Mr. Chairman, we are approaching the end of this defence debate, while there are still a number of matters which we should like to have debated in the true sense of the word. We were told, for example, that we would hear what the Government’s attitude was to the Steyn Commission report, inter alia. We should, of course, like to have an opportunity of reacting to it when the Government indicates what its attitude is to the Steyn Commission’s report and the recommendations contained therein, even though some aspects were dealt with during the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister. There are also a few other things, we should like to raise, as well as a few matters to which we should like to respond.

The first of these matters which I want to raise is the recent Security Council resolution which condemned South Africa for territorial transgressions alleged to have been committed into Zambia. We often hear from the United Nations and others of allegedly aggressive intentions on the part of the Republic of South Africa. We think this is an appropriate occasion to state where we stand on this particular issue.

Firstly, we believe that South Africa has or should have no aggressive intentions towards any State in Southern Africa or elsewhere. Secondly, South Africa neither needs nor wants any territory or resources which are beyond its borders. South Africa has or certainly should have no bases to use for attacks on its neighbouring countries. I believe our hands are clean in this regard.

What does Alex say?

Other States, however, do provide bases and resources, as well as assistance, to terrorist groups for incursions into South Africa. They also provide safe return facilities for terrorist groups to those bases so that they can then launch their next attack on South Africa. Surely, if these facilities are granted, a State cannot complain if hot pursuit action takes the defending forces to such bases. The decision to provide those bases is the decision of the State concerned. It is their decision. It is their hostile act which creates that situation.

I believe the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa should yet once again demonstrate to Africa the bona fides of the Republic on these issues. The bona fides of the Republic, as I see it, is that this country has no aggressive intention towards any of its neighbours. South Africa wishes to defend its own territorial integrity and is entitled to protect itself against terrorist incursions. In the light of those policies, however, is not the occasion there again for the offer of a non-aggression pact to all our neighbours in Southern Africa, guaranteeing their territorial integrity and undertaking, on the part of both parties to the non-aggression pact, that they mutually agree not to allow their territories to be used for bases for attacks upon each other? On the basis of such pacts, which, I believe, is in the spirit of the true sentiment of South Africa towards its neighbours, there should be no cause for complaint from any source in that regard. Those who, however, do allow their territory to be used for cowardly attacks upon our forces make that choice themselves. We do not make that choice for them. They have made that choice. I believe one should have no misunderstanding that that is their decision to allow the bases to be used for these attacks upon our Forces and also upon innocent civilians.

The second point upon which I should like to touch concerns some of the so-called target areas referred to in the letter of February 1980, target areas which have not yet been canvassed. I would have hoped that we would have some comment from the hon. the Minister or from the hon. the Deputy Minister in this regard. Further I raise the question of the position of Blacks, Indians and Coloureds in the S.A. Defence Force, and should like to know what steps are now being taken to ensure that there is complete equality of conditions of service and pay, whether in the border areas or wherever else it may be applicable. It is important that the existing disparity be removed. There will be no necessity for atmospheres or anything else to be created. The simple fact of doing that will solve that problem.

Another question to which I should like a response is the question of what steps are actually being taken to ensure that there are facilities available for all the recruits who join or wish to join the Defence Force. The question of recruitment is of course an important issue. In previous debates I have already drawn attention to the fact that on the official figures given there were more available and suitable recruits than we were able to absorb at that time, certainly in respect of the Coloured people.

Another matter to which I have not yet received a reply in this debate from either the hon. the Minister—who has not yet spoken—or the hon. the Deputy Minister, is the position of the more equitable sharing of the burden and of the burden that is imposed upon Citizen Force infantry. This is also one of the target areas referred to in that document. What is being done in order to make sure that there is a more equitable sharing of the burden in respect of all these matters?

Then, before I come to the Steyn Commission, I should like to return to the Biermann report. The question I want to put, and to which I have not yet received an answer, to which nobody has yet given an answer in this debate, is the question of why it was necessary to create an atmosphere in respect of this debate. What kind of atmosphere was sought to be created in these circumstances? The atmosphere that has existed in this debate has, to my mind, been a most unfortunate one, because it has consisted of attacks on the loyalty of people. It has created division. It has certainly created an impression that there is an utter resentment of any form of criticism on the part of the Government. This new era of sensitivity seems to be coming into existence where anybody who dares to criticize this Government has got to be accused of disloyalty, of a lack of patriotism and of all those sorts of characteristics. [Interjections.] I say to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence that it is not for him to ask me to give testimony of my loyalty; it is rather for him to demonstrate that his conduct in this debate is of such a nature that he is really acting in the interests of the Defence Force. He did not respond—nobody responded—to what I thought was the appropriate offer where I said: Let us sort out, outside the House, how we can best ensure that there should not be politics in the Defence Force. [Interjections.] That offer has not been accepted. It has even not been responded to. There can be no greater demonstration of bona fides.

Why is it necessary that matters should be remedied for the purpose of this debate? Surely matters should be remedied throughout the year to make sure that our Defence Force functions properly. There is no special significance in things being put right only for this debate.

The last question—to which there has also been no answer—is why it is necessary for the Biermann report to be confidential, apart from the request made that the names in the report should be confidential, which we immediately said we would respect? Why is there now this tendency in South Africa to prevent things becoming public when issues of national security are not involved? [Interjections.] Where is there any issue of national security involved in this report which prevents it becoming public? [Interjections.] Let us deal with the true facts. When I was initially asked to respect the confidentiality of the names, although they were not given to me by the hon. the Deputy Minister, I said I would have no problem in regard to that. However, when it came to the question of the rest of the report, I had a problem. When I came back from the meeting with the hon. the Deputy Minister, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had already consulted with the hon. the Prime Minister separately. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was under the impression that only the names were to be confidential and that the rest of the report was to be made public. That was a different situation. I told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the whole report was to be confidential. We then verified that. That is how the situation arose that there was a difference of opinion. Why should one be asked to keep the names confidential when the whole report is supposed to be confidential? It is a most remarkable set of circumstances.

Hon. members, no matter how hard they try, will find that there are no divisions or differences of opinion between the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and myself on this issue. The hon. the Prime Minister promised in response to a question, that he would deal fully with the Steyn Commission report in this debate, and I would have hoped that we would have the opportunity of responding to him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point, who told me in advance that he could not be present now, and other hon. members, including the hon. member for Yeoville, who has just spoken, referred to the threat to South Africa. I think I should make a few remarks in this connection. I do not want to take up too much of the time of this House.

In the first place I want to refer in a few words to the internal threat which exists and which we have debated at some length over the past few days. It would appear to me that there are certain differences in principle between the official Opposition and this side of the House about how we should approach it. One of these differences is that the official Opposition believes that the only way to deal with the internal threat is by having an open society which must ultimately lead to a unitary State …

That is not correct.

… or a federation.

That is better. [Interjections.]

Order!

A federation is only a kind of unitary State of all the population groups. In the opinion of this side of the House, this will only lead to chaos in the country, because certain minority groups in South Africa will not accept it. It seems to me, therefore, that I should not take this any further this afternoon. There is an unbridgeable gulf between us as far as that standpoint is concerned. However, I think we agree about one thing—at least, I hope we do— and that is that we want to settle our differences through constitutional channels. Then we shall already have an unifying element which will enable us to defend South Africa together, and I shall come back to this aspect later. Although our standpoints as political parties concerning the internal threat are diametrically opposed, we recognize, as far as the granting of rights is concerned, that we want to clear up the problem between us in a constitutional way.

In the second place, there is a power struggle between the East and the West. The Republic of South Africa is caught up in this power struggle and is therefore exploited as an exposed political target in the international arena. I think we are agreed about this. There is unnecessary involvement of South Africa in the international arena, through no fault of our own, as a result of interference and opportunism on the part of certain international powers.

Furthermore, there is the terrorist threat. I am not speaking only of the international terrorist threat. There is also the Southern African terrorist threat. I believe that the terrorist organizations will try, in the short and medium term, to intensify their terrorist onslaught on soft targets, and they are being encouraged and incited to do so by forces from outside, in response to, and in support of, a possible internal political problem. They are trying to raise its threshold.

Furthermore, there is the conventional military onslaught we have to bear in mind. There is a gradual build-up of more sophisticated arms in neighbouring States, especially in Mozambique, Angola and Zambia. Such equipment can be converted almost overnight into a credible instrument of Russian aggression. I personally do not believe that the Russians will interfere directly in Africa, or in Southern Africa for that matter. I have debated this matter with people of stature who have visited our country and who are experts in this field. They agree with me. They do not think either that the Russians will interfere directly in Southern Africa. However, Russia will try to create conditions which will cause it to be invited in, and when it is invited in, it will interfere by proxy as it has already interfered by proxy elsewhere in Africa. Only this afternoon there were reports in the news again about the number of Cubans in Ethiopia, for example. Of course, we know how many Cubans there are in Angola.

There is the external threat as far as Zimbabwe is concerned. I believe that the new Zimbabwe will probably be pressurized to play an active role in the onslaught on the Republic of South Africa in the future. However, only time will show whether it will yield to that pressure. Then there is the OAU, which plays its role at the UN and in its own right as an instigater and director of international action against the Republic of South Africa, and it is playing this role while a large number of its members are trading with us and are dependent on us for many matters. Then, too, there is the Soviet block, which also forms part of the external threat. Developments around Zimbabwe and South West Africa are creating opportunities that can be exploited by the Soviet block, which is prepared to act in a purposeful and aggressive manner in order to achieve its objectives and promote its interests.

The hon. member for Yeoville has just asked me whether I shall confirm what he said, but he was only repeating what we have often said, i.e. that the Republic of South Africa has no aggressive intentions towards any neighbouring State or any other country on earth. On the contrary, we are prepared—this was stated by my predecessor and I repeat it—to conclude non-aggression pacts with any neighbouring State, whether on our borders of further afield. In fact, we have non-aggression pacts with some independent States in Southern Africa who concluded those pacts with us when they became independent. We wish to extend these to any other neighbouring State, nonaggression pacts which will mean that we will not invade them and that they will not commit any act of aggression on our territory or violated it from their territory either. Because there must be no doubt about the Government’s standpoint, I want to make it quite clear that if our territory is threatened, if South African territory, or a territory which is under our protection, is violated, we shall strike back. This is not just a promise; we are already doing so. We have no quarrel with the forces of peaceful neighbouring States, but we do have a quarrel with terrorists who use the neighbouring States as springboards to launch attacks against South Africa, and if a neighbouring State allows itself to be drawn into the aggressive behaviour of terrorists, it will have to pay that price, of course. We prefer to be left in peace to settle our own affairs and we think our neighbouring States could very fruitfully devote their attention to their own internal problems without picking a quarrel with us. I hope the hon. member is satisfied with the standpoint.

As regards the attitude of the Western countries towards these threats, I must admit that there are some of them that exercise a moderating influence on the international affairs we are involved in—some to a greater and others to a lesser extent. I want to thank those in the Western world who exercise a moderating influence. In particular, I should like publicly to convey my thanks to the British Prime Minister for the sensible and moderating influence she is exercising, in connection with South Africa as well. However, I want to add that if the Republic of South Africa is tripped up, if the Republic of South Africa is weakened, or if those who pose the most serious threat to us succeed in overthrowing the Republic of South Africa, we shall not be the only ones who will pay the price, but the West will pay a bigger price in spite of the hope which exists in some Western countries that they may be able to make a different arrangement with regard to the raw materials supplied by South Africa as well as our strategic position. They will pay a price from which they will not recover. They can disparage our strategic position and our strategic minerals as much as they like for opportunistic reasons, but they will pay the price if anything goes wrong with South Africa. As regards the time factor in the total threat with which the Republic is faced, the time factor is important—I have said so in the past and I say it again—for the solution of our domestic problems as well as the resolution of our relationships in Southern Africa. The present internal and external tendencies show a systematic escalation in the total onslaught on the Republic of South Africa. For this reason, through the application of its total national strength, not only in respect of the reactive combating of threats, but wherever possible also for the elimination of the fundamental causes which give rise to the threat, the Republic of South Africa can in fact drastically influence the nature, the magnitude and the intensity of the onslaught, as well as the time scale, if only we would learn to get along with one another.

†I wish to join the hon. member for Durban Point in the hope he expressed that there would be a rethink about the importance to the west of the Cape sea route. I have stated my views on this matter on many occasions in this House and elsewhere. When I opened Simonstown’s tidal basin on 22 March this year, I once again stressed the point that Simonstown and the strategic position of South Africa were of the utmost importance. But I am afraid that we are not heard in the international councils on this point. In military councils, yes. I know for a fact that military leaders in the West, i the Free World, are well aware, most of them, of the important situation and strategic position which we hold. But the politicians right throughout the Free World are quiet. They are silent on this matter.

The hon. member for Durban Point also said that a solution must be found for the SWA situation. I do not want to deal with that situation today in detail. Militarily speaking, we have the situation under control, and I think we have done well in combating terrorism in South West Africa.

*Looking at recent history, one sees that since the Second World War, there have been few terrorist wars in which the defence forces have succeeded in repelling the terrorist onslaughts. In South West Africa we have succeeded, with a few exceptions, in pinning down the terrorist forces at the border and often driving them back to where they operate from. We have the position under control and it is to the credit of our security forces that are jointly operating there. However, I want to add that a political solution for South West Africa is imperative. South Africa is not the one that is delaying a political solution. However, South Africa has obligations towards the people of South West Africa. The Republic of South Africa cannot throw the people of South West Africa to the wolves. But then the people of South West Africa must themselves display a better spirit towards one another. I am reproached for saying this, but I repeat that they must evince a better spirit towards one another if they want a political solution to be found. They chose to become independent; therefore they must accept the consequences of this.

