will have to be met before other demand components will come to the fore, for example, augmenting supplies and fixed investment Unfortunately these sectors will be left somewhat behind because of the reserve capacity of the industries that has first to be taken up.

However, as I warned during the Second Reading debate, many of the objectives of this budget will be incapable of fulfilment if nothing can be done about the rate of inflation. One can say that we fared reasonably well last year considering that there was an increase of only 10,9% in the consumer price index, in spite of the introduction of the general sales tax. Especially in view of the sharp rise in transport costs and fuel prices we shall have to continue in the ensuing year with an aggressive and purposeful campaign against inflation. The economic growth that is envisaged need not necessarily be accompanied by an increased rate of inflation as the better utilization of the reserve capacity to which I have already referred can be better utilized with the result that the industrial sector will perhaps be able to produce more cheaply.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that one of the prerequisites for economic prosperity during 1979-’80 is that because of the problems that will arise owing to the anticipated growth and for other reasons, for example, the oil crisis, we shall have to combat inflation. I also said that the anticipated economic growth need not necessarily be accompanied by an increase in the rate of inflation in view of the fact that because industry will be able to make better use of its capacity, the industrialist will be placed in a position to produce more cheaply. The emphasis must be placed, however, on maximum utilization of capacity and the saving of fuel by a reorganization of the transport system by the private and public sectors. I think an enormous task rests on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs in this connection. But I do think that he is exceedingly well equipped to perform this task because of his long experience as Minister of Economic Affairs.

I regard this task, in the first instance, as the streamlining of our rail traffic, the restrictions of road transport when the return journey is unproductive, a forceful advertising campaign for the use of public passenger transport and the switch-over to cheaper and more readily available sources of energy. The hon. the Minister quite rightly also referred this afternoon to the restructuring of our means of production. Perhaps at a later stage he could enlighten us further as to what he has in mind. The hon. the Minister of Industries and of Commerce and Consumer Affairs will have to continue with an active campaign like the one we had in the past which was reasonably successful in combating inflation. [Interjections.]

Should we not succeed in keeping the rate of inflation reasonably in check, we will find that it can have a chain reaction in many fields as well as an effect on the exchange rate of the rand. That can cause further balance of payments problems for us in the future.

The economic expectations to which this budget has given rise are unfortunately not dependent on economic considerations alone. Stability in world politics as well as in local politics can, in fact, be regarded as a prerequisite for economic prosperity, and we have no control over world politics and world economic developments. However, political stability in our internal situation is an important priority and that we can at least control to some extent.

It is fitting therefore that we should deal for a moment with the internal political situation as it has been reflected during the past session. One of the outstanding characteristics of the past year—I regard this as a prerequisite for economic growth—has been the fact that this Government has succeeded in maintaining law and order in this country and establishing social peace. In future when people think about this session they will realize that its one outstanding feature was that it was the end of the Vorster era and the beginning of a new era under the leadership of the present Prime Minister. However, the fact that we have a new Prime Minister is not its sole characteristic. Another of its characteristics is that the hon. the Prime Minister has already left his mark on this House. [Interjections.]

From the nature of things this new era has been influenced by certain occurrences flowing from the Information situation. This will have a far-reaching influence on the minds of everyone of us and on the political situation in South Africa. Its influence will, in fact, be felt for a long time yet in the politics of South Africa.

The most important aspect of this session hitherto in the political sense has been the total inability of the South African Opposition, irrespective of which party it was, to offer South Africa an alternative policy. In spite of all the constitutional commissions which those parties appointed last year consisting of so-called experts like the hon. member for Rondebosch and the hon. member for Mooi River, they came forward with precious little. It is remarkable that the Opposition parties in South Africa have not yet learnt that the principle of shared political power, a policy which they have been advocating over the years, has time and again had disastrous results for them at the polls. [Interjections.] In fact, it was this very principle that led to the total destruction of the then United Party. South Africa rejects that principle, as she has proved time and time again. The hon. member for Yeoville said: “The voters cannot save South Africa.” I say: Thank God for the voters of South Africa who have time and again placed this party in power so that we were able to save South Africa from the fate that those hon. members had in store for it. [Interjections.]

Why do you not inform them?

Hon. members do not want to accept that their policy will of necessity lead to one man, one vote in the long run. From the nature of things that will lead to the total destruction of South Africa for the simple reason that because there will not be room for a single White man it can be accepted as a fact that the economy of the Black man will disintegrate completely.

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

Mr. Speaker, my time is very limited and I cannot reply to any question from the hon. member at this stage. [Interjections.]

The Black people themselves realize this to such an extent that some of them have even said overseas—I was present on occasions when this was said—that they are not prepared to be condemned to freedom. They want freedom with bread, not without bread. That is their first requirement.

The political view of the combined Opposition must of necessity lead to the total domination of all minority groups in South Africa because, in the first instance, we are dealing with a minority problem in South Africa. This pattern is evident everywhere in the world—that was the position in the past and that is the position today—where the population is of a heterogeneous nature. Even the NRP have not quite made up their minds as to how they feel about the independent homelands. [Interjections.] That party has issued pamphlets in which those hon. members advocated the exact opposite from what they have been saying in this House during the past few days in that connection.

Now you are talking nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense. I can quote from Hansard to prove what I am saying.

Do so.

I quote (Hansard, col. 4145)—

That is what the NRP said in one of its pamphlets. But what did that party do a few days ago when legislation to that effect was being discussed here? They fought it tooth and nail. They do not know what they want. [Interjections.] The Opposition do not yet know what they want to do in respect of group areas. On the one hand they try to satisfy some people by saying that there will be White and Black group areas but on the other hand they say in one of their pamphlets that they will actively advocate the establishment of mixed residential areas.

Where is that stated?

It is stated clearly in their own pamphlets and I can read it out.

Are you preparing for South Coast?

The voters of South Coast will hear that too, the hon. member need have no doubts about that!

I want to ask the Opposition parties how many thousands of millions of people still have to die throughout the world in a number of conflict situations, as is happening today in all plural societies throughout the world, before they realize how futile their own policy is? Separate development is the only solution …

Sunlight soap!

… in such a situation. The sooner they realize that, the better. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members are overdoing it.

The political approach of the PFP in South Africa is unrealistic; their approach is that the policy of the NP is based on racial hatred and that the PFP is the only party that advocates the cause of the Black man in South Africa. We heard that during this session until we were bored to tears. It has long since become clear, especially in view of the fact that one homeland after the other has opted in South Africa for independence, that the Opposition parties are speaking on behalf of a small militant minority group. The relationship between the Black man in general and the average Nationalist is excellent. They realize what we are doing for them in order to encourage their national awareness and promote their control over their own affairs. We grew up on the farms together with these people, Sir. Hon. members opposite need not tell us anything in this connection.

Did you swim together in the nude?

The NRP claim, especially since the past by-elections, that they are in fact the official Opposition. They claim this on the strength of the few additional votes they received. However, they are living in a world of make-believe. Had it not been for a little political bonanza they got in the form of the Information debacle, had it not been for the economic problems that developed as a result of the energy crisis, they really would have had a hard time. How long does the NRP think it can get away with a policy which no one really understands? [Interjections.]

Piet Koornhof understands it.

Order!

The public will still get wise to the full implications of the policy of the NRP. The way I see it this policy envisages that the White man will have one-fortieth of the control in South Africa. They openly advocate joint control with the Black man at local government level. We must put it to the voters as to whether they want mixed city councils. If hon. members have any doubts about that aspect I can quote to them what Mr. Watterson said in the Provincial Council, namely—

That party must tell us once and for all where they stand in respect of this matter. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to inform hon. members that my actions will depend on how they act I have told them that they were making too many interjections. The hon. member for Bryanston must now shout in the House. Hon. members are entitled to make interjections but they must be made in the spirit in which they are expected to be made in this House. We are engaged in a debate not in a quarrel across the floor of this House. The hon. member may proceed.

I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Leader of the NRP. His candidate in the South Coast constituency is in the process of fomenting serious racial hatred. At every meeting he foments hatred against the Afrikaner. He is doing South Africa a great disservice. We have paid a high price for our national unity. That is why it is unnecessary for the members of the NRP, if they think their policy is the right one, to exploit racial hatred. [Interjections.] Those hon. members must state their policy in clear terms and not speak in riddles. They should rather forget about those little balls and tell us in clear terms what the policy of their party is for the future. [Interjections.] They must tell the people of South Africa that they advocate total integration in the long run. I want to tell them to stop playing blind man’s buff.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to reply to any questions. [Interjections.] The Information story will not always provide material for them. One of these days hon. members of the Opposition will have to come back and face up squarely to the realities of South African politics. [Interjections.]

We are on the threshold of a new era, the P. W. Botha era.

It is not a new era; it is an error! [Interjections.]

Those hon. members are yet to see how South Africa will flourish in this new era. In the economic field we are also on the threshold of a new era owing to the remarkable financial achievements by the hon. the Minister of Finance. He has gained world renown for South Africa in this field. We shall overcome our problems. Over the years the NP has shown that when things look darkest people have in fact to reckon with the NP. [Interjections.]

Order!

I see new horizons for us in South Africa.

Vause Raw speaks!

Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member for Newcastle when I speak people listen, as they crowded to listen at lunch time today … [Interjections.] … not to the message I had to convey, but to the message this party was to convey to South Africa. [Interjections.]

The peace which reigned this afternoon between the official Opposition and the Government party, the peaceful, calm consensus which was reflected before the supper adjournment, was somewhat significantly disturbed once hon. members on the Government side began to talk about the NRP.

Who sold John Vorster? [Interjections.]

Discussing the exchange between the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. the Minister of Finance, that same hon. member for Newcastle pointed out how peaceful the atmosphere was and what a wonderful spirit of agreement there was. Well, I am afraid I am going to disturb that peaceful, comfy agreement [Interjections.] I must point out that until the hon. member for Newcastle caught the Black germ from the hon. member for South Coast and developed a fever … [Interjections.] We all know what the hon. member for South Coast said. [Interjections.] He insulted the health and medical authorities of the Natal South Coast.

