Mr. Speaker, a draft Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Service Professions Amendment Bill and a draft Medical Schemes Amendment Bill was published for general information in the Gazette on 12 December 1979 with a view to obtaining comment on the provisions of the measures from interested parties.

For general information, and to prevent further harmful publicity, I want to announce that I have in the meantime held talks with the representatives of the S.A. Medical and Dental Council, the Medical Association of South Africa, the Dental Association of South Africa and the Private Hospitals’ Association. I shall now request the Representative Association of Medical Schemes to discuss this matter with me.

With reference to newspaper reports in this connection, the Chairman of the Federal Council of the Medical Association stated categorically during the interview that it had never been the intention of the association to imply that the draft Bills had any political connotation.

After thorough consideration of all the representations I decided to amend certain provisions in the Bills to be introduced in Parliament. These amendments will have the following effect—

1. 1. As regards the right of contracting in and contracting out in terms of section 29 of the Medical Schemes Act, 1967, the status quo will be preserved, but it shall be provided that if, after consultation with the S.A. Medical and Dental Council and the profession concerned, it is deemed to be desirable in the public interest, the right of contracting in and contracting out may be rescinded, or that it may only be allowed under certain specific circumstances, which will be prescribed by regulation.
2. 2. The draft provision by means of which the Minister may set aside any decision of the S.A. Medical and Dental Council will be restricted to tariffs of fees applicable to services rendered to members and dependants of members of medical schemes, after the Minister has consulted with the executive committee of the council.
3. 3. The tariffs of fees will have to be approved by the Minister prior to publication, and shall relate only to services rendered to members and dependants of members of medical schemes.
4. 4. The tariffs of fees so published shall be maximum fees only in respect of services rendered by providers of services to members and dependants of medical schemes who have contracted in.
5. 5. As regards the constitution of the tariffs committees, the status quo will be maintained for the present.

The professions will in this way, at their request, be afforded an opportunity of adopting measures and applying self-discipline to ensure that the right of contracting out will be in the public interest and will not be abused. Every possible malpractice with regard to the application of the tariff of fees will also be combated by the Medical Council and the profession concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the business of the House for next week is concerned, we shall follow the Order Paper, as printed.

intimated that he had exercised the discretion conferred upon him by Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills) and had permitted the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public bill.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) affirms its confidence in the system of free and fair economic competition in agriculture; and
2. (2) takes note of especially the problems arising from—

1. (a) vertical integration in the agricultural industry; and
2. (b) the resultant frustration of the objects of the Marketing Act.

I am very glad of this opportunity to raise a matter here today which is of the utmost importance to every citizen of this country. I believe that this subject which we are going to discuss today is a non-political subject and that the debate we shall have on this subject will be held in a good spirit to the benefit of the country.

One of the 12 points of the now well-known 12-point plan of the hon. the Prime Minister concerns the economy of the country and states that the system of free enterprise must continue to be preserved as the basis of our economic and financial policy. No one can find fault with this statement, which has the interests of this country at heart. I do not think there is any member of this House, and therefore no member on the Opposition side either, who will find fault with it. The fact that the Republic of South Africa has a free capitalistic system and that we wish to preserve it, can never be sufficiently emphasized. This image of the Republic of South Africa must continue to be presented clearly and emphatically to the world, not only for the sake of financial gain, but because we really believe in it, because it forms part of our culture, it forms part of our history and forms part of the kind of democracy we are practising.

Because the agricultural industry throughout the world is experiencing problems in maintaining itself as the provider of food—which consequently gives it strategic importance—it remains a fact that there is almost no country in the world in which this industry is not supported by the State in one way or another. As a result the agricultural industry can very easily be steered in a socialistic direction, even in a democratic and free capitalistic system. Therefore it is necessary to be constantly on guard against such a tendency. It will therefore be fitting if this House re-affirms its confidence today in a system of free and fair economic competition in agriculture. Justified and constructive criticism of the agricultural policy of the Government must always be welcomed, and we do so. This can assist in keeping our ideal of free competition pure so that the agricultural industry in South Africa will continue to remain in the hands of the greatest possible number of independent producers and so that there can be constant renewal in the form of new practitioners entering the industry, for if there are no new practitioners entering an industry, such an industry stagnates.

Today there are thousands of young men in our cities in South Africa who long for their own piece of land and who wish to make farming their profession because it is deeply-rooted in their cultural background. They are people who are prepared to accept the challenges of the industry and the risks involved in it. However, they do not have the means with which to make a start. I wish that we could help many more of them to repopulate the rural areas and our border areas, because a country without a widely distributed farming community is a poor country.

Every economic system develops its own problems, and the same applies to capitalism. In this way restraints may be imposed on the operation of free competition, for example by the development of monopolies, or the formation of so-called cartels or agreements which can disrupt the market mechanism. If that happens, the State must intervene to protect the system, as the USA had to do as long ago as 1890 by means of the Antitrust laws, and as we had to do by passing legislation here last year, viz. the Competition Act.

This brings me to the second part of my motion, viz. that this House takes note of the problems arising from vertical integration in the agricultural industry. I want to sketch briefly what I mean by vertical integration. I should like to do so on the basis of a definition of this concept by the late Dr. A. S. Meyer. At the same time I should also like to place on record here that this man, Dr. Meyer, made a tremendous contribution to agricultural economy in South Africa. He was formerly a member of the Viljoen Commission on the Protection of Industries, of the Reynders Commission of Inquiry into Cost and Profit Margins on Agricultural Implements and of the Theron Commission of Inquiry into the Coloured Population. He was a pre-eminent agricultural economist. He said—

That is his definition of vertical integration. He could also have added the marketing of the end product. By vertical integration, therefore, we understand an agglomeration of production processes where the end product of the one process forms the raw material of the next process. This is upward vertical integration. A good example of this would be where a fruit-farming concern has its own canning factory and marketing organization. Downward integration, on the other hand, is where a marketing organization or a supermarket chain acquires its own canning factory and eventually begins its own farming enterprise to deliver the fruit or vegetables to its own factory. These processes, of course, take place entirely in accordance with the principle of free competition, with the emphasis on competition. In fact, it happens precisely as a result of competition. Thus the canning factory will argue that it can make a bigger profit if it produces its own fruit and is therefore able to acquire its raw material at a lower price than its competitors. On the surface there is no fault to find with this. But what problems result from such a situation? I should like to illustrate these problems in this House today on the basis of the history and the present position of the poultry industry in the Western Cape. I am choosing the poultry industry as an example because the vertical integration process in this industry was so dramatic that it brought about a structural change in the agricultural sector in the Western Cape.

In the entire country.

In my constituency as well.

I am choosing this industry because, according to the interim report of the Bureau for Economic Research of the University of Stellenbosch—the report which we received last year—on the economic potential of the Western Cape, it is—

This may come as a surprise to some people. I am quoting further from the report—

In other words, I am choosing an industry which is of real importance here in the Western Cape.

Until approximately 15 to 20 years ago the poultry industry was primarily in the hands of small, independent poultry farmers, and it was also practised as a subsidiary industry by the wheat farmers of the Swartland. Frequently it was the farming activity of the woman on the farm and it took care of household finances. It paid for the groceries; it paid for the children’s school fees and frequently, too, the university fees. Poultry at that stage was not marketed as chickens, but as mature birds. Then we still ate good poultry meat.

And you did not find a fish with feathers.

Then the broiler chicken came into vogue and hens were then kept under shelter in cages and were fed with special force feed mixtures, which were supplied primarily by competing feed co-operative producers. One of these feed producers was a co-operative which at first made rapid progress, but which soon found that it could hardly meet the conditions under which the others operated. Very soon the two non-co-operative millers—there were primarily two major ones—began to develop their own production units, to breed their own chickens and slaughter their own broilers in their own abattoirs and market them themselves. They created a market, a permanent market, for their own feed production. Other producers were simply incapable of competing and were forced out of the broiler industry. These producers, still in fact part of the poultry industry, then began to concentrate on egg production. Gradually, however, the non-co-operative feed producers began to enter this field as well, thus ensuring an even larger and more stable market for their feed. One large production unit after another was established and independent producers were bound to them contractually so that the traditional market of the co-operative miller simply vanished.

Over the years we have seen, here on the road out to Paarl, how literally morgen upon morgen of chicken production units have been established. In a desperate attempt to retain their share of the feed market the co-operative is also participating in the process of vertical integration and is also proceeding to take over independent farmers. It is tragic that even the co-operative, which was formed in the interests of its members, had to venture into an industry where it has begun to compete with its members. I say it is tragic, because it had no other choice.

The egg industry lends itself pre-eminently to being practised by the small farmer, but for various reasons, which I do not have time to go into now, it is also an industry which can very easily be converted into units of vast size.

As a result of the entry to the industry of big capital in the late ’sixties, production was expanded tremendously and surpluses began to develop, so much so that the hon. Minister of Agriculture—at the time still Deputy Minister—had to introduce the Egg-production Control Bill in 1970. At that stage, as it appears from Hansard, Vol. 29, col. 2464, there were 1 430 producers throughout the country, each with more than 200 laying hens. At that stage 149 producers had more than 10 000 laying hens. These 149 farmers owned more than 65% of the total number of hens. Under the Act producers received permits for the number of hens which they possessed at that stage, with a limited right to expand to not more than 10 000 hens per annum. Egg producer organizations, which were at that stage still in the hands of the small farmers, supported the legislation because they thought that it would afford them a measure of protection. Incidentally, there was a long debate on this legislation. I think the hon. the Minister will recall it. It took him days to pilot this legislation through Parliament. It is interesting to note that the present hon. Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and the present hon. Minister of the Interior, inter alia, also participated in this debate.

There were one or two major egg producers on the Egg Control Board at that stage who did not support the legislation, but for the rest the entire control board was in favour of it The hon. the Minister stated repeatedly during the course of the debate, with emphasis, that the purpose of the legislation was to protect the small man. (Hansard, Vol. 30, col. 3188)—

That was the standpoint of the hon. the Minister at that stage. That was the aim of the legislation, i.e. to protect the small man. I said earlier in my speech that the ideal position would be to keep agriculture mainly in the hands of independent individual producers. That was the object of the 1970 Act, but what has happened during the past 10 years? When the feed companies were no longer able to expand, they simply began to buy out the small producers, particularly those who were bound to them by contract and who had run up accounts with them. In this way the major producers acquired the necessary laying hen permits, and their empires expanded.

Vertical integration made a farce of the Act. The object of the Act was defeated. Every farm which was taken over became a subsidiary company of the parent company. Contrary to the object of the Act, production rose and surpluses increased, and so did export losses.

In 1976 only six concerns were responsible for 30% of the total egg production of the country. In 1978 the major companies decided to join forces in a co-operative. This was a strange idea, but it happened. Nepco, the National Egg Producers Co-operative, came into existence, and all the small producers were invited, with an excess of goodwill, to join this co-operative, but it very soon became apparent that the small producers would have no say in the management of the co-operative, for three major producers—I shall not mention their names—dominated the co-operative completely with a host of subsidiaries. The ratio of votes of the so-called “majors” to the independent users, was approximately three to one. The small producer had no chance whatsoever to have a share in the co-operative or to participate in its organization or management. Even the control board was virtually taken over, to such an extent that five of the eight votes on the control board are at present those of the majors. In spite of a price policy which was laid down by the control board, the majors determine prices as it suits them. Only recently prices were cut so that independent producers simply could not hold out any longer, and quite a few of them had to throw in the towel. At present there are only about 50 independent producers left in the Western Cape, and the take-over process is continuing apace. The once free industry is no longer free. Participation in this industry means economic suicide. It would be economic suicide for any small producer who attempted to do so.

I have now tried to give a brief sketch, on the basis of only one example, of what the consequences of vertical integration in agriculture can be. The egg industry can serve as a laboratory for other undertakings. What the big money interests have achieved there can serve as an incentive to them to venture into other industries as well. There are already indications that the pig industry and the dairy industry are next in line. They lend themselves to the process of vertical integration because they are dependent on factory-produced feed mixtures. Of course it is not only feed companies which are guilty of this process of vertical integration. Fertilizer companies can also begin to farm. So, too, can manufacturers of tractors and farm implements. Supermarket chains can also begin to farm, as is already happening in the USA. Manufacturers of plastic tunnels for vegetable cultivation can, according to the calculations of one colossal investment in the Western Cape, take the entire vegetable industry out of the hands of the small producers. We have many independent vegetable farmers in the Western Cape, and it would be a tragic day if this were to happen. It requires only a decision by a board of directors to enter such an industry and then the die will have been cast.

Ten years ago the hon. the Minister said that he wanted to protect the small farmer. Today I want to advocate that free enterprise in agriculture should be protected, so that positive effect can also be given to another interesting idea expressed in the interim report of the Bureau for Economic Research, viz. that the production function of the poultry industry is possibly amenable to subdivision into smaller units in which the Coloureds in particular can be established as entrepreneurs. This is an industry to which Coloureds can easily gain entry. Coloureds would also like to enter the field of agriculture. They also have aspirations in this regard. In the present situation however, they have no chance at all of ever making a success of it.

I want to ask the Government to give serious attention to measures for combating the harmful vertical integration processes in agriculture, for these will obviously have a backlash effect on the consumer in the country. When the monopolies have obtained complete control the best intentions of the Marketing Act will have been defeated, and the consumer will be the unfortunate victim.

Sir, other hon. members on this side of the House will elaborate further on this idea.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to participate in this debate this morning. I really have no fault to find with the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Malmesbury. The hon. Minister of Agriculture will recall that during my first session in Parliament, as well as, I think, during my second session, I certainly referred specifically to the problems in the broiler industry during the agricultural debate. At the time I also predicted, as was done here this morning too, that the threat to the feed companies would shortly also constitute a threat to the pig farmer and perhaps to the dairy farmer as well. Thus it gives me particular pleasure today to hear that hon. members on the opposite side of this House feel as strongly, if not more strongly about those threats.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that if one is going to discuss the problems relating to free and fair economic bargaining in agriculture in South Africa, one should perhaps widen the scope somewhat because this comprises one subsection of the industrial activities of the country. Consequently I should like to move at once as an amendment—

1. “(a) monopolistic tendencies in the agricultural industry; and
2. (b) increasing State interference in the operation of a free market system in agriculture.”

I want to tell you at once, Mr. Speaker, why I am moving this amendment. The first and most important question that has to be answered in this debate is whether it could be stated with any degree of conviction that a system of free and fair economic competition does exist in South Africa. It is easy to examine a small, yet important subsection of our industry, viz. the agricultural industry, and to test whether the principle of free economic competition exists there, but it would be wrong and shortsighted to leave it at that. Either the system exists throughout our community and is consistently developed, albeit with certain restrictions in order to curb exploitation, or it will eventually be replaced by another system.

†Sir, I should like to have a look at our society and to test the degree to which the free and fair economic competitive system applies in South Africa. I want to ask a few questions. I know that these questions do not have to do specifically with agriculture, but nevertheless I think that they are relevant to our society as a whole and must be asked and answered. The first is: Can a Black man operate a business alongside his White colleague in a free and fair competitive situation? The answer to that is obviously “no”. There are many examples, but I shall not quote them.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that the motion as well as the hon. member’s amendment relates exclusively to the agricultural industry. I cannot allow him to move beyond the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling. I simply wanted to indicate that if the free market mechanism were to apply in one subsection of the industry only, it would also have to apply in the other subsections of the industry to be truly applicable and if it is in fact to be maintained in South Africa in the long term. However, I shall abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] I want to state that there has been a new departure in Government policy recently, in that the Government has accepted that its share in our economic life should be reduced and that private enterprise should be encouraged. We welcome this in agriculture in particular. Consequently, during the past few months, certain amalgamations or extensions have taken place in agriculture, in the wine industry, which is, after all, certainly part of agriculture, amalgamations or extensions that ought to be queried. There has been a merger of a co-operative of enormous size and two other companies, Distillers and SFW. In this country we have legislation preventing the forming of monopolistic organizations. Thus I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it was not necessary, in the case of this merger, for the State to use its powers to prevent it from taking place. I state that that merger will not be to the advantage of the wine farmer in the long term, and I maintain, too, that it has already been proven that that merger has not been to the advantage of the consumer in the short term. This bothers me and I should really like the hon. the Minister to examine this matter and perhaps even say something more about it today.

At a later stage of this session there is certain legislation concerning agriculture which we are going to be dealing with in this House and which we on this side of the House will gladly support. The hon. member for Malmesbury explained to the hon. the Minister this morning that there are certain aspects or subdivisions of agriculture in which the smaller farmer—and he referred specifically to the Coloured—should be able to make a good living with a certain degree of knowledge, which he perhaps already has, in the production of eggs, and perhaps other poultry products. There is the Agricultural Credit Amendment Bill, and for the first time this year there will be legislation before this House removing the White basis for credit aid from the Statute Book.

Are you opposed to that?

On the contrary, I am absolutely in favour of this precisely because it is going to enable persons who are not White to obtain the necessary assistance from the State on an equal footing with their White farming colleagues.

Coloured farmers have been getting this for a long time now.

The hon. the Deputy Minister points out that Coloureds have been getting this for a long time. This is true. Coloured farmers are in fact getting this in terms of other legislation. However, I understand that this legislation has been introduced specifically to provide that aid may be granted to Indian farmers as well. Of course we are pleased about this. We are told that there are approximately 2 000 such farmers. Of course this does not mean that aid need necessarily be granted to all of those 2 000 farmers, although probably there will be quite a number of those approximately 2 000 farmers. The question I want to ask the hon. the Minister is this. After this legislation has been passed, is it really necessary that for the Coloured community or the Coloured farmers as well, we should …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon. member to discuss legislation that is still to be discussed in this House?

Order! That is correct. The hon. member may not anticipate legislation which has already appeared on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, I subject myself to your ruling. However, I simply wanted to use that to link up with the previous speaker, as well as to point out how satisfied we are with the direction and the trend that may be observed in the agricultural sector at the moment.

The hon. the Minister must tell us whether that legislation is going to be discussed or not. [Interjections.]

In any event I have made my point. I have expressed our satisfaction.

Now I come to a further statement I want to make. Before we can examine the problems of vertical integration, as well as its concomitant problems, we must surely review our own agricultural policy in order to determine whether it is capable of bringing about vertical growth which can eventually give rise to the formation of monopolies. At the moment we are experiencing the situation in which only approximately 11 % of our total agricultural production can be marketed freely without being controlled by some control board. Of course I do not want to allege that the system of control boards is pernicious. I do not mean that at all. However, what I want to propose is that a freer competitive situation be created. In order to achieve this, we should examine afresh the composition and functions of those control boards. This would, I believe, result in our being in a position to create a freer and more competitive situation in agriculture. Where the control boards are largely confined in their activities to the aspect of export, they are very successful. However, where domestic marketing is concerned, there are major problems and dissatisfaction.

Even the slice of cake the farmer receives has, owing to these control boards, decreased over the past few years. Perhaps this is in spite of the control boards. The hon. the Minister will agree with me. I just want to mention a few figures briefly. A few years ago the farmer’s slice of the total cake comprised 55,2%. This has now dropped to 46,7%. In the case of dairy products the figure has dropped from 69,7% to 58,5%. In the production of meat the farmer’s share has dropped, as it has done in the production of wheat as well.

I would still be able to understand this decrease if there were an advantage on the part of the consumer; in other words, if the prices for the consumer had dropped, relatively speaking. However, this is not the case. Our own vertical integration, in accordance with the Government’s policy, has in other words been the absolute advantage of neither the farmer nor the consumer. In my opinion, therefore, this is tending towards a monopolistic situation. All forms of monopolies and such practices must be stopped. As I have said, we have legislation for this. In this regard I refer to the Protection of Businesses Amendment Act of 1979. I have already referred to the situation relating to the KWV, Distillers and the Stellenbosch Farmer’s Winery, and have asked the hon. the Minister certain questions. I also want to discuss the situation in the fodder industry. This is really a practical problem with which the independent farmer has to contend from day to day. To a certain extent I personally am the victim of the same problem. Over the past few years companies have developed that have grown not only vertically, but horizontally as well. It is not the vertical growth that is causing the problem. After all, we cannot blame someone for wanting to plough his soil, plant his trees and pick, pack and sell his fruit in the best possible market The problem arises when a company grows to such an extent that the independent farmer buying his product from it, because he really does not have the choice to buy from another company—i.e. he is bound to a monopoly—is compelled to pay a price which eventually leads to his downfall. This is what happens.