However, I want to say something else about this. The Free World, in particular— the West and here I am thinking more specifically of the five Western powers with which we have negotiated—has not yet done what the UN Secretariat and the General Assembly does, namely to single out Swapo and to place it in a privileged position in respect of the representation of South West Africa. We all know that the General Assembly has said: “We accept that Swapo is the sole representative of the peoples of South West Africa.” This is the most ludicrous resolution that a responsible assembly such as that one could ever adopt. Unless the West dissociates itself from that concept and accepts that there are other political organizations representing the majority of the population, there can be no political solution. In my opinion, much more attention should be given to the will of those political organizations within South West Africa that wish to act constitutionally. There should also be much more consultation with them, and I hope that the international community which is sincere in its attempts to find a solution will seek such a solution in consultation with the leaders of the political organizations inside South West Africa. We shall help them in that connection. A body will also have to be established in South West Africa which will be able to govern the territory, even though it is not yet independent, because military security must be backed up by effective government. Military action alone cannot create the necessary security. Where we have proceeded to train certain security forces for South West Africa, security forces consisting of inhabitants of South West Africa itself, with regard to the Police as well as the Defence Force, I am therefore prepared, i.e. the Government is prepared, to transfer those powers to the control of a body in South West Africa which is able to govern effectively. Then, however, the inhabitants of South West Africa must be econciled with one another and must discuss with one another what they can do to help ensure political stability in South West Africa. I do not want to say any more about this matter. We are willing to do this, and in doing so, we should be transferring a large part of the administration of South West Africa to the inhabitants of South West Africa themselves.

In the Steyn report, the term “peoples’ defence force” is used, and we often hear it in conversation as well, and in speeches made by hon. members in this House. Therefore it is important that I should say a few words about this matter as well. In my opinion, the S.A. Defence Force should be organized, as far as the economy allows, in such a way as to constitute a representative Defence Force. However, a Defence Force cannot be built on numbers only. A defence force is a finely tuned instrument and as such it must be based on expertise, leadership and the ability to handle arms. The manpower problem cannot be solved overnight, as people think, simply by adding elements from the people to the defence force. It is the task of the Government, but also of other parties, of all South Africans, to help elevate the South African Defence Force above party political disputes and to keep it there. For these two principles, i.e. that a defence force must be representative and that it must be an organization that is above party political disputes, I have worked successfully for 14 years, and I am not prepared to apologize to anyone as far as this is concerned, for I have succeeded.

The task of the South African Defence Force in the ’eighties is clearly spelt out on pages 24 and 25 of the report of the Steyn Commission. It is neatly summarized, along with the statutory provisions. Because I know them, I know that the leaders of the S.A. Defence Force, the Chief of the Defence Force and all the other leaders, fully understand this task that is spelt out and the principles to which I have referred. The report of the Steyn Commission also emphasizes the way in which this task is being complicated, and I sincerely hope that the warnings that are sounded in the report will be heeded by our country and its people.

I want to refer in passing to one remark I made in another speech yesterday in referring to the Steyn Report, because I am afraid that such a distorted version of it was presented to the country this morning that it did not help to clarify matters, but only to create greater misunderstanding. I ask myself where we are heading if we deal with our security services and our country’s security in such a reckless way. I was referring to paragraph 74 of the Steyn report. I did not mention it specifically, but my remarks were a summary of this paragraph. The paragraph reads as follows—

I am not the one who says this. It is this well-considered report by people who are not involved in politics which says, after a thorough investigation: “Take care that you do not play the game of the revolutionaries and of the terrorists by giving such prominence to their activities that they destroy what you want to protect.” I was referring to this yesterday. I appealed to the editors-in-chief of newspapers to co-operate to this end. I asked them please to make it their policy not to help promote terrorism in this way.

I went on to say that I did not want to exclude the television service in this connection, but to include it, for when the Government speaks of the media, the accusing question is always asked: “What about television?” For that reason I specifically said that television should be included in this. I went further and said that if the newspapers refused to co-operate, they would leave the State no other choice than to ensure that they do. I said that television was financed by the State and that I would see that the television service, the SABC, was instructed to apply the same principles. What is wrong with that? I want to say now that I shall approach the board of the SABC and ask them to ensure that this policy is followed on the basis of the Steyn report. But after all, I am asking the newspaper editors to do the same. If I had to choose … [Interjections.] … Listen to that, Sir. I am talking to a blank wall. Some hon. members simply are not listening. They do not want to know about these things. [Interjections.]

Order!

No matter what Government is in power in South Africa, no matter whether this responsibility is resting on me or on any other man, can we with open eyes, against the background of what we have witnessed in other countries, allow the media to play the game of our enemies without doing anything about it? I appeal to all reasonable people in the country to tell me what the Government is to do. Is it to sit back and allow everything to be destroyed before its eyes? This is the standpoint of the Government, and I hope that I shall enjoy the support and co-operation of the vast majority of the members of this House and of the Other Place in implementing it.

In order to achieve this, in order to create that climate to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred, a climate of purposefulness in which the Defence Force is on its toes, we have in recent years, over and above the steps I have mentioned, invited hon. members wherever possible to visit the operational area. We have gone even further and invited hon. members to inspect installations and bases of the Defence Force. We have enabled them to mingle with officers and ordinary people. We want to create a bond of unity between all political parties represented in this House and the Defence Force. Nor have we failed to do so.

The S.A. Defence Force has been so frank that I have sometimes hesitated because I thought that we were endangering our security. What is more, they have succeeded in obtaining the goodwill and co-operation of South Africa’s business leaders. Never in the history of our country has there been a better relationship—there may have been an equally good one, but not a better relation ship—between the Armaments Organization, the S.A. Defence Force and the business leaders of our country. Between them and the Ministry of Defence there is the same relationship.

For this reason, I appointed a Defence Advisory Council some years ago which meets from time to time, is informed, as members of Parliament are informed, and is given an opportunity to take an objective look at our internal operations and to advise us. I am glad to be able to announce that I have reconstituted the Defence Advisory Council and have succeeded in obtaining the co-operation of the most prominent business leaders of South Africa to serve on it. They have already been approached on my behalf and have indicated that they will serve on it. I should like to read their names: Dr. F. J. du Plessis; Dr. Wim de Villiers; Mr. J. Wilkens of the S.A. Agricultural Union; Dr. J. A. Hurter, Volkskas; Mr. G. Relly, Johannesburg; Mr. A. M. Rosholt, Sandton; Mr. C. Saunders of Natal; Mr. R. Lurie, Marshalltown; Mr. B. E. Hersov, Marshalltown; Mr. I. McKenzie, Johannesburg; Mr. R. J. Goss, Johannesburg; Mr. J. G. van der Horst, Cape Town; and Dr. Frans Cronje, Johannesburg. I think that with this list of names, we have obtained some of the top business leaders in South Africa to serve on the Defence Advisory Board in order to advise me from the inside, not only about the armaments industry, but also about the best business methods to be applied within the Defence Force. I welcome the fact that these people came forward and said that they were prepared to advise me, to sit with me around a table and to help me. It will be observed that I took no notice of party political considerations in this case. I want to unite the business leaders of South Africa, representative as they are, behind the S.A. Defence Force. I want to unite the private sector behind the S.A. Defence Force. I think I have succeeded in doing so. [Interjections.] With these steps we shall give further impetus to the preparations for the safeguarding of our country.

I want to ask what the S.A. Defence Force is fighting for. In the first place, the S. A. Defence Force is fighting for the preservation of religious freedom in South Africa. This is why, a hundred denominations are represented under the Chaplain-General in the Defence Force organization—the Standing Force, the Citizen Force and the commandoes. We are fighting for religious freedom in South Africa. Secondly, we are fighting for an independent administration of justice in South Africa, in contrast to what we see elsewhere in the world. Thirdly, we are fighting for the right to settle our political disputes with one another in a constitutional way. We are fighting for the right to disagree with one another if we want to. We are fighting for a self-controlled and free Press, not an irresponsible Press. We are fighting for the orderly, evolutionary development of the Republic of South Africa. We are fighting for a free economy in contrast to the failures of Marxism elsewhere in Africa. We are fighting for the peaceful co-existence of the various peoples of the Republic of South Africa and we are fighting for a place for this country in the ranks of the free nations of the world. We are organizing the S.A. Defence Force with these objectives in view. With these objectives in view we are spending money and appealing to the South African public to strengthen the S.A. Defence Force with dedication.

Now it is also true that the S.A. Defence Force is being undermined, and the spearhead of that undermining process is the African National Congress and Swapo. These two form the spearhead of the subversion of the S.A. Defence Force. Their leaders are abroad, are lying low there and taking action against South Africa under Marxist guidance, and making propaganda against the security services, as well as the police of South Africa. However, they have their collaborators. Their collaborators are dealt with in the Steyn report. One of them is the Committee on South African War Resisters, to which the hon. member for Kimberley South referred last night. Then there is also the S.A. Military Refugee Aid Fund in the USA. The leader of the West is harbouring people who are bent on overthrowing this civilized country. Furthermore, there is also the S.A. Diensweieraars-projek in Holland. Dear Lord, one should best remain silent.

However, there are also cunning collaborators in some media who are engaged in subversive activities by means of calculated reporting. The Steyn report deals with that too. Hon. members would do well to read it. They need not believe me if they do not want to. They need only consult the report of this judicial commission.

Even religion is being exploited in order to undermine the S.A. Defence Force. Under the guise of a high-priestly sense of justice, an onslaught is being made on the loyalties and motivation of the youth of South Africa to do their duty in safeguarding this country. I leave it at that. The only other thing I want to ask is that every member of this House, as well as every member of the Other Place and every public representative, should ask himself where he stands in this conflict and what he is prepared to do in public in order to oppose it. It is no use simply professing it here; we must also state on the platforms on which we appear, everywhere outside this House, wherever our personal influence counts, that we are opposed to the subversion of the S.A. Defence Force.

I shall now proceed to deal with other matters that were raised. The hon. member for Yeoville, as well as other hon. members, referred to the much-discussed document which the board of inquiry under the chairmanship of Admiral Biermann was appointed to investigate. I say to the hon. member for Yeoville that there can be only one decision-making authority when one appoints a board of inquiry, and this is the Chief of the Defence Force. There can be one only. The Minister cannot do this. In terms of the Act, the Chief of the Defence Force must do it. However, I took the lead by asking the Chief of the Defence Force to appoint Admiral Biermann, because I have absolute confidence in his integrity. Is there anyone in this House who will stand up and say that he does not have confidence in the integrity of Admiral Biermann? [Interjections.] Let him stand up and say that he does not trust Hugo Biermann.

We asked him to produce a report. The terms of reference were very clear. They appear in the document that has been published. However, there is more to come. The hon. member for Yeoville said last night, and I wrote down approximately what his words were—

I was talking about the public.

Surely what the hon. member said last night is not true. What did I do? When the report reached me, I read through it and immediately decided that the evidence that was led and the names mentioned in the evidence and findings, the names of respected officers, would not be made public. They did not commit a crime. They did not steal anything or contravene the Defence Act. One of them compiled a document which was an error of judgment. In addition, only three paragraphs of that document constituted an error of judgment. The names of three other people, three senior people, were implicated. I asked myself: Must I allow the names of these respected officers to be bruited abroad and make them the subject of discussion of curious scandal-mongers although they have not committed any crime? I then decided that I would accept the responsibility of protecting them and I say it again this afternoon: I shall protect them.

No one objects to that.

That is why I acted openly by inviting the three hon. leaders of the Opposition parties to come and see me. I invited the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Simonstown. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was unable to come, because he was not here. Therefore I consulted with the other two gentlemen first and with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on the following day. I told all three of them the same thing, viz. that in the first place I was not prepared to have these names published, but that I had had a document drawn up which was an exact copy of what is contained in the documents, and which was endorsed by the officers concerned to the effect that they were satisfied that it was an exact copy of the original document. The officers concerned endorsed that they were satisfied that it was an exact copy. I had it drawn up for publication. I said that I would make the document public, but not the names. I also said that I was prepared to allow the three leaders of the Opposition parties to study the document individually. I extended the same invitation to the chairman of the defence group of the NP. I went even further and asked the hon. the Deputy Minister to invite the hon. member for Yeoville, too, since he is one of the speakers on defence, to peruse this document under the same conditions. That, then is the story.

But why is it confidential?

Order!

An exact copy of what is contained in the document, was published.

And the telex?

Order!

The only thing that was not published, was the names of the three or four officers, because I am not prepared to have their names bandied about.

And the telex?

Order!

The telex was seen by Admiral Biermann as well as by these three gentlemen.

That is not public.

It was seen by the two gentlemen and it can also be seen by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Why cannot the public see it?

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

Mr. Chairman, would the hon. Prime Minister tell us what is contained in the report, other than the names that he does not want to publish, and which we agree should not be published, that would jeopardize the national security? Why cannot the public see that report? That is the principle involved.

I repeat what I have already said. If I were to publish the entire report of the Biermann inquiry, it would cast a reflection on the integrity of some officers. Their names are mentioned throughout the evidence. I am not prepared to do so. What the hon. member actually wants, is to get at the Chief of the Defence Force. I accuse him of wanting to get at the Chief of the Defence Force, and I say it is a disgrace.

I reject that with contempt.

I say it is a disgrace!

I reject that with contempt.

Order!

These tactics are typical of you.

Order!

That is why he put certain questions last night. That is why he asked who the decision-making authority is.

Yes, of course.

That is why he raised that matter. He has other motives besides simply seeking to get at the truth behind this document.

Oh, nonsense. You know that is not true.

Order!

You just want to cover up.

Order!

One and the same offer was made to all three political parties. Two of the leaders of the political parties had the courage to come and look at the documents, and I believe that the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition will still come and look at them too. [Interjections.] However, I have already made a decision on this matter, and the hon. member for Yeoville may do whatever he wants now. I stand by the decision I have made. [Interjections.]

Order!

I have said my say on this, and the hon. member may bellow, shout or carry on like a childish child. He will not get any further.

The public will sit in judgment.

We shall see.

There are two aspects that are clear from his behaviour. Firstly, he objects to the Chief of the Defence Force being the decision-making authority. [Interjections.] By not accepting the findings and the recommendations that were published, he is casting a reflection on the man who made the inquiry. He does not stop his insults, but carries on disparaging and humiliating people. I say this is because he is not man enough to act in an adult way on an occasion like this. [Interjections.]