The hon. member for South Coast did so by saying that in the operating theatres of South Coast hospitals there are black germs which infect White people. [Interjections.]

You are talking utter nonsense.

Then the hon. member for Newcastle has the nerve to accuse this party of inciting racial hatred in South Africa. He does that when his own colleague says that black germs in hospitals will infect White people. [Interjections.]

It is a lie!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for South Coast allowed to say that the hon. member for Durban Point is telling a lie? [Interjections.]

Did the hon. member for South Coast say the hon. member for Durban Point was telling a lie?

Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. member for Durban Central that it is an absolute untruth.

Order! I did not ask whether it is true. I want to know from the hon. member for South Coast whether he said that, yes or no?

What the hon. member for Durban Central has said, is untrue. That is what I said. [Interjections.]

Order! In other words, the hon. member denies having said “It is a lie”?

Mr. Speaker, I deny having said that the hon. member for Durban Point is telling a lie. [Interjections.]

But you said it was an absolute lie.

Order! I did not hear the hon. member for South Coast say it and he is denying it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get involved in this altercation. There is a tape recording made of this speech, which can be used to prove who is telling the truth. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, as we enter the final stage, the last lap of this year’s Appropriation Bill debate, I do not want to deal with the appropriation itself. I want to deal with the Government which we are financing, the Government to which we are being asked to supply money, the money of the taxpayer of South Africa. I want to deal with only one issue which affects the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Finance. One thing is certain, if nothing else is, and that is that when next this Parliament meets, the burden on all the peoples of South Africa is going to be a crushing one. The battle of survive, to exist, in South Africa will have reached the stage, by the time this Parliament meets again, that upon the breadwinner, the housewife, all the people of South Africa will have been placed a burden which will have forced them to lower their standards of living radically from that which they have been able to maintain over the years.

What is your solution?

Whilst for many there will be a cushion enabling them to survive, for many there will be desperate suffering, e.g. for the pensioner, the man living on a fixed income and people from the lower income groups. I do not, however, want to deal with that in detail. I just want to tell the people of South Africa that that Government, that regime, that Minister is responsible. When the pressure of that burden is felt by the people of South Africa, I want them to remember that that Minister of Finance and his Government have created the atmosphere in which this has happened.

You cannot bluff the people.

I say no more. The people can judge when the time comes. I want to say one more thing on finance. I see the hon. the Deputy Minister is here. I thought that there was another emergency Cabinet meeting like Sunday afternoon’s this Thursday evening. At least the Deputy Minister is here. I could not get an answer out of his Minister when I challenged the Government on whether it would meet the legitimate, genuine losses of those who were found to have suffered injustice by the Erasmus Commission. I sit with a petition on behalf of one of them, Mr. Waldeck, which I have not submitted. I ask that Deputy Minister or his Minister to give an assurance that that Government is genuine, sincere and honest when it says that it will compensate those who have suffered.

Why did you not submit it?

Because it is not this Parliament that is responsible in the first place. This is the last court of appeal. It is that Minister and his department that are responsible in the first place.

I predicted, in the first debate of this session, that South Africa is ruled by a Government in decline, and there was hollow laughter. Mr. Speaker, do you notice tonight that there is no laughter, hollow or otherwise? [Interjections.] They are starting to force it. There is no spontaneity tonight, despite the “give P.W. a chance” by-elections. They said that the Prime Minister should be given a chance. Did Randfontein’s by-election which followed? What chance did they give the Prime Minister. They cut the Nationalist majority by 4 000. My prediction was correct. Not only is this Government in decline, but this session is ending with the Government in disarray. The knives are out in the open where they can be seen and the accelerating process of disintegration is gaining speed. I have lived through it twice and I have seen this undermining, back-stabbing and fighting going on in a political party. I have seen what it does to a political party, and I say to the hon. the Prime Minister that what is happening to him and his party, is what happened to another great party in South Africa. In the light of what is happening, let us examine the casualty list of the P. W. Botha regime. How the mighty have fallen, Mr. Speaker! The casualty list started at the beginning of this session with Dr. Connie Mulder. The first casualty was Dr. Connie Mulder. I warned Nationalist members then. They will remember that I talked of cockroaches scuttling for the skirting boards as the light goes on. I said that when they sacrificed Dr. Mulder they should ask themselves “who is next”. Who was next?

Watch out, Hendrik!

That is not who was next. Next was the hon. member for Germiston, Mr. Cruywagen, who after a “blaps” on education has now been shunted out. Then there was Mr. Vorster, and finally, this week, the former Minister of Justice, Mr. Jimmy Kruger. There were four casualties, everyone deserved, except perhaps one—because I do not think Willem was so bad—but four casualties nevertheless. [Interjections.] Equally important, however, is the fact that there were those who, for other reasons, have been shunted into political sidings—as a reward, as promotion—but shunted nevertheless out of the political reality, the political scene which is alive in this House. Let us look at them. They are people with a role to play, whose influence has been removed from the real politics here, where it matters, in Parliament.

Firstly, there was the hon. member for Pretoria Central, Mr. Louis Nel. Then there was a promotion, a reward for Dawie de Villiers as ambassador to London. That was a well-deserved promotion and, I think, a very good appointment, but he was removed from the real politics of South Africa. Then there was the hon. member for Rustenburg who will be removed from the real politics of South Africa. [Interjections.] Yes, justified! Then there was the hon. member for Eshowe … [Interjections.] … another verligte removed from this House and from the influence of politics where it matters. There was also a Deputy Minister, the Administrator of the Cape, and finally the former Minister of Transport, in all seven people whose influence was needed in creating new political ideals for South Africa. This was all done by way of reward, by way of promotion, but they were nevertheless removed from the political scene. This makes it in all a count of seven: four. [Interjections.] I am sorry, there is also the Deputy Speaker. [Interjections.] I saw the hon. the Deputy Speaker as a neutral, but he is one more. That makes it eight: four. [Interjections.] Eight: four the wrong way for South Africa.

I now want to deal with what happened today. In The Cape Times of 16 June 1979 I read the following—

On the same day I read—

This is what happens to a man when he goes to America, and the hon. the Minister said that in America. On 16 June 1979 he said that apartheid is dying, and on 20 June he said “Apartheid is dood”. One day later a one-day-old Cabinet Minister, the spiritual leader of original nationalism, the leader of the Transvaal, the NP’s official Ayatolla of Waterberg, was reported in the newspapers as follows: “ ‘Apartheid nie dood nie,’ sê Treurnicht.”

Let us stop joking and laughing. Hon. members may think it is a joke, but South Africa demands of the hon. the Prime Minister that it be made known, before this House adjourns tomorrow, which is the true face of the NP. Is it the face of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development in America, or is it the face of Nationalism of the hon. the Minister of Public Works, of Statistics and of Tourism? South Africa has the right to know what that Government stands for because the hon. the Minister of Public Works does not play the games with words that the hon. the Prime Minister plays. He has spelt it out He has called it what it is, namely apartheid, and has said what apartheid means. He has said that it means that no Black man will ever be part of so-called White South Africa, the Republic of South Africa, and that they are for ever committed to some homeland. I have a copy of the speech which has been officially released by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. Although I do not have time to quote it, in his speech he has said that there is a new dispensation for Blacks which includes political rights in the Republic of South Africa.

Each in their own homelands.

No, in the Republic. I quote from page 9 of this official release if there is any doubt about this. Referring to the Urban Blacks he says—

which he has distinguished as different from the homelands. I do not have the time to quote more fully from that speech or the one by hon. Minister Treurnicht. The hon. the Prime Minister has to give South Africa an answer. He has had the gauntlet flung down before him and he must decide whether—he is the boss—whether he repudiates and disciplines the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development or the hon. the Minister of Public Works, of Statistics and of Tourism. If he does not do so, South Africa will continue to stagnate in a compromise situation where the desperate need for change is held up by that hon. Prime Minister’s commitment to try to keep peace within the NP, his own party, rather than to give a lead to South Africa.

I want to look beyond the personalities, the feuds, the assassinations, the attempted assassinations and the factions in that party. Let me say, in passing, that the casualty list is not confined to the Government. The disease also spread to the official Opposition which has had its own casualties. The Leader of the Opposition is one. Then there is the hon. member for Rondebosch who has so little faith in his party as a future Government that he is looking with envious eyes to the academic world. [Interjections.] The other casualties are the deposits that they lose as quickly as their common sense. [Interjections.]

You are the only one who cannot get another “job”, not so? [Interjections.]

In the Government these divisions have reached the point of no return. So South Africa is entitled to know from the Prime Minister what the true face of nationalism is, because the fundamental issue now is whether apartheid is dead or not. The hon. the Prime Minister says the caricature of apartheid is dead. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development says, in Washington: “Apartheid, as you know it, is dying.” [Interjections.] Then he goes on to say what is dead. What is dead is to regard the urban Black man as “transitionary”, as a migrant; and what is alive is recognition of him as a permanent part of urban South Africa. What is dead, according to the hon. the Minister, is discrimination. What is coming in is full participation in the political process, not only in the homelands, but also in the Republic of South Africa. The pass laws are dead and so is “instromingsbeheer”, influx control. These are specific issues spelt out in the name of the Government [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister must then say whether his Minister spoke in the name of the Government, as did the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he said discrimination would go. Or does his Minister of Public Works speak for the Government? This is what South Africa is entitled to know.

Tonight, in this last debate, I had hoped to deal with the points of agreement and of difference between that party and this one. The PFP is excluded because it has gone for a policy of total integration, majority rule and open areas by compulsion. [Interjections.] It is in Hansard of 23 April, but I am not going to waste the few minutes left to me by quoting from that. If the hon. members dispute it, let them dispute it with the hon. member for Parktown and the others who shouted “correct, correct” as each of these issues was put to them. They have opted for majority rule, universal adult suffrage and compulsory open areas for the whole of South Africa. That excludes them from the real debate. What is left to determine—and I am sorry that I do not have time to deal with it in detail—is the other fundamental difference. We have established that the one basic divide between the Government and this party is in regard to the urban Black man, a question I have dealt with again tonight, and it is on record.