I cannot furnish figures now, but I do not think it is necessary to do so. As regards the pig fodder industry, for example, I know that if the company that is linked with the miller pays 80 for a specific type of pig fodder, the independent farmer pays 100 for the same product. In actual fact, what happens is that he is helping that company’s pig fodder producer against himself to such an extent that he ultimately destroys himself.

I want to go so far as to say that the hon. the Minister should act at once to see that no company selling a product to A, B or C, may sell the product at different prices. In other words, if independent farmer A buys 16 tons of fodder at a time—and this is usually a full truck—and pays over 30 days and would use 100 tons of fodder per month, there is no reason why he should not pay the same price as farmer C, who has the same tonnage of fodder delivered and also pays over 30 days, but who perhaps uses 200 or 300 tons of fodder per month. Why should the small man be penalized at the cost of his survival? Why should the small, independent farmer pay to help the bigger man at the cost of his own survival? Usually it is also the bigger man, who has some association with the company, if it is not wholly owned by him. Why should he help and go under in the process?

Now the tragedy is—and the previous hon. speaker referred to this—that even some of the co-operatives are starting to fall into this trap. I am not so sure that it was really necessary for those co-operatives to take over some of the farmers’ assets in order to collect their funds. However, what is happening now, is pernicious. The co-operatives here in the Western Cape—and we know which ones the hon. member was referring to—were forced into such a situation against their will. I accept this. However, we must do everything in our power to prevent that further development in the industry from leading to its competing with its own members.

I want to refer to only one further aspect. I want to state that the Vetsak Co-operative in the north is beginning to overstep the mark completely. It is now even entering the production industry, doing its own marketing and supplying its own farmers. It is competing to such an extent with the private sector that the private sector has now begun to feel that they are being unfairly discriminated against by members of that co-operative who support only the co-operative. Consequently this can cut both ways and I realize that the hon. the Minister has a tremendous problem in this respect. However, he shall have to make an in-depth examination of the whole system of agricultural supply, marketing …

Are co-operatives not part of the private sector too?

They are beginning to pay tax now. That is a reasonable question, but if the private sector is now beginning to do what these fodder companies are doing, the co-operatives are just as guilty. This is the point I am trying to make. The situation has thus been reached where vertical growth and horizontal growth are of necessity becoming monopolistic. This is when something has to be done. This must not happen because an organization is flourishing and growing, because we accept this. This could perhaps happen because it has a good management However, it is when it begins to undermine others, force prices down and destroy other organizations that the hon. the Minister has to act. I am not concerned about the size of certain organizations, but about the monopolistic trends emerging in the agricultural industry. The hon. the Minister must use the legislation passed last year to prevent such trends from continuing.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with I want to congratulate the hon. member for Malmesbury on the motion he introduced and the speech he made. In my opinion he elucidated certain problem areas in agriculture very effectively by way of examples.

As far as the hon. member for Wynberg is concerned, I sympathize with his problem because he apparently understood “vertical integration” to be something different to what was meant thereby in the motion. As a result he experienced certain problems in the course of his speech. I am aware that as long ago as 15 July 1978, a report appeared in The Star relating to certain matters raised by the hon. member, but, Mr. Speaker, in view of your ruling I shall not make any further comment on that.

Before dealing with the matters I should like to discuss I just want to refer to what the hon. member for Wynberg had to say about the farmer’s slice of the cake. What the hon. member must bear in mind is that as far as the agricultural product is concerned, there is a processing facet which is continuing to develop, with the result that the cost of processing an agricultural product to become the refined product it is today for the consumer, does to a certain extent play a role in the difference between the producer price and the consumer price. The comparison between the two is no longer an exact one as it was years ago. One could probably draw an absolute comparison in that regard in respect of certain products, but nowadays one does have to take certain differences into account.

Minimally over the past four years.

That depends on which products one is referring to. Even in the past four years there have been major variations. Certain new products have come onto the market. This is a factor one has to take into account. The principle put forward by the hon. member is in fact something which has to be taken cognizance of.

The hon. member also referred to control, but that is something which I may come back to later. As far as Vetsak is concerned, I think there is one thing which we must understand very clearly. There are two principles which we as the Government and as agriculturists must always endorse. The one is the control board system, something which I shall motivate in a moment, and the other is the co-operative movement. I know that the hon. member did not oppose the co-operative movement, but when one speaks about competition, certain aspects have to be taken into account. However, if a certain degree of vertical and horizontal integration can take place in the private sector and one prohibits co-operatives from playing a part in that, then one is placing them in an unequal bargaining position. That would also be wrong. I think one ought to take a careful look at that as well. A second aspect is that at this stage, the taxability of the co-operative places it squarely in the category of free competition and free enterprise.

I am not against co-operatives. However, the question is whether they should not all receive equal treatment as regards this vertical and horizontal integration which could lead to monopolies.

I think that is the point made by the hon. member for Malmesbury, viz. he pointed out that co-operatives are obliged to operate in the same way, which is wrong, and he said that. I think that is one point which one must understand very clearly.

We now come to free and fair competition. I think that this is a principle which we accept, but if we accept that principle, that does not mean that one must have unequal bargaining power within the agricultural economy, unequal bargaining power where the one sector has more bargaining power than the other. In agriculture one encounters the situation that there is a combined commercial sector on the one hand and a collection of agricultural entrepreneurs on the other, and due to this very concentration of the trade, the negotiating power of the commercial sector is much stronger, and this causes an unequal situation.

There is another point I want to put very clearly. I think that the fundamental approach must be that we want an orderly marketing system within agriculture and that there should be stability in agriculture. Those are the two fundamental principles one must adopt as a point of departure: Orderly marketing and stability.

Orderly marketing means that one must have regular production, that the volume of production must be consistent, and that it must always be available to the consumer. Stability in agriculture means that there must, if possible, be price stability and income stability and that one must accordingly enable the producer to effect orderly marketing through the right channels.

Since we are considering the control boards, there is one basic point I want to raise, namely that D. J. Reeves, in his work Regulation of South African Agriculture: Performance of Agricultural Marketing Boards, states on page 20—

Here again I just want to raise a few points. When one has specialization, one increases the efficiency of one’s producers. If one increases the efficiency, one reduces the cost per produced unit. This could mean that one is creating an increased revenue for the producer and that the consumer could derive advantage from that. We now come to the principle that the control boards have achieved that aim by way of price stabilization. The fundamental issue is that in ideal conditions, in other words, in a situation of free supply as is the case in a free market economy, one does not have consistent price stabilization because there is substantial variation in production, depending on the applicable price structures, and the price structures in turn depend on the supply of the product. Accordingly I believe one would be justified in saying that there is no country in which absolute principles of free economy apply in agriculture. This is true of the USA where there are “support prices” for the products. There are also loan schemes in terms of which the Government interferes in order to prevent prices from dropping too low or if the supply position is such that they can include it in a loan scheme and sell it later in accordance with specific conditions. However, these are basic principles of State interference. As far as income stability is concerned, I refer hon. members to the Jacobs report which reads—

I have already said that the control system has brought about a certain degree of price stability, but the control system cannot stabilize income stability in all circumstances to such an extent because other factors are the cause of income instability, namely climatic factors and others which are responsible for that, something which the control board cannot manipulate and control. Accordingly, one can say in principle that although one advocates free economy within agriculture, it must be adapted to the needs as they are encountered in agriculture, on condition that the agriculturist, the farmer himself, as well as the consumer, benefit. Now we come to the principle of control boards. The control system arose out of the Marketing Act. There is a great deal of criticism with regard to whether the control board system works sufficiently or whether it is necessary to have a system of control. In recent years we have had attacks on the control system of the country as a whole, and this vertical integration has been one of the factors contributing to it. I want to quote a few excerpts in this regard. On 21 June 1979 the hon. member for Orange Grove told this House (Hansard, col. 9719)—

The statement made here, the interpretation as stated there, means the condemnation of the control system as a whole, without reservation. It means, not the improvement of the system of control, but the condemnation of a system of control.

I did not say that at all.

It is in Hansard. Can I quote it to the hon. member again?

You read it, but you then read words into my mouth that I wanted a total abolition of the system.

There are other hon. members who also made certain statements. I quote from The Daily News of 29 May 1979—

The plural—

It is the boards as a whole that are being condemned. I further underline my statement by quoting what the hon. member for Wynberg said at a later stage—

Mismanagement.

Surely that is the point I am making. One can interpret it in two ways. The hon. member for Orange Grove clearly stated that he condemned the system of control.

I did not say so.

He did say so, it is here in Hansard. The next one referred to “mismanagement by boards” as a whole. I shall come back to that. I shall put specific questions to them which they could perhaps reply to.

When discussing this matter there are a few points we must bear in mind. The Wentzel Commission was appointed to investigate the Marketing Act. This is a commission which has visited all the countries of the world to investigate the agricultural industry and the marketing of agricultural products. The commission returned with one report—the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture was a member of the commission—which was unanimous in maintaining that the system of control in South Africa, with certain adjustments that could be made, was the best system that could possibly be implemented in South Africa. That was a unanimous report of a commission of this House.

The Jacobs Commission also investigated the matter and they did not call into question in any way the principle of control boards.

The criticism of control boards also concerns the effectiveness of the management of the board, administrative overlapping which perhaps takes place, the scope of the control, the number of products controlled, the number of marketing schemes in existence and the number of boards to be discussed, and one asks oneself what are the most important functions of a board. The most important function is the local marketing of the product, viz. internally. That is the point which the hon. member for Wynberg underlined very clearly. His criticism of control boards related to local marketing. Then, too, we are concerned with the handling, processing, distribution and determination of the price of the product and other functions such as grading and control of directives. Those are the basic functions of a board.

I want to ask the hon. Opposition, which is perhaps critical of that: Looking at the handling function of the board, who handles the product and to what extent are normal economic principles applicable in that regard? As far as the handling of maize is concerned, it is carried out by agents and not by the board. The agents are appointed and in this regard they are chiefly co-operatives, but private initiative is also involved here. The processing industry is largely the domain of private initiative. The distribution process could be handled by private initiative, but they prefer not to, because the margins they are permitted are too low, and the board can do it more cheaply. That is the principle. I do not think we need argue about price determination. The principle applicable there is one of a concentrated commercial sector on the one hand and a collection of farmers with unequal bargaining power on the other. I think that the principle that the board should do it, is the right one.

As regards the other functions, e.g. that of grading, we can go back to the meat industry, or even many of the industries, and we can ask what function is undertaken by private initiative. In the meat industry the Meat Board lays down a floor price. Private initiative then takes over totally after the meat has been through the abattoirs. They can purchase it.

Those who take it over subsequently, are monopolistic. That is one of the problems.

I am not dealing with monopolistic tendencies now. I am dealing with the control board system. The hon. member must not digress from the principle. We are first dealing with the control board system to determine …

We are supposed to be discussing the motion.

No, I am talking about what the hon. member for Orange Grove said in the House last year. We must first consider the principle of a control board system and its functioning. If improvements are to be effected, agriculture will welcome them if the improvements can be to the advantage of both the agriculturist and the consumer. In any event, it would be wrong not to accept any changes. That is the principle.

I want to go on to deal with the position with regard to the Meat Board. I know that a great deal of criticism is being levelled at the Meat Board concerning the system of control of supply. As regards the principles relating to control of supply applied by the meat board, can hon. members differ with the following statements? In the first place the aims of input control are: to prevent abattoir facilities being overburdened. Supply to the market must be regulated in order to establish freer access to the market for the producers and to prevent too great a supply, with the consequent maltreatment of animals which that entails. These are basic aims.

What happens in practice?

The hon. member must please give me the opportunity to finish and then he can put his question.

Further aims are to meet the market demand as a whole and to determine the grading composition and to see to it that one does not only have feed lots. Then, too, the aim is to afford as many producers as possible fair access to the market and to give newcomers to the livestock industry access to the market.

In considering these principles we must decide whether a board achieves its aims and whether the system of control is the right one. If one maintains that there are inherent problems in implementation, one must look at those specific problems and such problems must be solved as they crop up. After all, one does not grasp at a single specific minor problem, or even a major problem, which may occur in the implementation of a new system, because in the nature of the matter, a new system of this kind will have teething troubles. When such problems arise, surely one does not condemn the system as a whole, but that is what those hon. members are doing.

They need a system of control for their party.

That is the principle underlying the whole matter. I put forward that specific point because there is a total onslaught on the system of control boards in South Africa. This onslaught is being made by financial interests within South Africa that seek to make a profit out of the farmer and the consumer. The control board system prevents this from happening, and that is what the majority of the criticism is based on. We cannot tolerate that.

They are not succeeding in doing so.

The hon. members of the opposition need not feel bad. We know that they represent major financial interests.

They are against the farmers. [Interjections.]

However, I do not want to fight with the hon. members. I just want to provide them with a little information about certain matters in order to ascertain their views in that regard. We are considering the effectiveness of boards and a system of control. I want to take the Maize Board as an example—I do so because I have an intimate knowledge of it—with regard to the arrangements relating to railage, the planning of the railage with the S.A. Railways and the rate of transportation for exports and for domestic marketing. The hon. member for Wynberg said that he was critical of the principles of domestic control; not the system of control, but the principle involved. I want to tell him that cross-railages are restricted to a minimum in the maize industry because we follow an allocation policy and because we know where the maize is stored after the intake season. We know how the consumption of maize is going to progress and we follow an allocation policy which results in the minimum railage costs for the consumer. This can only be done by way of a control system.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member is not opposed to a system of control, he will not argue with me on this score. He will rather agree with me.

The grading system in South Africa is beneficial for the producer because as far as maize is concerned it provides for a total permissable deviation of 7% as far as the grains are concerned. The same applies in the U.S.A. We have a climatic advantage as a result of which we can produce our sun-dried maize. The board prohibits any mixing of maize as it comes in by agents or other exporters. That is prohibited. What is the effect? The effect is that the foreign material and defective grains in maize comprise approximately 3% to 4%. What is the premium we get on export maize? It is between R13 and R25 per ton higher than that on American maize. One of the reasons for that—I do not want to say that it is the only reason—is the control system we have and the control exercised. I refer for example to quality control. Apart from that we have provision of supplies throughout the season on a regular basis. The other day the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg quoted an example in this regard and said that we had solved the matter without trouble by way of efficiency in the system of control.

That is because I pressed so hard for it. You know that.

The hon. member made a good case. Then there is the registration of millers. When one considers all these matters, then in my opinion one must endorse the principle of the system of control as a whole and one may not disparage it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is often accused of not having an agricultural policy. That is the principle. Then hon. members attack the control boards in order to get at the Minister. However, there is one principle one should always bear in mind. Each product has its inherent problems. It has problems relating to production and relating to marketing, problems relating to price formation and relating to distribution. The hon. Minister cannot have a uniform policy for a variety of products with a variety of problems.

Why not? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, with reference to that remark by the hon. member for Orange Grove, I can say that the nearest he has ever come to agriculture is the fact that he is teaching his grandmother to suck eggs. [Interjections.] I do not believe that one can depict the Minister’s policy as a whole as uniform, or tell him that he ought to apply it uniformly to all products.

Then there is one point I want to make in regard to vertical integration. There is one important principle which is to the benefit of certain groups. With the profits made by the bigger companies from the manufacturing industry, they effect improvements on the farms and the cost involved can be deducted for the purposes of income tax. The Act provides that this may be done. As we know, it also provides that one has to pay income tax on the amount that accrues to one in the tax year in question. That is the principle. One asks oneself whether it is right that profits made in industry are channeled into agriculture and used there to compete with the farming in which similar profits cannot be made, that in that way the farmers are ousted, and industry does not have to be taxed on the amounts in question. This is an advantage they have. The hon. member for Wynberg gave a clear exposition of yet another advantage. It relates to the profits they make. The price paid by the farmer for their products is much higher than the amount they themselves pay for them. In that regard there are certain problems.

Mr. Speaker, my time has expired. I just wish to congratulate the hon. member for Malmesbury wholeheartedly on his motion and I want to say to the hon. Minister of Agriculture that he is doing good work.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Carletonville, who has just resumed his seat, is evidently a specialist in his field. [Interjections.]

Not “evidently”.

Yes, evidently. One can gather that from his speech. [Interjections.] He discussed control over certain industries in the country, for example the maize industry, etc. However, I wish to put a question to him, and to the hon. member who introduced the motion, and I hope he has an opportunity to reply to this. Is there not a basic contradiction between this story of control of a certain industry and the motion which the hon. member introduced? I am asking this, for the motion reads as follows—

1. (1) affirms its confidence in the system of free and fair economic competition in agriculture …

The hon. member for Carletonville dealt here with the control boards, which are actually covered by the second part of the motion that was introduced. I wish to put it to the hon. the Minister and to the introducer of the motion that there is a basic contradiction here.

I explained that.

Yes, but I want to take it a little further. I am going to discuss the first part of the motion, for in my view we are dealing with a problem which is really of far greater magnitude than that indicated in the motion, a problem which is far more pressing and more serious. I hope the hon. member will have an opportunity later on of replying to the points I am going to raise. I am quoting the motion in English again—

1. (1) affirms its confidence in the system of free and fair economic competition in agriculture …

†That is part of the free enterprise system to which we, as a country, are committed—free and fair competition and the free-market system. Then the hon. member goes on to take note of the problems arising from vertical integration. Vertical integration, however, is part of the normal flow of business in the free competition system in South Africa.

I said so.

I am not arguing. I merely want to make my point by way of a question. Are we really, in South Africa, committed to the principle of free and fair competition in the agricultural system, with no holds barred? Let me put it to the hon. the Minister that in every single democratic country in the world—and the hon. member for Carletonville mentioned the United States—the State takes an interest in agriculture which cannot be reconciled with the normal concept of free and fair competition in the economy.

I merely want to point out what happened in Great Britain between the wars when the free and fair market system obtained. What happened was the total collapse of agriculture in Great Britain. Whoever has read the sociological works of that time, e.g. the books of A. G. Street and others, will be aware of the absolute penury and degradation of the tenant farmers, the small people, in agriculture between the wars in Great Britain. The situation to which those people were reduced is something we cannot imagine in South Africa The price had to be paid, however, when war broke out in Great Britain. The most immense effort had to be made to build up agriculture because of the threats to the convoys that brought food to Great Britain. I believe that in our country today we are undergoing something of the same sort of process, and I want to illustrate this in terms of the motion before the House.

In Great Britain farming is very largely a matter of tenant farming. There are large landholdings that are broken up into tenant holdings. Between the wars the tenants were protected by legislation passed in the previous century, the 1850s. It was only the fact that that legislation was there that prevented people from being moved out of the tenancies they held. So one factor was that they were protected by legislation. The other factor was that because agriculture was so much in the doldrums, it did not pay the landholders at that stage, between the wars, to insist that those tenants be removed so that they could repossess their own landholdings and farm for their own benefit. Today, however, the situation is absolutely the reverse of that. There are landholders—one meets them daily—who own large tracts of ground in Great Britain, land which is in the hands of tenants. The tenants are farming, and profitably at that, because of the intervention of the State. The landholders cannot get the land back into their own hands, to farm it on their own account, because the tenants are protected by the laws passed in the previous century. This is part of the free enterprise system in Great Britain. At one stage it was a total disaster for agriculture and today it is, I believe, once again becoming a real problem, because the average size of a farmholding in Great Britain is only 70 or 80 acres, small farms which, by the very nature of things, tend to be inefficient because of the diversification of effort that has to be put into production. Our system of farming in South Africa is heavily capital-intensive, and it makes demands on the farming community in terms of our free enterprise system. Since they have to borrow money they are part of the ordinary flow of commerce, the ordinary flow of money, the ordinary flow of investment The hon. member for Malmesbury has said—and we have seen that—that if the agricultural industry does not have a continual flow of people into it it is going to die. Now, during the past 15 or 20 years we have seen how people have made their money in other fields. Turning now to the hon. member for Carletonville, I must say that I believe there is a degree of contradiction in what he said. We have seen individuals making money in business and many other fields and then moving into the agricultural sector. We have seen that to a very great extent. There has been a continual turnover in the farming community merely because people who have made their money elsewhere now move into that sector.

That is Gerrie! [Interjections.]