Order!

Then that big old spectre behind him keeps on laughing, just to encourage him. [Interjections.]

Who has made a fool of himself today?

I want to leave this matter at that now because I do not think it is necessary to explain it any further.

I want to make a few other announcements to the House. The first is that we are still making progress with various developments in the Defence Force and with the assistance of Armscor, we have now succeeded in perfecting a project we have been working on, viz. to develop and complete an artillery rocket launching system here in the Republic of South Africa to counteract a similar Russian system.

Hear, hear!

The system has already been tested and is in production at present. It has a 100% local content.

Hear, hear!

It seems that some people are not pleased about it. The Chief Whip of the party over there, for instance, is laughing at it. He does not say he is pleased. It bothers him that we are making progress. [Interjections.] He is annoyed about it. He does not want it. It galls him.

I shall tell you in private what tickled my fancy.

Yes, all the hon. member still has is his fancy.

It has quite a lot to do with you too; so do not worry.

Order!

I have seen the system in action and I must say that it was a pleasure for me. It did not tickle my fancy. I was proud to think that South African scientists, technicians and military people co-operated and were able to produce this weapon.

Secondly, I should like to say that, in order to get all three arms of the Defence Force to co-operate, it has been decided that in future the S.A. Navy will also participate by continually having a unit of company strength in the operational area in order to participate in the process of safeguarding the borders. In that way the Navy is also coming forward to do its duty in this sphere. Furthermore, I must say that it has been decided to declare the S.A. Medical Service Corps a full-fledged arm of the Defence Force as from 1 July 1979, on an equal footing with the Army, the Air Force and the Navy, that the training centre of this service will be moved to Potchefstroom and the present training centre will be used as the S.A. Medical Service College.

As far as defence matters are concerned, I just want to conclude by expressing my sincere thanks to the Council for the War Veterans’ Organizations, who recently made two decisions for which I should like to convey my personal thanks to them. The first is that in collaboration with the Department of Public Works, they are going to erect a monument to the unknown soldier on Stal Plein. This will coincide with the restructuring of Stal Plein. Their second decision is that, in co-operation with the Vrouemonumente Committee, a monument will be erected in Bloemfontein to the burghers of the Anglo-Boer War, the first of its kind in the country. In this way our history, through the co-operation of the ex-servicemen and the present Defence Force, becomes our common heritage. Now I should like to reply briefly to the representations made by a number of members.

†The hon. member for Yeoville made a plea for increased pay for air crews and also for a larger Air Force. During 1979 flying pay allowances for air crews were more than doubled to almost treble the previous amount. This was part of the 1979 pay package. They will also share in the benefits we are voting this year. The programme “Air Defence” is apparently mistakenly interpreted as representative of the whole Air Force in the printed budget. This is not so. The aim of the defence programme, as printed in the budget, is to secure the Republic of South Africa’s strategic air space so as to protect vulnerable targets in the heartland. The air defence programme, however, does in fact show an increase of 66% for personnel expenditure, and the overall decrease results from a R20 million decrease on the Special Defence Account. Total expenditure under the programme can in any event not be used to evaluate operational effectiveness. Some R580 million is being provided for the total Air Force in the budget, of which 57% is spent on equipment, spares and ammunition and some 15%, or R84 million, on personnel, an increase of 45% on the previous year.

The hon. member also made the point that the publication Warrior is paid for from State funds. The facts, however, are that this publication is a command information bulletin and is sponsored by private firms. No State funds are being used for this purpose.

*The hon. member for Durban Point dealt with maltreatment in the Defence Force, and I do not think anyone would quarrel with what he said. The establishment of the complaints office already serves as a deterrent to bullying, as he called it. With the selection of junior leaders particular attention is paid to candidates with satisfactory interpersonal relationships. Instructions on the prevention of heat exhaustion are constantly being issued and applied. In accordance with the declared policy of the Chief of the Defence Force, no concessions are made where assaults are proved, and the code of discipline is applied in all its severity; in other words, what can be done to achieve what the hon. member advocated, is being done.

The hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Durban Point advocated the creation of a Permanent Force combat formation for deployment in operations. During the past few years the strength of the Permanent Force has grown considerably, not only in respect of Whites, but also in respect of other race groups. In the South West Africa operational area the basic combat elements of a brigade type of formation have already been deployed and are constantly giving an exceptionally good account of themselves. The force development plan of the S.A. Army makes specific provision for the formation of units which are going to be made up of Permanent Force members, including short- and medium-term personell. In addition it should be borne in mind that the majority of the S.A. Air Force air crews are augmented from the ranks of the Permanent Force. This pattern of crew formation will be maintained in future, and these elements are available for air combat and also for Army ground formation support.

The hon. member for Durban Point asked whether enough was being done in the sphere of civic action. Civic action is, as he knows, co-ordinated communication and auxiliary operations, with the purpose of supporting the military operations of the Defence Force. This auxiliary programme covers the technical, agricultural, medical, veterinarian and educational spheres, and within the limits of manpower, finances and other operational obligations, we are trying our best to do justice to civic action.

The hon. member for Yeoville requested that the helicopter capacity be expanded. The position of the Defence Force as far as helicopters are concerned, according to the present prediction of operations, is satisfactory. To ensure that we will as far as possible be prepared and able to react to any eventuality, a team consisting of members of the Air Force, Armscor and Atlas is at present carrying out an extensive investigation, firstly into the most suitable configuration of helicopters for use in present and future situations and, secondly, the extent to which local industries are already able to make a contribution to local manufacture and the updating of existing helicopters.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Pretoria West for the level-headed way in which he discussed the document last night. I also wish to associate myself with his congratulations to the Military Academy on the occasion of the celebration of its thirtieth anniversary.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg made a positive contribution, and I think he replied fairly well to the hon. member for Yeoville.

The hon. member for Pietersburg gave the Air Force a fine testimonial. I want to thank him for doing so. We are all proud of the Air Force, and we are also grateful that they were able to reach this historical year of their existence.

The hon. member for Jeppe raised the pay issue, something which was subsequently discussed by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I think the facts which he furnished demonstrated that we are experiencing problems, but that we are trying to solve them. However, the operational conditions and the constant mobility are making this difficult. Someone asked why the Railways was not experiencing the same problem. Surely one cannot compare these two organizations. They are two entirely different organizations. Surely the Railways is not operated under conditions such as those which prevail in the operational area. Nor is the Railways operated under conditions in which civilians are sometimes called up to render service, or where national servicemen are required to furnish information which is sometimes incomplete. There are difficulties, but the hon. the Deputy Minister furnished the figures here yesterday evening, and I do not believe the situation to be all that serious. Of course it is wrong that anything of this nature should occur, but it is not all that terribly serious.

The hon. member for Wynberg spoke about the payment of members of the Air Force who were cleared at Valhalla. According to my information it was decided, because national servicemen are normally paid on the last day of the month, to pay this group from the unit’s loan account. However, because provision had only been made for R2 000 in this account, there was not sufficient cash to pay the personal allowances of everyone in full. As soon as they arrive at the other units, however, they will be paid, and my information is that most of them have already been paid. This is a purely administrative matter which the hon. member could have cleared up with my department.

The contributions which the hon. member for Ladybrand makes always testify to the thorough knowledge he has of the commando system. I want to thank him for the advice he has given us, and I want to tell him that we shall look into it.

The hon. member for Humansdorp made a fine contribution on Armscor, for which I wish to thank him. It is necessary and fitting that the employees of Armscor should be thanked.

†The hon. member for Edenvale also made a positive contribution, and I thank him for that. We have our basic differences, but his contribution was nevertheless positive. I hope he is fully aware of the fact that although we have the same goal, we are travelling towards that goal along different roads. [Interjections.]

He is not one of the clique as yet!

The hon. member for Simonstown asked for a corps of military correspondents, with uniforms similar to Defence Force uniforms. The Defence Force carried out an in-depth study of this possibility, and of the practice in other countries in this respect. A draft Defence Force order in respect of correspondents who accompany the Defence Force on war service, has already been completed and will come into effect as soon as certain proposed amendments have been made to the Code of Discipline. As for the establishment of a corps of military correspondents, we must be careful that it does not develop into a trade union, but into a corps. In any case, we shall consider the hon. member’s recommendations.

For the most part the hon. member for Carletonville discussed the matter of the freedom of choice of a national serviceman to decide when he should do his service. We must constantly emphasize that he has two choices. Either he can commence his studies first, or he can do his national service before the commencement of his further studies. There is information available in this connection. Some parents prefer their children to complete their national service first, while others are of a different opinion. In all countries this remains a very difficult matter to implement to the satisfaction of everyone.

The hon. members for Humansdorp and Umhlanga commented on the relatively constant State expenditure on defence. I think this is an achievement, and it points to efficient administration. I can tell hon. members that I have people from the private sector who are constantly co-operating in order to approve administrative systems in the Defence Force. Some of these prominent business leaders have told me that the way in which the finances and budgeting of the Defence Force are being handled not only redounds to the credit of the Defence Force, but is among the best in the country. I am saying this on the basis of evidence given to me. Thanks to the untiring zeal of Armscor, the arms and ammunition programmes are also in motion, and with the exception of provision for price increases, large expansions of the defence expenditure during the past year were not necessary. Of course, if our country could afford it, I should like to see a few hundred million more rands being spent, because then we would be able to build up our reserves and supplies to a far greater extent than is the case at present. But we must also take into account the requirements in other spheres. The Defence Force has always adopted the sensible attitude that it should not obtain benefits from the State estimates in an unbalanced way, but should deploy as part of a total strategy, and for that they also deserve some credit.

The hon. member for Umhlanga discussed the utilization and remuneration of professionally qualified national servicemen. Within the framework of the needs of the Defence Force constant attempts are being made to utilize national servicemen who are graduates or who have diplomas to the maximum extent according to their qualifications. This policy is being applied more intensively all the time. It is the accepted policy, and if there are anomalies in this connection, it must be brought to the attention of the top echelons of the Defence Force, and I am certain that they will look into the matter. My experience has been that the young men are sometimes a little shy to speak up themselves. They are at liberty to speak to their commanding officers, if only they would display the courage to state their standpoint on where they would like to be used in another capacity.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South discussed the leave arrangements for national servicemen. I should like to thank him for the positive part of his speech, and as far as the other part is concerned—it was not entirely negative—I want to tell him that every national serviceman in his first year receives seven days and in his second year 14 days leave. In addition to this he receives travelling time and a ticket to and from his destination. I do not think we can afford more than that at the present, seen against the demands of other requirements that have to be satisfied.

The hon. member for Roodepoort asked for more cool drinks, but asked that beer should not necessarily be abolished, for if a soldier in the operational area has perspired a lot on a hot day, a beer really goes down well. [Interjections.] As a result of the high price of cool drinks in South West Africa— an average of 25 cents per 350 ml can, as against 20 cents in the Republic—and the low price of beer in South West Africa, cool drinks used to be subsidized in the operational area. However, we could not continue to do this because it had to be done from private funds. A fruit juice concentrate, which is diluted in the proportion of one part of concentrate to six parts of water, is issued to members of the Defence Force. On the general scale 40 ml per day per person are issued. In areas in the RSA and South West Africa where heat exhaustion could possibly occur, an additional 130 ml per day per person are issued. In the RSA and in South West Africa, an additional 60 ml per person per day are issued from September to April. Consequently we are also promoting the consumption of fruit juice.

Hear, hear!

The hon. the Minister who is crying “Hear, hear” will be able to tell hon. members that I insisted a long time ago that we should do something about the better distribution of fruit juice in those areas. [Interjections.]

The hon. members for Stilfontein, Standerton, Wonderboom, De Aar, Vryheid, Middelburg, Kimberley South and Ermelo also made contributions. I wish to thank them all for the to-the-point contributions which they made. If this debate left one impression, it was the way in which hon. members prepared themselves to make a contribution. I thank them sincerely for doing so. It is an encouragement to the Defence Force and to Armscor as well. If there are matters which I have not yet dealt with, we shall give attention to them after the session.

There is just one more matter which I want to say a few words about, and that is the question which was asked about the position with civil defence as far as Coloureds, Indians and Blacks are concerned. The reply in brief is that steps are in fact being taken to ensure that they are included in the civil defence action. I hope that they will make themselves available for this purpose in ever-increasing numbers.

I think that I have, with this, replied to most of the points which were raised.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? There are three things I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to react to. The first is the unequal distribution of the burden in respect of certain units; the second, complete equality in respect of conditions of service for all servicemen, irrespective of race or colour, and the third, the question of the Steyn Commission’s report. The hon. the Minister has not said whether he actually accepts the recommendations or not. I was hoping for him to say something about the Steyn Commission report.

I regret having accidentally omitted to deal with the Steyn Report. The Government considers the Steyn Commission’s report to be valuable, and I think we should all convey a word of thanks to Mr. Justice Steyn and the members of his commission for what they succeeded in doing in so short a time. It is a thorough piece of work. Mr. Justice Steyn has had personal experience of many of the things dealt with in this report.

In the second place I wish to state that the Government will proceed, during the present session, with legislation dealing with the S.A. Defence Force, legislation pertaining to section 118A, legislation pertaining to Armscor, pursuant to proposals in the Steyn report, and legislation pertaining to the S.A. Police.

In the third place we are already giving attention to administrative steps proposed by the Steyn Commission on the Defence Force, and we shall carry these steps into effect as far as our co-operation with the media is concerned. However, the success of these steps will also depend on the willingness of the Press to give effect to the recommendations of the Steyn Commission as far as they affect them. I wrote a letter to the Press Union in which I asked them please to let me know what they were going to do to apply the recommendations contained in the Steyn report, as far as the media was concerned. I am waiting for their reply. I hope that the first reaction, such as the one we saw this morning, is not an indication of what we may expect.