The other fundamental divide is between the hon. the Prime Minister’s concept of totally independent States in some loose constellation and our concept of a confederation. In Washington the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development said that this concept was one of the possible ends of the road, but that he preferred the federal canton system … [Interjections.] It does not appear in his speech, but he said it in reply to a question, of which I have the text here. He preferred the canton system, but he accepted confederation—a commonwealth or confederation …

Oh no!

I have it here … [Interjections.]

Read it.

It says—

[Interjections.] In reply to a question, the hon. the Minister later said that a federation was also possible.

You have not quoted what he said before that.

This is the fundamental divide, and for the whole of this debate hon. members of this party are going to discuss one of the six elements …

Ball by ball?

… which, we believe, provide a survival plan for South Africa, a plan based on the recognition and accommodation of community differences and the recognition of community rights; based on common citizenship and common loyalty to one Southern African confederation and, again, there was reference to that in the speech of the hon. Minister of Co-operation and Development; based on an undivided share of the total natural resources of South Africa; based on harnessing the total human resources by training and co-ordinating those resources and getting out of our total human resources the maximum effective power to exploit the natural resources available to us; based on securing Southern Africa against the scourge of Africa, the fear and the danger of hunger and famine, so that we become the food-store which will feed Southern Africa; and based on the combined strength of this whole southern continent on which we live, linked together as one force, an economic power-house which can use that power in its foreign trade and in its foreign relations.

Government policy makes a mockery of the hon. the Prime Minister’s threat to use strategic minerals as a counter to sanctions. If the hon. the Prime Minister carries out his policies, he gives between 70% and 90% of South Africa’s total strategic minerals to independent States. In the process he deprives those Black States of the real value of those minerals. I do not begrudge them the right to get those minerals; what I begrudge is what his policy takes from them. He condemns them to export natural ore, he excludes them from the co-ordination of all the riches of Southern Africa, and he makes of them a prey to the forces of Marxism which threaten this continent. Instead of creating one strong and powerful country in which the people work together, he creates a fragmentation of mini-States, inexperienced and poverty-stricken, which wait like sitting ducks for the Russian bear to move in. This policy leaves South Africa not as the seller of riches, but as the bidder who must buy from the creations of this Government at their prices and in competition with those who seek to destroy what we, the White man, have created to be shared by all South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, having listened to the speech of the hon. member for South Coast…

South Coast?

I mean the hon. member for Durban Point. Having listened to his speech, there remains only one piece of advice I should like to give the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to his appointments, and that is that he should appoint the hon. member for Durban Point as court jester. It is, however, quite apparent that in his jesting there is one forlorn hope emanating from his speech and that is that he desperately wants the Government to split.

It is not that I want it; it has happened already.

There is no sign of that. [Interjections.] The hon. member does not realize what it is that binds this party together. Even the interests of certain people are subject to the unity of the NP. The people of South Africa realize that South Africa cannot afford the luxury of having either the PFP or the NRP in power. That is the crux of the matter.

*At the beginning of his speech the hon. member made a very mean reference to the hon. member for South Coast.

Order!

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. Let me put it this way: He referred in a very irresponsible way to the actions of the hon. member for South Coast. I think he ought to apologize to the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member for South Coast has been incorrectly reported in the Press which obviously supports the party of the hon. member opposite.

It is not our Press.

The hon. member will, however, admit that it was reported in the Press. According to the newspaper report the hon. member for South Coast is alleged to have said that certain germs were to be found in certain theatres. [Interjections.] That is what was reported in the Press. But that was not what the hon. member said. He said that that was what was alleged. What is more, the hon. member lodged a complaint with the relevant authority about those newspapers and they had to change the report. But the hon. member for Durban Point goes along and falls into the same trap into which those newspapers fell. Is that how an honourable person acts, a person who is the leader of a party and whose ambition it is to become Leader of the Opposition?

What about the tape recording?

The hon. member went on to refer to the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development in America. However, for purposes which suited him he conveniently omitted to refer to very important aspects of the speech by the hon. the Minister. I trust that the hon. member did not make the type of speech during the lunch-hour that he made in this House. Had he done so, he would have been distorting the speech of the hon. Minister.

On what page?

We read the following on page 7—

†Did the hon. member read that portion? [Interjections.]

Read page 4. [Interjections.]

Why did the hon. member for Durban Point omit that very salient portion of the hon. the Minister’s speech?

Because it is contradicted on page 9. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, he is not contradicted on page 9. He repeats at the end of his speech—

And then he says—

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

That is not a federation.

Just read page 4. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the problem of the hon. member for Durban Point is really the tragedy of the situation in regard to the Opposition in South Africa.

Parasites!

They cannot, in the interests of South Africa, judge anything objectively. The hon. member for Durban Point and his party have to look over their left shoulder continually to see what the reaction of the PFP is. That is a pity because the party of which the hon. member for Durban Point is the leader, is the party which is striving to become the official Opposition in South Africa.

No, the new Government. [Interjections.]

During the past session they have done a few positive things. For example, they adopted a very sensible attitude in respect of the new industrial conciliation legislation. However, I should like to give hon. members of the NRP some advice. In the first instance, they must not look over their left shoulders to see what the PFP is or will be doing In the second instance they should have another and more careful look at their constitutional proposals. As far as their leaning to the left is concerned, Sir, I should like to try to illustrate the attitude of the NRP as regards the various motions that have been introduced this year concerning Mr. John Vorster.

On 5 February this year the hon. member for Durban Point said his party would abstain from voting because they did not consider it necessary for them to take part in the voting. That was when the motion in respect of the former State President was under discussion.

It was in respect of the office and not the incumbent himself. [Interjections.]

No, in the Hansard report of his speech on 5 February this year, the hon. member for Durban Point refers to the person of Mr. Vorster as well. But on that occasion the NRP abstained from voting.

On the second occasion, when the salary and pension of Mr. Vorster were being increased, they voted with the Government.

That was for the office.

That was how they acted, Sir, knowing full well that Mr. Vorster was also going to receive an increase in salary and pension and this while they had already signed a petition in which they asked that the term of office of Mr. Vorster as State President should be terminated. That is how consistent the NRP act. [Interjections.] One may argue …

It did not concern the incumbent of the post.

No, the hon. member referred to the person as well. One may argue, Sir, that the NRP does not want to be petty because they do not want to act like the PFP. I grant them that.

Vause has grown a bit, hasn’t he?

Why then are they not big-hearted? [Interjections.] Surely the motion in connection with Mr. Vorster moved by the hon. the Prime Minister cannot, in the long run, be party-politically harmful to the NRP. Or do they perhaps, as Shakespeare put it, want to inter the good that Mr. Vorster has done, with his bones? What should they have done, Sir? They should merely have expressed their appreciation for everything Mr. Vorster had done for South Africa without enriching himself in any way. They should merely have said that they were sorry that Mr. Vorster was leaving public life. They should furthermore have agreed that he had inspired every section of the population and that he had set an example of unselfish and dedicated service. For the rest they should merely have associated themselves with the good wishes that were expressed to Mrs. Vorster as well.

This is something we do not want to start You are starting it. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, all they had to do was to associate themselves with wishing Mr. Vorster a pleasant retirement. However, they were not prepared to do that and that reminded me of what a former British Ambassador at UN said on a certain occasion when Britain abstained from voting. He said—

That is the attitude of the NRP. [Interjections.] I want to put the following question to the hon. member for Durban Point: Did he consult the respected former Leader of the Opposition, Sir De Villiers Graaff, before he acted the way he did in regard to the motion? Does the hon. member for Durban Point think that Sir De Villiers Graaff would have acted like that?

Never! [Interjections.]

I want to go further. I want to ask the hon. member who comes from Natal, whether the respected former Leader of Natal, Mr. Douglas Mitchell, would have acted the way he did?

Never! [Interjections.]

What about Mr. Cadman? Would Mr. Mike Mitchell of “it is what it is” fame have acted that way? The NRP is the heritage left by the General who was the motivating force and inspiration behind the very existence of that party’s predecessor. [Interjections.]

Order!

South Africa is deeply concerned about the cynical and short-sighted actions of the NRP.

What about the NP?

We have had by-elections at Swellendam, Beaufort West and Randfontein …

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban Central!

I come now to the constitutional proposals of the NRP. I sincerely hope that the leader in Natal and his legal representatives had nothing to do with that exercise, especially not Senator Crook. Senator Crook stands condemned for having been guilty of unprofessional conduct during this session. He stands condemned further for having handed a copy of a speech to the Press before he had delivered it in the Other Place and without having placed an embargo on its publication.

Order! The hon. member may not criticize a member of the Other Place.

Mr. Speaker, I shall leave the matter at that. I just want to ask this question: Who drafted the constitutional plan …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Should the hon. member not withdraw his insinuations against a member of the Other Place?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I want once again to refer briefly to certain aspects of the federal system although I do not think time will permit me to go into too great detail. However, I want once again to refer to certain basic aspects of a federation that are unacceptable, namely, that when a federation has been established the various nations will have to be cast in the same mould as far as culture, language and level of civilization are concerned. That is a basic fact, otherwise there will be conflict because it will necessarily follow that the one group will strive to dominate the other group. As has happened in so many of these exercises, the one group has attained domination over the other group. In the federal concept of the NRP the White element will constitute merely one-fourth of the federation. I think the hon. member for Mooi River should listen to what I have to say now. I trust that I am quoting him correctly but I find it difficult to understand these little balls of his. In the plan of the NRP the White group will constitute only one of four units which will in turn constitute one global unit of nine other units. At the first stage of the federation already the Whites will lose their right of self-determination completely because nowhere are they protected in the aims and principles as laid down in 1977. Similarly the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks outside the Black States will also lose their right of self-determination.

But there is another important factor, namely, that in a modem federation, power necessarily vests in the central authority.

No.

That is so. That is the position in America. That is the position as a result of a war and as a result of modem circumstances.

What about West Germany?

That is also the position in West Germany.

No minority group will be able to save this monstrous structure of the NRP the day its clutch slips.