Be it as it may, that is what has been happening. That is what has refreshed and refurbished the whole capital structure of agriculture. Agriculture has become more and more capital-intensive as time has gone by. The hon. member for Carletonville asked a very basic question. He wanted to know whether firms which make profits in industry should be allowed to move into the agricultural field and invest their profits in agriculture. I think that is a basic question which the hon. the Minister has to answer. He has to answer that question during the course of this very debate. We must know whether that is something which the hon. the Minister wishes to continue to allow here in South Africa. We want to know whether he distinguishes between profits made by individuals outside the agricultural sector, who then move into the agricultural sector and invest those profits or capital they have built up, in agriculture and firms who have made profits outside the agricultural sector, which now invest those profits as capital in agriculture. These are two aspects of the same problem, and the hon. the Minister cannot distinguish between the two.

Will your party support me if I introduce legislation to cover that?

Mr. Speaker, I first want to know what the hon. the Minister’s answer is going to be. He has a problem there. In terms of the motion now under discussion the hon. the Minister is going to have to give us some kind of an answer. What we are operating against is a fixed price. Now, that is not part of the normal flow of the free enterprise system. We are operating at a fixed price. The reason why we get the vertical integration which has been built up is merely in order to beat the system. That is our problem. We have to beat the system. Everybody who is in business is out to make the maximum profit for himself, to get the maximum return on his capital. His way of beating the system is by doing the vertical integration bit. He goes down to the sources of production and, through production, he builds up to the point of marketing. Now, if the hon. the Minister is going to tamper with that he will be tampering with a basic right of anybody engaged in the free enterprise system, anybody who is trying to find a way of maximising his profit on his capital investment.

Of course, I do not envy the hon. the Minister. I also do not envy hon. members opposite who are trying to find an answer to that problem. This is something that happens every time, and we know it. The hon. member for Malmesbury mentioned it. It was also mentioned by other hon. members opposite. When the hon. the Minister came to this House with the proposal that people in the poultry industry should be limited to a number of 10 000 birds, or that increases should not exceed 10 000 birds, private enterprise sailed through that proposal like a hot knife through butter. The way they sailed through it reminded me of that advertisement on TV where one sees a car going bang through a huge sheet of paper. It was just like that Private enterprise sailed through the hon. the Minister’s legislation like nothing. They simply ignored it. In fact they turned it to their own advantage.

That was because the permits were transferable.

Quite correct. The legislation was there. The legislation permitted the permits to be transferable. The hon. the Minister introduced it in that form.

No.

If the hon. the Minister did not introduce it in that form, who did?

It was a decision of the Egg Board to make the permits transferable.

Well, if the hon. the Minister does not introduce legislation which is going to be effective …

Well, we had all the powers. In any event I shall come back to that later on.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that the hon. the Minister is prepared to deal with that. What I actually want to put to the hon. the Minister is this.

There was an attempt by the Government to limit something which is a normal part of the flow of the free enterprise system. Free enterprise just went through it like a shot. In no time at all a situation developed in which, as the hon. member for Malmesbury has quite rightly said, there was concentration into fewer and fewer hands. My constituency is full of small people who made their living out of the little parts they had in the agricultural industry. One after the other they have been going out, because they cannot compete. Is it not in fact an essential feature of the free enterprise system, in which there is free and fair competition, that a man is entitled to get bigger and bigger, whereas the smaller chaps, as in any system, are going to go out if they cannot stand up to it?

I want to raise a point with the hon. member for Malmesbury about something which causes me concern and which I have been raising for many years, namely the occupancy of the country-side by the White man. This is one of the factors to which I want to refer. The pressure on the White man occupying the country-side is that he has to make a profit, otherwise there will be no way in which he will be able to stay there. I think it was the hon. member for Malmesbury who talked about “the desire in the heart of every man now living in the towns to possess a piece of land of his own”. I think he is quite correct, but I want to ask whether the White man now living in the city is prepared to put up with the unending toil, the lowering of his standards and the absolute back-breaking nature of the sort of effort that is required to make a living on a small farm. I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister. In Europe there are peasant farmers. We do not have them here in South Africa There one finds the White man with his family occupying a small piece of ground from which he makes a living, unaided except for the assistance of his family. If we are going to deviate from capital-intensive agriculture we have here in South Africa today, there are two directions in which we can go. I do not quite know how we are going to achieve it I want to say categorically that I do not believe that Whites in this country are prepared to accept the standard of living and the nature of the sacrifice involved in occupying ground and farming it in a way in which it is done in countless countries throughout the world, namely on a peasant level. Another system which pertains in other countries, particularly in Great Britain, is the system of tenant-farming. The hon. member for Malmesbury has mentioned that people are merely becoming agents of the big companies who own their farms. They are becoming tenant-farmers. For all intents and purposes, except legally, they cannot get rid of their farms or they are tied in some way by a contract to the owner of the farm. However, it is happening more and more that bigger companies are handing out production rights to small farmers. Those people are totally dependent upon the larger companies. To my mind that system which is developing is analogous to the system of tenant-farming in Great Britain and elsewhere. If we are going to repopulate the country-side, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is not a way in which we are going to have to do it, because the number of White people who are capital-intensive strong enough to occupy farms and live through the ups and downs of the agricultural cycles, is becoming smaller and smaller. What is now happening as an alternative is that the State involvement in providing capital for farmers, is becoming bigger and bigger. I do not know where this can end, but what I do know, is that what we are facing is a situation in which we shall not be able to say that we affirm our confidence in the system of free and fair economic competition in agriculture. The State’s role in supporting the smaller farmers is becoming bigger and bigger. It is unavoidable, because otherwise we shall have a system, of which we are taking notice here, of vertical integration in the agricultural industry, whereby capital-intensive, big and strong firms are able to support people occupying the countryside, who then virtually become tenant-holders towards those companies.

I want simply to point out to the hon. the Minister that in Great Britain, as I said earlier, in France and in the Common Market countries there is the tremendous problem of over-production because of the State’s involvement in agriculture. We talk of democracies, but those are the most democratic countries in the world, and in every single one of them the State plays a part in agriculture. It supports the smaller farmers to the point where they produce surpluses which are an embarrassment to their Governments. But Governments do it, because they are intent on maintaining on the land a sufficient stock of farming people so that food supplies are for ever going to be guaranteed without having to import food. I wonder whether we in this country are not heading in that direction. There is a basic contradiction built into the motion of the hon. member for Malmesbury. The hon. member admits that this is so. We can talk about free and fair economic competition in agriculture, but we cannot get away from the part the State has to play. The party I belong to supports free enterprise as far as we can possibly go, but we recognize the fact that the agricultural community cannot survive without the State playing a vital part in its activities.

I welcome the motion, but I find it unsatisfactory because it contains the basic contradiction I have referred to. This basic contradiction has not been sorted out in the speeches by hon. members on the other side. There are two motions before the House, but if I had to, I would not vote for either of them because they are both unsatisfactory. They do not stress the point that I have tried to make. Capital in farming has to be provided from one of two sources. The first source is from private enterprise, and if it is done by way of vertical integration we must not complain. The second source is the State and that would involve the State in far more than it is doing now. In other words, it involves a very much larger take-over by the hon. the Minister of the responsibility of providing capital resources for the smaller and less capital-strong elements of the farming community. My solution is that the hon. the Minister should make provision at that level for more capital to flow into the farming community if he wants to avoid the consequences of vertical integration which has not yet stopped. It will go on and the number of people involved, will be fewer and fewer and the direction will be tighter and tighter. From that point onwards it will start to go outwards, as hon. members have said, into other industries. In this way a pyramid is built up involving the whole of the farming community, while the actual number of free farmers involved is very small indeed. So I welcome the motion of the hon. member for Malmesbury, but I do not think that it takes notice of the real problem we face, which I think is of tremendous importance to the farming community.

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the hon. member for Malmesbury on his motion, because I think it provides us with an opportunity to have a broader discussion on bottlenecks and problems in the agricultural industry.

I am going to confine myself mainly to the factors which made the Marketing Act necessary. Secondly, I am also going to discuss the control board system and the role it plays. Thirdly, I should like to say a few words in regard to the criticism levelled at our control board system.

It is a good thing to consider what conditions in agriculture were prior to the passing of the Marketing Act. The Marketing Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1937 and was amended and improved by Act 59 of 1968. When one considers the circumstances prevailing at that time, it is obvious that such an Act was necessary. At that time the agricultural industry was in a state of chaos. In the ’thirties in particular there was no stability in the agricultural industry. The farmers hawked their products around themselves, a position which resulted and culminated in the poor white problem. I myself was a young boy at that time and I often went with my mother to the dealer to whom people sold eggs and farm butter. Sometimes when one got there one found that there was a surplus of eggs and butter and that one could not sell one’s products at a reasonable price. And if one could actually dispose of them at sixpence a pound—the price then—one was told that one had to spend half the proceeds from the sale of one’s products in the shop. So the producer was exploited from both sides.

That was the situation prevailing then, and it was felt that something had to be done about it. Certain laws were then passed to stabilize the situation in the agricultural industry, inter alia, the three Acts we have already discussed, viz. the Marketing Act, the Soil Conservation Act and the Co-operative Societies Act. Before I come back to the Marketing Act, I should like to say something about the Co-operative Societies Act, because these two are related to and complement one another. We are talking this morning, as we have done on many other occasions, of the free enterprise system, and we are happy to do so. I want to state very clearly that I too am a supporter of the system. In fact, I do not think there is really anybody who is a greater champion of the system than the farmers themselves. Because the farmer as an individual was and still is sometimes faced with problems which he cannot overcome, firstly in obtaining his means of production and secondly in the marketing of his products, it was necessary for producers to come together and establish a business undertaking which on their behalf could supply them with their means of production at the cheapest possible price and find the largest possible market for their products. That is the co-operative system. I want to say here today that the co-operative system cannot be called socialistic because the co-operative is a service organization which operates in the communal interests of the producers. It is therefore nothing but a continuation of the functions of the farmer. It carries out the same task as the farmer but it does it better because it does it for everybody.

I should like now to highlight a few aspects in this regard. The co-operative movement must obtain the means of production for the farmers as cheaply as possible, as I have said, and the co-operative must obtain the highest possible price for the farmers’ products. Therefore it must work very closely with the control boards. It is interesting to note that the control board system as far as the various consumer articles are concerned, has eliminated those very people who were profit-motivated. I want to give one example here, that of wool. Before the control board system and the controlled marketing of wool were introduced, there were more than 40 companies interested in the marketing of wool. The control board system, however, eliminated unreasonable profitmaking, and today who is in control of the marketing of wool in South Africa? Only the co-operatives. That proves to me that the co-operative organization’s services to the primary producer can never be over-estimated in South Africa. Just as in the case of the control board system, the co-operative system must, of course, be adjusted from time to time to comply with requirements, but I do not think we can ever condemn the principle. I want to say further that when we talk of the co-operative sector, one could ask: What is more democratic or enterprising than the very fact that the savings or the profits of the co-operative are disbursed on the basis of the business which the member conducted with the co-operative? What is perhaps most important of all is the fact that the basis on which the profits are shared is decided upon at an annual meeting of all the members of the co-operative. I think this is a system for which we should have the greatest respect. I want to go further. We have spoken of the Co-operative Societies Act, the Soil Conservation Act and the Marketing Act. The Marketing Act developed—and I can put it no better than to quote from the report of the commission of inquiry into the Marketing Act, 1968, as follows. The report reads—

Because I want just now to return to the function of the control board I should like everybody to take note of this—

I shall also return to the narrowing of the gap between what the producer gets for his product and the price paid by the consumer. The report states further—

So much then for the reasons for the introduction of the Marketing Act. Now one must ask oneself—and here I ask for the indulgence of the House because I think it is necessary for us to look at this—what was the result of the introduction of this Act as embodied in and implemented by the 22 control boards we have today? When we consider what the results were, we must look at the three sectors in the industry with which the marketing board deals. The three sectors are, firstly, the producers who are responsible for the provision of the raw product; secondly, the processors or millers, whatever one wants to call them; they are the entrepreneurs in the middle and, thirdly, the consumers. I think that if one asked the 72 000 producers in South Africa today for their opinion of the principle of the control board system as it operates under the Marketing Act, 99% of our farmers would say that they want no other system. Why do they want no other system? It is not only because it benefits the producer. Absolutely not. It is also because it gives stability to the whole industry. An industry in which one sector is handicapped, in which one sector is lacking something, is not a sound industry. Therefore things do not go well for the producer if they do not go well for the manufacturer or the consumer, because the producer is dependent on the consumer for the consumer for the marketing of his products. After all, he is the person who buys them. If the manufacturing sector is not protected, problems will arise there. That is why I hope that the producers are in their element—and I know this—with the control board system, and I want to give a few reasons for this. I do not want to cover the same field that previous speakers have covered but I would like to mention a few reasons.

The first aspect with which the producers are satisfied and happy is the sort of say they have in regard to the trends that have become apparent in the industry. In other words, the producer has the opportunity to discuss with other sectors of the industry, i.e. the manufacturers and consumers who also serve on the boards, the factors relating to the industry. He also has an opportunity to discuss possible changes with the Marketing Board, the department and the ministry, whether they be technical or price-related. He can discuss all these factors, and that is of the greatest importance as far as our farmers are concerned.

The second aspect I want to mention is that for any undertaking to be successful it must be able to budget and to plan. The farmer who is subjected to price fluctuations from season to season cannot plan properly. That is why the farmers and producers in South Africa are happy with the control board system because it assures them of a measure of price stability. My time is limited so I shall have to hurry. Within the control board system one has production estimates which are of the utmost general importance to the farmer.

I want to refer again to the other sectors. They too should be grateful for the control board system because it is market oriented and because it makes money available for technological and market research which is essential for all aspects of the conduct of the industry. I refer again to what the hon. member for Wynberg said. He said that the share which the farmer receives of the food basket—and he referred to dairy products—has decreased in recent years from 67% to 58% His statement is correct, I do not want to give the same reasons as those given by the hon. member for Carletonville, but I should like to refer to this specific point. At that time we were confronted with imported inflation and many factors which can easily be identified—for instance, the enormous increase in the price of certain raw materials—increased the costs of the manufacturing sector. One factor which the hon. member did not mention—and I want him to listen now—is that while over recent years the percentage of the farmer’s share of the food basket has dwindled, what the farmer gets today, even in relation to dairy products, viz. 58%, compares extremely well with the percentage which he got of the food basket before control, viz. 34%. That is the important point.

I want to conclude by saying that I want to appeal to all people connected with control—and everybody is indirectly connected with it because it is the farmers of South Africa through the control board system who feed the people of South Africa—to look very closely at this aspect of our control board system. We must not condemn the principle because the world is envious of our Marketing Act. It is essential that we should make changes and put matters right. In recent years we have come to realize that certain of the control boards should have far larger stabilization funds to eliminate ad hoc decisions and absorb shocks. We must study the system continuously and everybody must co-operate to extend it and to make a success of it. Those who condemn the system of control boards are usually those people who have little knowledge of the agricultural industry and very little knowledge of how the industry fluctuates from year to year.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity that has been afforded me to speak in this debate. First of all I want to compliment the hon. member for Malmesbury for introducing this motion. All of us are concerned about vertical integration. We are concerned about the direction it is taking, the effect it is having on the farming community, the effect it could have on the consumer and what he is going to have to pay for a product in the end.

I want to use the example of what is happening in the pig industry, because there we are facing the very serious problem of vertical integration in respect of the sale of bran and pollard. Bran and pollard are two basic ingredients in the process of feed-mixing for pigs. These two products are left-overs from wheat and other products which are used in the making of bread. The millers use this “afval” from their milling process to make bran and pollard. There are only one or two major manufacturers that have these two products available. The farmer has in the past always purchased these products, mixed his own feed and fed it to his pigs. However, with the millers now going into the feed-manufacturing process they have decided that they would rather keep this bran and pollard, and they are now using this method to force pig farmers to buy their complete ration from them, whereas in the past the farmers could buy these two products. The millers are now placing a conditional sale on the farmer. The only people who can now buy bran and pollard are people who are prepared either to pay a very much higher price or who agree to buy milled maize from the particular organization. I have received a number of complaints in this regard, because obviously the farmers have their own little milling and mixing plants. There is no reason why they should have to go to the manufacturer and buy milled maize, bran and pollard. The end result is that they are now buying a total ration from one manufacturing house and they are suffering the consequences of a tremendously high price. Here we again have a case where one or two major companies have gained control over the product and are forcing the farmer to pay the price for it and, of course, are chasing up the price of their pig products accordingly. I am aware that the hon. the Minister of Industries and of Commerce and Consumer Affairs is investigating these major manufacturers. I hope he will be able to bring this aspect into his investigation as well.

I think we all agree with the motivation of the hon. member for Malmesbury in bringing this motion before the House. I think he did it well. Then, however, we had two hon. members of the NP who, strangely enough, tended to defend the control boards. They are both chairmen of control boards, and their whole speeches were a paranoic defence of control boards. Nobody in this House has ever said that we do not need control boards. The word “afgetakel” has been used in this regard. I, and many other people, have criticized the boards very heavily, but that does not mean to say that we in any way wish to abolish control boards. Control boards are absolutely necessary in our economy, but to say that whoever criticizes a control board is against control boards is a load of nonsense. I shall continue to criticize control boards for no other reason than that I believe in their betterment, and if they cannot take criticism then that is too bad.

Gerrie, you haven’t got it quite right.

No, I am quite right. I have heard this view expressed in the House and also outside of it. As soon as anyone criticizes the boards, he is told: “Jy wil die hele stelsel aftakel.” That is a lot of nonsense.

Sir, the hon. member for Malmesbury insinuated that in the Egg Control Board there has been a take-over by a few producers who are now in fact in control. I have criticized the exact same position in the Meat Board. The “Vleissentraal” has got its hands on the Meat Board. I have not criticized the board, but I have criticized the fact that the control board is in the hands of one person. Here one again has vertical integration, vertical integration of one co-operative. Here again we have the position that the tail is wagging the dog, which is the Meat Board. I have asked the hon. the Minister to investigate this. I have still to get his reply. He originally said he would not investigate it until he found corruption in the Meat Board. Corruption was subsequently proved. The matter is before the courts. I am still waiting to hear whether he will investigate the position in the broad sphere.

There is also corruption in the private trade.

I accept that. That is why I want the hon. the Minister to investigate.

I believe it is necessary for us to accept criticism where criticism is due. Nobody wishes to dismantle the control boards, but I think there is room for a lot of improvement. The attitude of the control boards has always been one of control rather than one of being market orientated. I have pleaded time and time again that the control boards should change their emphasis to one of going outwards, of marketing and trying to promote their products. Somebody criticized the Dairy Board of mismanagement, claiming that they had caused the problem of the butter fiasco. I agree with that. It was a disaster. I do not blame it entirely on that control board, but I believe it was partially due to the mismanagement of the matter by the Dairy Board at the time.

You cannot call the service a fiasco.

Mr. Speaker, I regret my time has run out.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that in general I very much agree with the remarks made by the hon. member who has just sat down. At the outset I want to direct a word of thanks to the mover of this motion, the hon. member for Malmesbury, for having moved what I regard as a most interesting and thoughtful motion. He followed it up with a very interesting and thoughtful speech which I thought set out very well indeed some of the problems confronting agriculture. We in these benches have moved an amendment to his motion because we believe, as does the hon. member for Mooi River, that there are certain basic contradictions within the motion itself. It is my intention to go into those after the lunch break. I thought the hon. member’s speech very good indeed. I thought it a very good introduction.

I also thought that the hon. member for Heilbron made a very interesting contribution. I am afraid I cannot say the same for the hon. member for Carletonville. One would have thought, Sir, that he was addressing a farmers’ day meeting. He made what I can only term a very superficial speech. We are supposed to be discussing today matters of vital importance to the whole agricultural industry and to the farmers. The hon. member made a very rousing speech and I am sure that, had he made it elsewhere, he would have been cheered by the members with him. He has come up through organized agriculture and he has probably made that sort of speech on many occasions. I did wish that, from his superior position in the field of organized agriculture, he would have made a slightly more thoughtful contribution.