The hon. member also put questions on salaries and the equalization of salaries. Last year I made a general statement in this House on how the State wishes to promote the equalization of salaries. Within the framework of that statement we shall give more and more positive attention to this matter, and also as finances become available. I do not wish to take it any further this afternoon, but in principle there is no objection to it; on certain conditions, of course, of which the hon. member is aware.

The hon. member also asked for the burden placed on units which are called up to be more equally distributed. I agree with that, and the Defence Force is already looking into the matter again because we must try, considering the problems which the Defence Force has, to distribute the burden more evenly. I also agree with that.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the Third Reading of the Bill after, I must say, one of the longest Committee Stages I have seen in my short time in Parliament. I believe, however, that the Committee Stage was very valuable because a number of amendments were agreed to. At the same time we in these benches regret that a number of other amendments which we believe would have been very good additional features or principles in the Bill were not accepted by the hon. the Minister. Perhaps I may briefly spell out some of the areas we believe are cause for concern.

I think the first area concerns the question as to what is in the Bill and what is in the hands of the department. We believe that too much which could and should have been put in the legislation is left in the hands of the hon. the Minister and thus in the hands of the department. I do not believe there is any good reason why these particular areas should not have been covered in the Bill instead of being allowed to be processed in terms of regulations promulgated by the hon. the Minister. I believe in the future we might have cause to regret this.

Secondly, I believe that in this Bill there has been an overprotection of the consumer in a number of instances. This overprotection will be to the disadvantage of banking and commerce. This overprotection will also be of disadvantage to the consumer himself. Speaking of the consumer, I am not necessarily speaking of the consumer who defaults. I am speaking of the ordinary consumer, the man who buys an article in good faith, on hire-purchase or in terms of a lease agreement—in other words, in terms of a credit agreement—who has every intention of paying, and does pay. I believe that the overprotection provided in this Bill will result in a situation in which commerce will not be prepared to offer certain facilities to the consumer that it has offered in the past, because if those facilities are offered trade and commerce can find itself in a situation in which all sorts of onerous conditions, as provided for in this Bill, can be used against them to their disadvantage.

I think the hon. the Minister should have considered, and should still consider, placing an upper limit on the amounts to which this Credit Agreement Bill can apply. As the hon. the Minister himself knows, the previous limit was R4 000. I know that in various consultations of the department various figures were mentioned as a possible upper limit, figures as high as R20 000 per year. Yet the hon. the Minister has seen fit to provide no upper limit whatsoever in this Bill. We believe this to be a bad feature of the Bill.

I do think, however, that the worst feature of this Bill—and it is a feature about which, we believe, the hon. the Minister can still do something—relates to sales that are made to commercial users. I do not believe it is the intention of this legislation to try to create a situation which will protect the average commercial user—the business, the company. Nevertheless, despite amendments placed on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Yeoville, seeking to restrict the items which the hon. the Minister can regulate and control in terms of this Bill, the most important one of them all has not been covered. Indeed, we did succeed in having roadmaking and various other types of situations covered. The most important one, however, was the commercial situation, and that has not been covered. I do not believe it is the intention of this legislation to cover the businessman who has a company, to cover the businessman who should and usually does know what he is doing. If it is consumer protection that we are after, the sort of consumer who will need the protection of this Bill is the very consumer who should not be in business in the first place. So, I do not believe we are accomplishing anything by allowing the regulations to pertain to commercial users. Therefore, the other alternative, which the hon. the Minister promised he would look at when the Bill reached the Other Place, was one which was in the definition of a credit receiver. That definition should be applied only to a natural person. This would have the effect of creating the situation which I have outlined, the situation in which the commercial process would be by and large excluded from this Bill.

Secondly, there are very good precedents for this in other countries. Thirdly, one would find that if one were to allow this definition of “national person” to apply, it would not create difficulties for the hon. the Minister or the department. I do not believe it will make this Bill any more difficult to administer. I do believe in fact it will make this Bill considerably easier to administer. Therefore, I hope very sincerely that the hon. the Minister will give this definition of “credit receiver” further deep thought with the view to accepting the amendment which I suggested. He can still do so when the Bill reaches the Other Place.

I think the last thing that remains for me to do is perhaps to issue a warning to commerce, a warning which I believe is very necessary in relation to the provisions of this Bill. This Bill protects the consumer, as I have said. There are many penalties that the trader, commerce, will have to pay in the event of not fully fulfilling the conditions prescribed in this Bill, or possibly even in the regulations of the hon. the Minister. It is the job of every trader who is likely to deal in credit agreement sales in terms of their definition in the Bill, to know the Bill inside out and backwards. If they do not, they could find themselves caught up in a situation which can lead greatly to their own disadvantage. It can cost them thousands and thousands of rand.

We believe the legislation is in concept good, but I do hope that commerce, industry and every association, be it a motor-trade’s association or a Chamber of Commerce, will ensure that their members are fully aware, and have every knowledge of, this Bill. If they do not, they could find it to their very great disadvantage.

We approve of the Third Reading. We do not stand against it. We believe that the basic principal of the protection of the consumer is one that must be enshrined in our legislation. We therefore support it.

Mr. Speaker, the most sweeping effect of this legislation is going to be in the sphere of lease-lending in future. I say this chiefly for two reasons. The first is that this form of financing, viz. loan for use, has not previously been subjected to the discipline of legislation. However, it is true that the necessity of legislation and discipline for this trade practice has been accentuated in various court cases, a good number of them in recent times. Because of the time factor I am not going to refer to these rulings separately.

The second reason is the fact that the extent of lease-lending has increased tremendously. In order to illustrate this, I just want to refer to a few figures briefly. For instance, after adjustments have been made to cover depreciation, the value of lease-lending assets of banking institutions has increased from R170,7 million in June 1972 to R986,5 million in June 1977. This represents an average annual increase of 42%. I think these figures illustrate the important purview of lease-lending in our economic life.

Now I wonder whether this very important aspect has in fact received enough publicity. The impression that I gained from the various reports in newspapers and by the SABC following the Second Reading, was that more stress was placed on the effect of the hire purchase aspects and that the important aspect of lease-lending may have escaped the public eye somewhat. That is why I want to suggest that it may be a good thing if it can be pointed out specifically to the public that this legislation is now also going to apply in a sphere which was previously not regulated by legislation, viz. lease-lending.

Of course, hire purchase transactions have been regulated by legislation for many years, but some very important changes are being introduced by this legislation. The effect of this will be that the buyer or credit receiver will have much greater protection. He is the very one who is usually confused and in a weaker position and who therefore has to be given more protection. However, I am quite satisfied, in apparent contrast to the hon. member on the other side, that a very good balance has been achieved between the interests of the credit receiver and credit grantor by means of this legislation. The changes to the legislation will assist the credit grantor in various respects, particularly with regard to collecting the sums due to him, if it should be necessary, and the costs attached thereto. A clause which makes specific provision for this and which has not yet been referred to specifically, is clause 19. This provides for an automatic interdict which protects the seller, in very much the same way as we know it in commerce with regard to the automatic interdict which protects the person who leases ordinary fixed assets against the removal of furniture. The Act is now providing that merely by including a notice in a summons, such an interdict will be of immediate effect. This should assist the seller as credit grantor to a large extent. What is also going to assist the credit grantor a great deal, is the fact that in future, in contrast to the position beforehand, he will be able to employ the procedure set out in section 65 in order to collect debt.

This legislation is actually one of two pieces of legislation. The other, which has already appeared on the Order Paper, is the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Amendment Bill. When these two pieces of legislation are placed on the Statute Book in due course, it will protect the consumer public in very important areas of commerce.

The hon. member for East London North pointed out that, in his opinion, more amendments should be made. However, at the beginning of his speech he also pointed out that the discussion during the Committee Stage was a very long one. Therefore, a great deal of attention has been given to the proposals and ideas of the hon. member and other hon. members on that side. I do not think there is any reason why such counterarguments should be repeated. What is important to me, however, is that in dealing with this Bill, the hon. the Minister has made it clear that he is adopting a very pragmatic attitude. He accepted that the legislation is of a technical nature throughout. His only viewpoint was to put the best possible legislation on the Statute Book. As I have already said, this is technical legislation, and the hon. the Minister and the department will probably keep a very watchful eye over the implementation of the Act and the formation of trade practices under the Act. I think that the hon. the Minister’s earlier attitude should set the hon. member for East London North’s mind at rest, because it is clear that if amendments are necessary in future, such amendments will be made in order to make this legislation the effective legislation that the hon. the Minister and the department envisages. That is why I have no hesitation in supporting the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, if there was one piece of legislation I would have liked to have debated at an earlier stage, it is this legislation because it is fairly close to my heart. It is to my own regret that personal circumstances prevented me from doing so until now. I want to say immediately, however, that I am indebted to my colleagues …

You would have made a decent job of it.

… who went to great lengths to move certain amendments they knew I felt very strongly about.

Harry, you would have been much better.

No, they were very good.

Harry, you have the panache.

Order!

This piece of legislation has been a very long time in the making. To very many of us it is actually a pleasing moment that it has now got to the Third Reading Stage and will soon become law. Nothing is closer to my heart personally than the fact that now there is going to be legislation in South Africa that allows for a cooling-off period in regard to purchases made at places other than places of business. Not only do I feel pleased, but I also feel a great sense of relief because we are, at long last, going to have this provision in our law. The basic concept behind the legislation is, to my mind, the fact that there should be protection for the consumer, but the protection for the consumer must not be of such a nature that it affects the normal process of the honest business practice that business, commerce and industry may want to take part in. Somewhere between the two extremes a line has to be drawn. When it comes to the question of whether business needs to be protected against business, we are in a completely different realm to that in which the consumer has to be protected in the market place.

In so far as the market place is concerned, the most important thing is that there should be equality of bargaining power in the market place. There the consumer is always at a disadvantage. That is why consumer-protection legislation is an essential ingredient of any democratically orientated society—I was going to say “any social-democratic society”, because to some extent I welcome the social-democratic philosophy which even this hon. Minister has started to accept. However, when it comes to business against business …

It is not a new concept.

I have a new convert to my cause.

Is that the anti-clique cause?

The concept of the protection of business against business is a different one. Here we enter another field—and the hon. member for East London North has drawn attention to it. Here we also have the situation, one to which the Theron Commission drew attention, that there are businesses which are in turn exploited by other businesses. Most of those businesses are, however, not companies but individuals who have started in the community as such. There is no doubt that with the concept of encouraging small business in South Africa we are going to have to give not only financial assistance, not only assistance in regard to expertise in order to start small businesses, but also protection to ensure that the ordinary man who is going to start with a new business is going to get a fair chance to get off the ground. He should not at a very early stage be put in an impossible position in regard to the conduct of his business and its expansion by reason of what I would call unfair competition as a result of greater size, more know-how, and more expertise. In the community we have in South Africa where one actually has to encourage underprivileged people to become capitalists in the true sense of the word, not just to be part of the capitalist system by providing labour but to be part of the capitalist system by actually owning means of production, by being entrepreneurs, by conducting their own businesses, there is no doubt that we are going to have to see to it that those people get a fair chance. That is why this piece of legislation will perhaps have to be followed by other legislation which will see to it that we can create in South Africa an image for private enterprise indicating that it is not the preserve of vested interests, that it is not the preserve of people presently involved, that it is not the preserve of a particular class, but that it will be open to everybody and that the encouragement and protection the State can give will be extended to those individuals. I would appeal for that to be a further step to come with.

Whereas I regard myself as a consumer advocate, as a man who consistently seeks to speak for the consumer and his protection, one thing that does concern me is that sometimes far too much protection is given to the dishonest debtor, the man who commits himself to something, often with the intention of never honouring his full contract, and then leads the businessman a dance to his great embarrassment in the circumstances. I must say that that person does not need protection. I am sorry to say that in some respects this piece of legislation does in fact still give him protection. Let me give an example. Over the years we have had the argument of what one does in respect of a hire-purchase transaction when goods are to be repossessed and the purchaser has done away with the goods, destroyed them or sold them and one cannot recover them. In that case one cannot in the normal way proceed against him in terms of the Magistrates’ Courts Act. It is provided for in this Bill that one cannot take proceedings against him in terms of section 65 of that Act in order to get periodical payments from him. I just cannot see why in these circumstances one has to protect people who, very often, are not people who got into debt because of circumstances beyond their control, because of economic circumstances, but people who actually follow a course of dishonesty against businessmen. Very often it is the small businessmen who get hit. It is the small businessman who cannot afford that kind of loss because big business can make provision for large sums of money in bad debts and can have organizations of its own which can do all these sort of things.

There is also a provision which states that it shall be an offence not to notify the moving of the goods or not to notify changes in one’s address. There have been similar provisions before. One of the problems is that debtors know that the police are very often not going to institute proceedings against them because they are so burdened with other and, perhaps correctly, more important matters. So even though these provisions are offences in terms of this law, and have been offences before, one does not find cases of prosecution. I think that what has to happen is that to some extent one must make a few examples of people who contravene the law. There should be some prosecutions. They must be seen to be prosecuted, so that this can act as a deterrent to people, preventing them from removing goods or moving without giving notification of their change of address when in fact they should do so. Therefore my case argues for the protection of the consumer, but I am not pleading the case of the dishonest debtor who creates problems for business as such.

I now come to the cooling-off clause. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister did not accept further amendments, because there are refinements in business which have to be catered for. I particularly want to ask him to reconsider the provisions which relate to mail-order activities and to the problems encountered when there is a distinction between the date of contract and the date of delivery. There is a case to be made out for the fact that once one has delivered an article, the question of having to cancel the contract thereafter can have very serious consequences for businesses as such. However, to my mind, the cooling-off period is one of the important features in this piece of legislation. I welcome it and am very happy that it has been introduced.