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

I am sorry, Sir, but my time does not allow that.

In conclusion I want, once again, to draw the attention of that party to the concept of “free association”. That is the concept which the late Gen. Hertzog suggested in those days at the Commonwealth Conference when the Commonwealth of Nations was started. That was his concept. That concept remains unaltered today in spite of all the pressure exerted on and circumstances of the Commonwealth.

After that conference the Prime Ministers of the various countries of the Commonwealth issued a statement in which they said the following—

That free association of nations, that constellation of nations, in which everyone retains its right of self-determination, in which each one retains its own identity, is the policy of the National Party.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Brakpan that the speech of the hon. member for Durban Point was somewhat amusing. In view of the fact that we are no longer a monarchy and in view of the fact that it is somewhat difficult to confer titles like “court jester” on someone, I can think of an easy solution to the problem. If the hon. member for Durban Point is simply given an additional name, such as “Hans”, for example, and one couples “Hans” with “Vause”, I think that will aptly describe him!

To be a little more serious, Sir: I found it somewhat ironical as well as somewhat amusing that that hon. member found it necessary to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what the National Party stands for. I find that ironical because no one in South Africa knows what the NRP stands for.

That is not true.

It is true that the hon. members for Durban Point and Mooi River have from time to time tried to explain their policy. They have usually done so when it has been alleged that there are two definite streams or directions in South Africa, namely the direction of integration of the PFP and the ethnic self-determination policy of the NP. Whenever that is alleged the hon. member for Durban Point gets up and says there is a third possibility, namely their federal-confederal policy. We are then treated to a superficial exposition of an ill-conceived conglomeration of woolly elements from the policies of various existing and non-existent parties. Sometimes they illustrate their policy with the aid of toys. But it is never spelt out in detail. The hon. member, the leader of the party, had another golden opportunity this evening of spelling out his policy in detail, but the only thing he told us was that we should have listened to the message he gave South Africa in his lunch-hour speech today. Why does he; not make that speech in this House as well?!

I have done so on numerous occasions but you cannot understand it. [Interjections.]

If we cannot understand it, the electorate cannot understand it either. I have a measure of sympathy with the hon. leader of the NRP and I have sympathy with his party because of the role it plays in this House, i.e. a middle-path role. Some people would call it fence-sitting. Be that as it may, middle-path parties very seldom have any prospect of survival because they usually have to fight and defend in two directions, to left and to right. Peculiarly enough, that is not what is happening in this House. Because the policy of that party is so irrelevant, it is usually ignored. While the PFP and the NP are engaged in serious argument and in squabbling over the proverbial bone, that party waits on the side-lines hoping for an opportunity to snatch the bone away.

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

Not yet. I am asking his party the questions. It is time that we hear some answers from them. While the two main parties are squabbling over the proverbial bone they wait on the side-lines in the hope of getting an opportunity of running away with the bone. They find this such an attractive situation that some of their followers become bold enough to spread the story that the hon. member for Durban Point will be the next Prime Minister of South Africa. To that I can only say that I doubt whether that will happen during my lifetime.

And you are still young.

They say that he will be the next Prime Minister or at least the next leader of the official Opposition. To some extent I would prefer that party to be the official Opposition rather than the present official Opposition even if only because, unlike the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Leader of the NRP does not make suspect telephone calls overseas. As one who subscribes to the essence of the democratic principle, I would like to have a strongly patriotic Opposition in any democratic country, particularly in my own country. But then that Opposition must be worthy of that role and be capable of forming an alternative Government.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Durban Point aspires to that role and I do not hold that against him. That at least is a hopeful sign. When one has that type of aspiration, however, one must be prepared to spell out one’s party in all its logical consequences in detail.

But the NRP does not do that. They come forward with high-sounding clichés and non-sensicalities in respect of a diatomical, molecular constitutional structure and a confederal and federal policy with options at local level. That is stated in their pamphlets. That is all they say. Then they come forward with political generalities like the following—

Read the next paragraph as well.

I cannot read out the entire booklet now. Hon. members can do so themselves when they explain their policy in their speeches. The pamphlet goes on to say—

And further on—

But those are objectives, Sir, not principles of a policy. After all everyone in this country agrees with those objectives. The NP, PFP and the SAP agree with them, although there may be minor differences of opinion as to the approach. But those are mere objectives and not principles of a policy.

When they talk about a policy, they apparently follow the recipe of their predecessor, the “Vergete Party”. [Interjections.]

Order!

Now suddenly they acknowledge the plurality of our composition and the right of groups to protect their own ethnicity. But that surely is our policy. Then they advocate a federal policy for the so-called “common area”. That reminds one of the old race federation of Sir de Villiers Graaff. Then they propagate a confederal system for the self-governing States, independent and autonomous. Surely that is the policy of the old Democratic Party. They also propagate freedom of choice in respect of residential areas, schools and municipalities at the local level. Surely that is the policy of the PFP.

When a party seeks to satisfy everyone in that way and tries to cover the entire spectrum the same thing happens to it as happened to the UP. By trying to satisfy everyone, it eventually satisfies no one. You cannot please everybody all the time.

You cannot please anybody at any time.

They camouflage this ill-conceived potpourri of a policy by coming forward with what their own followers describe as “Bill’s little balls”. I think it is time that we had a look at Bill’s little balls. [Interjections.] Before coming to that, however, I should just like to say something …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I noticed that when the hon. member for Durban Point left the Chamber he pointed his finger at the hon. member. I do not know what he meant by that I just want to ask whether that sort of thing is permissible in this Chamber.

Order! The hon. member may proceed. I just want to warn the hon. member for Durban Point that I shall not tolerate that sort of thing. He must not get up to any circus tricks in this House. I do not think he threatened the hon. member because had he done so I would have asked him to apologize.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In all fairness to the hon. member for Durban Point I just want to say that he merely told me that he would be returning immediately. [Interjections.]

At the so-called local level, the two Opposition parties now have the same policy. That is of course also the reason why they have started living together in sin in Natal. I suppose it is not their fault that the PFP is not opposing them in South Coast. But what about Eshowe and the other by-elections? Mr. McIntosh of the PFP approached the Leader of the NRP in Natal and said to him: “Let us come to an arrangement; we do not oppose you where you are strong and you do not oppose us where we are strong.” What did the hon. leader of that party in Natal say to that? He said that he did not negotiate through the Press. But, Sir, he did not say that he would not come to any arrangement at all. In view of that I should like to know how I must interpret the solemn promise of the leader of the NRP in respect of the McHenry episode that he would never again have anything to do with the official Opposition.

I do not negotiate at all.

That is not what the leader in Natal says. Supposing we had Bill’s little balls in front of us once again representing the confederal and federal policy of the NRP. I should like them to tell me something. As far as the local level is concerned, when there are mixed municipalities, mixed schools and other mixed facilities, how will one protect ethnic identities? We want an answer to that question. How does one do that? The Administration of Natal has already passed an ordinance in that regard. Secondly, we come to the federal situation, the mixed situation. Whom will they represent in the federal set-up which the NRP has in mind for the Whites, Coloureds and Indians? Are they in that way creating a mixed ethnic group that will also have representation on the federal council? Whom will they administer? They say that every community should have the right of self-determination at community level. What constitutes a community in this sense of the word? Is it a municipality, is it a provincial council or is it a Parliament? If it is municipalities, who will be satisfied with that and how is one to administer material matters such as police, security and so forth in a separate decentralized set-up of that nature? Those are questions to which we want answers, Sir, when they talk about these confederal-federal options.

Now I should like to know what counterbalances there will be when these four groups sit in a federal council. Will there be proportional representation? Will each one have a quarter say in the federal council? What counter-balances have been built in so as to prevent two or three groups, for example, forming a tactical alliance against another group as happened in Angola? In that case there were three Black groups each of which represented different ethnic group. They formed a tactical alliance against the Portuguese. But after they had ousted the Portuguese they fought among themselves. What counter-balances have been built in to prevent that happening in the federation of the NRP? Even the PFP has a veto in respect of minority rights. But the NRP have no veto, no counter-balance, no method by which such a situation can be prevented. What guarantee is there in the federal set-up, in the confederal council in which every independent and now independent homeland will represent one element and the Whites, urban Blacks, Coloureds and Indians jointly will represent another element, that Whites will in fact have any sitting on the confederal council? How can they guarantee that Whites will have any sitting at all on the confederal council? I want to ask another question. When we asked the hon. member for Durban Point whether he would admit independent homelands, he said repeatedly: “They will have the option.” I may just mention that Venda exercised that option but the NRP opposed the First Reading of that legislation. What kind of an option is that? You see, Sir, there is no option under their policy. I think the hon. member for East London North said: “We do not want independent homelands; we want a traditional South Africa.” I should like him to tell me what that “traditional South Africa” is. Is it the product of the British Empire which came into existence in 1910 or is it the South Africa that has been in existence for centuries and in which each nation governs itself? We are the ones who want that “traditional South Africa”. I want to say that the sun has set on the British Empire, and on the old colonials as well. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, unfortunately my time has expired.

†I want to conclude by saying that it is quite clear to me that, unless that party corrects that impression, the NRP stands for “No Real Policy”, which is why it is the “No Return Party” in the Transvaal and the Free State and, barring the accident of East London North, the “Natal Remnant Party”.

Mr. Speaker, watching the hon. member for Benoni make a speech is rather like watching a conductor conduct an orchestra, but, regrettably, all it produces is discord …

And wind.

Yes, there were a fair number of wind instruments in that orchestra too. The hon. members for Benoni and Brakpan both concerned themselves largely with issues concerning the NRP, and I shall not deal with them. I am sure the next NRP speaker will do so.

I want to return to the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Finance. He told us that the prospects in South Africa remain very good, that his strategy had been successful, that the rate of economic growth would continue and that what the country needed was confidence. I want to look at this from the point of view of the man in the street, the ordinary man who is not concerned with the growth rate and things like that but with what things cost, the way he lives and how he is able to live. There seems little doubt that the inflation rate this year will be close to 20%. this is a horrifying thought. Salaries and wages for most South Africans are certainly not anywhere near keeping pace with this. It means that virtually all South Africans are considerably worse off than they were a year ago and that by the end of this year they are going to be worse off still. It means that our standard of living in South Africa is deteriorating steadily.