Sir, I have said there are basic contradictions within the motion itself. We agree entirely with the first leg of the motion, because we do believe in a system of free and fair economic competition. I think one must accent one word there, and that is “fair”. A lot of the competition operating in the agricultural industry today is not fair.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned before lunch I was discussing the wording of the hon. member for Malmesbury’s motion and said that we, on this side of the House, certainly agreed with the first part of the motion which affirmed that this House has confidence in the system of free and fair economic competition in agriculture. I said that one should perhaps place emphasis on the word “fair” competition, because there are many aspects of the agricultural industry, at the moment, in which fair competition does not exist. I think that we have to accept that a free system of competition does not, and cannot, exist in agriculture. I think that if one looks at the assistance agriculture gets from the State—very necessary assistance, let me add—and at the many ways in which the State has to interfere in the running of the industry as a whole, one must accept that this is inevitable. As has been stated in many democracies throughout the world that are devoted to a free-enterprise system, government participation in the affairs of agriculture is still necessary. I do think, however, that we must agree that that interference should be the minimum possible, because the benefits of a free-enterprise system, which embodies competition, are obvious to all, benefits both to the farmer and to the consumer. If it can be free, it should be free. Regrettably, however, it cannot always be free.

The second part of the motion spoke specifically about vertical integration in the agricultural industry, and we were asked especially to take note of the problems arising out of vertical integration, and there are many quite unpleasant manifestations of vertical integration in the agricultural industry today. One only has to look at the poultry industry, and the hon. member for Malmesbury spoke about the poultry industry in the Western Cape. I can tell him that the poultry industry throughout the country is in an absolute furore at the moment—he probably knows that himself—specifically because of a vertical integration system which is not, in itself, all that bad, but the fact is that it actually constitutes a monopoly. It is, in effect, a monopolistic situation. One has the case of two major feed companies, or subsidiaries of those feed companies, Premier Milling and Tiger Oats, not only controlling most of the poultry feed industry, but also having entered into egg production themselves. The net result has been over-production, with the result that many small poultry farmers have gone to the wall, not having been able to survive this competition. I do not think that what has happened has been in the best interests of the poultry industry.

How are we to stop this rather unpleasant manifestation? The unpleasant face of a capitalistic system is the monopoly, and we are seeing this state of affairs in agriculture today. I was very interested to read the report of the annual conference of the Agricultural Economic Society which was addressed by a certain Dr. P. J. Kotzé who talked about monopolies in the agricultural industry. He talked about the poultry industry and said that this was certainly something that should be looked into. He also talked about the liquor trade, another classic example. I am referring to the KWV wine monopoly. This is again, I think, something that deserves a great deal of scrutiny from this House, because before we were faced with a wine monopoly on the one hand, and a beer monopoly on the other, both products coming from agricultural produce, we understand that the Cabinet was actually approached and that a decision was taken on whether it was desirable or not. At the time we issued a statement to the effect that we disapproved very strongly of this sort of thing. We believed that the encouragement of this sort of monopoly was inexcusable. It appeared to us, from the Press reports, that it had in fact come before the Cabinet, or perhaps that hon. Minister and the hon. the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, and that they had given the go-ahead. I found that very extraordinary indeed because, with respect, I believe that this has done a grave disservice to many people in agriculture and to the consumer as well.

Regrettably this always happens with monopolies. We understand that on Monday we are going to be faced with tremendous rises in the prices of wine and spirits. I am sure this would not have happened if it had not been for the monopolistic situation which now exists in the wine industry. The KWV and its affiliates have virtual control of the whole industry, apart from quite a number of small producers who seem to have been left out in the cold. This, however, is only one monopoly in the agricultural industry. One can look at other monopolies as well. There are monopolies of varying degrees of good or bad. However, one also has to look at the co-operative movements. As the hon. member for Wynberg said, in certain instances the co-operatives are monopolies as well. Anybody who knows the history of agriculture in South Africa must admit that the cooperatives have played a most important part in bringing some sort of stable existence to the farmer, especially after the bad years of the ’thirties, which were referred to by hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Heilbron, I remember, spoke about it. To a certain extent it was the co-operative societies that pulled the farmer out of the grave trouble he was experiencing during those years.

However, I have to state that I believe the co-operative societies have changed a lot over the years. They are now in a different situation and I believe they too have to be scrutinized when monopolies are being scrutinized. They are also monopolistic. The meeting under the chairmanship of Dr. Kotzé, to which I have already referred, said that these agricultural co-operatives, which acted as agents of control boards, were also classic examples of monopolies because they operated in demarcated areas, eliminating competition by other co-operative societies. Well, this is so. We have to look at those monopolies and decide whether they are desirable or not. I believe there is room for reform.

I found it quite fascinating, first of all, to hear the hon. member for Malmesbury put forward his very good motion, and then to hear the next two speakers from that side of the House entering into a spirited defence of the control board system, which in fact goes against the first leg of the motion. I would have thought that they would speak to the motion rather than catching political flies, as they were trying to do by talking about control boards. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was quite right. Nobody in this House, so far as I understand, believes in the total abolition of control boards. However, we do reserve the right to criticize, and there are many, many areas that should be criticized at the moment. There is, for instance, the Egg Control Board, which has made a botch of what it was supposed to do. That is one control board that should be criticized. I regret to say it, but the control board—formerly there used to be two control boards in the dairy industry—which now falls under the hon. member for Heilbron, has also, I believe, made a botch of things in the past. As a result of that we have been faced with rising prices when there are surpluses. That is something which to us on this side of the House has always seemed most extraordinary. I see the hon. member for Heilbron shakes his head. We talk past each other on that subject. However, we criticize very strongly, and will continue to criticize the operation of control boards.

The hon. the Minister of Agriculture will know pretty well that there is considerable criticism of the Meat Board at the moment. However, it is not my intention, during this debate, to go into the Meat Board’s operations in general. Nevertheless, one has to accept that there is tremendous control in the area of the meat trade and that monopolies do exist. The manifestations of their operations are very unpleasant because they do not act in the interests of either the farmer or the consumer, and I believe that it is time that, in terms of the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act, which we passed in this House last year, we should have a good look at these monopolies.

The Competition Board, which was established under that Act, should take a look at, for example, the wine monopoly, the beer monopoly. The fertilizer monopoly would be another good one to look at. All these monopolies have to be looked at because those sorts of monopolies are destroying agriculture. [Interjections.] If we allow it to go on we will be cutting the throat of agriculture. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Malmesbury where, in his motion, he talks about vertical integration. However, it is vertical integration which creates monopolies, and there are also horizontally operating monopolies. It is monopolies we have to look at, because unless we do so the farmer is going to be in even graver difficulties than he is in at the moment. I believe the Jacobs Committee spelled out very clearly just how serious these difficulties were and that the consumer was also going to suffer.

If I may, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us in his reply how he feels about referring the activities of some of these monopolistic operations to the Competition Board.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that a monopoly is not always the wrong thing. If it is applied incorrectly and if it is operating to the benefit of a certain section, then a monopoly can be a bad thing. Later on I shall refer to it. Where does one find a better monopoly than the NP in this House? It is a monopoly and it still has to govern. [Interjections.]

That is the worst example.

One cannot get a better one.

*The motion of the hon. member for Malmesbury deals, in the first place, with the Marketing Act which, to the South African farmer, is a very important protecting Act. He also pointed out certain problems which had arisen, and I want to thank him for that. He is the chairman of the Westelike Graanboere-koöperasie, one of the largest co-operatives in the Cape Province. He knows the industry. I want to tell him that he touched on an important issue, and that is the occupation of the rural areas, not only by Whites, but also by other groups. The hon. member for Wynberg was very concerned about the colour connotation.

The hon. member asked explicitly how one could establish a rural population if one had allowed an intensive industry such as poultry farming, which had developed into a battery system, to disappear to such an extent that we were today no longer able to establish a new Coloured farmer who had little capital, or tell him that he could make a living with 2 000 laying hens. We should look at this whole situation. We should not compare it to circumstances prevailing in the USA. We should look at South Africa’s specific circumstances.

A shift has occurred in poultry farming. In 1970 we passed an Act despite tremendous opposition from the Opposition. When we said that we should have liked to have fair competition, we made one mistake and that was to listen to the farmers in the egg industry. They thanked us for it and said that they had asked for the Act They also asked that we allow a man to withdraw from the industry or to sell his permit when he was getting on in years or in the event of his deciding to discontinue poultry farming. At the moment Premier Milling Company has 1 600 000 hens, Tiger Oats 1 700 000 and Tongaat 500 000. These three companies had to cut down and, like the farmers, they made their contribution. Today they handle about 40% of the total laying-hen production in our country. They have rendered a service. I do not condemn these people. They have supplied concentrated feed. The farmers, however, got into trouble with them, because they ran into debt with the companies and were ultimately taken over by them.

I want to put a clear question to the Opposition. Supposing I were to come to this House with a Bill because we wanted to increase the numbers in agriculture. Let us say it happened that a fertilizer company was making a profit from fertilizer and utilized it to buy land in the Eastern Transvaal, for example, to start farming operations. It would compete with a farmer who earned his living exclusively from agriculture, but the company would be making its profit exclusively from fertilizer and consequently there would be unequal competition. Would those hon. members help me to pass a Bill in this Parliament which provided that the man who wanted to extend his operations in the agricultural industry might do so in our free economic system, but had to make his profits from the agricultural industry, from basic agricultural products? In that case, however, he would not be able to operate by gaining on the roundabouts what he lost on the savings. He would have to be a farmer out and out If those hon. members were to say that they would help me, this matter would be solved.

Now I come to the speech made by the hon. member for Mooi River, who asked me what I was going to do. I say that the person who sells concentrated feed to the egg industry makes a profit of 4c on a dozen eggs by way of concentrated feed, but that the poultry farmer makes a profit of 4c on the egg. But now we have the large company that makes a profit of 4c on the concentrated feed and a profit of 4c on the eggs. It is able to reduce the price of its eggs by 4c and still make a profit of 4c. The poultry farmer, who is entirely dependent on the sale of his eggs, also has to reduce the price of his product by 4c, which leaves him no profit. This is the dilemma in which we find ourselves. Would the Opposition support me if I were to introduce legislation to grant protection …

Let us see the legislation first.

If we do not go into this matter in depth, it could have serious consequences for us. Let us forget about the White farmers for a moment. Let us afford Black, Coloured and Indian farmers the opportunity to farm. By means of legislation we could adopt measures to keep such people in the rural areas. Can the continuation of a situation in which three companies have gained control of an industry, be justified? They may come together and decide to cut the price of their product even further, so as to gain control of the remaining 60% of the industry as well. Subsequently they may increase the price by 10c a dozen.

That is what is happening in any event.

That is what may happen.

It is happening already.

Discussions in this regard have been held in my office and I have told these people that we cannot carry on like this. What may happen once they have the egg industry under their control, is that they will do the same thing with, for example, pigs and fresh milk. One of the country’s largest dairy farmers farms on 7ha. His undertaking is a factory. He purchases everything and his undertaking is fully mechanized. Mechanization is taking place at an increasing rate in all fields of agriculture. We have placed restrictions on the number of hens that may be kept. Since that time a great deal of research has been done and hens have been imported from overseas. Today it is nothing out of the ordinary for a hen to lay 269 eggs per annum. When I became a member of Parliament, the average was only about 200 eggs per annum. The industry has simply developed. These people are wide awake, and I take my hat off to them. The number of laying hens is restricted, but now it happens that azhen becomes available which lays 12 eggs more per annum than its predecessor did. So the number of hens is restricted, but each hen lays much more than before, because the lights in their runs are switched on as well, so that they do not know when it is night-time. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Wynberg referred to increasing interference, but other hon. members, and, to be more specific, the hon. member for Orange Grove, said, “I admit that the Government must have control over certain of these commodities.” There is no increasing Government interference, but protection. Hon. members attack the system of control boards. We readily speak of free enterprise, but what has happened to the products over which absolutely no control is exercised? Hon. members spoke of meat as well, and we shall still have many discussions about meat in this Parliament. The hon. member who dealt with the question of meat unfortunately makes everything he intends saying available to the Press and consequently I know exactly what he is going to say. But it does not matter. The American Department of Agriculture conducts a monthly survey on the prices of agricultural products throughout the world, and South Africa is included in this survey. The results of these surveys are published regularly in the magazine Modern Agriculture and in it they say, “South Africa is the cheapest country to live in in the world.” In the most recent survey there is a comparison of meat prices in all the capitals of the Western world. At the end of November 1 kg of beef cost $19,25 in Berne, $13,1 in Bonn, $13,17 in Brussels, and so on. The average world price is $11,36. In Washington, which is situated in the land of plenty, a kilogram of beef cost $8,3, while in Pretoria, of all places, it cost only $5,16—in other words, far below average. The price of this product is controlled by a board. As far as the price of hens’ eggs, which is also controlled in South Africa, is concerned, the price per dozen is $2,26 in Berne and $2,4 in Copenhagen. The world average is $1,42, but in Pretoria a dozen eggs cost 76c. These are not my figures; they are America’s figures which are seen by the United Nations. The price of bread is ridiculous. In Berne bread costs $1,95.

What is the income of the people there?

Sir, that is not the point. I am dealing with the control system. The average price of bread is $1,07.

†In Pretoria the price of a loaf of white bread is, in American cents, 35 cents—by far the lowest price. [Interjections.]

*I know it is not pleasant to hear these things, but I merely want to make my point. Now I want to deal with only one product which is not controlled, and that is coffee. Coffee is in the hands of the free market system. The coffee that I drink is black, I add milk. That coffee costs $3,68 in Bonn. The Mexican pays $3,73 for his coffee. In Washington coffee costs $5,37. The average world price for coffee is $7,91. That is in a free economy. South Africa’s coffee is the most expensive in the world, viz. $10,44. [Interjections.] It is not controlled. We do not have a coffee control board. [Interjections.]

How much duty does your Government levy on imported coffee?

It is an ordinary customs duty that is levied. [Interjections.] It is not subject to a special customs duty.

†All the countries in the world take levies.

You are bluffing the public.

I am not bluffing the public.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he has not just now proved that the control boards have not done their job in terms of the farmer, but that the control boards have kept the price down for and on behalf of the contributor. [Interjections.]

Which way must I turn now? [Interjections.] The hon. member says I am bluffing the public. I do not have time to discuss all these things now, but the difference between the price which the American, the British or the European farmer receives, and the price the consumer pays, is appalling. In my view the South African farmers’ prices must increase in the prevailing conditions of inflation. I merely wanted to illustrate that the argument that our system of control boards is a monstrosity—as it is described from time to time—is unfounded. The Marketing Council consists of top people who advise me.

As far as the control boards are concerned, sneering references are made to the hon. member for Carletonville in his capacity as chairman of the Maize Board. Do you know what has happened, Sir? There are some countries that tell us that they do not want to buy from our dealers. It should be borne in mind that we control the price of maize only up to the stage where the consumer gets it.

†There is no control on the retail price of maize products. The miller can charge any price because we feel he has enough competition, and the overseas selling is done by agents, by private enterprise.

*There are countries, however, who want to buy direct from the Maize Board and who are prepared to pay a premium of R15 per ton above the world price, because they say that they know, in the first place, that South Africa’s maize is sunripened and that they may be sure, when they buy first-grade maize, that the product is indeed first grade. The private agent, however, mixes second-grade and first-grade products, but South Africa’s Maize Board supplies what has been asked. Our reputation is at stake. As a result of our system of control boards we are popular on the world market today.

The hon. member for Wynberg referred to Vetsak merely because it is a co-operative.

There are various co-operatives, and I support them.

Sir, the hon. member said Vetsak was a co-operative that was doing the wrong thing because it was entering the manufacturing sector. The co-operative is as much a free an economic undertaking as a company, but in this case 100 farmers come together and said they were in financial difficulties and wanted bargaining power. They said, “Let us buy jointly and the profit we make, we divide among our 100 members.” This is the co-operative idea. But where has the largest measure of integration taken place in our country? I have never had an axe to grind with Anglo American and the same applies to Volkskas. The same applies to many other companies. Is there one of us on this side of the House who has ever vented his spleen because Anglo American has interests in gold, diamonds, platinum, chrome, timber, road construction and insurance? Name only one thing in which it is not engaged. I have never opposed them on that score.

What are you doing about it?

They are engaged in agriculture. Soetvelde is part of Anglo American, but now the co-operative Vetsak is not to be allowed to build a tractor for me. No, that is pernicious. The hon. member said that in so many words.

What taxes does Vetsak pay? [Interjections.]

Order!

That hon. member was not present when the arguments were advanced. Now he knows absolutely nothing. He slept his fill this morning and now he comes to argue here.

There are so many matters to which I have to reply that I should now like to come to the hon. member for Carletonville. I wholeheartedly agree with the points raised by the hon. member for Carletonville. The hon. member for Mooi River said, “There must be Government protection and interference in agriculture.”

†I fully agree with him. The hon. member also quoted a lot of statistics. In November I had a discussion with the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Bob Bergland, of the USA in Washington, and he referred to statistics. He was a very interesting man and he said he believed in statistics. He said that an expert on statistics had recently told him that every third baby that is born in the world is a Chinese. In other words, a person should only have two children.

*That is his belief in statistics. One can juggle with statistics to one’s heart’s content.

During the discussion of the Agriculture Vote hon. members will have to know the hard facts in order to understand what the hon. member for Heilbron meant with regard to the co-operative system and the Marketing Act. He deals with these things every day.

The hon. member for Mooi River gives me courage, because he is concerned about the population on the platteland.

†All the measures that the Government has taken are aimed at endeavouring to keep the people on the platteland.

*The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South referred to bran and pollard. It is a free enterprise. The bran and the pollard are in the hands of the concentrated feed company because it owns the mill. Now the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is unable to obtain bran and pollard. My reply to him is this. Tell the farmers of Pietermaritzburg South to unite in a co-operative and I shall see to it that they obtain a milling licence. Then they will receive their allocation of maize and wheat to mill. Then they will have their pollard. Surely the farmers can do this on a co-operative basis. This kind of thing does not happen to the co-operatives.

†He also wants the Meat Board to be investigated. I am all for an investigation, but the hon. member must tell me what we must investigate. We are involved in a court case at the moment.

* Things went wrong. The marketing pressure is decreasing. And who is angry about the marketing of sheep with a permit? The private agent, my friend! He used to receive a quota and now the agent is sitting with that quota The agent goes to an auction, he buys the farmer’s sheep at his price, but he has the quota, the access to the controlled market, and he scores twice. He scores at the auction and he scores on the controlled market as well. Of course the people were furious when we said that there would be a 100% permit system. Now, however, the marketing pressure has decreased. There is a temporary shortage. I foresee that there will be no problem at the Maitland abattoir in March to market to one’s heart’s content, if we return to the quota system. The farmers are asking for a gradual quota system to regulate the market When they arrive there on a Monday morning, there are 20 000 sheep there and they do not know where to go with the animals. There must be a system of that kind.

It is impossible, however, to reply to everybody’s questions now. The hon. member for Orange Grove spoke of the “co-operative monopolies”.

†There are certain co-operatives, of course, like the tobacco co-operative to whom one must sell, and that is a monopolistic system, but that is still far better than having a private company with six directors taking all the profit; either have a private company or all the members of the co-op sharing in the profits of the co-op.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendment lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, in moving this motion, I wish to remind the House of two things. Firstly, that in introducing the measure that legalized the tapping of telephones and the interception of mail in 1972 in the RSA, the then hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs assured the House that, in framing the Bill, close attention had been given to the safeguards laid down by the Potgieter Commission to ensure that interception should be restricted to matters which have an actual connection with the security of the State and that there should be no interference with the private conduct of persons, their business activities or political views, except in so far as those are of a subversive nature. I want to stress that. It is very important that we remember that it is only under those conditions that the Bill was framed which enabled legalized telephone tapping and the interception of mail to take place in the Republic.

Secondly, I wish to remind the House that I, as a member of Parliament, like other hon. members of this House, have sworn an oath of allegiance to the RSA. It is my contention that the Government has blatantly ignored the undertaking it gave in 1972, has been abusing the powers it took under section 118 A of the Post Office Act and has been interfering with the private conduct of persons and with political views.

As one who has been singled out for special attention, I believe that I, and other hon. members of the House who have been singled out, are entitled to redress. That redress can only be obtained by the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into this matter.