While I am on this subject, I should like to draw attention to some other problems which arise and which are not yet fully catered for in this type of legislation. Firstly, there is the mail-order issue which I have already referred to. Mail-order business is a massive business throughout the world today. It is a business which is increasing in scope, and there is no reason why mail-order business should not be conducted within certain limitations. However, there are some limitations which worry me. The first of these is that in South Africa we do not appear to pay much attention to the invasion of privacy and the making available of confidential information. Take, for example, the mail-order lists that are established as a result of the ascertainment of creditworthiness for the banks, the lists which they establish and as a result of which they have mail-order lists. I think the ordinary citizen is entitled to have certain information regarded as confidential information between himself and his bankers. He must not suddenly find himself in the position where those mail-order lists revealing his credit-worthiness are made available so that he can be inundated with masses of other material because people know that his creditworthiness has already been established. That is a piece of private information, and throughout the world there is now a movement towards respecting the privacy of the individual. In the USA, where this kind of information is available, it is regarded as an encroachment on the individual’s privacy and rights. I think that in South Africa we must also learn that there is such a thing as respecting the privacy of the individual in regard to his commercial and financial position, and that this information should not be made available to all and sundry. There are many other things in regard to mail-order business which I believe will have to receive attention in the future. We shall have to look at the whole situation to ensure that on the one hand one can conduct an orderly and reasonable business and, on the other hand, that the consumer and his privacy is protected.

Another matter which is on the increase, and to which I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention, is telephone canvassing. One finds that housewives are in increasing numbers finding themselves in a situation where they are telephoned by people who are trying to sell things to them over the telephone. This again, constitutes an encroachment of privacy. This has become a big business in other parts of the world and we should look at it before it escalates here. I may say that legislation was passed in Germany many years ago to prevent people from calling a man’s family immediately after his funeral to try and sell them a tombstone. It is that kind of tactic that I believe is an encroachment upon the privacy of the individual. That is something to which, to my mind, the hon. the Minister should pay attention, because it relates to this Bill.

One last matter I should like to touch on is the question of the discretion which the hon. the Minister has in terms of this particular peace of legislation. The hon. member for East London North has already, completely correctly, pointed out that the hon. the Minister has a very wide discretion. If we look at the Bill we see that it is the crucial thing about the whole legislation, that he can in effect make or break the legislation with it. One thing that concerns me is that, whereas in fact one has to give notice if one intends to change a situation, when the amendment is published in terms of clause 2 of the Bill, it can be published without giving any notice to anybody. That is really the most important thing that has happened. If the hon. the Minister will not agree to give notice before he publishes such an amendment, so that he can receive representations from everybody who is interested, we should at least receive the undertaking that he will consult widely before he in fact publishes any such amendment. Consultation does not only mean consultation with the Chambers of Commerce and organizations of that kind: It also means consultation with consumer organizations to establish where the real need lies. I should like to appeal to him that he should, wherever possible, publish a notice so that anybody who is interested can publicly make representations to the department before the original amendments are published.

This Bill has our blessing. It is not a perfect piece of legislation—far from it—but I believe that it is a piece of legislation which is on the road towards producing better business practices in South Africa and which will give the consumer better protection in the community in which we live.

Mr. Speaker, I shall simply commence with the very last point. It is precisely because the use of consultation with the Trade Practices Advisory Committee is fundamental to this legislation that we have arranged, as the hon. member will note if he examines clause 16, that the method of notification will be such that no embarrassment will arise. This was specifically done to bring about better co-ordination between the Minister and the Trade Practices Advisory Committee. The Trade Practices Advisory Committee consists of representatives, on all levels, of people who are involved in legislation of this nature as credit grantors or credit receivers.

†I should like to thank hon. members for supporting the Third Reading of this Bill.

The hon. member for East London North and his friend, the hon. member for Hillbrow, with whom I have had a marathon debate in the Committee Stage, treated me well. They never wasted the time of the House by asking for a division. I think that I also treated them well to a large extent, because I have accepted quite a few of their amendments where I felt that these amendments could be accepted without any problems on my side. However, where I had problems, I told them so. I had an open mind. I found out certain things in the meantime and I could perhaps elaborate on those. They relate to certain of the ideas that the hon. members put forward in that discussion. I am not as pessimistic as he is about the working of the legislation. I think that it is going to do some good, but it is not perfect, as the hon. member justly pointed out. It is not perfect, but this is the kind of legislation in respect of which we have to assist each other. I think that I have had help from the Opposition which has resulted in our having better legislation at the end than we had in the beginning. This was achieved by simply making a few small changes. However, as I have said, one cannot have all one’s amendments accepted. One cannot eat one’s cake and have it.

The hon. member mentioned the upper limits of transactions of this nature. In some ways I think we would do better to cope with this by way of regulations, and not to embody it in the legislation, because it was written into, as far as I recall, the old Hire-Purchase Act, and that created some problems. However, I want to thank the hon. member for his contribution.

*The hon. member for Albany once again demonstrated that he had studied the legislation well. I am pleased that he specifically emphasized that lend-lease, which is a new practice which has arisen over the years after the introduction of the Hire Purchase Act, and which has given rise to abuses, is such an integral part of the legislation that it need not be defined in words. The public must take cognizance of the fact that this also forms part of this legislation. I greatly appreciate the hon. member’s positive attitude to this legislation.

†The hon. member for Yeoville commented that the legislation is important in the sense that we now at last have legislation where protection is afforded to the consumer as well as the businessman, and I agree that it must not affect honest business in the market place. I agree with that. However, we must try and sail between Scylla and Charybdis as far as this is concerned, and I do not think that we already have the ideal legislation. It is not final legislation. In the course of the year we may probably find problems in the implementation of this legislation, that is on the assumption that it will be passed in the Other Place. It is not a law of the Medes and the Persians, so it can be amended in time until we have ideal legislation. This is how I see it. I am of the opinion that there might be room for improvement, although I am not really an expert on legislation of this nature. I really believed that we could improve the legislation and therefore I accepted some of the amendments moved by hon. members on the other side of the House. I am sorry that we disagree about the cooling-off period, but this matter has been extensively debated and I must stick to my guns as far as that is concerned. I can tell the hon. member for Hillbrow that as far as mail-orders business and telephone canvassing is concerned I share almost the same view as he does. I feel this is an aspect which will definitely require our attention in the months and years to come.

*I think I have now replied to everything the hon. members said. I do not want to take up much of the time of this House, but I do want to mention a few matters in connection with the clauses which were discussed during the Committee Stage. I indicated that I would give thought to some of the suggestions that were made, and would then in due course perhaps consider amending some of the clauses in the Other Place. The amendment moved on behalf of the hon. member for Yeoville reads that the word “the rights or” should be inserted twice into the definition of credit grantor. We did so, and a similar amendment in respect of the definition of “credit receiver” was also inserted in line 42. However, when we looked at it again, we discovered there were still anomalies, and I am going to recommend that a further amendment to made to eliminate the anomalies. Accordingly we are again going to re-insert the word “whom” in line 36, which will round off our legislation.

During the Second Reading debate the hon. member for East London North asked that we should make the legislation applicable only to natural persons. I do not think I need to elaborate on this any further. I told the hon. member that we had small business enterprises and that we had to look after these people. We have non-White business enterprises that are in a very weak bargaining position, that are in the same position as ordinary individuals with whom they sometimes have to do important business. We shall have to implement this aspect of the legislation selectively and possibly protect the business enterprise by means of regulation, but I do not think that we can make these amendments.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, strong emphasis was placed on the necessity of also excluding credit agreements between the trade sector and the suppliers from the provisions of this Bill. I myself said that the concept of “trading process” was wide and indefinable. We shall have to deal with this matter on an ad hoc basis. Consequently I am sorry, but in this case too I shall have to stand by what I originally decided in this regard.

As far as clause 3 is concerned, the hon. member for East London North moved an amendment on behalf of the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville asked whether I had abandoned the principle that provisions take effect only 30 days after their promulgation, a principle which is embodied in section 2bis(3) of the Hire Purchase Act, No. 36 of 1942. Owing to the nature of this legislation and because we sometimes have to take steps and want to achieve certain objectives, it is essential in certain circumstances that the Minister should act at once, and for that reason I unfortunately cannot accede to this amendment either.

I came across a problem myself with regard to the wording of clause 4, read in conjunction with clause 13, as it refers to the cooling off period. In clause 4 mention is only made of a prospective credit grantor’s obligations to a prospective credit receiver with regard to drawing the latter’s attention to the provisions of the proposed section 13. In contrast clause 13 mentions the credit grantor as well as his manager, agent or employee. Consequently it would be correct to incorporate the manager, agent and employee in the provisions of clause 4 as well. Accordingly I shall have the appropriate amendments made in the Other Place.

Hon. members will also recall that we experienced considerable problems with the address aspect, the domicilium citandi et executandi of credit grantors and credit receivers. Hon. members adopted very strong standpoints on this matter. I told hon. members that we would try to find a solution to this. We have even discussed this issue with attorneys in Thaba Nchu and Ficksburg, people living near the borders of independent countries. However, we came to the conclusion that no changes to this part of the Bill would offer a practical solution. However, we are able to improve the position slightly. It was pointed out that the clause as it reads at present contains problems for us because stating another address in the Republic as the actual business or residential address which may be outside the Republic, is a criminal offence. I pointed that out, too. My advisers and I then considered the matter carefully. Thus we shall accept the amendment originally moved by the hon. member for Yeoville, but in an amended form. Thus we shall also give the credit receiver the privilege of stating another address in this case.

As far as clause 28 is concerned, we argued at length on the words “no person”. Some hon. members referred to “State officials” and inspectors and asked that we should specify the people who act in such cases. We thrashed out this matter, but I can frankly tell hon. members that in view of the provisions of the Trade Practices Act and the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act, laws in which exactly the same type of definition or word usage appears, I do not think that we can change this. Clause 28 indicates very clearly that—

It is very clear from this that no person other than an official can discharge these duties. Consequently I think that the wording of the Bill itself is such that we need not make any further changes to it. I have now dealt with all the clauses to which amendments were moved. I cannot go any further than that now. Thus I content myself with what I have already said.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister, if it is necessary for him to act urgently in terms of the provisions of clause 2(1), why then is it not necessary for him to act urgently in terms of the provisions of clause 2(3), when he amends the notice? If there were urgency for the one, surely there must also be urgency for the other to prevent publication.

There is, of course, always enough scope for the extension of powers, if that is what the hon. member wants.

No, it is just the opposite that I am suggesting.

It only amounts to the fact that I can solve a specific problem in terms of the Bill as it stands now. Should I want to accommodate the hon. member for Yeoville, however, it would mean that I would have to go right back and redraft the whole measure.

[Inaudible.]

In any case, it is merely a question of a difference of opinion.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

There are few aspects of economic affairs which have aroused greater interest than oil, especially since 1973. Serious international and political crises take place virtually every day around this important economic lifeblood. This is why almost every member of our population takes great interest in crude oil price increases and their effect on the local prices of refined petroleum products. With the introduction of the equalization levy on petroleum products last year, the Government came in for serious criticism from many quarters, but I make bold to say that thanks to the Government’s foresight in introducing the Equalization Fund, it has been possible recently for the escalation in crude oil prices to be absorbed by this, and therefore it has not been necessary to increase the prices of petroleum products to the public. Therefore I immediately want to reassure hon. members and to give them the assurance that the measure which is now before the House is not aimed at increasing the price of petroleum products and will not lead to such an increase.

†In this rapidly changing world, and especially in the realm of energy, it is impossible to lay down blue print measures and regulations and expect them to be absolutely effective for any length of time. This is particularly so in the case of a product such as oil, and it has become necessary once again to look at the provisions of the State Oil Fund Act.

The relatively high purchase price of aviation fuel gave rise to a situation in which certain foreign airlines had to consider curtailing the number of flights and, in some instances, even terminating their services to South Africa. In order to make headway against this problem and in the national interest, the Government decided to reduce, with effect from 1 October 1979, the equalization levy of aviation fuel, uplifted by aircraft for international flights, to a level which will enable the airlines to continue with their services to South Africa. In order not to disturb the mutual competitive position of the different airlines, the reduction of the levy is of course also applicable to all international flights of the S.A. Airways. Furthermore, hon. members will recall that, during February this year, the Government announced a substantial reduction of the equalization levy on paraffin for domestic use in order to relieve the expenditure burden of the lower income group of our community who are mainly dependent on paraffin for their household needs.

*The State Oil Fund Act provides that a levy can be imposed upon a particular petroleum product, but the way it is worded at the moment, there can be no differentiation in the extent to which it is levied on that product, irrespective of the purpose for which it is used. If the proposed amendment—clause 1(a) of the Bill is accepted, it will be possible to impose a levy on a petroleum product according to the purpose for which it is used; in other words, it will be possible to impose a lower levy on aviation fuel for purposes of international flights and paraffin for domestic purposes than on fuel and paraffin used for other purposes.

The amendment proposed in clause 1(b) of the Bill provides for oil companies to be allowed to export refined petroleum products without having to pay the equalization levy, also to a person who has not necessarily made available the the crude oil for refining. This amendment is necessitated by the fact that Sasol 2 has already entered the market with its production of finished products. The systematic introduction of the products of Sasol 2, and later of Sasol 3, to the local market means that the market share of the oil companies will decrease accordingly, with a resultant corresponding unutilized local refining capacity. If the oil companies are not allowed to neutralize this unutilized capacity through the refinement of petroleum products for export purposes, it will mean that the unit cost of their products for the local market will rise. This is a development which in the national interest we cannot afford. Apart from the importance of the fact that the oil companies should be enabled to earn a reasonable return on their capital investment by means of the optimum utilization of their refining capacity, the exportation of finished products earns very valuable foreign exchange, of course.

For these reasons, I trust that hon. members will support me in passing this measure.

Mr. Speaker, when, in 1979, the amendment to the original State Oil Fund Act was brought before the House, in order to add section 1A to the Act, we had certain difficulties with the formulation of the new section. It tended to be somewhat rigid in certain respects and somewhat confusing in others, particularly in regard to the provision that certain variations could be made in the application of the section at the Minister’s discretion. However, he would have no discretion whatsoever in regard to the reduction or elimination of the levy in respect of certain persons. It seemed to us then that there was an element of inflexibility and possibly even apparent contradiction. However, the section is being amended today and the purpose of the amendment is wholly good.