There are a variety of reasons for this tremendously high inflation rate. Many of the causes, admittedly, are beyond the control of the Government. The fuel crisis, for instance, is beyond the control of the Government, although one should perhaps add that if the rest of the world did not find NP policy so disgusting our ability to get oil would be much enhanced. [Interjections.] I think South Africans should know that, if the NP were not in power, South Africa’s supply position as far as fuel is concerned would be very much better today.

We all accept to a certain extent that inflation is an international problem, but I think we must also accept that a considerable part of our enormous inflation is the result of the bungling of our present Government in the past. They are incompetent bunglers who at the moment appear to be incapable of doing anything that is right As a prime example of this, one should perhaps look at the whole question of food prices. I should like to forecast that in this field the inflation rate will be far in excess of 20% this year. One economic consultant forecast that the inflation rate on food this year might even touch 30%. At the end of April it was running at 15,7% and that was before the mealie price increase of over 20%. The price of mealies, as everybody knows, has a tremendous effect on other agricultural products such as dairy products, meat and poultry. When the effects of the fuel price increases are felt by the farmer the situation will become far worse. Nobody is suggesting that the farmers are being overpaid for their produce. That is just not so. They to are worse off. Our quarrel is, in part, with the complete inability of the Government to do anything about input costs to farmers. [Interjections.] In the last couple of days we have come up against a blank wall in this respect. The Government refuses to do anything about taxes on agricultural equipment. The Government refuses to relax GST on basic foodstuffs. It appears that they are being carried along on a wave of cost increases without even attempting to take positive action or to introduce measures to alleviate the situation. They are totally incompetent in this respect, and the results of this incompetence are going to be very grave indeed for South Africa.

When it comes to farming costs …

That is ridiculous.

Well, let us take just one example. The hon. member for Maitland says it is ridiculous. What about fertilizer prices? What has the Government done to ensure that farmers get fertilizer at a reasonable price? [Interjections.] I would suggest to the new hon. Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, if he were here—it seems though that non-attendance by hon. Ministers in this debate is the order of the day—that as a matter of priority he should look into the whole question of providing cheaper fertilizers for farmers.

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

I do not have time to answer questions. I have only 15 minutes which, as that hon. member knows, is not very long. [Interjections.] The whole question of providing cheaper fertilizers for farmers is very important indeed, and I believe that that hon. Minister should give some attention to that matter. [Interjections.] It is vitally important that farmers be assisted in order to keep down escalating input costs. It is as simple as that. [Interjections.] It is also vitally important that the marketing of agricultural produce is streamlined. Rises in food prices have to be kept to an absolute minimum or we are going to run into very grave dangers in South Africa. Hundreds of thousands of people in our country, people of all colours, are struggling to make ends meet Hundreds of thousands of people of all colours are close to starvation. One only has to look at the plight of the pensioners, Black pensioners and White pensioners. Because their income is so small, a disproportionate percentage of that income tends to be spent on food.

Regrettably, because of rising rentals and power costs, and in spite of the niggardly pension increases granted by the Government, they just do not have more money to pay for food.

What is the reaction of the Government to this situation? They slap on GST on basic foodstuffs. Even after a year, during which they must have seen the hardship that is being caused, they refuse point-blank to do anything about it. Admittedly they have a consumer subsidy on bread. However, mankind cannot live on dry bread alone. [Interjections.] Let us take a look at dairy products. Here we have a section of the industry where the farmer gets for his products about half the price ultimately paid by the consumer over the counter. The Milk Board and the Dairy Board, between them, made such a botch of the marketing of dairy products that they virtually strangled the dairy farmers to death, while a tremendous consumer resistance to dairy products is felt by most housewives. It is extraordinary that the agricultural industry, which is the most controlled industry in South Africa, should be the one that is having the most unfortunate results with the consumer. What on earth is the good of Government controls like these? They have brought the dairy industry to its knees, so much so that we now have to import dairy products in huge quantities. This is not because of the drought, which has certainly had an effect, but because so many dairy farmers got rid of their herds and tried their luck elsewhere.

Let us look at the meat industry. What is happening there? Meat has become a luxury to all South Africans. Huge sections of the South African population cannot afford meat at all.

Nonsense!

The market for meat does not increase as the population increases. [Interjections.] The market for meat, in relation to the population increase, is diminishing. Inevitably we are going to see, very shortly, a jump in meat prices. This is going to build up further consumer resistance, and higher prices are going to deny meat to the tables of all but the very rich. It is going to deny meat to the largest percentage of the population. [Interjections.] This is not going to help the farmer in the long run. He can barely keep his head above water as it is, and he is going to be worse off eventually because people are just going to buy less meat. They cannot afford to do otherwise.

Now, what is the Government doing in this situation? As far as food prices are concerned they stand helpless while there is a daily deterioration in the situation. The only people who benefit from all this are the monopolistic fat cats whose tentacles stretch right through the meat industry and other industries. What is the Government doing about this situation? They themselves are a fat-cat government that cares little for the difficulties of the ordinary man in the street, a fat-cat government that cares little for the sufferings of the poor people in South Africa.

I should like to extend a very solemn warning to hon. members on the other side of the House. The unemployment situation in South Africa has reached crisis proportions, and the result of this is real starvation for hundreds of thousands of South Africans.

You know that is not true.

It is entirely so. I challenge the hon. member for Kempton Park to come with me to the Ciskei to see for himself whether there is starvation, because I shall show him that it is so, and I hope that that hon. member, who has closed his eyes to the situation so far, might perhaps have something of the milk of human kindness in him to enable him to recognize that he has been wrong and that there are people in South Africa who are starving. In the Ciskei I found whole families attempting to live off one old-age pension which is barely enough to keep one person alive.

A very real danger exists in the unemployment situation and the resultant starvation, and this is a danger which should exercise the tiny, selfish minds of hon. members on the other side of the House. We are rapidly approaching a situation of very real emergency, but we do not seem to be able to get through to the other side of the House.

There are two areas which need emergency attention. The first is unemployment and the second is the price of food and the cost of living. Firstly, we must stop all ideological expenditure. We must stop non-productive spending on matters such as group areas removals. We must stop the expensive fragmenting of South Africa which is quite obviously failing as a political solution. Every available cent should be spent on the building of an infrastructure to provide job opportunities. Provide jobs for people and one increases the size of one’s market because more people have purchasing power. This enables the industrialist to sell more and therefore to produce more economically. The economy grows. Ideological spending, on the other hand, is sterile spending. Money ideologically spent is money spent to no purpose at all, because we are not finding a political solution. Members on the other side of the House have been asked time and time again whether they sleep better at night because there are independent homelands, because they move hundreds and thousands of people from one side of the country to the other. I can tell hon. members on the other side of the House that they are not politically better off. They have no good reason to sleep better at night. If anything, they have good reason to sleep worse.

I would never be able to sleep if you were in power.

The second matter which needs urgent attention is food prices. I do not know how the housewives of South Africa carry on in the present circumstances. There is not a family in South Africa today which has not had to lower its standards. There are many people in South Africa who are starving, and starving people can be dangerous people. The seeds of social unrest have already been sown and have germinated, and now action must be taken to see that they do not grow any more.

I must say that I feel there is very small chance that the Government will give these urgent problems the attention they deserve. They are suffering from paralysing indecision at the moment, and this paralysis will have, and indeed is already having, serious consequences for South Africa. Bickering and squabbling among themselves, members on the other side appear to be completely incapable of taking steps to rectify the situation. Engrossed in stabbing each other in the back, as they jockey for positions of power, we see the NP without the real top leadership which could convert it into a party working positively together for the well-being of South. Africa. One just has to look at the new Cabinet I can feel no confidence that the future is safe in their hands.

They cannot even ride bicycles.

One can feel the tensions in that party, and one doubts whether they can find themselves the sort of leadership that will work positively for the wellbeing of the country rather than the wellbeing of only certain sections of the NP. That party is engrossed in its internal troubles at a time when South Africa is desperately in need of firm and enlightened leadership. We are not getting the leadership, and we have no confidence at all that they are in any way capable of providing that leadership. The people of South Africa are now at last beginning to realize the price they are being made to pay for the policies of the NP.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you will permit me to say that that is one of the worst “bitterbek” speeches I have ever heard in this House.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Then I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. As one who has been in farming for years, I want to make the statement this evening that the hon. member for Orange Grove has no knowledge whatsoever of farming. He made a plea for higher prices for the farmers and low prices for the consumer. He is a real Father Christmas. Apart from that he can only advance criticism, without advancing any solution. However there is something that interests me. The hon. member for Parktown made a fine speech here—we can all attest to that—a contribution worth listening to. After that, one of his fellow party members came forward with this terrible …

Nonsense.

Yes, I am again tempted to say what you do not want to permit me to say, Mr. Speaker. In a moment I shall deal with what the hon. member said. He maintained that the oil crisis would cause the inflation rate to increase, as he says, “in excess of 20%”, and I shall come back to that in a moment.

To begin with I want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Parktown. He made two statements. In the first place he again referred to the wage gap. The private sector has no obligation not to pay equal salaries to all races. Indeed, I am aware of that and I know firms who do so, to very good effect. Often the so-called wage gap is only a smokescreen for people who do not want to narrow the wage gap or to eliminate it entirely.

I have already said that the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the oil crisis and to the increase in the price of petrol. Let us put the increase in the price of petrol in the correct perspective. The total sum of all goods and services rendered amounts to approximately R40 billion per annum. The oil account amounts to approximately R1,3 billion; in other words, 3,3% of the total. Therefore, in order to calculate the two latest increases, one must see them in terms of the 3,3% of the total economic set-up in order to obtain an accurate perspective as to its effect. When one calculates this, one finds that the second last increase only amounts to 0,6% and the very latest one to only 1,2%; in other words, a total of only 1,8%, and therefore I am unable to see where the “in excess of 20%” inflation to which the hon. member referred, comes in.