I do not believe that it is necessary for me once again to produce to the House the proof that my mail, both incoming and outgoing, has for years been intercepted by Boss and Dons. I have shown the House, during the no-confidence debate, copies of files bearing my name any my number (W/V [Wit vrou] 24596). [Interjections.] That is the number of my file. Those files are clearly security files and contain, not just the sort of information which the Prime Minister informed us during the no-confidence debate, was kept on all sorts of people, including himself, but also copies of letters, of my personal correspondence, material that could only have been obtained if my mail was being monitored and intercepted. In any case, both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Minister of National Security have admitted that my mail is intercepted. Both of them admitted it in the speeches which they made on 6 and 7 February of this year. I have the speeches with me if they want me to quote it chapter and verse.

I challenge you to quote it.

The hon. the Prime Minister produced a letter which had been intercepted and which came from my house. Surely, that in itself … [Interjections.]

I challenge you to quote the admission.

I will come back to that in a minute. [Interjections.] There are first some questions to be answered and I will give the hon. the Deputy Minister chapter and verse in a moment. The questions that still have to be answered are, why is my mail being intercepted, what sort of letters are intercepted and who is doing the interception? With regard to why my mail is being intercepted, that is a question that only the person who, in terms of section 118(A) of the Post Office Act, asked for the interception, and the functionary who in terms of the same Act granted authority for the interception of my mail, can answer. A Select Committee of Parliament would, of course, elicit that answer, and it would, presumably, elicit that answer under oath. I believe that the grounds on which interception was requested would also, in terms of section 118(A), have to be produced to a Select Committee. With regard to the question of what sort of letters were intercepted, in other words whether they were of a subversive nature or not, which is the only sort of mail that can lawfully be intercepted in this country, is a question that I can answer, because I have a few such letters with me. The hon. the Prime Minister said in the no-confidence debate, as contained in his unrevised Hansard, W.l and W.2 of 6 February, and in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech of the following day, that telephone calls and post are only intercepted when it is necessary in the interests of maintaining the security of the State, which is, of course, laid down in section 118(A) of the Post Office Act. The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say that it was the biggest nonsense in the world to accuse the security services of being snoopers, the word I had used. He said that they had too much work than to run around like a lot of fish-wives collecting rubbish. Have they indeed!

Let us take a look at what they do spend their time on. I have in front of me some more specimens of my intercepted mail. I have exhibits of letters which show the itinerary of a visit which I paid to the USA in 1978. There are portions of this letter which show the arrangements which I had made and the contacts which I was going to make at universities such as Columbia, Princeton, Denison College, at the Centre for International Affairs at Atlanta and so on. All this information, it is stated, was obtained via operation “Knoopsgat”, which, as we know, is the operation for the interception of mail. It is not to be confused with operation “Hanslam”, which is the operation whereby telephones are tapped, in case hon. members are not aware of that. All of these letters enjoyed the attention of the regional representative of the Department of National Security. His stamp is on these letters. I also have a letter from the secretary of a gentleman at the University of Indiana informing me that this gentleman would be coming to South Africa in May 1979. That letter enjoyed the attention of only the deputy regional representative of the Department of National Security. That letter was considered second-grade stuff. But worthy of the regional representative’s personal attention was a letter from the Dean of the School of International Studies at Columbia University which enclosed a statement on the university’s position re its investments in South Africa, which I may say is a published document that anybody can obtain at any time. It is not a secret document at all. A copy of that was actually sent to the Security Police in Johannesburg. Also worthy of the attention of the regional representative was a letter I received from the head of the Department of Government at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts, discussing the lectures that I was to give there a few months later. This, however, did not rate a copy to the Security Police in Johannesburg. Finally, I have the pièce de résistance—yet another Churchill letter! This time it was a letter from me to him which was written way back in 1976, and this letter really received VIP treatment. Copies were sent flying around to everybody. It is stamped by no less than two other security men, as well as by the regional representative. This is big stuff, Sir, because out of this letter to Mr. Churchill is extracted the information that I think Matan-zima is going to turn into a mini-Amin and that there is a lot of trouble brewing in Southern Africa and in Rhodesia—all of course very original thoughts. They are, however, worthy of the attention of the regional representative and various others.

I think those are all very significant as far as the security of South Africa is concerned. I hope that the taxpayers of the Republic appreciate how well their money is spent in guarding South Africa’s security. If this is the sort of stuff the security services are spending their time on, all I can say is that in South Africa one half of the population must spend its time spying on the other half of the population, and at vast cost.

Sir, I want to know who is intercepting my mail. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications told the House on 8 February that the report he had called for from the Postmaster-General had established that neither my mail nor my telephone calls, nor those of any other MP, were being intercepted through his department.

I said no request was made.

Right. No request was made and it was not being done—am I right? It is not being done.

That is a qualified assurance.

Sir, much to the hon. the Minister’s surprise I want to tell him I accept that assurance. I accept it mainly because the assurance came not from the Minister but from the Postmaster General, if he really wants to know. [Interjections.]

Order! Is that not a reflection on the Minister?

It may well be, Sir, and I withdraw it. It was meant as a reflection.

Sir, who made the request in terms of section 118A? Somebody had to. The hon. the Minister will admit that in terms of the law somebody must make a request—and that request must come from somebody who is appointed by the Security Council—which must be made to a functionary, who can be the Minister of National Security, any Minister who sits on the Security Council, or the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications or someone to whom he delegates that authority. Those are the only people who can grant the authority. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications says it was not himself, the Postmaster General or anyone to whom he delegated authority. I want to know “who dunnit”. If the previous hon. Minister of Police was here, I would of course not even need to ask, because I would know “who dunnit”. I am sorry that the present hon. Minister of Police is not in the House this afternoon because I would have asked him point blank whether he did it.

He is busy doing it.

Maybe he is busy doing it. “Who dunnit?”

Everybody is doing it.

I should like someone to admit “who dunnit”. If they do not have the guts to stand up in the House and say they did it, I want them to appear before a Select Committee to deny under oath that they did it, because that is the only way I can get redress. I also want to know on what grounds this was done, because section 118A lays down that the grounds must be set down in writing stating why it is considered in the interests of the security of the State that anybody’s mail, including that of MPs, should be intercepted and that telephones may be tapped, again including those of MPs.

Sir, these questions happen to interest me very much indeed, because I happen to have been singled out for special attention. I was expressly excluded from the assurance given by the hon. the Prime Minister on 6 February—on page V. 1 of the original Hansard—that “at the moment”, “op die oomblik”—those are very, very significant words, Sir—“no hon. member in this House is enjoying the unfavourable attention of the department”. Then he continued: “I cannot give this assurance in respect of the correspondents of the hon. member for Houghton? What was the reason given, and enlarged on by the Deputy Minister of National Security in his speech? The reason given was that someone who, and I quote, “volgens ons inligting ’n lid is van ’n vreemde intelligen-siediens”, used my letterheads, and it was claimed, wrote my name on the back of the letter and signed his name on the letter itself. Of course, the burning question is why that letter was opened in the first instance. How did anybody know that somebody else had signed his name inside that letter?

X-ray eyes.

Therefore my letters were being opened, and both the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister … [Interjections.]

Quite obvious.

The Prime Minister added darkly: If you want to communicate with the devil, use his postal facilities or allow him to use your postal facilities or your letterheads.

The Deputy Minister gave us the next instalment of this thrilling serial by quoting an excerpt from a letter written by this alleged agent of a foreign intelligence service, a person whom he called Mr. X, and told us that Mr. X had been exposed by Robert Molteno, a former lecturer at the University of Zambia at a UN-sponsored conference held at Dar es Salaam in 1975. The Deputy Minister added that this man was also identified as an agent in two more pro-African publications, The African Youth Movement and Covert Action. He asked me to inform the House whether I was aware of the goings-on of Mr. X and my letterheads. I said “no”, because by the wildest stretch of the imagination, I certainly could not imagine that the subversive agent of a foreign spy service, who “used the names of important people to prevent interception”, could possibly be the man I have now identified positively as Prof. Rotberg, Professor of Political Science at M.I.T., an old friend of mine who has been a house guest of mine on several occasions and in whose house I have stayed in the United States.

The whole thing is one huge giggle. He is as much CIA as the hon. the Minister for Tourism and Statistics.

How do you know he is not?

Prof. Rotberg used my letterhead with my permission and with my knowledge. He used an air letter card, and I have the contents of the letter here. He did not sign my name on the back. It is printed on the back of the letter, because that is how I have my air letter cards done. I have them overprinted with my address inside and my name and address on the back to make it easier for the special branch to open my letters. That is the main reason why I do so. [Interjections.] I am not going to have time to read the contents of this letter. The contents are absolutely innocent, including the reference to secret films, which is a joke, because dozens of us saw those secret films. There was The Story of Sandra Laing, Soweto for Six Days and The Sugar Industry in Natal. They were ITV films that were shown legally all over South Africa. There was nothing secret about them.

Do you agree that they were most subtle and powerful?

They were shown privately. It does not matter what my opinion was. The fact is that dozens of us saw them. I saw them, in fact with Prof. Rotberg. A great many of us saw them, so there was nothing secret about them at all.

Thousands of people saw them.

I make this letter available to the Press and to any hon. member of the House who wishes to read it. I table it, in other words. I am certainly going to table it As I have said, the whole thing is a huge giggle. That man was as much a member of the CIA as the hon. the Minister of Tourism and Statistics who is glaring at me from across the House.

You never know about him.

On whose say-so did the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the security branch accept that this man is a secret agent? On the say-so of a man who is a self-acknowledged supporter of the far left and who was expelled from Zambia for leading demonstrations against President Kaunda when Kaunda was supporting Unita in Angola, something I understand South Africa was doing too. Molteno, in fact, made allegations against a large number of US academics, the same sort of allegations that he made against Prof. Rotberg, all later discredited. I think it is very odd that everybody on that side should accept, without question, Molteno’s allegations, because over and over again he has been refused a passport by South Africa, whilst Prof. Rotberg has been in and out of South Africa several times and was a member of the Quail Commission. I also think it odd that the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister accept the allegations of muck-raking, far-left papers like Covert and the other one, African Youth Movement of which, I may say, no one has ever heard before. Talk about supping with the devil! I cannot give hon. members the original letter from Prof. Rotberg. This is a copy, I must tell hon. members, and I had it typed onto one of my letter cards. I had it telexed from the United States. I did not dare have the original sent through the post because who knows what would have happened to it. I probably would never have got it.

Is that a telex?

I shall get it, the original, however, for the hon. the Deputy Minister, if he wants it.

Do you check those too?

I prefer to accept Prof. Rotberg’s word that he is not, and never has been, a foreign agent. What happened, of course—and I finally wind up—is that the defector McGiven exposed all the dirty tricks that this Government has been up to, and my name was mentioned in dispatches. It was quite clear, however, that I would not allow such a slur on my integrity to go unchallenged.

There was then a frantic scrabbling around in the file of “Wit vrou 24596“, and all that anybody could come up with, was Prof. Rotberg’s letter to his family. I have said the whole thing is a huge giggle. However, it is not really so, of course. It is not so, if one stops to think that it is on that sort of flimsy evidence produced by the Security Services that hundreds of people in South Africa have been banned, restricted and put under house arrest over the years, with no recourse to the courts of law and having been given no opportunity of knowing the accusations against them. [Interjections.] Indeed, I too would not have known the accusations against me if McGiven had not defected and revealed all to the Observer in London. I also would not have been given any opportunity of refuting the accusations against me. I wonder how many people have been banned, in fact, on evidence produced by McGiven himself. That would be an interesting thing to know.

Yes.

Order!

I hope the Rabie Commission will be taking good note of this whole fiasco.

The other reason why my sense of humour fails me—and why I do not really think this is a giggle—is that I cannot underst, if the Security Services really believe that I was an unwitting tool of a foreign agent—and do not forget that this letter is dated January 1978—why I was not warned. Why was I not warned? I am a long-standing senior member of Parliament and I have responsibilities towards my electorate. I want an answer to that question before this debate ends. I am entitled to an answer. [Interjections.]

There are also other answers that I want. Why was my mail intercepted in the first instance? Is it still being intercepted? If it is still being intercepted, on what grounds is that being done? Why, finally, if it is suspected that I have been or that I am a witting tool of foreign agents, has the hon. the Minister of Justice not used one of the many laws at his disposal to charge me? Why not? I think that is a grave dereliction of duty on his part. I want to point out that the most reckless, baseless, malicious accusations have been made against Prof. Rotberg. The hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister, the Security Services and the Government as a whole owe him an apology.

As for me, this is not the first time in this House that the hon. the Prime Minister has made wild and unsubstantiated accusations against me. In 1966, indeed, he was asked by Speaker Klopper to apologize to me. I do not ask an apology from him this time. I ask him to have the courage to put his dastardly accusations and innuendoes to the test of a Select Committee of this House, which will have a majority of NP members on it. That just shows what faith I have in the integrity of hon. members opposite! [Interjections.] Well, I am prepared to put it to the test. I am prepared to let my peers see if they can find one single shred of evidence which they can use against me. I challenge the hon. the Prime Minister to do that.

They do not have the guts. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to give evidence on oath. I should also like the functionary who granted authority for the interception of my mail to give evidence under oath. I should also like the individual, whoever it was, who made the request for my mail to be intercepted, to be called to give evidence under oath. Only in that way, I believe, will the slur that has been cast on my integrity, be removed.

Mr. Speaker, what surprises me about the speech of the hon. member for Houghton is that she did not discuss her motion at all. She asks that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on certain circumstances. However, she devoted her entire speech to stressing the fact that she was an innocent member of Parliament, that no blame could be attached to her, that her integrity could not be doubted and so forth. [Interjections.]

Order!

She did not ask for the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate her behaviour or her integrity. She knows that the hon. the Prime Minister as well as the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence and of National Security have assured her that she was not under surveillance and that her integrity was in no way questioned or in doubt. However, the assurance that could not be given was in connection with the “correspondents” and not the “correspondence” of the hon. member for Houghton. There are certain people whose activities are being investigated by the Department of National Security. They are the targets, not the hon. member for Houghton or any other hon. member of this House.

The hon. member for Houghton could very easily have cleared up this dreadful point at issue that she has raised today had she risen on a point of personal explanation during the no-confidence debate and explained the circumstances under which Mr. X, namely Prof. Rotberg, had gained possession of that correspondence. However, she knows nothing about that.

During her speech the previous day she said that she had received a letter from an American professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. When the hon. the Prime Minister referred to this, she expressed complete ignorance of the whole matter. She did not know what the hon. the Prime Minister was talking about. She denied it.

A day passed and the following day, on 7 February, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence and of National Security entered the debate and raised the same subject. However, the hon. member for Houghton again denied that she knew anything about it. She said: “I do not believe a word of it.” As far as she was concerned, the penny had not yet dropped that they were referring to a letter she had received and about which she knew. Although the whole matter had assumed such proportions that the Sunday newspapers were speculating as to who this Mr. X. could be, nevertheless the hon. member for Houghton did not realize what it was all about.

†Then suddenly, on 13 February, according to The Argus and now according to her own speech, she admitted that Prof. Robert Rotberg had used her letterhead while he was a house guest, doing so with her knowledge and with her permission. [Interjections.] What does that mean? Why does she deny it?

Order! I just want to point out to hon. members that the hon. member for Houghton was listened to with a great deal of respect and silence, and I expect them to do the same. If hon. members go out of order, I shall call them to order. The hon. member may proceed.

Notwithstanding the fact that both the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister took pains to assure her that she was not under scrutiny and that they were trying their utmost to protect her from her own folly, she persisted in rejecting their assurances.

What folly?

She did it to such an extent that she had to leave the Chamber on two occasions. She previously said that she had not been warned. In other circumstances and in other cases she was warned that she had been keeping unsavoury company. She will recall that the previous Minister of Police drew her attention to the fact that she wrote to him, asking him whether certain persons were held in custody under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. One of these persons mentioned in the letter was not even known to the police and thus her friends obtained very valuable information. Does she remember that? Did she take any notice of those warnings?

Order! Does the hon. member say that the hon. member was warned that she was keeping unsavoury company?

No, Mr. Speaker, she was warned by the previous Minister of Police that she was an unwitting tool in the hands of people who were enemies of South Africa, but she took no notice of it.

I stopped seeing you. [Interjections.]

She says that Prof. Rotberg is as much a foreign agent as Jaap Marais is a member of the PFP. The way in which she is taking him under her maternal wing makes me doubt whether that is so. One also wonders whether she has a list of all the foreign agents active in and against South Africa. The hon. member says she is a great friend of Prof. Rotberg, the person who used her letterheads, but does she want to tell this hon. House that she does not know that Prof. Rotberg is a bitter enemy of South Africa? Other hon. members on this side of the House will provide further details about Prof. Rotberg. All I want to say is that he is a person who is an ardent advocate of Black and White polarization in South Africa He was kicked out of Rhodesia and, inter alia, he is actively engaged in trying to persuade overseas companies not to invest in South Africa Has the hon. member seen the film “Last Grave at Dimbaza”? Did she notice the names of the companies involved in the making of that film?

So what? What has that got to do with it?

Prof. Rotberg has publicly declared his support for Swapo and Joshua Nkomo. He is the type of person who has to be carefully watched when he is in South Africa. Therefore, if it so happens that a document of his comes into the possession of the Department of National Security that is not something that results in authority being given for the mail from and to members of Parliament to be intercepted. Rotberg is the target in that event. Cannot the hon. member understand that? She has been given that assurance repeatedly.

Why does the hon. member ask for the appointment of a Select Committee? The hon. member does not ask for the appointment of a Select Committee in connection with a casual letter addressed to or by her. Her objective is the National Intelligence Service of South Africa. That is the service that she wants to have exposed and rendered impotent. But the hon. the Prime Minister has already indicated very clearly that he refuses to allow what happened to the CIA to happen to our intelligence service. I think, therefore, that in view of the onslaughts that are being made against South Africa these days, it would have been more fitting had the hon. member for Houghton paid tribute to the intelligence and security services of South Africa for their efficiency.

As far as this is concerned, it is in the first place important that we note what learned writers have written about the catastrophe that befell the USA in that the intelligence capability of the CIA was undermined by means of legislative powers, by Congress and as a result of executive action. That was why the Americans were stunned by the traumatic occurrences in Iran and why the members of Congress were dumbfounded when it became known in September 1979 that there were Soviet troops in Cuba It was Machiavelli who said the following—

That means that a country simply has to have an external and an internal intelligence service. But what is more, it has to be a secret service. I read a book recently by William Stevenson called A Man called Intrepid. In it he deals in detail with the manner in which the British Security Co-ordination contributed to the victory of the Allies in World War II. He says the following in the foreword—

That is what the hon. member for Houghton wants. However, there is another writer, Mr. David Rees, to whom the hon. the Prime Minister referred during the no-confidence debate. In an article entitled “The Institute for the Study of Conflict” he says the following—

During the time of the Watergate scandal there were continual leakages to the Press, so much so that William Colby had this to say before the House Appropriation Committee—

In contrast to this, the Soviet Union places the greatest emphasis on secrecy as far as its endeavours to achieve world domination are concerned.

What are the facts before us? In the first place there is a well-organized and co-ordinated intelligence network in the Republic of South Africa. In the second place, every hon. member of this House is aware of the fact that South Africa is threatened by the hungry bear and its cubs in the form of the expansionist urge of Soviet colonialism. In the third place it is essential that we continue gathering information and evaluating it. In the fourth place it is essential that such an intelligence service operate in secret. In the fifth place the position is that the hon. the Prime Minister himself has given the assurance to the hon. member that no hon. member is receiving the unfavourable attention of the department. In the sixth place this does not mean—and I trust the hon. member appreciates the difference—that the correspondents of hon. members do not receive attention from time to time. [Interjections.] For these reasons there is no justification whatsoever for the adoption of this motion and I reject it.

Order! I want to draw hon. members’ attention to the wording of the motion and ask them to confine themselves to discussing it as far as possible.

Mr. Speaker, we in the NRP will support the motion by the hon. member for Houghton for reasons which I think will become obvious as time goes by. [Interjections.]