We were a little concerned on first seeing this amendment in that the relief accorded certain payers of the levy might shift the burden from those people to whom relief was granted onto the shoulders of other people. The people who would have to pay that increased levy would, as usual, be hard-pressed motorists. However, the hon. the Minister has given an assurance that the purpose of the Bill and its effect will not be to increase the extent of the levy on the price of petroleum products. The hon. the Minister shakes his head. Perhaps I should limit my remarks to saying that it is not his intention in this Bill to increase the levy. The hon. the Minister has clearly indicated by his slightly negative reaction that he does not exclude the possibility that the levy may be increased when it is moved onto the shoulders of other payers of the levy. However, we shall have to keep our fingers crossed and hope it may be possible, in view of certain improving circumstances in the oil market or for other reasons, that it will not be necessary to increase the total burden on purchases of petroleum products in South Africa by means of the levy.

This observation has to be qualified by the purpose for which this amendment has been introduced. We have all been aware, for some time, that aviation companies conducting air services between South Africa and other countries have, in certain cases, been at a grave disadvantage and that they have, in particular cases, even been obliged to suspend their services. This is a state of affairs that is not to the benefit of South Africa, because the maintenance of effective transport services is useful, not only to travellers and the aviation companies concerned, but also to the basic economy and the economic growth of South Africa. I say this because for a country that has substantial trade with the rest of the world, the conveyance of people and goods plays a very important part. It is therefore of considerable importance for airline companies to be given every inducement and facility for the continuation of these valuable services. For that reason we see a benefit in the amendment proposed today.

The other aspect the hon. the Minister referred to was the question of paraffin. It should be possible to reduce the cost of paraffin to the poorer section of the community by the greatest possible amount. Therefore the provision in the Bill to the effect that the “levy referred to in subsection (1) may differ according to the purpose for which the product in question is used” will give the hon. the Minister the power to make these variations for which he has now provided. We support that amendment.

The second amendment relates to the sale of surplus petroleum products, not only in reciprocation of the particular raw materials imported for benefication, but also on a wider basis. I think this gives further flexibility to Sasol in producing the products which it is beginning to contribute to the fuel economy of this country. I believe that this wider market flexibility, which will be available to Sasol, will perhaps enable Sasol to effect greater economy as far as its own production is concerned. This in turn will be beneficial to the country, if refineries, not only enjoy wider marketability of their own products, but also hopefully, in due course, can then reduce the price that all consumers of all these products have to pay in South Africa.

For these two reasons we are happy to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House want to thank the hon. member for Constantia very sincerely for his support of this Bill.

When we talk about oil, we are surely talking about the most important source of energy in the whole world in this century. When we talk about oil, however, we are also talking about the most vulnerable source of energy in the world. It is important to realize that at the moment, oil is probably the most important source of energy for industry and for transport, in fact, for the whole existence of Western civilization as we know it, and that there is no substitute yet for oil in its present form. South Africa is moving towards a more flexible situation with regard to our sources of energy, which will make us less dependent on the rest of the world’s oil as a source of energy. In this process, it is very important that we should afford the hon. the Minister much greater flexibility so that he may remove problem areas, especially in connection with levies, as the hon. member for Constantia indicated. I think that we on this side of the House would gladly support that flexibility. I should only like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, when that flexibility is available to him, he would not take a careful look at the question of the aviation spirits for private aviation, the private airlines. I have had consultations with these people several times because Wonderboom airport is situated in my constituency. The fact is that these people have exactly the same problem as the international airlines in respect of the increased cost of methylated spirits.

Furthermore, I should like to agree with the hon. member for Constantia that clause 1(b) illustrates the willingness of the Government and of the hon. the Minister not to increase fuel prices, because we want to enable the oil companies, which now find themselves in a vulnerable position in respect of recovering their capital expenditure because of the coming into operation of Sasol 2, to utilize their capital investments, so that the increased cost will not be passed on to the South African consumer of fuel.

With these words we on this side of the House should like to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to tell the hon. the Minister that the NRP will be supporting this Bill. I should like to say that I agree with everything the hon. member for Wonderboom has said on this Bill. I, too, was going to make an appeal on behalf of the private users of aircraft and also the privately owned commercial air transport firms in South Africa, who at the present time are hard-pressed because of the increase in the price of in aviation fuel. With the provisions contained in this Bill, possibly the hon. the Minister will consider easing the burden on aviation fuel for domestic use as well.

We all appreciated the need for this levy. Nobody argued against it at the time when it was first introduced. However, as the hon. member for Constantia has said, the provision as it stands at present in the Act is rather rigid and the hon. the Minister has found that he has had to introduce a bit of flexibility.

In conclusion I should like to make yet another appeal to the hon. the Minister. I am quite sure he will appreciate that, as time goes by and Sasol 2 and Sasol 3 start to come on stream and, as the hon. member for Wonderboom said, South Africa starts switching to its own sources of liquid fuel, maybe the time will come when the role which this levy is playing can be reviewed. Should it appear at some time in the future that the amount of money raised in this way is in excess of what is really required, possibly the hon. the Minister will consider also easing the burden on diesel fuel, especially as regards the agricultural use of that fuel. The hon. member for Mooi River has often stated in debates on agriculture that it should be an objective of the Government to try to reduce the input costs as far as the production of agricultural products is concerned. One of the major or input costs in agriculture today is the cost of dieseline, the very energy that is required to grow the food in the first instance in tilling the land. The increase in the price of dieseline as a result of this has, of course, put a heavy burden on the cost of production in farming. Therefore, as I said, I should just like to put it to the hon. the Minister that, should the time ever arise when he feels that he is able to do this, he should consider easing the burden on agricultural fuel. As a motor-car user myself, I would prefer to continue paying the levy for my own personal travel, but regarding the production of food, if there is going to be any possibility of a reduction in the levy, this reduction should go to agriculture as the producer of the very important commodity of food in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with anything the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has said, so I shall not take his argument any further. I shall merely follow on what he has said. If one looks at the situation five to ten years hence, one sees that the availability of oil throughout the world can only deteriorate. Even if oil production were to improve five to ten years hence, because of the lack of stability in the oil-producing world, the situation could still only deteriorate, even in respect of prices. We in South Africa, of course, are very fortunate in that we can counter increases in the price of oil in two ways. Firstly, we generally find that the increase in the price of gold assists us enormously in countering the increase in the oil price. Secondly, I must say that we are even more fortunate because, as the years go by, with the development of Sasol 1, Sasol 2 and Sasol 3, we shall be less dependent on the world oil supplies. In fact, I believe we are setting an example to the rest of the West and to other friendly countries with what we are doing in relation to Sasol and other measures we are taking. I believe that as the years go by these friendly countries will be looking to South Africa for guidance. As we have seen during recent months—it is public knowledge and it was in the newspapers—the Americans came to have a look to see how we operated Sasol. So, as I say, friendly countries and other countries in the West will be looking to South Africa for assistance and, over the years, it is essential that all the countries make themselves less dependent on oil prices and fluctuations in the supply of oil.

Through this Bill the hon. the Minister is looking for certain relaxations of restrictions and from our side we gladly grant him those relaxations. In the circumstances we shall support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, my sincere thanks to all the hon. members who support the Bill. No one said anything negative about it. I think we all understand the problems mentioned by hon. members. It is not necessary for me to deal with the problems one by one. As far as the possibility of an increase in the price of petroleum products is concerned, I can give hon. members the assurance at this particular stage and with the knowledge available to me that there is no reason to create any tension in this connection.

Hon. members also referred to private and civil aviation. This is a matter which requires our attention, and from time to time we discuss the measure of relief which can be granted, because the State realizes that many of our pilots receive their training in civil aviation. This is a very important aspect which we shall not lose sight of. However, the present position is such that we are not yet able to accommodate them in that respect. In any event, it is not a matter which we have simply dismissed. We are watching the position very carefully as it fluctuates from time to time.

Through the manipulation, or whatever, of our supplies, and through the fine and expeditious programme Sasol has been able to give effect to, we have succeeded in improving our position to such an extent that there is no great anxiety at the moment with regard to the obtaining of petroleum products. That is why we have this new development. We cannot allow refiners of companies which invest millions of rands here to be restricted by having the capacity, but not the products to refine. Those products which they are able to obtain, which are not even intended for South Africa, we must allow them to refine. After all, we get the benefit of the foreign exchange it earns. As far as that is concerned, therefore, I am glad that the hon. members understand that point.

†As far as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti is concerned, I want to tell him that we know that there are always burdens on agriculture. If it is not the climate, it is something else. However, as far as the price of diesel products is concerned, there is already alleviation. The farmers do not pay the excise duty. In fact, they pay 12,258% less per litre in any case for the diesel they use for the purposes of production. That is also applied to mining, sea fisheries and the Railways, in other words, everywhere that diesel is used for production. In those cases we are amenable. Therefore, the hon. member need not worry that we will not look after agriculture continuously.

As far as Sasol 2 and 3 are concerned, I quite agree with the optimistic future projected by the hon. member for Walmer. I should like to say, however, that we are not only concerned with Sasol 1 and 2. We are concerned with the overall picture, which is at present perhaps still cloaked in secrecy, because people do not like to make known everything they have achieved by way of research, but in actual fact I feel as optimistic as he does with regard to the energy position of South Africa towards the end of this decade. As far as I am concerned, we shall, from time to time, change and adapt.

*However, I do not think hon. members need be afraid that South Africa will be caught napping as far as its energy requirements are concerned, because we are thoroughly aware of the energy problem we have been experiencing since 1973.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, there is one point we touched on during the Second Reading debate which I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with. I am referring to the question of the continuation or the resumption of services by overseas airlines. The reason why I am making this point in particular, is that in certain areas of South Africa, such as the Western Cape, where the economic recovery has been somewhat sluggish, great hopes and expectations attach to the tourist industry and the development of that tourist industry, particularly with countries which formerly did not participate so actively, such as the South American countries. We have been aware with some anxiety, in the Western Cape and no doubt in some other tourist areas as well, of the reduction in the arrival figures of tourists in the Cape and in these other tourist areas, with the corresponding loss of revenue to the tourist industry and the managements of various amenities that are being created to receive tourists and develop the tourist industry. I should be grateful if the hon. the Minister could indicate whether he is, as yet, aware that in consequence of this legislation, overseas airlines might now be willing to reconsider the resumption of the air services which they used to provide, but which have been temporarily cancelled or threatened with cancellation. I think that if the hon. the Minister is in a position to give such an indication, it would serve as a great encouragement and inducement to people who are making heavy investments, with a view to the development of the tourist industry, and who have been greatly dismayed by fears that the problem of the cost of aviation spirits to foreign airlines in South Africa might, in fact, frustrate their plans for the future. It would be very helpful if the hon. the Minister could say something about this.

Mr. Speaker, we have actually given very thorough consideration to the position with regard to tourism, precisely because of our comparative figures indicating the cost of this fuel in Johannesburg and in all the major cities of the world. It is true that we have been receiving a very large number of tourists from South America recently. In October last year, just before this decision was made, we actually received a kind of threat from these people to the effect that they would have to suspend their operations to this country if we were not prepared to grant them relief in this connection. They were under the erroneous impression that we were levying a tax on them. We informed them in October that we were going to reduce the levy on aviation fuel by 6,75%. However, they still threatened, because they believed that the levy should be even lower. However, what was the result after we promised them this? Hon. members must bear in mind that they have not yet received the money. We can only give them the money after Parliament has passed this legislation. During the 1978-’79 summer season, Aerolineas Argentinas had one and sometimes two flights a week to South Africa with Boeing 707 jets. During the 1979-’80 summer season, there was only one flight a week to South Africa, but where they had used two Boeing 707 jets during the previous summer season, which can carry 136 passengers each and were usually full, during the 1979-’80 summer season, they used a Boeing 747 Super B, which can carry 334 passengers. The seating capacity of the aircraft used during the previous summer season was 27 127, but this increased to 28 715 during the 1979-’80 summer season. In spite of the tension and the threats, the number of tourists kept increasing. The airline still believed that if it appeared that we were not keeping our word, they would still have to consider suspending the flights. I am referring to only one airline now, because I do not have the information here as far as the other airlines are concerned. Surely this shows that we suffered no prejudicial effects in this respect.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill now before the House has its roots in an inter-governmental conference which was held in London during November 1972 on the Convention on the Dumping of Wastes at Sea. This conference was convened by the Governments of Britain and Northern Ireland with the following airms and objectives—

1. (A) The recognition that the marine environment and the living organisms which it supports are of vital importance to humanity, and that all people have an interest in assuming that it is so managed that its quality and resources are not impaired;
2. (B) The recognition that the capacity of the sea to assimilate wastes and render them harmless and its ability to regenerate natural resources are not unlimited;
3. (C) The recognition that States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;
4. (D) Recollection of resolution 2749 (XXV) of the General Assembly of the United Nations on the principles governing the sea-bed and the ocean floor and the subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;
5. (E) The realization that marine pollution originates in many sources, such as dumping and discharges through the atmosphere, rivers, estuaries, outfalls and pipelines and that it is important that States use the best practicable means to prevent such pollution and develop products and processes which will reduce the amount of harmful wastes to be disposed of;
6. (F) The conviction that international action to control the pollution of the sea by dumping can and must be taken with out delay, but this action should not preclude discussion of measures to control other sources of marine pollution as soon as possible; and
7. (G) the wish to improve protection of the marine environment by encouraging States with a common interest in particular geographical areas to enter into appropriate agreements supplementary to agreements which may result from the aforementioned conference.

A convention commonly known as the London Dumping Convention—the LDC— was agreed to at this conference and was attended by South Africa and 83 other countries. South Africa acceded to the convention on 7 August 1978.

*There are several reasons why it is essential for South Africa to be a contracting party to the convention. One need merely think of our long coastline and the rich fishing grounds and other marine life that have to be protected against uncontrolled pollution of the sea by noxious waste. If we are a member of this convention, we are at least able to deal with these hazards at an international level and in a co-ordinated way.