The primary aim of a budget is to provide the authorities with sufficient money to carry on the administration of the country. Since the collection and the later spending of taxes necessarily influences the economy, every budget also becomes an instrument of economic policy. A wise Minister of Finance, like the present hon. Minister, must therefore budget in such a way as to cause a minimum of disruption, while expenditure must be channelled so as to obtain the maximum benefit. When the hon. the Minister made his 1977 budget speech the South African economy had for some time been characterized by a high rate of inflation, a low growth rate and serious problems with the current account of the balance of payments. At that stage the hon. the Minister took the wise decision that the current account of the balance of payments had to be given top priority. This approach yielded such good results that already in the 1978 budget speech the hon. the minister was able to announce a dramatic turnabout in the current account.

But the steadily increasing rate of inflation and virtually no growth in the GNP was still, however, characteristic of the economy. In 1977 the GNP was largely stimulated by the private sectors. The increase in export in particular was responsible for that. This prevented the GNP from showing a negative growth rate. In other words, economic growth was supported by factors over which our internal policy measures had no direct influence whatsoever. In the light of this the hon. the Minister therefore decided to concentrate his policy on moderate stimulation of growth in the GNP. In other words, his point of departure was one of growth with financial discipline. According to the S.A. Reserve Bank the real GNP increased by 2,5% during 1978.

It was chiefly the secondary and tertiary sectors that were responsible for this. The added value of each of these sectors increased by 3,5% in comparison with that of the primary sector, which increased by 1,5%. This positive growth rate was chiefly due to internal economic activities, which constitute a far more reliable index of the real economic activity of South African businessmen and consumers.

In general, the state of the economy was therefore far healthier in 1978 than it was in 1977. Accordingly, in his 1979 budget speech the hon. the Minister was able to announce that the developments on the economic front during 1978 were such that the time was ripe for a phase of accelerated economic growth. It is important to determine whether the effect of the budget will be to stimulate economic growth, because the declared priority of the Government is economic growth. Factors in the present budget favourable to growth are: The tax relief afforded, the drop in the loan levy on companies, the increases in salaries for public servants, the reductions in the lending rates of banks, the increase in the credit ceiling for banks, the drop in interest rates and the recommendations of the De Kock Commission. These are factors which contributed towards making South Africa an attractive field of investment.

In general the budget has been exceptionally well received. The speeches in the Second Reading debate and the speech by the hon. member for Parktown this evening attest to that However, I think that the psychological effect may prove to be one of the most important positive contributions of the budget. Just as some of the stimulatory steps taken last year were only making themselves felt this year, in the same way the implementation of the concessions which will influence the current system of payments will not occur before the end of this month. The same applies to salary increases. Concessions to companies will improve their cash flow, but the existing surplus capacity and the normal delay in investment will probably only have an effect on the economy at a later stage. In spite of this, the healthy state of the balance of payments, the increase in the gold and foreign reserves, the stringent control of Government spending, the effective appreciation of 4% in the commercial rand in relation to other monetary units—the discount on the financial rand has increased from 4% to 20%—South Africa’s creditworthiness overseas and the surplus production capacity in industry all in all constitute ample grounds for a phase of accelerated economic growth. Moreover, that is the finding of the Bureau for Economic Research. Let me quote from The Citizen of 17 May 1979—

As far as the manufacturing industry is concerned, this report mentions that the improvements in sentiment and the high level of expectations are encouraging. It points out that the manufacturers do not foresee a major slump in their business activities over the short term. As far as the wholesale trade is concerned, this report has the following to say—

As regards the retail trade, the report has the following to say—

However, it is in particular the hon. the Minister’s decision to stimulate the economy by way of the private sector, together with Government expenditure of less than 12% in the new financial year, which indicates that the State is in earnest as regards the role which the free market system has to play in the economic process. The ball is now definitely in the hands of John Citizen and the private sector to act from a position of strength henceforth.

I also want to take the opportunity to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister a very important matter of national importance. The development of an integrated computer system for stock achievement test schemes in the pedigreed livestock industry has been undertaken in order to integrate the stock achievement test schemes and the systems of the Stud Book Association and by so doing to centralize the records of new production and eliminate duplication thereof in the breeders’ associations, the pedigreed livestock industry and in research into livestock and dairy science. This has been undertaken with the primary aim of expediting the utilization of processed data available by way of such a system, the genetic improvement of pedigreed stock and the national stock as such.

The lack of time prevents me from furnishing the full reasons and motivation for the necessity of such a computer system. After a professional programme development company had been appointed by the Stud Book Association to carry out a full investigation into aspects including the cost, the development of the computer system was started on 1 July 1977. The project has been monitored from the very outset and in addition the aid of an expert from the Barrows Company has been called in from the USA.

In spite of all these efforts made from the very outset to determine the amount of work involved, the time the project will take to be completed and all cost aspects, the project has been totally underestimated. The first stage, namely the fundamental part of the system on which all subsystems will be based, is at present in the final stage of rounding off. However, almost the total budget for the entire project has already been spent.

The Stud Book Association has already ploughed all its reserves into the project to such an extent that the liabilities already exceed the assets. The association’s chief sources of revenue consists of registration fees for animals that are registered and transfer fees for animals that are purchased. The tremendous influence of climatic and market conditions on the volume of stock registered and sold annually make it impossible to determine the revenue accurately in advance. As an example, it may be mentioned that 103 571 animals were registered during 1977, as against a mere 85 000 animals in 1978. In the first four months of this year there was a further drop of approximately 4 000 registrations in comparison with the same period in 1978. Due to this drop in registration and transfer fees, and as a result of rising costs, in May this year the Stud Book Association had to increase transfer and registration fees by 100% and 50% respectively in order to cover their costs. Since the completion of this project is of the utmost importance to the national stock, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the Stud Book Association, and because it cannot be terminated at this or any other stage, the management of the Stud Book Association met the hon. the Minister of Agriculture on 13 June to discuss the matter with him. I am aware that this matter falls under the department of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, but in my opinion the project is of such importance, not only for the cattle industry but also for the South African economy, that I also wish to bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance for specific consideration in the drawing up of next year’s budget.

A full and well motivated memorandum was submitted to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and I believe that in due course it will also be brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance and his department. I want to thank the hon. the Minister and the department in advance for favourably considering this vital request.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is only a coincidence, but nevertheless I am very glad that I can participate in this debate directly after the hon. member for Smithfield, for the hon. member and I are both members of the Stud Book Association. Therefore, I should like to associate myself wholeheartedly with the hon. member’s plea with regard to the Stud Book Association. I think he motivated his case very well. I am glad he raised it and I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will give attention to it.

†I am also pleased for being able to follow the hon. member for Smithfield in this debate, because he has brought a calmness back to this House. I want to deal with a very serious matter and debate in serious vein something which I consider as being very important.

If I could be granted one wish tonight, I would wish for the ability and the sufficient eloquence to impress on this NP Government the grave importance of this message and warning that I intend delivering this evening. My plea is absolutely sincere and is motivated entirely by the love that I have for my country. My plea to NP members is to listen carefully and to think deeply about the real implications and ramifications of their future policy.

Last year I gave the two reasons why I was unable to remain a Nationalist, and I shall state them again. The first reason was my abhorrence of the blatant discrimination based solely on the colour of a man’s skin. The second reason is the totally illogical independent homeland policy or, as I call it, the fragmentation policy of South Africa of the Government.

The topic I intend to discuss tonight concerns that fragmentation policy. I shall be followed in similar vein and on the same topic by every other member of the NRP. This issue is the crux of urgent political debate today. At this stage I wish to record, however, that I personally am particularly pleased with the attitude and change of direction that the Cabinet is taking in respect of unjustifiable and blatant discrimination based on colour. When reading between the lines of Government thinking and in the light of the pronouncements of the Minister of Co-operation and Development—which I accept—it seems very clear to me that the NP has finally accepted that any form of racial discrimination can, in the future, no longer be morally justified or even tolerated. I thank him for this change in heart, and I hope he is held in esteem for that.

On the other hand, however, it would seem that the Government is still absolutely determined on proceeding with their disastrous dismembering of the Republic of South Africa. The Afrikaans words “versnipperingsbeleid” and “lappieskombersbeleid” very aptly describe this policy.

I would have loved to spend the next 20 minutes appealing to the hon. the Minister of Finance, trying to impress on him the serious plight the farmer is presently experiencing and to suggest what financial help he now so urgently needs, but I honestly believe that the farmers’ problems actually pale into insignificance when one seriously considers the disastrous consequences of the Government’s independence homeland policy and all its implications. I believe that the NP Government’s policy and the direction in which it is steering the country is in the first place ill-conceived, because it is based solely on the obsession with, and the blind fear of the numerical strength and future franchise power of the non-White peoples of South Africa. This blind fear and unrealistic abhorrence of the idea of sharing power with people of colour has totally blinded the thinking of the NP, and it can be traced throughout its history, starting with Dr. Verwoerd and M. C. Botha and continuing through Sabra to Roelf Botha and the consolidation committee. None have in their thought processes been prepared to even think of the only logical and possible solution for the future of this country, and that is to share our wonderful richly-endowed country with all of its natural citizens and to the benefit of all of its people. Totally obsessed with voting numbers, the NP is opting for dismembering and chopping up South Africa in such a way as to try to retain a viable White homeland for themselves. The NP is prepared to sacrifice everything our forefathers built and consolidated for the sake of retaining “baasskap” in their own area at any cost. Strangely and ironically enough, no matter how one tries—and I have tried, just as every other hon. member has tried—to “versnipper” our map as is being attempted is just an impossible task, it just cannot be done in practice.

The main thrust of my argument against this fragmentation policy will be directed at those hon. members of the NP who have some understanding of economics and international finance and its power. I want to ask those hon. members please to exert their influence on their caucus members to stop this economic and financial suicide before it is too late. Other members in my party will highlight a number of other implications and dangers inherent in cutting up South Africa.