May I say that I regard the assertion by the hon. member for Brakpan, that the hon. member for Houghton is merely asking for a Select Committee in order to attack the Security and Intelligence Services of South Africa, as a direct onslaught on the integrity and the loyalty of the hon. member for Houghton towards this Parliament? That in itself would, to my mind, be sufficient reason for a Select Committee to be established. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Brakpan has gone to great lengths to explain to us what happens when a security service of this nature, the secret intelligence gathering service is exposed. We have seen it happen to the CIA and we are aware of the danger involved, but to say that an hon. member of this House is deliberately going out of her way to demand a Select Committee in order to carry out that activity here, in our country, to my mind goes very much further than the facts. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he, in fact, takes the same attitude, and whether he regards the activity and the request for this motion in this Parliament by an hon. member of this Parliament—it is perfectly proper for an hon. member to demand a Select Committee at anytime to clear the name of the member—as part of the situation in which the hon. member for Houghton is going out of her way to destroy the security services of South Africa. Let us look at what has happened. What were the facts that were laid before the House? The facts that were laid before the House were that a letter had been intercepted. An unnamed person, Mr. X, had posted a letter with the name of the hon. member for Houghton on the back of the envelope.

They said “written”.

It was purported to have been written by the hon. member for Houghton, but whether it was signed by the hon. member for Houghton certainly, to my mind, is not a matter that has been cleared up. Where the letter was intercepted was also not cleared up. To the best of my knowledge, at no time was it stated that the letter was intercepted here in South Africa. The question that rose in my mind was whether the letter might not have been intercepted somewhere else. That raises the question as to where the interception of this mail takes place. However, it has now been quite clearly established that this was the outgoing mail of the hon. member for Houghton, a member of the public as well as an hon. member of this House. I ask whether, at any stage, the hon. the Deputy Minister has said that the hon. member for Houghton wittingly encouraged this person to use her mail for the purpose of avoiding interception by the Security Services of South Africa. If the hon. the Deputy Minister has not said so, I do not understand the reason why the matter was raised in this debate or in the previous debate at all. The only reason why this matter could have been raised was to say that the hon. member for Houghton was deliberately conniving at a situation whereby information could be sent out of the country, information which was detrimental and harmful to South Africa. [Interjections.] I am asking the hon. the Deputy Minister because that, in effect, is the insinuation that was made. I should like to ask this in the interest of Parliament as a whole because every single hon. member in this House is involved. I am not convinced, in my own mind, that the motion of the hon. member for Houghton goes far enough in asking for a review of the rights of members of Parliament, especially as we are moving today into a situation of multi-parliaments. I believe that it is absolutely essential that Parliament should appoint a Select Committee to look calmly and quietly into the rights of members as they are going to be affected by different Parliaments and by what we are told will be a worsening security situation. I should hate to feel that I myself, and any other hon. member of this House, could be in a situation where firstly, our loyalty is called into question by reason of the interception of our mail and, secondly, that we do not have the absolutely free and untrammelled right to correspond with whom we please, wherever it might happen to be. The task of hon. members of this House is to be forewarned and fore-armed and to know what is going on in the outside world.

That is exactly what we are doing.

But when we are told that outgoing correspondence of members of this House is being monitored …

Give the name of a member of Parliament.

How does anybody know? Let me ask the hon. the Deputy Minister. If a letter is posted in my envelope, with my name and address on the back, how does the hon. the Deputy Minister then know that the letter has been written by somebody else unless, as a matter of regular practice, my mail is being intercepted? [Interjections.] How does it happen that in all the correspondence that I handle only one or two letters are intercepted or picked up? It cannot happen that only two letters are picked up unless, as a matter of course, all the correspondence that I address to people inside and outside South Africa is being intercepted. It is not good enough. I understand the point that has been made by the hon. the Deputy Minister, i.e. that there are people who are known to our Security Service, people who are inimical to South Africa. He and I may well differ about whether certain people are inimical or not or whether they are subversive or not. It is a matter of personal opinion as to what the people are engaged in. Whether advocating disinvestment in South Africa is something we have to decry or not, is a matter we can argue about.

I can understand the point he is making: That there are people outside South Africa on whom the security people must keep an eye. For that purpose I believe it is entirely legitimate that mail coming into the country from those people, however it may be identified, can legitimately be intercepted. I cannot and do not believe that any hon. member in this House can willingly and wittingly allow that his activity as an MP be restricted in the fashion in which it has happened and has now been revealed to have happened. Worse than that, I cannot understand how it can happen that in a debate in the House, the no-confidence debate, this matter could be brought up in a side-long fashion, without the members having the courage to say what they apparently believe. That the hon. member for Houghton is a security risk in South Africa. If they are prepared to say that, let them say it straight out, right here and now. [Interjections.] Then one will have every right to a Select Committee granted by the House. They have not said so. There have merely been hints, straws thrown in the wind to blow where they will, and people can make any conclusions they like.

I therefore believe there are two grounds of justification for this motion to be accepted: Firstly the right of the hon. member for Houghton and secondly, even more so, the right of every member of the House to establish in a Select Committee the pattern of the future under which this and future Parliaments are going to serve and to establish what are the rights of MPs in relation to a security situation such as we have now. The NRP will support the motion.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House, will try to discuss this motion calmly and as objectively as possible. In her motion the hon. member for Houghton asks for a Select Committee to, as she put it—

What evidence do we have before the House which could possibly serve as justification for requesting such a Select Committee? It is generally known that a traitor, McGiven, who worked for the Information Service, went overseas. He obviously stole documents and made these documents available abroad. If it is true, as the hon. member for Houghton asserts, that the security services of South Africa have been tapping her telephone conversations for years and intercepting all her mail, could it not be possible that Mr. McGiven—if he merits the title of “Mr.”—could have stolen much more evidence than the one letter from the bosom friend of the hon. member for Houghton, whom she has now identified for us as Prof. Rotberg? This is the only evidence which McGiven has brought to light and which the official Opposition is now using as justification to ask for a Select Committee.

This afternoon the hon. member for Houghton accepted the assurance by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications that no authorization had been asked and therefore, none given to intercept her mail.

You must read the Act.

What were the facts? Surely it is not impossible that the bosom friend of the hon. member for Houghton, Prof. Rotberg, could have been the target of our Intelligence Service. If this is the case, it is normal that our Intelligence Service will and should be interested in mail addressed to him.

Who is this man Rotberg? We have tried to investigate his record briefly, and there is evidence that the bosom friend of the hon. member for Houghton attempted to infiltrate the so-called liberation movements at the University of Lusaka under the cover of scientific research. The hon. member for Houghton is now rejecting the evidence of Molteno and says we are now taking sides with the devil, but as sure as the sun is shining outside, if this man Molteno had made an accusation against South Africa, the hon. member for Houghton would gladly have accepted it.

If we look further at the bosom friend of the hon. member for Houghton, Prof. Rotberg, we find that this man is serving on the editorial board of a certain magazine which is published in America under the title Africa Today. This is one of the most viciously anti-South African magazines directed against South Africa. Prof. Rotberg serves on the editorial board of this magazine, and who else are contributors of Africa Today? Perhaps the hon. member for Houghton knows, or perhaps she does not know. One of them is Mr. Dennis Brutus, of Sanroc-fame, who did everything within his power to harm South Africa abroad. Mr. Dennis Brutus is also one of Prof. Rotberg’s kindred spirits. Furthermore it is a fact that Africa Today is a publication established by the American Committee on Africa. This publication is not aimed at an objective study of the position of South Africa; it has only one purpose and that is to make South Africa’s position abroad as difficult as possible.

During the past few days we have received further evidence about Prof. Rotberg, the bosom friend of the hon. member for Houghton. He was a member of the Quail Commission which had to investigate the possible independence of the Ciskei. What role did this very learned, objective, scientific bosom friend of the hon. member play there? Let us look at the comment by the Chief Minister of the Ciskei, Mr. Sebe, yesterday, about the role played by Prof. Rotberg. In this regard I want to quote from the Daily Despatch of 14 February. Mr. Sebe says that Mr. Rotberg submitted an additional finding, apart from the finding by the other members of the Quail Commission about the Ciskei. Mr. Sebe quite rightly complains that this so-called objective scientist submitted a finding about the Ciskei without enabling the Government of the Ciskei to put their side of the case or affording them any opportunity to do so. What does Mr. Sebe say with regard to the report by Prof. Rotberg? I quote—

Order! The hon. member must deal more specifically with the motion.

Very well, Mr. Speaker.

The position is that the activities of Mr. Rotberg in Southern Africa, whom the hon. member for Houghton identified for us, were of such a nature that he had necessarily to come to the attention of the Security Service of South Africa If in those circumstances a letter addressed to him were to come into the hands of the Security Service, there is no fault to be found with that.

In conclusion, I should like to agree with the hon. member for Brakpan that we in South Africa cannot allow the Intelligence Service of South Africa, that is at present facing a total onslaught from abroad, to be hindered, nor its methods of operation publicized so that our enemies can know what we are doing. We cannot allow this service of ours to be weakened in any way. Only last night on television we had an Israeli from Israel telling us that in the bitter struggle …

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

No, Sir, my time has almost expired. Only last night we heard on television from an Israeli that the Israeli’s could not win the bitter struggle against terrorists and invaders across their northern border by force of arms, but only because they had a sound intelligence service so as to be constantly abreast of the plans and intentions of their enemies. Therefore it is in the interest of South Africa that we should expand, protect and look after our intelligence service. For that reason we reject the motion by the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Speaker, if ever we needed assurance and confirmation that the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister, in the stance they took in the no-confidence debate, were completely bankrupt, we now have it, having listened to the first two main speakers on that side of the House who have done nothing else but to avoid the major issue facing the House at the present time.

They have slithered from innuendo to innuendo.

Order!

That is right. Mr. Speaker, I want to say immediately that if it is remotely true, which I do not believe for a moment, that Prof. Rotberg was in any way associated with some secret service of another country, then I believe the security of our country is in very bad hands, because year after year he has been granted a visa to enter South Africa. Year after year he has met not only with the hon. member for Houghton, but with Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Minister, discussing the policies and the views of this country towards other countries. Were there tape-recordings made of what took place in their offices? Were their telephones tapped? Were their letters opened when they were in correspondence with Prof. Rotberg? It is a lot of absolute nonsense, Sir. Let these accusations be made outside the House. Then we shall see who will have the last laugh.

The hon. member for Brakpan said the hon. member for Houghton had been assured again and again that her integrity as a member of the House is not in question.

And she accepts that.

What an absolute lot of nonsense. We have heard nothing else but innuendoes and insinuations from almost every single member on that side of the House against this hon. member. That is why she is seeking redress, and I think it is absolutely right.

She is not asking for redress.

The hon. member said that it is not her correspondence that is involved, but the people who wrote to her. However, the one letter in question came from her home. What is more, the hon. member for Barberton said that only one little letter had been mentioned. Sir, we simply do not have the time to mention all the letters involved, but I have in my hand here two letters, coming from the house of the hon. member, to two different people, signed by her and sent by her. Both have been opened, both copied and both stamped several times. What on earth are we talking about, Sir? We are dodging the issue. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member’s mail has been opened. How on earth did the people concerned know that a letter was from Prof. Rotberg without noticing his name on the outside? The only name on the outside was Suzman’s. How did they then do it?

To whom was it addressed?

It was addressed to Mrs. Rotberg and family. [Interjections.] Mrs. Rotberg is also under suspicion, I suppose. Sir, we have had no replies to our questions. All I can say is that we need to have a Select Committee. Let us see to whom these other letters were written. First of all there is a letter to Jonathan Moore, a letter signed by Mrs. Helen Suzman.

Who is Jonathan Moore?

Exactly. [Interjections.] I suppose the security people know who he is. [Interjections.]

Is he your cousin?

No, he has nothing to do with me. Another is a letter to an hon. member of Parliament in Great Britain, a person whose name just happens to be Winston Churchill. [Interjections.]

Is that the lover-boy?

Incidentally … [Interjections.]

Order!

In this particular letter that the hon. member for Houghton wrote to the hon. member in the British Parliament she actually states: “I am sick and tired of these armchair revolutionaries who live thousands of miles away from South Africa and try to prescribe on our behalf.” Very interesting, and I hope the security police enjoyed that letter too. There are many other exhibits we could use if hon. members want us to, but time will not allow me to refer to them all. [Interjections.] It is quite clear that the surveillance by the security forces is very wide indeed. It is also quite clear that according to McGiven’s statements, if they are to be believed …

Do you believe McGiven?

I do not believe everything he says. Of course not! [Interjections.] There are many people I do not believe. [Interjections.] There is another person whose word I do not believe. Included in this are the Institute for Race Relations, the Urban Foundation, academics, churches and business leaders. The net is extremely wide. In this motion, however, we are concerned with members of Parliament, and one specific member of Parliament in particular, the hon. member for Houghton. Let me say, by the way, that we do know that the PFP has a number. It is 422095. So I assume there is a large file there too. The hon. member for Houghton rightfully believes that her honour as an MP has been infringed upon, and indeed besmirched, and seeks redress in the only way that she can, i.e. by the appointment of a Select Committee.

She did not ask for that.

I do ask for that.

I want to support her plea as I do her demand. She has been subject to innuendo and insinuation quite devoid of fact.

What is worse is the fact that, in anticipation, before the case was ever heard, before any words were mentioned from this side, the hon. the Prime Minister states: There will be no Select Committee. So she is refused a hearing even though, again and again, the insinuations are made. What did the hon. the Prime Minister actually say? He said, inter alia, that we—in this House—should not worry merely because certain files exist, and that 90% of the information gathered in is gleaned from normal sources. However, the hon. the Prime Minister went on to say—

I understand this—and I am just a simple hon. member in this House—to mean that 10% of the information gathered, information relating to community leaders, political leaders, church leaders, business leaders, etc.—and, I assume, MPs as well—and I quote—

What a commentary on South African society! I want to say that I owe that side of the hon. House an apology. I have often stated, and so have my colleagues, that the Government of South Africa is behind the times, but in this instance they are ahead of the times. They have, in fact, anticipated Orwell’s 1984 a very long time ago. What an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion has been sown! Whose word can we begin to take? Who is ally and who is spy? We are in the era of “Big Brother is watching you!” and the big tragedy is that it may well be one’s own brother, friend, colleague or a member of one’s own party. [Interjections.]

Secondly, the hon. the Prime Minister also gave us certain assurances. I quote—

I want to ask some questions which have a direct bearing on the motion before us. Firstly, I want to refer to the words “op die oomblik”. I accept, of course, the assurances given by the hon. the Prime Minister. However, what about last month or last year, or indeed this week or next week? Can we have the assurance—and I should like to address myself now specifically to the hon. the Deputy Minister—that no hon. member of Parliament has over the last, say, five years enjoyed the “ongunstige aandag” of the department? I say this quite seriously because it is quite clear that the net is very wide. It spreads way beyond this hon. House to other politicians, for instance those of the HNP. It may well be, taking into account the tensions among hon. members of the NP, that they will be very interested indeed in getting a reply of this kind as well, because they need protection just as much as we do, if I can be the judge of anything that is going on in their ranks. [Interjections.]

That is the first question. Secondly, what does “ongunstige” really mean? Could it be possible that some of us in this hon. House enjoy the “gunstige aandag” of the department? In other words, are telephones tapped and letters opened in order to protect us?

Do not be naïve.

Well, it seems to me the whole approach has been so naïve that one has to go to the logical conclusion.

Thirdly, according to Mr. McGiven—and, again, I say I do not accept every single word he says, but he does seem to produce quite substantial evidence—a large file was kept on Dr. Alex Boraine, PFP MP. The file, he said, contained information on virtually every meeting Dr. Boraine held, transcripts of tapped telephone conversations and of speeches made. Now, I know for a fact that this was happening to me on a regular basis before I came to Parliament. What I should like to know now is whether I may have the positive assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister that the opening of my letters, the tapping of my telephone, the taping of my meetings, small or large, was brought to a halt when I became a member of this House in 1974?

Mostly small.

The hon. the Prime Minister also asked the following question—

Now, where on earth did the hon. the Prime Minister get that kind of rubbish? [Interjections.] It is simply not true. We state clearly that McGiven did not contact the hon. member for Houghton at any time. [Interjections.]

How do you know that?

I just happen to accept the word of the hon. member for Houghton, unlike hon. members opposite. [Interjections.]

Order!

What are the sources of the hon. the Prime Minister’s information? It seems to me to be very slender indeed. Was it simply his opinion, or was it once again said in a fit of pique so that he suddenly had to break out and say something nasty to the hon. member for Houghton? [Interjections.] Mr. McGiven, we are told by the hon. the Prime Minister, was a junior official who had access to records which he should not have seen, and he had that access without the knowledge of the department. Sir, is our security safe in the hands of such a department? [Interjections.] Is our security safe when a junior official can get information which is “geheim”, which he should not get hold of? What sort of security is this? Why do the security forces not concentrate on keeping their own house in order instead of tapping the telephones and opening the mail of some people, including at least one, if not more, hon. members of this Parliament?

Keystone Cops!

Sir, the Winston Churchill letter is very interesting. The hon. the Prime Minister said the following about it—

The hon. member for Parktown interjected—

The reply of the hon. the Prime Minister was—

Now what does this mean? I think we are owed an explanation in this regard. If one reads further in the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech, the only conclusion one can come to is that McGiven actually entered the house of the hon. member for Houghton and stole it, or that he came along and was given it or that there is somebody in the household of the hon. member for Houghton who is acting on behalf of the Security Police. [Interjections.] Sir, we want to know the answer to this. I do not know what the answer is and I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us exactly how that was obtained. [Interjections.]

The disclosures concerning the activities of Dons—or whatever its new name might be; it will be changed again, I suppose—follow very hard on the heels of the Information scandal. After a protracted delay, the hon. the Minister of that department was forced to resign. I want to say now that, if we do not get satisfactory answers to the questions that we have raised in all seriousness here today and if the Government is not prepared to appoint a Select Committee, I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister who is responsible should not do the honourable thing and resign. [Interjections.] I am quite serious.

They also laughed when we called for Dr. Mulder’s resignation.

They laughed at us when we asked for the resignation of Dr. Connie Mulder. We know, of course, that the Minister responsible is none other than the hon. the Prime Minister. He is in charge of the Department of National Security, and if, over and over again, he is going to come to the House—and I say this with great respect—and make charges, insinuations and innuendos which he cannot substantiate; if we have to see the activities of junior officials like McGiven; and if we think of the hundreds and thousands of people probably involved as informers and people employed to tap telephones and open mail—if all this is taking place and we get no answers whatsoever and they refuse to appoint a Select Committee, the only conclusion I can arrive at is that the hon. the Prime Minister ought to do the honourable thing and resign.

I want to say that the outgoing and incoming mail of the hon. member for Houghton, as a serving member, was opened. No one can get away from that. That has been established. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications said that he did not authorize it or know about it neither did …

Know about what?

The fact that the hon. member for Houghton’s mail was being intercepted.

Who told you that?

Did you know? [Interjections.]

I told you the other day. [Interjections.]

I am saying that I accept that. I agree with that.

Come with a new argument then.

If the hon. the Minister did not know—and I accept his word without reservation—and if the Postmaster General did not know—and I accept his word without reservation—I want to say that somebody must have known and have given the instruction. It is almost unbelievable that in the same way as in the former Department of Information all sorts of things are going on without the responsible Minister or his officials apparently knowing about it. Now we find that the situation can exist in South Africa where the mail of someone who has been in this House for 28 sessions and who has served her country, her party and this Parliament well over a very long period of time, is being intercepted and read, mail from family, friends or colleagues, while the hon. the Minister responsible for the department can be by-passed. I am not blaming him. It is the system I accuse, a system in which yet another department can be by-passed.

Did you not listen to what the hon. the Prime Minister said the other day?

I listened very carefully. I know exactly what is happening. I want to reiterate my warning that every member of Parliament, whether on that side of the House or on this side of the House, deserves better treatment from this Government. If it is true that the time has come when those who are political opponents are going to be regarded as a security risk, then there is going to come a time when those who stand on the right and those who stand on the left of that party are also going to be seen in the same way. That is why they should support us in the motion before the House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands should really confine himself to matters such as squatters, etc., where he can make up in rhetoric and drama what he lacks in knowledge and sound, substantive arguments.

*The motion under discussion at the moment suffers basically from the absence of two important elements. Firstly, it is simply assumed and accepted that authority to intercept the letters, telegrams and/or telephone calls of the hon. member for Houghton was granted. When one considers the motion together with the speech made by the hon. member during the recent no-confidence debate and her speech this afternoon, it is clear that when she refers to authority in this connection she is referring to authority or consent in terms of section 118A of the Post Office Amendment Act of 1972.