Every contracting party to the convention is expected to adopt effective measures and to take steps to achieve the objectives of the convention. The measure now before the House gives effect to that obligation.

As hon. members will note, the point of departure in this measure is to combat deliberate dumping of waste substances at sea, without in any way obstructing the normal operations of ocean-going vessels. In this regard I refer hon. members to the definition of “dump” in clause 1 of the Bill. Any other dumping of waste substances may only take place in terms of permits issued by the head of the department or his authorized representative. It will also be noted that waste substances are classified into various categories according to their toxicity. Provision is also made for the authorized dumping, subject to the issuing of a permit, of other types of waste not specified in schedules 1 and 2.

In connection with the practical implementation of the proposed legislation, I wish to mention briefly that, as long ago as 15 February 1978, a meeting of interested parties took place at which the Departments of Industries, of Environmental Planning and Energy, of Health, of Transport Affairs, of Water Affairs, and the S.A. Railways, the SABS, the CSIR and the Atomic Energy Control Board were represented. On that occasion it was agreed to establish a standing consultative committee under the chairmanship of an official of the Department of Industries. The other departments that would serve on this committee were: Transport Affairs and the S.A. Railways, with the Department of Water Affairs, Forestry and Environmental Planning represented in a co-opted capacity, if necessary. As a result of the rationalization of the Public Service, the composition of the committee will have to be modified in due course.

The Director of Sea Fisheries will, where necessary, make recommendations, in consultation with the committee, in regard to the issuing or refusal of permits. Records of permits issued and of incidents occurring, will also be submitted to the secretariat of the convention—Imco—in London in accordance with procedures discussed and laid down during consultative meetings of member countries.

Incidents of pollution that occur, will be dealt with with the assistance of other departments and organizations such as the Department of Transport Affairs, the S.A. Navy and the S.A. Railways, in cases where physical action is necessary, if the Division of Sea Fisheries does not have sufficient facilities and resources for dealing with the particular incident.

†Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that hon. members, especially those hon. members who are devoted environmentalists, will support me in placing this measure on the Statute Book. The sea is not only a vast source of life providing food for millions of people, but it also has a mysterious bewitchment which, if not protected, can become an intolerable monster. Let our approach then be based rather on the lines of thought as expressed by the author Alden Whitman—

Mr. Speaker, as indeed appears from the definition of “dump” in clause 1 of this Bill, the Bill has to do with deliberate dumping. We understand that over a long period of time there was a lot of involuntary dumping in the sea right around the South African coast, more particularly when the mailboats were still ploughing their way up and down and there was a good deal of sea sickness amongst the passengers. The dumping with which we are concerned, however, is the sort of dumping that is going to create a considerable difficulty for marine life, for our precious crustaceans, molluscs, etc. In these benches we obviously thoroughly approve of the principles behind this Bill, and will consequently be supporting it.

There are, however, a number of problems relating to this Bill, which, we believe, we should mention. I must tell the hon. the Minister that the speech I prepared on the subject was prepared before I had had the benefit of listening to his Second Reading speech. I should say that perhaps the major point I intended to make in my discussion during Second Reading, has to some extent been obviated by the fact that there is going to be a standing committee under the control of the Department of Industrial Affairs. This committee will obviously have a very large part to play in relation to the execution of the measures intended in this Bill. The difficulty that we have identified is the situation that there are a large number of hon. Ministers who are concerned with this very subject, the subject of the pollution of the ocean.

In this regard I can refer, for instance, to the provisions contained in the Bill in front of us. Then there is also the Combating of Pollution of the Sea by Oil Act, 1971, the Water Act, 1956, the various Acts affecting the sea-shore, etc. All these various measures relate to the pollution of the sea. Then, however, the hon. the Minister of Industries and of Commerce and Consumer Affairs is also affected by the provisions of this Bill, as is the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Health, the Department of Fisheries, the department administering the Sea-shore Act, and also various Water Courts and various other bodies are subject to legislation dealing with this very subject, the subject of the pollution of the sea. The fact that there are so many bodies could mean that all these legal measures will not be administered as efficiently as they might be. I believe we should perhaps think of a situation in which all these various Acts and other legal measures pertaining to the pollution of the ocean could be brought under the control of one single Minister and one department. I think that would perhaps be an even better solution than the solution referred to by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech, namely the standing committee.

I should like to question the hon. the Minister on the standing committee and its powers, because in terms of the Bill now under discussion—I think it is in clause 3—provision is made that the Secretary of the Department of Industries shall have the right, on application, to grant a special permit, obviously authorizing the various substances all of which are set out in Schedule 2, to be dumped into the sea. In clause 3 it is not stated that the Secretary has to consult with anyone. He is completely entitled to issue a permit authorizing dumping on his own. There is not even the right of an appeal to the hon. the Minister on behalf of the person who applies for a dumping permit, if it is not granted. The only thing the Secretary has to do, within 30 days after the end of each calendar year, is to submit a report on the number of permits granted, etc. I wonder whether we are not imposing too much of a burden on the Secretary. Schedule 3 sets out the factors he has to take into account in granting permits. There are all sorts of highly technical and complicated factors relating to the persistence, toxicity, the susceptibility to physical, chemical and biochemical changes and the accumulation and biotransformation in biological material. Obviously the Secretary is going to have to do a great deal of consultation with authoritative bodies before he can issue a permit. This being the case, I wonder whether it would not be more beneficial if, before the Secretary were to issue a permit, he should not have to consult, and in fact get the concurrence of, the Standing Committee the hon. the Minister is going to set up. The more people who can have a say in the situation the better. I would go further and suggest that local authorities should be consulted in this matter. After all, if one is going to dump various undesirable substances into the sea, within 12 miles of the shore, the possibility does arise that one can affect a local authority adjacent to where the particular substance is dumped. There are perhaps other people who should be consulted, e.g. the Water Research Commission, the CSIR and the Departments of Oceanography at the University of Cape Town and the University of Stellenbosch. These are various bodies of people who should perhaps be consulted. I think simply the fact that this Bill allows the Secretary of the department to issue permits on his own is placing a very, very onerous burden on him. So I believe the hon. the Minister should come to his aid and perhaps amend the Bill so as to make it necessary for consultation and concurrence with other bodies and committees.

There is another situation I want to refer to. It concerns the Water Act, No. 54 of 1956. That is the other Act directly concerned with emissions into the sea. It is specifically mentioned that it refers to the sea, as well as salt water usage by industries. There is a very different set of circumstances obtaining in that Act as compared to this one. When there is an application for a permit, there are all sorts of procedures to be adopted in terms of section 21(5) of that Act. It also gives the applicant the right of appeal to a water court, which is obviously chaired by a judge. There is no provision for appeal, however, in this particular Bill. The hon. the Minister should very carefully consider section 21(5) with a view to altering this legislation and bringing it more in line with the Water Act. The Water Act is probably better legislation than this. It covers a greater number of areas and has ultimately stood the test of time. Remember, I said that the Act was passed in 1956. That is 24 years ago, a long time ago. The Water Act has therefore stood the test of time and obviously has worked relatively satisfactorily, except in certain areas. I think this is something the hon. the Minister, his department and the Standing Committee would do well to remember. In the sea, off our coast, if one is swimming in the vicinity of Nahoon in East London, or Mouille Point …

Where is that?

Having grown up in the Eastern Cape, the hon. member for Umhlanga knows very well where Nahoon is.

Oh, that is right. I have heard of it.

All he is doing is being disruptive. Obviously the debate does not interest him particularly.

Yes, it does.

I suggest that he goes back to sleep.

Not on your life.

Anybody swimming in these areas is likely to bump into many extremely nasty substances.

Better than bumping into you.

I say this because in these particular areas the municipalities discharge untreated sewerage directly into the sea …

Oh!

… creating tremendous pollution problems, particularly when one considers that this sewerage is discharged into the sea in close prosimity to bathing beaches, areas to which international surfers come for international competitions. I therefore believe that the Government, and not just the local municipalities, should take action in this regard. I believe that this is pollution of the sea. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that it is commonly accepted that for every year of pollution that occurs, it takes four years to overcome the problem. So if one pollutes an area for 50 years, it is going to take 200 years before that area can return to its original state. [Interjections.] Perhaps considerably more, as my hon. colleague points out. I do not believe one can expect this problem to be solved by local authorities.

I wonder how many years it will take to clear up this place after he has gone?

I say this because it is extremely difficult for a local authority to incur the sort of expenditure necessary to either treat the sewerage before it goes into the sea, not to put it into the sea at all or to extend the pipeline so far from the shore that there would not be any nasty side-effects. I believe that the hon. the Minister should have the Standing Committee consider this problem with a view to subsidizing the municipalities concerned. I think this is the important point. The local authorities cannot deal with this themselves. They do not have the funds to do so. I think the hon. the Minister should see to it that the Government provides those funds, because the problem is getting out of control. Every year, with the relevant city populations increasing, more and more effluent goes into the sea. So I think the hon. the Minister would do well to bear these thoughts in mind and make an examination of this issue an urgent priority of the Standing Committee.

Problems encountered in such areas have become particularly common overseas, more particularly in the Mediterranean. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister saw a television programme a month or so ago in connection with the pollution of the Mediterranean by industries in France, Italy and to a certain extent in Spain. The Mediterranean has become virtually an unsafe area for people to swim in. I understand that there is pure methane gas bubbling up from below the surface of the sea. We must learn from the lessons taught by areas that have had these experiences. We are fortunate in being a relatively young society in South Africa, a relatively undeveloped society, industrially speaking. We are obviously developing very fast. Our population is increasing rapidly. So our problems can only become more acute. They are certainly not going to decrease. Therefore we must learn the lessons of Europe, and this legislation seems to indicate that we are learning those lessons. Having learnt them, however, we must apply them, and having applied them we must also make certain that those who break the conditions laid down are adequately punished.

This brings me to the last point I want to refer to during the Second Reading debate on this Bill, and that is the question of the relevant fines. In clause 6 it is stated that any person committing an offence under section 2(1)(a), shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R50 000. That may be a lot of money for us, but to a giant industry with an effluent disposal problem it is absolute chicken-feed. They can pay a fine of R50 000 and still find themselves hundreds of thousands of rand to the good in terms of the sort of money they would have to spend to dispose of the particular product on land. I believe the hon. the Minister should think very seriously about raising the maximum fine by a considerable amount. When I say “a considerable amount”, I am talking of escalating it by 10 from R50 000 to R500 000. I do not believe that the courts, who would obviously have to impose these fines, are going to be so unreasonable as to impose a fine of that magnitude on the smaller company which has perhaps made a genuine error, or was not aware of the situation, or could not possibly afford to pay a fine of that nature.

Have you read the clause?

If the hon. member wants to have a look at the clause— he obviously has not read it—I can tell him I am referring to clause 6(1)(a). A fine of R500 000 would in certain circumstances be considerably more apt. I fully appreciate that provision is made for a period of imprisonment as well, and I am not suggesting that that should be increased. The fine itself could, however, be considerably larger.

We must obviously not be guilty of leaving our environment to our children in a state of disorder. I hope that this Bill will help to ensure that our children will be able to enjoy the same sort of pleasures at the seaside that we did. I am thinking of the rock pools, the excitement of catching a fish and many other pleasures we have enjoyed over many, many years. We in these benches shall therefore certainly support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful that the hon. member for East London North is supporting this Bill on behalf of the official Opposition. It is important legislation, as he too indicated. He has certain misgivings about the fact that this matter affects various Acts that fall under different departments, for instance the Department of Water Affairs, the Department of Industries and the Department of Agriculture. I should just like to point out to him that this Bill concerns the dumping of substances at sea only. In schedule 1 there is a list of substances, the dumping of which is absolutely prohibited and in schedule 2, a list of limited substances with regard to which a permit must be obtained before they can be dumped.

This Bill was brought into being as a result of a convention which was held in London in October 1972, at which South Africa was represented. 83 countries attended the convention and this Bill is the result of it. Thus far, approximately 30 countries have already become members of the body concerned and passed similar legislation.

The legislation determines that every country will control its own dumping. In the case of South Africa, the open sea restriction of 12 miles applies, as is the case for South African vessels as well.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister who is going to control the foreign vessels beyond the 200 mile border. Will it be the responsibility of the Navy and the Department of Transport, or will the countries to which the ships belong have to accept the responsibility for them? This legislation will be applied and controlled by the Department of Transport and the Navy will supervise dumping at sea.

Sea pollution can easily be defined as the direct or indirect action of people, in dumping waste matter which causes marine flora and fauna, human health and maritime activities to be threatened and the quality of the sea water to be adversely affected. It is true that certain chemicals, like those contained in the schedule, are already present in sea water, but it is essential for us to maintain the natural balance and these chemicals must not be dumped in the sea in concentrated quantities. This would disturb the balance of nature and have an adverse effect on sea life.

Pollution of the sea can occur in three ways. Firstly, of land-based origin, viz. by direct effluent such as sewage or industrial waste or by rivers that are affected by the run-off of agriculture or afforested inhabited areas. Secondly, by maritime activities, the deliberate dumping of waste matters and dangerous material at sea, dumping of waste by ships as well as pollution as a result of accidents at sea and leakages of underground pipelines. Thirdly, the sea is polluted by the mining of minerals on the sea bed. The sea can also be polluted by the air. Firstly, there are gases that are released in the air by factories and then end up in the sea as a result of rain. Then there are dry precipitates on land and poisonous substances which also end up in the sea as a result of rain.

As early as in 1976, a survey was carried out in South Africa and a wide range of poisonous substances that are also being dumped at sea, were identified. These substances include organic as well as inorganic substances. Organic substances include acetone, benzine, phenol and creosol and inorganic substances include lead, mercury, sulphur, arsenic and cyanide. These are all substances, which when they are present in abnormal quantities, are detrimental to a balanced natural sea life. For instance, during 1976, 1 700 tons of waste matter containing caustic soda and phenol were dumped at sea in the region of Durban. In February 1968, 1 200 drums of weedkiller were dumped at sea between Port Elizabeth and Mossel Bay. I think hon. members will agree that the uncontrolled dumping of these chemicals and waste products on a large scale cannot be allowed. In addition, we know that nuclear energy is going to be generated in South Africa within a short while and that there are going to be radioactive substances and waste. Therefore, it is necessary for the storage and dumping of waste products at sea to be strictly controlled.