I intend to deal with only one and that is the effect the homelands policy has on the distribution of South Africa’s mineral wealth. During the past few weeks and months speaker after speaker, including the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, other Cabinet Ministers, and Dr. Jan Marais recently, has tried to impress on the world as well as on the people of South Africa the fantastic mineral wealth this country possesses. We agree that that is so. When one translates this wealth into financial muscle and international power, our country surely should have fantastic future growth guaranteed. South Africa’s inherent strength in being able to feed its own people and the unbelievable mineral wealth that is to be found in the rock strata in the country completely overshadows the absence of oil in South Africa. I am sure all of us in the House are completely able to visualize a unified South Africa as the future industrial Ruhr of the world in 20 to 30 years time. That fabulously rich mineral ore body known as the Bushveld Igneous Complex is certainly without equal in the world. Nowhere else in the world can one find such a wealth of metallurgical ores, with abundant coal resources in close proximity. Only a fool will not be able to visualize this incredible potential developing into the greatest steel, specialized steel and industrial area of the entire world in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to urge hon. members to read and study the excellent speech delivered some weeks ago by the hon. member for Geduld. I do not want to quote it, but I want hon. members to refer to it in Hansard, column 7915. He very clearly outlined South Africa’s strategic mineral strength and elaborated on the inherent dangers to the Western world if this mineral strength were to fall into the hands of the Russians. The hon. member further endorsed in his speech the attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister that the west should no longer take South Africa for granted in this regard. I agree with him, but only—and I should like to stress this—if the Republic remains intact and unified. The hon. the Prime Minister’s posturing in respect of our power and mineral strength is, unfortunately, extremely hollow if one takes a much closer look at what remains of South Africa’s strategic resources after the country has been fragmented by the NP.

We can all agree that a unified South Africa certainly has a number of aces and trump cards in its deck of cards in a very serious game of survival in an extremely hostile world. My question is: Will we be able to play these cards? I am afraid we are fooling ourselves. It is a fallacy we are living with. The NP, through its fragmentation policy, is busy alienating and giving away all the aces and trump cards to non-viable and immature fragmented little Republics.

I should like to spell out exactly what the disastrous effect of this unbelievably stupid move will be, a move which all—and I stress “all”—the peoples of South Africa will regret forever if this policy continues to be implemented. For the sake of my argument I am assuming that the final consolidation of the homelands will resemble or be similar to the Sabra or Roelf Botha proposals. Based on that assumption I present the following shocking consequences to the Republic of South Africa.

You have no right to do so.

Why not? I have all the right in the world to do so.

You have no right to do so.

I intend to deal with only a few major minerals in South Africa which are drastically affected by this homeland policy. For the information of the next NP speaker, who no doubt will attempt to attack me—who will, of course, ask: What does that cattle farmer know about minerals?—I merely want to state that I happen to have some knowledge … [Interjections.]

Now you are setting up your own puppets and shooting them down yourself.

I do happen to have an M.Sc. in geology. So, I do happen to know something about this subject [Interjections.]

I want to start with what is probably the most important strategic and essential mineral of all, namely chromium. Chromium is used widely in diversified products such as stainless steel, alloy steels, heat and corrosion resistant metals, special steel, and for many other essential purposes. South Africa has approximately 70% of the world’s resources of chromium. Rhodesia has 25% and Russia the remaining 5%. Without chrome the West could almost be brought to its knees. However, with the NP’s homeland policy, South Africa would lose control for ever of roughly 80% of its chrome resources.

Now listen! This is what you are doing to my country. 80% of an incredible bargaining power … [Interjections.] … 80% of a mineral which is absolutely essential to the entire industrial might of the world … [Interjections.] Strategically the United States is more dependent on chrome than it is on any other mineral resource. However, South Africa is prepared to give it away. [Interjections.]

Without using profane words, I cannot adequately describe my disgust or express my honest opinion of the calamity which South Africa could suffer owing to the loss of control over the world supply of this incredibly important strategic raw material.

Let us now take another mineral. Let us look at platinum. South Africa has almost 80% of the total platinum resources of the world. At present 93% of the world’s supply comes from two countries only—South Africa and the USSR. The use of platinum in modem industry is well known. That use is related to its extraordinary catalytic activity, chemical inertness over a wide range of temperatures, and high melting points. The United States normally consume 30% of the world’s annual production, and it has to import 99% of its supply of this essential metal.

As in the case of chrome, almost all of the platinum reserves are located in areas that are destined to become foreign, independent States. The loss to the Republic of this precious strategic mineral can only be described as a catastrophe. [Interjections.]

Two other very important metals, vanadium and titanium, found in superabundance within the Bushveld igneous complex, represent more than 30% of the world’s known resources, and these, too, are scheduled to be lost to the Republic to a great extent owing to the homelands policy.

What about gold?

What is your political alternative? [Interjections.]

Gold, as we all know, will be dead in 30 years’ time. [Interjections.] Other strategic minerals, such as fluorspar, nickel and antimony, are likewise seriously affected by the Government’s policy directions. Do the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs not know that South Africa will no longer have any control over these essential and strategic resources? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I have thought about all these things. I am not raising these things for any other reason save that I am aware of all the dangers involved. However, those hon. members opposite are too stupid to understand it [Interjections.]

Order!

Let me deal now with the farmer. Possibly the most important mineral to the farmer, phospate, is almost exclusively mined at Phalaborwa and in South West Africa—quite enough to last us for another 200 years. However, with South West Africa gaining independence, and with the unfortunate fact that Phalaborwa mines will have to be included into any meaningful …

Who told you that? [Interjections.]

… into any meaningful—and I emphasize “meaningful” —honest—I also stress “honest”— consolidation programme—the South African farmer will certainly be held to ransom or he will have to pay at least the world’s free market price for this essential phosphate fertilizer, and he will have to pay that price to a foreign State. [Interjections.]

Order!

To sum up the mineral position, there can be no doubt that upwards of 75% of the Republic’s resources of chrome, platinum, vanadium, fluorspar, nickel, titanium, antimony and phosphate, as well as unacceptable amounts of iron, copper and tin reserves have also been included, either in existing homelands or in areas of probable consolidation. [Interjections.] I would urgently recommend that a commission of inquiry be appointed to investigate this frightening state of affairs. Those hon. members must think even if it is very difficult.

I realize that the very next speaker in this debate will no doubt immediately launch an attack on me and make the accusation that my very grave warning against fragmentation is motivated by either the greed or the selfishness of a White man attempting to hold on to what we, the Whites, presently have and own in South Africa and that I am not prepared to offer the Black man any real independence. I know that is what I will be accused of.

Yes, that is right.

In advance I want to tell the hon. member who will speak after me that nothing can be further from the truth of how I really feel on this issue. I would also like the next speaker to clearly understand that I believe that the tremendous wealth that this country has, and the unbelievably great future potential that a unified South Africa has, should be shared by, and that the benefits of that should be reaped by, all of the peoples of South Africa, be they Black, Brown or White.

Hear, hear!

Secondly, I believe that it is in the best interests of all, and especially the Black man, that South Africa remain a unified federal or confederal Republic which is strong and prosperous. I simply do not subscribe to the idea that any ethnic group should receive any undue advantage over any other group merely because that group was lucky enough to be settled over some mineral bonanza. I cannot accept that the wealth derived from the gold, diamond and coal fields is for the benefit of White South Africa alone, nor can I accept that the wealth derived from platinum and chromium mines should be for the sole benefit of the peoples of Lebowa or Bophuthatswana.

If oil were to be found in Venda or at, say, Mossel Bay—this was mentioned only yesterday—South Africa would naturally rejoice, but I believe that the Whites, the Tswanas, the Zulus, the Xhosas and all other South Africans should have a stake in such a find and that they should be able to share in its value and in the fortune it brings.

Other aspects of this fragmentation policy that appal me are, firstly, the logic of the whole scheme. How anyone can be naïve enough to believe that a totally illogical concept of a “lappieskomberskaart” can ever work, is beyond me. One only needs to take a look at a map to realize that the scheme can never work. I have the map with me: Hon. members must have a good look at it. It is a patchwork of black and white and this concept cannot work and does not work.

Secondly, from a financial and economic point of view fragmentation can only be described as a disaster. One has only to consider the multiplicity of palaces, State buildings, bureaucracies and new civil services which will have to be paid for by the taxpayer to realize how stupid it all is. Where is South Africa going to find the money to afford all this, let alone to buy all the land which will have to be acquired to do all this? Thirdly, we all know that this hare-brained scheme will never gain international acceptance. So, really, what is the point?

Fourthly, in the military sense the entire scheme is unbelievably foolish. Hon. members need only look at the map again to see what I mean. It is physically impossible to defend all those borders.

Why do you want to defend it?

Oh, come on, Koeks! One needs only to study history to realize that stock theft and land claims will inevitably lead to strife or war between the various mini-States themselves, or with other States in Southern Africa. Is this what we are looking for?

In the fifth instance, the creation of small, non-viable, banana republics certainly invites, and will no doubt in a very short time cause, rebellious take-overs or coups by either military dictatorship or, even worse, by communistic regimes which will then be right in our midst.

All the potential strife and misery that will be caused by this plan can still be avoided. All we have to do is to think again. It is not too late. Keep South Africa intact Let us form a federal or confederal Republic of South Africa, a republic that can go into the 21st century as an industrial giant, not a whimpering group of bickering, little States.

During this session we have heard many accusations and words of non-patriotism flung across the floor of the House by hon. NP members. I now ask these same members who claim to be so patriotic to tell me how patriotic it is to fragment, cut up, dismember and throw away our country. Is it patriotic to carve up and weaken the country our forefathers fought and died for? Do those hon. members still believe in the motto of this South Africa we fought for? Have they forgotten what ex unitate vires means? Should I tell them what it means in Afrikaans? Do they understand it? The NRP is still prepared to fight for that motto ex unitate vires. We shall strive for it and we shall stay striving for it.

*I want to conclude by putting a question to hon. members. Why did the Afrikaners, who are proud of their country and proud of their State, forget that national road and deviate from it?

Who?