However, in the course of his speech in the recent no-confidence debate the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications gave an unequivocal assurance. Reference has already been made to it this afternoon, but the exact words of the hon. the Minister have not been quoted in full. He said—

He did not qualify that by saying that authority had not been granted either by himself or by the Postmaster-General. He gave a general and unqualified assurance to the House in this connection. However, hon. members of the Opposition come back to this time and again; they want to know who it was who gave this permission, as if it were an established fact that permission had been granted. What nonsense!

Notwithstanding this assurance the hon. member for Houghton still intimates blatantly in her motion that authority or permission was given in terms of the aforementioned legal provision. We must evaluate this allegation of the hon. member for Houghton in the light of the challenging statements she made in her speech during the recent no-confidence debate. On that occasion she said the following—

I do not know who the “they” are to whom she is referring—

She went on to say—

But what do we find further? She mentioned certain articles of mail which involved her in some way or other, copies of which or information in regard to which was apparently available to the Intelligence Service. She makes a liar out of the former head of the Department of National Security. She questions the relevant hon. Deputy Minister’s familiarity with the workings of the Intelligence Service. She refers to the existence of a file or files concerning her and pours the usual venom upon the Intelligence Service. It is remarkable though that she made no attempt whatsoever to support her allegation that she was going to submit “incontrovertible evidence” to prove that permission or authority had been granted for her mail to be intercepted. We have heard not a word about her “incontrovertible evidence”. We heard about many other things but the alleged irrefutable proof was not forthcoming. This is the background, Sir, against which we have to evaluate the hon. member’s attitude. In these circumstances it is nothing short of audacity on her part to make the aforementioned assumption as the point of departure of the motion in question.

Secondly, the attitude is adopted in the motion that it is the mail of the hon. member for Houghton that is receiving the attention of the Intelligence Service. The letter about which we have already heard a great deal today and which apparently gave rise to the motion before us, was not written by or addressed to the hon. member. Her name was simply linked to it unjustly because it was written on her stationery and because her name appeared on the back of the envelope. There is therefore no justification for regarding this letter as forming part of her mail. It was therefore not her mail that was intercepted. Why do we have these complaints? [Interjections.] Why these complaints about the interception of her mail? After all, that was not her letter?

Even if the hon. member had written the letter herself and had had her name appear on the back of the envelope—where it apparently did appear, according to her explanation—she forfeited all ownership of or claim to that letter the moment it was posted because it then immediately ceased to be the property of the hon. member and became the property of the addressee.

Where do you get that argument from?

The hon. member is free to check it; he may learn something. There is no proof or any indication that the mail of the hon. member for Houghton has been intercepted, opened or interfered with in any other way—I emphasize the mail of the hon. member for Houghton. There is not a shred of evidence or indication to that effect before this hon. House. The socalled “incontrovertible evidence” of the hon. member does not take the matter any further, except that some of her correspondents …

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member for Houghton would listen when another hon. member is speaking, she would not indulge in such meaningless gestures as waving letters in the air. We have heard all about that ad nauseam but I am telling her that the letter was not necessarily intercepted because it was her mail. [Interjections.] She does not retain ownership of or any other right to that mail for an indefinite period. [Interjections.] Can that hon. member prove the opposite? I should like him to do so.

Order!

If the mail of the correspondents of that hon. member receive the attention of the Intelligence Service, surely it does not follow that this is so because the name of the hon. member for Houghton is in any way coupled with it. Surely there are other considerations as well, and during his speech a couple of days ago during the no-confidence debate, the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned a whole list of considerations that can lead to somebody’s mail receiving the attention of the Intelligence Service. Any one of those considerations could have come into play in this case but the hon. member summarily accepts the fact that the mail concerned received the attention of the Intelligence Service simply because her name was linked to it. I want to say to the hon. member for Houghton that she is not as important as she thinks she is.

Because there has been an oblique reference to it, I also want to emphasize that the hon. member for Houghton’s privilege as a member of this House has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this whole matter. There is very good authority for that. I refer hon. members to the standard work on parliamentary procedure by May, the 19th edition, page 151. If they read that they will learn something, if they are still capable of learning anything. I do not know whether they are still capable of it.

Sir, I want to conclude by saying that it is very obvious that there is no merit or substance in the motion before the House; there is no justification or reason whatsoever for the appointment of a Select Committee as requested by the hon. member. In the circumstances I cannot in any way support the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I am not in agreement with the hon. member for Mossel Bay when he says that the hon. member for Houghton is inclined to exaggerate her own importance in the political sphere of South Africa. I am one of those who believe that the hon. member for Houghton has played an exceedingly important role in the last 10 years of political activity in South Africa. One of these days, when the history of this period comes to be written, I think hon. members will find that the hon. member for Houghton has played a far greater role in this particular period than many of us in this House at the moment imagine. [Interjections.]

Our standpoint was put in the no-confidence debate. We stand second to no one in saying that a member of Parliament has the right to privacy and, if any Government so abuses its power as to tap telephones and to open the mail of members of Parliament, we believe that that is a gross abuse of the political process. We qualified that standpoint by saying that politicians who were taking part in the normal internal political processes of a democracy, or in a country such as ours, should be entitled to that privacy that I believe members of Parliament should be entitled to. We believe that a member of Parliament’s post should not be opened, nor his telephone tapped. That is based on the presumption that such members of Parliament are not in any form of alliance with, or consorting with, people who seek the downfall of the Republic. I believe that a member of Parliament’s right to privacy is no greater than the right to privacy of an ordinary member of the public, and as long as a member of the public conducts himself properly and does not associate himself with elements hostile to the Republic, then that member of the public, just like a member of Parliament, has a right to privacy and has nothing to fear. Surely a member of the public is entitled to the same privacy and protection as a member of Parliament? I went on to say, however, that there are some members of the public, and some politicians in South Africa, who are taking part, not only in the internal political processes of the Republic, but also in South African political processes originating from outside the borders of the Republic. They are involved in outside efforts—to a greater or lesser degree, according to their lights—to bring about radical change in the Republic. If the hon. member for Houghton is one of those members she has only herself to blame because, as hon. members have heard me say in the House on a number of occasions, the greatest potential danger to South Africa at the moment comes from America.

Order! In what he says the hon. member is implying that the hon. member for Houghton is one of those.

No, Sir, that is not what I was meaning to imply. Let me just explain. If the hon. member for Houghton makes statements, as she does from time to time, they very often create a certain impression. What did she say about American activities? On 15 July 1977 she said that she saw the necessity for political change in South Africa and that it should be brought about by Black and White, but she welcomed powerful allies, in the cause of the fight against discrimination, in the shape of the Americans.

Order! I allow the hon. member to say that, but I want to point out the contents of the motion.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to say that I think the hon. member for Houghton has, in many respects, herself to blame. [Interjections.] I want to make the point I made in the no-confidence debate, viz. that an MP is not entitled to any more protection than is an ordinary member of the public. I go so far as to say that if any MP is suspected by the Security Police of taking part in any activities which could in any way endanger the safety of the Republic, then I do not believe that any MP should be entitled to any greater protection than that member of the public. I believe that the mail of such a person should be opened and that his telephone should be under surveillance. That is the standpoint of the SAP. We believe we are involved in a fight for our survival, and under those circumstances ordinary, conventional methods are not to be condoned. There have to be exceptional methods, and that is why we say that instead of a motion calling for a Select Committee to investigate a particular matter, we would like to see the Government agree to the appointment of a judicial commission which would not only investigate the allegations of the hon. member for Houghton, but would also, in the privacy of judicial commission, and subject to it being a closed court, be entitled to investigate the general security operations of the Republic. I have reservations, for example, about the employment of a man such as McGiven who was found to be unsatisfactory in his employment—and this was known—and who nevertheless was allowed to escape. There are many other aspects of our security, and the work of the Bureau for State Security, which I believe should be looked at, and I should like to see that done in the privacy of a judicial commission.

Mr. Speaker, I think the debate this afternoon has shown very clearly that the Opposition and Government members speak past one another when it comes to matters such as the subject under discussion. I believe the Government members have missed the whole point of the debate. They have tried to justify the need for security services, but have not answered the question of the abuse of those services. They deny official knowledge of such abuse, and this raises one crucial point: If the people responsible deny knowledge of the surveillance of members, could it be that those security services themselves are so poorly controlled that they took it upon themselves to spy on members of this House? If they did, where did they stop? I think that is the question which must be answered, and it has clearly not been answered. No attempt has been made to answer that kind of question in the debate today.

I should like to deal very briefly with a point made by the hon. member for Barberton. I should like to ask him how on earth he thinks that a Select Committee of this House could produce a report that would endanger the security services of the country. There is nothing else to be said for his speech, because it contained nothing. [Interjections.]

I want to introduce a new element into the debate this afternoon. In the limited time at my disposal I want to indicate that the sort of surveillance of hon. members that the hon. member for Houghton referred to is nothing new. Going back a long time, I have knowledge of two members of this House who were under surveillance at different times. The first member concerned sat in the House as a very senior member of the old UP. He is still an hon. member of the House but I am not prepared to disclose which party he now represents. In the case of the other member I have a great deal more knowledge of the case, and I am going to give four instances of this former member being under surveillance.

The first instance occurred when the former member was travelling by train after having attended a meeting of the Institute of Race Relations in Johannesburg. We know the Institute of Race Relations is a body which has probably been kept under surveillance, and that probably explains why the member returning from the conference was also under surveillance. Somewhere between Johannesburg and Germiston his compartment in the train was opened without his knowledge and his attaché case was forced open. Despite the fact that there were valuable items, such as an electric shaver and other personal effects, in his case, those things were not touched, but a book was removed from the attaché case.

The second instance occurred on an occasion when the member was returning to Cape Town by air after the parliamentary Easter recess. The flight was delayed and passengers on the flight were asked to identify their luggage. The member identified his luggage, as did all other passengers. When they finally arrived in Cape Town the member’s luggage was the only luggage that had not arrived with the other luggage that had come down to Cape Town on the same aircraft, although it was clearly marked as being the luggage of a member of Parliament by the labels on that luggage.

Was that during the last war?

No, it was much more recent than during the last war. The third instance occurred during an election campaign when, late at night, two young men entered the member’s election office and started quizzing him on sensitive matters. It being late at night, the member asked for a contact number where he could get hold of them the following day. They thereupon left a name and a telephone number. When the member telephoned this number the following day he got hold of a person who refused to identify himself. This person said that the member had no right to be in possession of that telephone number, that it was not a listed number and that he should discontinue the connection immediately. Further investigations through the exchange totally failed to reveal the source of the number given to the member of Parliament.

The fourth and last instance, which might serve to identify the member concerned, occurred in 1977, also during an election campaign, when it became quite clear that correspondence to the member had also been opened, albeit under circumstances perhaps a little different from those of the hon. member for Houghton. Nevertheless, there were indications that his mail had been tampered with. The circumstances were that a banned priest had written from Zululand to the member in Durban, but the letter ended up with the Department of the Interior in Pretoria, where it was opened, merely put into an official envelope and sent on to the member without any comment. I think those four instances are quite sufficient to indicate that there have been different types of surveillance of members of this House, going back over a long period of time. I believe that we are entitled to ask certain questions because we are entitled to the answers to those questions. We are entitled to know for how long this has been going on and exactly on whom surveillance has been mounted. The hon. the Prime Minister made it clear—and other hon. members have referred to the fact—that no hon. member is under surveillance now. If we accept that, and I believe we do, we must obviously ask the hon. the Prime Minister how far he is prepared to go back and say that hon. members have not been under surveillance since a particular date.

I believe that is the question the hon. the Prime Minister should have answered. The question he should have answered is whether at any time present or past members of the House have had their telephones tapped. It is quite insufficient and it is an absolutely ridiculous answer to say in the House that no members are presently under investigation. With the revelations there were, it is the easiest thing in the world to stop the investigations immediately and then to come to the House and say: “Nobody is under surveillance now.” He did not say what had happened in the past and he did not indicate what was likely to happen in the future.

There is another question I wish to ask, one which I think is also relevant: Were any of the secret projects of the former Department of Information concerned with the surveillance of recognized political parties or members of Parliament? I want to ask another question—and I think the hon. the Deputy Minister might indicate whether he is prepared to answer this at some time in the future: Was the detailed financial standing of Opposition members of the House ever a part of the general information in the files kept on them by any intelligence service in South Africa? Finally, we should like to know which political parties have been under surveillance by any of the security services at any time in the last 15 years.

Sir, a few general comments on the debate today would, I think, be in order. I believe that, when hon. members raise the question of the total onslaught against us, this a gigantic red herring which tends to unify their people behind them and overlooks the very core of the debate we have had. The confidence in the security services and in the Government generally has been shaken recently by major events, and the defection of McGiven and his revelations have caused discomfort to our security services. It seems quite obvious that, while the country is regaled with threats of the total onslaught from outside, our security services have overstepped their brief and have spied on politicians and political parties engaged in legitimate Opposition inside the country. That is something that cannot be tolerated. It is an impossible state of affairs. It cannot be defended and I believe it demands the strongest protest from people who really believe in freedom and democracy.

Before hon. Ministers opposite—and I am very sorry to see such a paucity of Cabinet Ministers, particularly senior Cabinet Ministers, present at this important debate this afternoon …

You know where they are. Do you read the papers?

I am not really bothered where they are. This is an important debate and there should be a better turn-out of them here today. [Interjections.] Before they rush to defend the situation, I ask them seriously to consider the effect of what has been happening in the name of national security. It is clear that the machinery of State has been subverted to the advantage of one political party. I must ask hon. members opposite in all earnestness: Are you prepared to continue to defend that system? Is that the sort of thing you want to see in South Africa? Do you want a true democracy in this country or do you want a one-party State? If they want democracy, Sir, it is time hon. members on that side of the House stood up for it and spoke up for it. It is time they let the due process of our legal system deal with anyone who oversteps the law. The kindergarten days of blaming the Opposition for the problems of the country must be put behind us. It is time every Government member realized that.

Are you people not ashamed.

It is not sufficient just for the Government to be able to trust its parliamentary Opposition: It is equally important that the parliamentary Opposition trusts the Government completely. Recent events have shown that that trust has been severely dented. Sir, I support the motion of the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea did an unnecessarily unfriendly thing in this House this afternoon by referring to the fact that the hon. Ministers are not present here at the moment. He was trying to place unnecessary blame on the hon. Ministers, because he ought to know that they are having discussions with the Black leaders of South Africa. He ought to be ashamed of himself for making a debating point out of that.

This concerns this Parliament and it is just as important.

No, sir, the hon. member ought to be ashamed of making that remark here and I want to rectify the matter, just for the record.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member also joined in the chorus of voices this afternoon and maintained that our security services were weak and that “the services were poorly controlled”. However, the high standard of the work of our security services in South Africa makes nonsense of that remark by the hon. member. The hon. member went on to tell us a few wild stories about someone who travelled by train and whose case had been opened, whose books had disappeared and whose luggage had not arrived.

He reads too many comics.

Someone has said that he reads too many comics, and that is true, because must all mishaps that occur to an hon. member who travels by train, or who is being consulted in an office, be laid at the door of the security and intelligence services of South Africa?

Perhaps, yes!

I think this is scandalous. There that hon. member has just admitted: “Perhaps, yes!” However, he made a direct statement here, which is totally unjustified.

Give us the Select Committee … [Interjections.]

Order!

He must first grow up.

The hon. member for Pinelands also made certain allegations here this afternoon to which I want to refer briefly. He was very indignant when the hon. member for Brakpan stated that it was our intelligence services that really formed the target of this motion before us. The hon. member for Pinelands denies it very strongly. Then, however, he maintains that our intelligence services are in a weak condition, and complains that they are ostensibly bugging and keeping under surveillance persons whom they should not bug.

The Prime Minister himself said so.

In that case surely the hon. member is attacking our intelligence services. Afterall, that is a pattern that is encountered throughout the world nowadays.

No, no. [Interjections.]

Order!

However, the hon. member for Pinelands went on to make a categorical allegation that no one gave the hon. member for Houghton the assurance that she was not regarded as a security risk.

No.

He did say that. He can read it in Hansard.

I spoke of insinuations.

Let me page through the Hansard of last week’s no-confidence debate and refer to what the hon. the Deputy Minister of National Security said. In column 362 he referred to certain questions the hon. member for Sea Point put to him and said—

whether Mrs. Suzman was a security risk.

Then the hon. the Deputy Minister proceeded—

[Interjections.]

Then why open her mail?

He expressly said here that that was untrue, but the hon. member said in this House today that we had not given the assurance to the hon. member for Houghton.

Your actions speak louder than your words.

No, do not try to talk your way out of this now. Let us just examine the words we used, and the statements and facts before the House. [Interjections.] I also wish to refer to the speech by the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member used the following words in the House this afternoon—and if I quote her incorrectly, I apologize, but this is how I wrote it down—

Why, in this debate concerning the privilege of a member of Parliament, does she drag in a matter like banning?

It is the principle.

No, sir, the principle has nothing to do with this. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Houghton should know that bannings are a sensitive matter for South Africa in the outside world. Why is she using this to create further problems for us in the outside world? [Interjections.] I ask the hon. member, why does she do that?

Order!

The hon. member also went on to object very strongly to the fact that she was not warned when the Department of National Security noticed that people were using her letterheads. But, Mr. Speaker, what right have we to demand to be warned about something like this? What would her reaction have been if the department had in fact warned her? Would she have believed them? Of course she would not have believed them, because after we had told her a few things this afternoon about what Prof. Rotberg’s actions towards South Africa were, she still did not believe us.

I know more about Rotberg than you do.

Why then does she say that she should have been warned? [Interjections.] The hon. member cannot demand that.

[Inaudible.]

We have before this House this afternoon the request by the hon. member for Houghton for a Select Committee. We have been told repeatedly about letters, etc., that are really her property but that came into the possession of the security services. In the motion itself she accused no one, but in her speech she said that our security services were responsible. She continued with one accusation after the other without really submitting incontrovertible evidence to us. I know those hon. members are going to refer to the letters in their possession. Just look at the hon. member for Pinelands gaping. He is surprised, but we have tried to explain that the letters with which he came here were not necessarily intercepted because they were the letters of the hon. member for Houghton. We have tried to tell them that there was also another man in the picture, and that man was identified by the hon. member for Houghton herself. I refer to Prof. Rotberg.

[Inaudible.]

Who is Prof. Rotberg? We have heard a great deal of evidence here this afternoon which indicates that Prof. Rotberg, to say the least, is not a friend of South Africa.

Did you open Rotberg’s letters?

I am not as inquisitive as the hon. member for Bryanston.

Order! I have afforded all hon. members a great deal of protection this afternoon. They must now please give the hon. member for Verwoerdburg the opportunity to speak.

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

No, I have only a few minutes. The hon. member had his 10 minutes.

We had the evidence here this afternoon that Prof. Rotberg, who is such a great friend of the hon. member for Houghton, is definitely not a friend of South Africa. In that letter in connection with which he used her name, he writes, inter alia, about a certain film. Hon. members should please take careful note of what this professor writes to his friends in America. It concerns the film “Last Grave at Dimbaza”. We find this in the letter which the hon. the Deputy Minister submitted to this House during the no-confidence debate. I made inquiries about this film. Informed persons, who are objective about this matter, say the following in connection with this film—

According to this film four out of every five non-White children in South Africa are undernourished. Of a Black child the following is said, inter alia—

I also saw the film.

Mr. Speaker, I could continue in this vein. Then hon. members opposite allege that this professor is a friend of South Africa. I put it to them that he is not a friend of South Africa. I say that our Information Services were simply doing their work by casting a net around that man in order to determine what he was doing. I believe that they were only doing good work. So far from our criticizing them now, or saying that they intercepted the letters of members of Parliament, these people were just doing their duty. I see that the hon. member for Mooi River is shaking his head. I hear it too. Now I want to know from him whether it is not possible that that letter about which the hon. member for Houghton is now creating such a fuss, as well as other letters, could not have been caught in the net cast around an enemy of South Africa? Is that not possible? Of course it is possible.

What about Winston Churchill?

Oh, Sir, the hon. member for Pinelands is so predictable. I knew he would ask another question about the case of Winston Churchill. The hon. the Prime Minister did, after all, deal with the case of Winston Churchill in the no-confidence debate. [Interjections.]