In the past, South Africa has not been careless about sea pollution. As early as in 1971, a Cabinet Committee was appointed to investigate the problem of pollution. On 29 May 1972, this committee was transformed into a permanent Cabinet committee under the chairmanship of the Minister of Planning and the Environment, on which the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Economic Affairs and the Minister of Water Affairs served. This committee is responsible for co-ordination and has identified problem situations, recommended solutions, undertaken research on pollution and drawn up the legislation. In addition, they have also co-opted representatives from the provincial administrations, the CSIR and other semi-State departments. They have seen to the provision of the necessary legislation for controlling air pollution, noise pollution, water pollution, nature conservation and sea pollution.

Therefore, we on this side of the House welcome the legislation and support it enthusiastically.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Alberton has highlighted some of the particular spheres in which known actions of pollution have taken place off our coasts and in fact he is quite right in condemning those actions which in many cases have been done wilfully and which have had known harmful effects on our seawaters.

Over the years I think we have come to take the rehabilitative ability of the sea somewhat for granted. I think many people treat the sea as something of an open sewer and regard it as an open drain into which they can pour any substance which is wasteful, which they do not need any longer and which they want to get rid of in a convenient fashion. The affluent societies of the 1950s and 1960s very quickly became the effluent societies. We have in fact seen that certain of the inland seas in Europe, with the amount of waste that has been dumped into the water, have reached the stage where they are unable to rehabilitate themselves without some assistance from man, who caused the pollution in the first place.

I would not say that the legislation before us is long overdue, but I would say that it has been brought to this House not a year too soon, because as the industries of a country grow, so the effluence increases, sometimes in greater proportion. Even in a vast country such as South Africa, one does come across concerns and industries that find it convenient to dump some of their waste at sea, because the treatment of such waste on land is expensive or forbidden by some other legislation. So I want to say right at the outset that the NRP welcomes the Bill before us today, and that we feel that we will have to keep an eye on this particular legislation, because I believe that we might in the future have to take another look at it. We may perhaps have to look again at the possible penalties in the first place and at the schedules in the second place. The schedules are certainly not all-embracing and it could well be that there are other groups of substances that will need to be prohibited or restricted in terms of what can be dumped in the sea.

The hon. member for East London North is making a little bit of noise on my right and I want to tell him that I think he has made two mistakes, which I think should be put right. The first error he made was when he said that, if one pollutes the sea over a period of 50 years, it will take 200 years for it to rehabilitate itself. He has fallen into a simple trap there. It is not just a simple matter of arithmetic or mathematics, but pollution over a period of 50 years would only require a rehabilitation period of four years, because it is after one stops polluting that the rehabilitative process starts. [Interjections.] Therefore it would only take four years for the sea to rehabilitate itself, particularly in the case of organic waste, which is what the hon. member for East London North was referring to at that particular time. It is highly doubtful whether it would take four years for organic waste to be eliminated from the sea in any event.

The other thing that I want to say is that he appears to have misinterpreted the clause relating to penalties, because he simply raised the question of the penalty of R50 000. If he had read a little further on in that clause, he would have seen that the penalty is increased by R5 000 in respect of every day during which the offence continues. [Interjections.] He sits here and says that that is chicken-feed. I Just when he thought it was safe to go back into the sea, he found the sewage off Nahoon beach. I shall leave the hon. member for East London North at that and recommend that he should study the matter more closely before he makes statements such as those he made in this House and which, clearly, are not strictly correct.

There is one matter that I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister, which perhaps is a matter in which the local authorities would be interested. If I could refer the hon. the Minister to clause 10, it reads—

I have been approached by a local authority that has a permit to dispose of sewage in the sea, and I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister in what way this legislation interlocks, if I may use that term, with …

This pertains to dumping by aeroplanes, ships and oil rigs in the open sea. It has nothing to do with local authorities.

I thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation. That was in fact the way in which I interpreted the legislation. However, I think it is important that it should be made clear that this legislation will not unnecessarily affect the right of local authorities that do have a permit to dispose of sewage in any way, whether it be in a raw or treated form. I raise this because there might be a problem in the sense that in any sewage, whether it be raw or treated, there are limitations imposed on the presence of certain substances which are mentioned by name in Schedules 1 and 2 and whose presence is very often expressed in parts per million. I want to raise this point with the hon. the Minister in the light of the fact that there could be some clashes, and perhaps he could explain whether there will be any clashes between a local authority permit to dispose of sewage, whether raw or treated and whether disposed of directly into the sea or via a tunnel out to sea, and the strictures of the legislation, because I think it is important for us to know how the two will interlock.

The penalties contained in the Bill are fairly significant. It is not only large industries and concerns that might be guilty of dumping at sea, because the sorts of substances referred to in the schedules are not substances which would generally be available in enormous quantities. If one looks at the categories into which these substances fall, one sees that they are generally heavy metals, pesticides, other chemical poisons, persistent plastics and other persistent synthetic materials. I think the penalties contained in this new legislation will suffice at this stage and act as a deterrent to anybody who is considering illegal dumping at sea. I think these penalties might be an aspect that we will have to look at again with a view to increasing the penalties for wilful and continuous dumping at sea, particularly of the more dangerous and more persistent substances. However, I think the penalties which are contained in this new legislation and which provide for the control of dumping of substances in South African waters bear a reasonable amount of relevance to the offence of dumping substances at sea.

Very few people will have any problems with, or take exception to, the inclusion of the substances referred to in Schedule 1, but I have one problem which I want to raise with the hon. the Minister, because I think it is important that we should obtain some clarity on this, and that is in respect of item 6 of Schedule 1 which relates to “substances in whatever form produced for biological and chemical warfare”. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister outlined the background of this legislation which has been drawn up in collaboration with other countries of the Western world. I realize that they have been busy with this for a period of eight years, and there obviously are countries in the West which produce such substances, have them in their arsenals and have to regulate the disposal of them, but I am a little worried about the inclusion of item 6 in Schedule 1 of legislation for a country like South Africa, because I am not aware that the Republic produces substances for biological and chemical warfare. The hon. the Minister might have to refer this query to another Government Department, but I think we are entitled to know whether, in the light of the inclusion of item 6, in fact these substances are to be found in the Republic today. If they are I would be rather surprised because they are some of the most vicious and hideous substances that have been produced by man. I would be very disappointed if the inclusion of item 6 in schedule 1 is to deal with the possible dumping of such substances at sea.

Do you expect me to answer that?

Yes. I think it is necessary in view of the importance of everybody in this country, knowing whether in fact we do have these substances at our disposal. It is all very well including it in the schedule, but we must know the facts. If the hon. the Minister tells me that we do not have these substances in stock in South Africa and that we do not intend importing them from anywhere, I shall accept it. However, I think it is important for us to know why it has been necessary to include this particular item. I do think the country is entitled to know the reason for the inclusion of item 6.

In what schedule?

Schedule 1.

Because some people might be having difficulties with the definition of “dump” in clause 1(1)(ii), this definition could perhaps be tidied up a bit. I am not a legal expert, but I do not think it is a particularly good definition of “dump”. Other people have also said that they find it a rather untidy definition, if I may put it like that.

Most of the clauses are self-explanatory and fairly clear as to their intention. We support the general intent of this Bill.

In respect of clause 5 there is one point I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. Other legislation he has introduced in this House has been exemplary in this regard, and it seems as if a slip has possibly been made in lines 61 and 62 of clause 5. Clause 5 deals with the powers of inspection.

Inspector Wood.

Yes. I would be slipping in my duty if I did not point this out. Clause 5(2) reads—

When we discussed certain other legislation, we accepted that it was conducive to good relations between the people concerned if the inspector produced his authority at the outset without having to be asked for it. I just want to mention this point. It is not a major point. I know that in terms of the other legislation it is not necessary for the person affected to request the production of the authority under which the inspector is acting.

I think I have dealt fairly thoroughly with our other reservations and problems and that, generally speaking, I can say that we are very pleased with the principle of this legislation before us. If it is not altogether overdue, it has certainly, as I have said at the beginning, not come a day too soon.

With these comments we shall be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, first of all one is grateful for the support this measure has gained from the PFP and the NRP. Judging from the speeches of the hon. members who have spoken, I do not think there is complete clarity in respect of the intention of this measure. As I see it, this measure is not supposed to supersede other laws concerning dumping from land, but simply brings us into line with the London Dumping Convention of 1972. In terms of this convention the dumping of certain noxious substances is not allowed in international waters and is as far as possible to be avoided in territorial waters. Certain substances cause damage. As I see it, our responsibilities are very limited in that we can only police and enforce these measures in our territorial waters and on our citizens. All we can do outside our territorial waters, for example in the zone which we economically exploit, is to monitor dumping and then to report to the country of origin of the offender, after which we can only hope that the offender will, in terms of this convention, be tried in his country of origin. I think it is helpful if one reads the preamble to the final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference on the Convention of Dumping of Waters, the so-called convention to which we refer. In article 1 they say, and I quote from page 5—

Article 2 says—

Then follows the convention, which is taken up in the Bill before the House today.

The hon. member for East London North said there were too many authorities but later conceded, with the board which the hon. the Minister has envisaged for us, that the position will be rationalized. Having said he was scared of double jurisdiction, however, he shortly afterwards suggested there should be consultation between local authorities and all sorts of other people. So he was really contradicting himself. [Interjections.]

Jurisdiction and consultation are two different things.

Yes, but what the hon. member forgets is that the Secretary for Industries has under his control the pollution unit of the Division of Fisheries, which unit is a very, very good technical arm. They have vessels and regularly monitor the sea and take samples of water. They are then able to assess whether or not something qualifies in terms of this Bill.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Certainly.

I thought the Division of Fisheries, and presumably research done by them, was going to link up with the Department of Agriculture, in which case the unit will not be under the Department of Industries any longer. Is this the case?

It is true that the Division of Fisheries will fall under the Department of Agriculture. The hon. member knows that in terms of the rationalization responsibility can be delegated to a particular authority on an agency basis, and this can be done in regard to the pollution unit.

I think the question of the future of marine matters is one we will have to debate in this House over the next few weeks, in which case this will also be affected, but for the moment the position is that there is a pollution unit under the authority of the Secretary of Industries, and it is able to do the kind of job called for in this Bill.

The Bill is simply about the poisoning of the sea and there is a realization that our sea is not an isolated, and that the oceans are interlocked, and therefore damage to the sea in one part of the world can have a universal effect.

The law of the sea becomes more difficult. I would like to quote from a book by René Jean du Puys called The Law of the Sea in which he talks of the problems with the law of the sea. On page 6 he says—

In that regard we shall have to consider, in the immediate future, a regional conference on marine matters which are of a regional interest to South Africa, the Transkei, South West Africa and perhaps Angola and Mozambique. There are the Barcelona, Oslo and other conventions. There are conventions between nations on the Mediterranean littoral for the reasons that the hon. member for East London North mentioned, viz. that there is massive degradation of the Mediterranean. This also applies to the Baltic, the Great Lakes of America and other parts of the world.

There is a scramble for the sea. There is an enormous advance in industrial activities. It is so that industrial activities take place at the interface between the sea and land in that most urban concentrations lie either on the sea or on waterways, and it is therefore true that there are problems with noxious materials draining into the sea. However, I think the hon. member for East London North is wrong when he talks in terms of inshore pollution, damage to the ecosystem, amenities, etc.

That is not the intention of this Bill. This Bill is aimed more at the long-term insiduous degradation of the sea, the slow, gradual, almost immeasurable, insiduous degradation of the sea. This is often almost immeasurable. That is why there is a reporting mechanism in this Bill, so that there can be some international monitoring authority to measure the degradation. There are very good reasons for that. Take, for example, the fact that the sea produces 70% of the world’s oxygen and is therefore the primary pump of mankind. In order to produce the oxygen, the sea relies upon a healthy bloom of plankton, and a healthy bloom of plankton relies upon the fact that the sea is normal and clean. Therefore the long-term effects of degradation, which is really what this Bill deals with, are very well covered. In so far as we take our place in the world community in honouring this convention, I should like to thank and congratulate the hon. the Minister. What the convention says and what the Bill really says is that we must conserve in order to conserve ourselves. We must protect our life-giving resources, and for protecting our life-giving resources we not only have a national responsibility, but also an international responsibility. It is in honouring our international responsibility that we have this Bill before us today.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maitland takes a very serious interest in this particular subject, and for that reason we have listened to him with interest. We have noticed that on numerous occasions he has participated in discussions around the country where this subject was under discussion and that he has made worthwhile and valuable contributions.

One of the aspects of this particular piece of legislation which has been mentioned by a number of hon. members today, is the fragmented nature of the legislation which deals with the pollution of the sea and the fact that various departments and various Ministers are involved when the measures which apply as far as these matters are concerned are administered. I shall come back to this later on. To start off with I should like to say that the PFP, as the hon. member for East London North has already said, supports this legislation on the grounds that we feel it is long overdue and that it is of vital necessity. Therefore we are very pleased indeed that the Government has now produced this legislation. It is particularly fortunate that we in South Africa are in a position to do something about the problem before it actually reaches major dimensions. It means in fact that we in South Africa will be in a position, provided this legislation is effectively applied, to avoid the most unfortunate consequences which have already arisen in the seas surrounding the other highly industrialized nations of the earth. We shall be able to avoid the consequences which have been experienced in the Mediterranean, in the Black Sea, in the Baltic Sea and in the seas around Japan and other highly industrialized countries of the world. It is very fortunate that South Africa finds herself in the position that she can pass legislation now which she can apply so that we will not have to talk about repairing the damage caused by hundreds of years of pollution of the sea—we will not have to face a backlog such as that—but by a stitch in time we can prevent that from happening altogether.