I was proud of being a Nationalist, but when the NP started fragmenting my country and throwing it away, when they started breaking this country up into small pieces, I decided that I could no longer associate myself with that side. I ask members to think again before it is too late, before the Russian Bear starts to enter our small States. Just think! I am not talking only on behalf of myself or my party now; I am also talking on behalf of my country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South makes me wonder why the Opposition parties have, for such a long time, been saying—to quote their exact words— “Black States, according to your policy, have no possibility to survive economically.” This evening the hon. member said that we were giving the Black States these assets and that we have now made them too rich.

No.

Yes. “Now they own our mineral wealth,” is what was said.

The mineral wealth is for all our people.

Order! The hon. member has finished speaking.

I do not want to react now to what the hon. member said. There is something which I find very disappointing.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove saw me sitting here all day and I think he knew that the hon. the Deputy Minister and I had to leave the Chamber for half an hour, but he did not have the decency to let me know that he was going to discuss agricultural matters in the way he did.

*He kicked up a fuss about the control system of the country. I had to hear from the hon. the Minister of Finance that he had referred to “the incompetence of the control system in South Africa”, and had said “the control system has completely failed”. For how long must we explain and spell out this matter? Yesterday I received this Bakers and Millers Journal from Australia—they came to this country to institute an inquiry—and in this publication it is stated: “Queensland Government will set up a board to control the bread industry.” If one reads this journal it appears that they are going to establish a control board system exactly like the one in South Africa.

Reference is being made here to communism. It is contained in this week’s Farmer’s Weekly. They cannot think about agriculture itself. First they referred to socialism and then to communism as a result of our control board system. When I became Minister I heard this story and I asked both Opposition parties to submit to me the names of people who could serve on a commission to institute a world-wide inquiry to establish what the right thing was for our control of foodstuffs. They all served on that commission. That inquiry cost a great deal of money. After that inquiry had been completed, they came back. It is on record in Hansard that they all said that throughout the world there was no better or more effective system than the one in South Africa. I spelt it out repeatedly and told the hon. members there was absolutely no, but no, control over any vegetables produced in South Africa. The hon. member can establish a vegetable farm tomorrow and sell his vegetables in Adderley Street, or wherever he likes. He does not even need a licence. Or he can sell them on the market Ours is a free economy.

But the greatest chaos in our country exists in respect of vegetables. The hon. member is sitting there now and looking at me like a rain-soaked chicken. The hon. the Minister tells me that the hon. member said: “People are starving.” I cannot go to sleep tonight without first having rectified this matter. They do not believe me, but I am now going to quote from his Bible, from the Rand Daily Mail of 13 June. This is a survey which neither I nor my Government made—

When I say this, it means nothing to them.

I talked about the bread price …

The hon. member did not even have the decency to tell me he was going to talk about the bread price, but says people are starving. I continue the quotation from the Rand Daily Mail—

The Western World averages 75 cents a loaf according to official international statistics as quoted by the Rand Daily Mail.

These figures are quoted, but have they taken in consideration the earning capacity of the people concerned in those particular countries?

I have spelled it out in this House. The average wage of a White and a Black man in South Africa enables him to buy a food basket containing 73% more than the average for the Western World. The member for Paarl quoted it too. The hon. members can ask the Rand Daily Mail to publish these figures so that they can see it for themselves and believe it.

Is that the average wage for White and Black or Black only?

Yesterday the S.A. Chamber of Bakers told me that because of the fuel price increase and wage increases, they decided to use Sasol gas instead of diesel. One bakery is going to spend R740 000. They cannot cope with all these costs. The Minister of Finance gave us R50 million in his budget and said that because he was taxing bread with 4% a loaf, he was giving us another R20 million. The total therefore is R70 million. The Government is also going to pay for the price increases, because he and I promised that there would not be a bread price increase before the end of September. The bakers asked for R9 million, but we said they had to cut their profits and that we would give them another R6,5 million. What more must the Minister of Finance do to keep the price of bread at 16 cents? Then this hon. member gets up and says South Africans are starving.

*Honestly, Sir, you cannot go around talking nonsense like that.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is in fact denying that there are people in South Africa who are starving? [Interjections.]

Can the hon. member tell us why he is saying that? Does the hon. member think that I am not well informed? Does he not know that I travel a lot through this country? Does he not know that I move amongst the Blacks? Does he not think that I know there are Blacks who cannot get a decent job? I realize that.

What are you doing about it?

What do you think we are doing about it? Why blame food prices?

Why say that the control system in South Africa is chaotic?

*I want to ascertain from that party why they cannot be honest and admit that because of this control system we have been able to achieve what we have achieved so far. Why did the hon. member have to wait until I was out of this House before he gossipped about me behind my back? The hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and I devote our attention to these matters every day, to try to have an efficient control system.

†There is absolutely no control over the retail price of eggs. Since 1910 there has never been any control over the retail price of eggs. What did we do? We went to the egg industry and informed them that we could not at this stage with such a big surplus …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, cannot the hon. member wait until I have finished speaking?

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

We said that we were going to freeze the price because the surplus was too big. A lot of egg producers are going to be hurt in this process.

*However, we are trying to improve matters with our control system. Hon. members know how it operates. This afternoon the hon. member for Carletonville, who is the chairman of the Maize Board, sent me a note in which he said that today’s maize was being exported at a quoted price—after the oil price increase—of R134,72 per ton. As a result of the oil price increase I predicted that this price would go up to R150 and R160 per ton. What is this control board doing? It is telling the South African farmer that he may not export his maize before he has kept 6,5 million tons at R100 per ton in South Africa. It is telling the farmer that he cannot obtain that high price on the world market. The people who are dying from hunger must first be provided with food. Our farmers are satisfied to accept that with resignation, because they are patriotic. But what does the hon. member want? He speaks of “free enterprise and a free economy”. These things must be spelt out more frequently. The fanner says he can export his maize at this price. After all, as a result of the oil price increase, he can now receive R160 per ton and why should he therefore be interested in the domestic price of R100 per ton. [Interjections.]

People keep on attacking the control board system of this country. It is time the message got through to them that the farmers of South Africa under the control board system are prepared to provide the people of South Africa with inexpensive food. The hon. member for Carletonville can testify to this. He told me that it would be necessary, as a result of the poor white maize crop to import maize in May 1980 for a short while until our new crop had been harvested. As an alternative white and yellow maize will have to be mixed. Two months ago he told me that we would be able to import maize at R157 per ton. As a result of the oil price increase, freight charges, insurance, etc., it will cost R200 at the present tariffs to import maize.

The hon. the Minister of Finance offered to make R50 million of the taxpayers’ money available to store that maize in silos so that I can provide the population with maize throughout the year at the consumer price of R102 per ton. Then the hon. member for Orange Grove says that this Government, as a result of its policy, is causing people to go hungry. Honestly, it cries to high heaven!

A scandalous speech!

I can elaborate on all these matters. Let me rather ask the hon. member why we should argue about these matters. This afternoon, in his Third Reading speech, the hon. the Minister of Finance referred to the heart-breaking effects of this oil price increase throughout the world, and said that it was going to place an enormous burden on the pensioner and the poor man. It is already happening in Zambia and other African countries. The new oil price is going to cause great heartaches in Africa in particular. Under our agricultural policy we have always succeeded in exporting agricultural produce to the value of more than R1 000 million. That is why I do not think that anyone should allege in this House that we are inefficient simply because we are importing dairy produce.

The hon. member for Heilbron and I discussed the matter and we are now trying to put a stop to those imports as quickly as possible. Inter alia, we have given the South African farmer a price incentive to encourage him to remain in production, and now milk is being produced again. Today South African milk, without the container, is 4c a litre cheaper than Coca-Cola without the container. The consumption of Coca-Cola among the less well-to-do is increasing. Consequently they prefer sugar water to fresh cow’s milk. I am not referring now to Cremora and that kind of “jazz” which that hon. member drinks, but to decent, good, fresh milk.

You are going too far now, because I never drink the stuff.

I want to react further to what the hon. member for Durban Point and other hon. members on that side of the House said.

The hon. member for Durban Point gleefully speculated about a rift in the ranks of my party. We had a rift in 1970, and I was there when it happened. For three months we saw in this Parliament how the Opposition revelled in the fact that there had been a rift in the NP. Four members broke away.

How many are going to break away this time?

But what happened afterwards? We grew and became a powerful party. The hon. Opposition must realize one thing very clearly and that is that with the best will in the world they will not be able to sell their policy to any right-minded voter in South Africa. They simply cannot do it. [Interjections.] What did the hon. the Prime Minister do? The hon. member for Durban Point was unfortunate, and the hon. the Prime Minister then accommodated him and gave the Opposition a further opportunity in Koedoespoort, Johannesburg West, Prinshof, Germiston, Durbanville, Rustenburg, etc. He gave them all those opportunities. This entire session was an Opposition heaven. If I had been sitting on that side of the House and had had the chances which those hon. members had, against the background of the problems in which we had become entangled, I would have triumphed and I would have revelled in it. However, I would have put forward an alternative and said: Here is my policy. [Interjections.]

Let you and I debate this matter on television.

The hon. member for Mooi River is inviting me to debate this matter on television. I would love to do so. Do hon. members know what the hon. member for Mooi River reminds me of? He is a fine chap. A man connected with farming must be a man with background and responsibility. I am not a politician in the same way as he is. The following story makes me think of the hon. member for Mooi River, because it might happen to him too one day. Two chaps were walking in the cemetery and the one said to the other: “Look what is written on this tombstone: Here lies John Brown, a politician and an honest man.” whereupon his friend said: “Strange. Two people in the same grave!” [Interjections.]

*I should also like to refer briefly to the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, the one to which hon. members also referred. Hon. members on that side of the House are now trying to drive a wedge between the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the hon. the Minister of Public Works. In my opinion hon. members had many opportunities to do so, of which the best example was Randfontein. In Randfontein everything was in their favour, while nothing was in our favour. Among other things a terribly false campaign was launched against us over the report of the Wiehahn Commission.

Order! I regret having to interrupt the hon. the Minister, but it is time for all honest men to go to bed.