Through the mediation of the hon. the Prime Minister, the Intelligence Services of South Africa have been properly reorganized in order to ensure that a check is kept on the threat, or potential threat, to the security of the State and therefore to ascertain who our enemies are and what we are dealing with. Our intelligence community has been reorganized in order to determine the weaknesses and capabilities of the identified enemy or potential enemy and in order to enable the body or persons that must decide on action against these people, to decide on the basis of proper information what steps must be taken to prevent chaos. For this action, reorganization and improved co-ordination, we do not apologize; on the contrary, we ask the Government to proceed with it. We ask the Government to proceed with this and to ensure that we know what our enemies and potential enemies are doing. It is very clear that our intelligence service has been organized as effectively as possible and that it is capable of doing its work within the provisions of the laws of the land. For that reason we certainly cannot support the motion of the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Speaker, I think this has been a debate of innuendoes, red herrings and unanswered questions. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg who has just sat down has unfortunately made himself a party to that. I am sorry about it, because he is a friend of mine. Perhaps I will be held responsible for some of the things he has said this afternoon. [Interjections.] I want to say to the hon. member for Verwoerdburg that he, as a person who is learned in the law, knows that an innuendo is worse than a direct attack. I see he agrees with me. He, the hon. member for Simonstown, who is a master of the innuendo, and other hon. members have played that game of saying that the hon. member for Houghton has friends and that therefore, because she has friends, there is something about her that is in fact not quite right. Thus they sow that degree of innuendo. I think that is a rotten tactic, because if the hon. member …

Order! In the sense in which the hon. member is now consistently using the word “innuendo”, he must withdraw the remark that the hon. member for Simonstown is “a master of the innuendo”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words that he is “a master of the innuendo”.

He is not “a master” of it at all.

I want to say to the hon. member for Simonstown that if he has guts, he should say outright what his allegations are against the hon. member and not play this little game here.

I now want to come to the red herring. This debate is not about Prof. Rotberg. I do not care tuppence for Prof. Rotberg. I am not interested in him. Whether Prof. Rotberg is or is not a person who disapproves of South Africa and who may speak against South Africa, is a separate issue. For that I will condemn him and deal with him, but this debate is not about the Rotberg letter. This debate is about the interception of mail of members of Parliament. That is what it is about What is important is that this interception did not begin with Prof. Rotberg’s letters. According to the file that I was given today, this interception began in 1976. It may have been even earlier, but it was at least at that date because one of the letters I have seen is dated 4 October 1976.

I now want to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister a very simple question. In terms of section 118A(1) of the Act some Minister has to authorize the interception of mail. It must be a Minister who is a member of the State Security Council. The question I pertinently pose to the hon. the Deputy Minister is: Who was the Minister who in 1976 authorized the interception of the hon. member for Houghton’s mail? There is a second question that I want to pose. In terms of subsection (2) of section 118A that has to be done as a result of a request of a designated person in the service of the State. I ask the hon. the Minister to tell us who was that designated person in the service of the State who made that request Thirdly, that person could only make that request if he could put before the Minister concerned a statement of his belief that that action was necessary for the maintenance of the security of the Republic. The question I want to ask the hon. the Minister is: What was necessary for the security of the Republic in 1976 that caused the interception of the letter addressed by the hon. member for Houghton to Mr. Churchill?

If the hon. the Minister says that this letter did not come into the possession of the Bureau for State Security, but that it was obtained in some other way, it is very interesting. The hon. member for Mossel Bay, who should know the law, knows that a letter is owned by the person who writes it and that he intends to transfer ownership of it to the person to whom it is addressed. The Post Office acts purely as the carrier. I want to give an example. If one posts a parcel containing a bottle of whisky to somebody abroad, the Post Office does not become the owner of that whisky: The person who posts it intends its ownership to be transferred to the addressee. If that is so, then that letter was stolen, was it not? It was either owned by the hon. member for Houghton or it was owned by Mr. Churchill; or Mr. Churchill gave it to the Bureau for State Security. If Mr. Churchill gave it to the Bureau for State Security, I for one would be somewhat surprised and, if that allegation were to be made, I think Mr. Churchill might be equally surprised. The answer is a very simple one. This debate is about who authorized it, on what grounds it was authorized and what the circumstances of it were. With that not one single member on the Government side has been prepared to deal. The hon. the Deputy Minister did not deal with it in the no-confidence debate, the hon. the Prime Minister did not deal with it and the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications did not deal with it.

I find it remarkable that when this issue was raised previously, when the predecessor of that hon. Minister was in the House, we were given the most interesting assurances when people protested in regard to this issue. At that time the hon. member for Pinelands raised the question of his mail and the hon. member for Hillbrow raised the question of telephone calls. The then hon. member for Worcester, who is now an ambassador, subsequently said the following—

I assume they are not being done where he is now the Ambassador. Then the hon. the Minister himself, who is still in the Cabinet in a different capacity, said the following—

The hon. member for Pinelands spoke about letters and the hon. member for Hillbrow about telephone calls—

He then refers to the smile of the hon. member for Wynberg and says—

But where are we now? The question that does not get answered is: Who authorized it, why was it authorized and on the basis of what facts was it authorized?

The other red herring that has been drawn across the path here is that we are trying to drag the security services of South Africa down, that we are attacking them. The hon. member nods his head, but I want to say quite categorically that the official Opposition supports the concept of there being security services and intelligence services. In the times in which we live we have to have them—there is no question about it. Every State that wants to preserve its own situation and integrity unfortunately has to have those services. I use the word “unfortunately” deliberately, because I believe everybody believes that it is unfortunate that this is necessary in the world. But it is a fact of life and therefore a reality which we have to accept. However, those services have to be efficient and they have to be directed at the correct enemy of South Africa. We have had a lot of talk about Prof. Rotberg. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister this question: If you open the hon. member for Houghton’s mail because you have suspicions that somebody is using her letterheads wrongly, do you have the same suspicions when, for example, she writes to the University of Indiana in order to arrange a lecture there or when she writes to Smith College in the United States? What is the motivation for opening those letters? And those letters have been opened, as recently as June 1979. It may be that in February 1980 the hon. member for Houghton is no longer under surveillance, but she certainly was under surveillance, according to the information on the files given to me—and I have no reason to doubt their authenticity because they appear to be genuine photostats—as recently as June 1979. I, as a member of Parliament and a citizen, want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister “Why?” and so does the hon. member for Houghton want to know “Why?” She is entitled to know, because one cannot drag the red herring of Prof. Rotberg into this situation.

Then let me go further and deal with this issue of whether, in fact, the real enemy is being watched. Let me give an example. I have a photostat of a document which has a highly important secret matter attached to it. It is an extract from an article which appeared in the newspaper Beeid. This article concerns the Afrikaanse Studentebond and the proposal that what was going to be done would be, and I quote—

*A very interesting telephone conversation also took place between a certain Mr. Theuns Eloff and a certain Mr. Hoffman. According to the document I have here, Mr. Theuns was the chairman—this is how he is described—of the Students Representative Council of the University of Potchefstroom and the person to whom he spoke, a certain Mr. Hoffman, was a student at the Rand Afrikaans University. The other person involved was a Mr. Vismer who, according to the document, was the chairman of the Students Representative Council of the University of Pretoria and president of the ASB. These are the people who were involved in this matter. What happened, was that a telephone conversation between Mr. Eloff and Mr. Hoffman was monitored. If these people were undermining the security of South Africa, I could understand it, but what were they discussing? They were discussing the Ruiterwag.

Order! May I just point out that the motion concerns members of Parliament.

Yes, I am coming to an hon. member of Parliament who is mentioned in this article. I am just going to quote that. That is what makes this so fascinating. I shall read you the passage immediately, because this is what is really so fascinating. It may be out of context now, but I am coming to the part that puts it in context in a moment. It is said—

He continued—

[Interjections.]

Who?

Hon. members ask who it is. I shall reply to that. The reply which was given in this conversation which was monitored, is very important for the security of South Africa. [Interjections.] Sir, do you know who that person is? [Interjections.] I now read further what old Theuns had to say—

[Interjections.] However, he is not the only one. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should now tell us whether this is necessary for the security of this country. Sir, do you know what the problem is? That hon. member of this Parliament is trying to keep the Afrikaanse Studentebond verkramp. This is what he is trying to do, and for the security of this country is it necessary to monitor those conversations between two Afrikaner boys discussing their national unity, their culture. Mr. Speaker, do you know where this document was sent? This document did not only land up in the file on Albert Hoffman and the file on Theuns Eloff, but in that department there is also a file on Afrikaner identity. I do not regard Afrikaner identity as a subversive activity towards South Africa on which a file should be kept by the security services. I shall defend that standpoint It is unnecessary. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member should now return to the subject.

I now come to my own party’s members of Parliament. We fought a by-election in Johannesburg West and do you know, Mr. Speaker, that it is important for the security of South Africa that in one of the speeches by our candidate there, he said: “The PFP has not written off RAU.” This is of very great importance and it must now be filed because it must be kept in the interests of South Africa. I should like to issue a challenge to the hon. the Deputy Minister. It has been said by the hon. the Prime Minister that there are files which are not matters of security and therefore I ask: “Is the file on the party of which I am a member, a security matter?”

Of which party?

If it is, he must say so, but if it is not so, then I think the hon. the Deputy Minister can show me that file so that we can see what is kept in it. For the rest there is no problem.

There are also many other things about which there are discussions which also concern members of Parliament. I want the hon. the Minister of Public Works to listen very attentively to this. There is a conversation between a former member of the House of Assembly, a certain Mr. Louis Stofberg, and someone named Eddy. What is interesting, is that it is stated in this report that they do not know who Eddy is, but in the conversation itself he says that Prof. Gerrit Viljoen is his cousin. However, it seems to me as though it would be a little difficult to establish who the cousin is. What is important, however, is that he says: You must know—and he is now talking about Prof. Gerrit Viljoen—that he forced Treunicht out of the chairmanship of the Broederbond. He is concerned about the fact that the hon. the Minister of Public Works is no longer the chairman of the Broederbond, and he is a member of the HNP. What is important for the security of South Africa is that money should be spent on this type of document and that this type of document has to be analysed. People have to be employed to monitor such conversations and this is what we are spending our money on.

†I put the very simple point…

Order! The hon. member must come to the rights and privileges of members of Parliament.

Well, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister is a member of this House. I put the very simple point to the hon. the Deputy Minister which he must answer. Is it necessary to listen to the telephone conversations of these people? Was it necessary for their mail to be intercepted and has he realized the significance which this matter has for the ordinary person who writes to a member of Parliament or who receives a letter from a member of Parliament? I receive letters from people from all over the place and I assume that the bureau knows all about them.

I believe that people should have the freedom to write to a member of Parliament and to come with complaints. I get letters about all sorts of things in South Africa. It is one of the democratic remedies. Now a question mark hangs over that right because everyone outside this House in the Republic knows that it may well be that when he writes to a member of Parliament with his complaint, a matter which he thinks is confidential, some little man is sitting and analysing it and putting it in a file. That is not necessary for the security of South Africa. I appeal to the NP to look after the security of South Africa and to throw away the nonsense in which they have been engaged.

Mr. Speaker, I shall reply to the hon. member for Yeoville in the course of what I have to say.

To begin with, I want to put the Government’s standpoint briefly in regard to this motion. It is very clear that in spite of the fact that she accepted the assurance of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, the hon. member for Houghton has nevertheless introduced a motion that contradicts that assurance. After having said that she accepts what the hon. the Minister and the Postmaster-General had to say on the subject, this motion should lapse. These are the facts of the matter. The hon. member for Houghton was given further assurances by the hon. the Prime Minister to questions which they asked repeatedly today. In regard to every member of Parliament, the hon. the Prime Minister said that no member was at present receiving unfavourable attention.

I was asked: What about the past, what about five years ago? I am referring specifically to the hon. member for Pinelands. However, I am not prepared to enlarge at all on assurances that have already been given by the hon. the Prime Minister and a senior hon. Minister. [Interjections.] I am not prepared to enlarge on them because hon. members on the opposite side are simply engaged in a fishing expedition. For instance, the hon. member for Pinelands asked me to give him the assurance that this has in fact been the case since he has been in the House, because he said he knew that he was under observation before. I want to leave him to be the judge of that. I would not be surprised if he was indeed under observation, because in the period before he became a member of Parliament, the hon. member—let us be blunt—was directly responsible for and instrumental in introducing the Black Power movement, by means of the University Christian Movement.

This was brought to light by a parliamentary commission and the hon. member for Mooi River endorsed that commission’s report, both literally and figuratively. [Interjections.] That is why I take it amiss of the hon. member for Mooi River for rising to his feet here today and speaking as if he knew nothing about it. The hon. member had documents open to his inspection which dealt with the matters I am discussing now, and substantiated them—I am speaking of the time before the hon. member for Pinelands became an MP.

I want to go further and tell the hon. member for Pinelands that no matter what the situation may be in regard to individual cases, we want to state the general principle that we cannot allow our Intelligence Services, the intelligence community of South Africa, to be subjected to destructive criticism which would result in our not being able to obtain intelligence on hostile objectives in South Africa. We dare not allow that. These hon. members put a series of questions to me today dealing with these matters and were I to reply specifically to the questions, I should be revealing what is absolutely essential to the security of South Africa.

Concerning members of the House?

I am not referring to members of the House. [Interjections.]

To come back to the motion: I find it very strange that hon. members should move a comprehensive motion which, however, gives no indication of which service should be involved in the investigation. They are speaking in general terms. Therefore I must conclude that they do not want to get at one department in particular, but at all the departments involved in these matters. It is a very serious matter that hon. members are trying to lead us into an ambush with a motion aimed at cleaving to the bone all the departments involved in this affair.

Moreover, the sting in the motion is the request for a Select Committee which would, inter alia inquire into “the grounds upon which such authority was granted and related matters”. What does “related matters” mean? It is as wide as the ocean. In other words, those hon. members are aiming for a Select Committee on which they could ask specific questions concerning matters of essential secrecy, matters that are considered by every intelligence service in the world to be very valuable to its enemies. This is what the Opposition wants to have destroyed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Deputy Minister allowed to reflect … [Interjections.]

Sir, is the hon. the Deputy Minister allowed to stand during a point of order? [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Sir: Is the hon. the Deputy Minister allowed to reflect on the honour of the members in these benches by inferring that we are wont to undermine the Intelligence Service of this country? [Interjections.]

I am sorry, but I did not understand the hon. the Deputy Minister to say that. I cannot therefore uphold that point of order.

Sir, this is a very serious matter. The hon. the Deputy Minister suggested that in the wording of the motion we have brought to the House, we are undermining the Intelligence Service in South Africa [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon. the Deputy Minister repeat to me what he said.

Mr. Speaker, to satisfy them, I want to say that this section of the motion, viz. the consideration of “related matters”, could have resulted in the intelligence services of South Africa being adversely criticized to the detriment of South Africa.

That is different.

You must first withdraw the other statement.

Moreover, I want to state that the question at issue here, which hon. members opposite do not understand …

Hold it in camera.

… is that a person, including members of Parliament, does not write letters to himself. I know the hon. member for Houghton has strange habits, but that is not one of them.

She talks to herself.

The point that hon. members do not grasp or are too naïve to grasp, is that there is a writer and a recipient.

Yes, Churchill and the hon. member.

It is very clear that if a party is the object of attention of a service and a net is cast around that party, everything that enters or leaves that net, may be caught. This is very clear, but hon. members do not understand it. They now war … us to admit today that the hon. member for Houghton was a target. From the very start we have said that she is not. It is a shock to the hon. member for Houghton to discover that she is not important when it comes to the security of South Africa. [Interjections.]

You are talking rubbish. [Interjections.] Is Churchill the target?

Order!

In order to illustrate this point, we decided to take one case, viz. the Rotberg case, and with reference to that, to indicate what can happen when a person who is under observation uses the identities of other people in order to send certain things abroad that may not be revealed.

Like what?

Rotberg’s letter was not meant to be revealed.

Here it is.

I shall read from it in a moment.

Publish it.

As far as the Rotberg case is concerned, the hon. member for Houghton innocently—and one thing has been cleared up now, viz. that Mr. Rotberg is not a thief …

Of course not.

That does not, however, render him less of a security risk. Has the hon. member got that?

Oh yes, Sir.

We called Mr. Rotberg “Mr. X” because we did not want to give offence. We referred to this case in order to illustrate our point. He is a person who has assumed other identities and we said that other cases have to be seen against the same background.

What identity?

[Interjections.]

Order!

As far as Mr. Rotberg is concerned, I just want to say that his history corresponds to what hon. members explained here. He was kicked out of Rhodesia after he had been identified there. Anyone who then comes to South Africa and associates with Swapo here—and it is also known that he associated himself with the ANC in Rhodesia—“begs for surveillance”, as I said in the no-confidence debate. These are the facts of the matter.

You would be negligent if you did not do so.

Yes, we would have been negligent. Whether the hon. member believes me or not, I say to her now that Mr. Rotberg was the object of attention in connection with the security of South Africa In the very short time at my disposal, I am going to prove it too.

Churchill, too, I suppose.

Then why did he get a visa?

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister has very little time left.

We did not want to identify Mr. Rotberg. We called him Mr. X. However, the hon. member for Houghton insisted on it in her serial that she released to the Press. When we have material concerning any person, even a person like Mr. Rotberg, we make use, to a great extent, of open intelligence as well as covert intelligence. I am not going to reveal any further covert intelligence on him today, because security does not allow it.

What about “koeverte”-intelligence?

Mr. Rotberg tried to enter South Africa after he had travelled all over the world. Where a professor gets the money from to be on the move so often, I do not know.

Ciskei.

However, he came to South Africa for the third time in 1972 and asked for a tourist visa. But he was not admiring the scenery of South Africa, he was visiting certain politicians and other militant leaders in South Africa instead. [Interjections.] Shortly afterwards, after he had made certain misrepresentations, Rhodesia declared him a prohibited immigrant. A year or so later, or perhaps during the same year, he tried to enter South Africa on a multiple entry visa In other words, he was asking for a visa to enable him to move in and out as quickly as possible. On 30 October, however, he decided to change his visa application. He wrote to the Consul-General. At first the Consul-General refused him a visa for South Africa, which was also partly due to the action of other diplomats. However, he was eventually allowed in and he entered South Africa on a visa.

Who granted him a visa?

I leave it to the hon. member for Houghton to tell us what she knows about that one day. [Interjections.] Then this gentleman also wrote a letter to his wife in which he said that he had secretly seen a film “more powerful and subtle than the Nana Mahona Film”, a film which sought to dissuade companies from investing money in South Africa. In other words, the aim was to withdraw capital from this country in order to cause unemployment and consequently revolution. [Interjections.]

Order!

In addition the hon. member ought to know that this Rotberg is also a member of the editorial board of Africa Today which has been referred to before. It is also interesting that Brutus is also a member of that editorial staff. This Africa Today is controlled by the American Committee on Africa, and I am now going to quote a piece of evaluated information. “Evaluated” information means information that has been examined and sifted and in regard to which the conclusion has been reached that the facts are true. In a moment I shall mention to hon. members the name of one of the people, of the department concerned, whose stamp has been placed on this. It has been discovered that the American Committee on Africa, Acoa, the most important pressure group in the economic sphere, specifically in regard to disinvestments, concentrates on the Republic of South Africa. Therefore, Rotberg was directly involved in this, and if hon. members laugh at this, I say that they have an irresponsible attitude towards the protection of what is the life blood of the Republic of South Africa. If this is harmed, we are in trouble. Acoa co-operates with all the pressure groups in the USA against South Africa—and in New York alone there are 55—as well as with the Committee to Oppose Bank Loans to South Africa. They co-operate against the RSA. This is an example of organizations—in which Rotberg is directly involved—that have been established.

It is sabotage of the economy.

I can now tell hon. members that the person who placed his stamp on this, was Mr. McGiven. He was one of the evaluators of this piece of intelligence.

Do you accept his word?

As to the question of whether Rotberg was a member of the Intelligence Service or not, we produced five pieces of evidence in the no-confidence debate to prove that this was in fact the case. Other hon. members also pointed this out. The fact is that he was identified as such by defectors from the CIA, viz. Cajee and others. He was identified as a member of an intelligence service by Cajee, a defector from the CIA. There can be no doubt about the fact that the hon. member for Houghton was entertaining a person in her home who deliberately wanted to sabotage the state structure of South Africa by means of methods which he had at his disposal. He would have done so by means of organizations, withdrawal of capital and so on. Everything points to this.

That is not true.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion lapsed.