Mr. Speaker, I am the bearer of a message from the State President.

The Prime Minister thereupon handed the message to Mr. Speaker.

The message reads as follows—

M. VILJOEN,
State President.

Pretoria.

16 May 1980.

Mr. Speaker, with your leave I should like to make a statement in regard to the message of the State President which has just been conveyed to this House. The proposed Joint Sitting relates to the amendment of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961, to further regulate the repeal or amendment of certain provisions relating to the treatment and use of certain languages and to provide for matters connected therewith.

Mr. Chairman, before I return to some of the matters we were discussing yesterday evening, I should like to deal with the question of personnel in the Department of Foreign Affairs and in the Information Service. A number of hon. members have appealed to the hon. the Minister that the numbers both in the Foreign Service and in the Information Service be strengthened. That is an appeal which I should like to repeat.

A further question that has to be answered is whether it is going to help South Africa to spread its resources over a very wide field or whether we should concentrate on diplomatic and information efforts only in restricted areas. The suggestion I should like to make to the hon. the Minister today is that one of the major objectives of South Africa’s foreign policy, one of the major efforts of South Africa’s Information Service, should be to seek to avoid the enactment of further sanctions and further boycotts against the Republic of South Africa. Sanctions and their avoidance should be a major object in our foreign policy effort. To that extent we should concentrate the main resources that we have in those areas where they will be most effective. There is little doubt that the countries in which that effort has to be undertaken are the United States, Germany, France and Great Britain, because it will really be in those countries that that decision is going to be influenced eventually or where the question of sanctions can be avoided.

I, for one, do not believe that one should write the United States off and regard them purely as an opponent or as an enemy of South Africa. I believe the influence the United States has on the foreign policy of Britain, France, Germany and other States, such as Canada, is of such a magnitude that without doubt we should seek to influence that foreign policy in the United States to the major extent in our favour. That is why I appeal for a concentration on the effort in those areas where it is most important. In my submission the avoidance of sanctions is one of those fields.

I should like to come back now to the issue we discussed yesterday evening. I was dealing then particularly with the role Dr. Mulder had played in the whole Information situation. I also indicated then that if Dr. Mulder did not find the note to which he referred, the note he alleged he had obtained from the former Prime Minister, his political career would, for all intents and purposes, even if it were not at an end now, receive the final nail in its coffin. To that extent I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister that there should never be a suggestion that any obstacle had been placed in his way in his attempts to find that note. If such a note exists it should not be made impossible for him to find it. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that such a situation should not occur.

The other matter concerning Dr. Mulder which I should like to raise, is the fact that he has sought, with the knowledge that he has at his disposal, with the background he has, with everything he has ascertained as a result of his membership of the Cabinet over so many years, to attack the Government from the right in order to try to exploit the changes the Government is making in a manner which he hopes will be disadvantageous to the Government. In our view these efforts of his will be disadvantageous to the country as a whole. We find that perhaps one of the most reprehensible parts of his political career, viz. that, when he knows that matters are so delicate, he chooses to exploit what he sees as political advantages for the right.

If we come to the issues which still arise from the Information situation, one must mention that there are still a large number of unanswered questions, questions which, on the face of it, we do not seem to be able to get answers to at all. Let me list a few of them: Was there a Cabinet decision on 12 March 1974 where it was agreed by the Cabinet, not by individuals, that the Special Defence Account should be used as the mechanism for the transfer of funds? If there was such a decision, the issue of Government responsibility takes on a completely different picture. The issue of there having been a Cabinet Committee which is alleged to have existed in 1974 and which in 1975 approved of the project by Prof. Nic Rhoodie, has arisen again. All of these matters remain unanswered questions. We also have the issue of the hon. the Minister of Finance’s responsibility. We have a situation where Dr. Rhoodie continues to make public statements concerning the hon. the Minister’s implication and his knowledge. Yet Dr. Rhoodie is not contradicted and there is no action or reaction whatsoever. Why is that so? Let us take the simple example of the display of the now defunct Department of Information on 30 November and the question whether The Citizen was part of that project. What is remarkable is that the evidence actually discloses that a very junior official in the ex-Department of Information knew at that stage that The Citizen was part of the ex-department’s project. So the most junior officials knew about it. However, to this day the whole story of that display and that meeting remains like that famous dark room we have been talking about. One cannot get an answer. The answer is blandly dismissed in the commission’s report. Their answer is that nobody could understand the hon. the Minister of Finance’s remarks about a newspaper in Europe that was to be bought by the Government. Nobody knew whether there was any evidence to that effect. However, if one looks at the evidence, the reality is that it was not adequately investigated. That is one of the major criticisms of the commission, viz. that one finds at every turn that some witnesses were intensely crossexamined while we find that cross-examination was utterly absent in the case of others. In fact, they were almost treated as guests who were visiting the commission as an act of condescension. [Interjections.] That is what is remarkable about the commission’s report.

We have another matter which causes a grave question mark to be placed over the Government’s head, viz. the quality of the security services of this country. Here we have the situation of the man who is supposed to be the auditor of Boss. He admits or is said to have admitted—

How can one have the Boss auditor, who was supposed to be carrying out an investigation for the Prime Minister, secretly leaking information to a man who had no connection with the Government, except perhaps his personal friendship or acquaintances with individuals? He was leaking information of a most vital nature and of which members of the Cabinet alleged they did not know. Let me quote again from the same newspaper—

How can one have such a situation? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman …

Time to turn over a new page.

… I want to refer to what the hon. the Minister said yesterday when he spoke about priorities threatening our country from outside.

That is right. Bring the debate back to Foreign Affairs for a change.

When I want advice from the hon. member for Simonstown, I shall knock and ask. I think the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs should also ask: What of actions internally that are a threat and an embarrassment to us? When I say “actions internally”, I mean also a possible lack of action internally that can be an embarrassment to us. In this regard I want to refer to the report of the Information Service of South Africa which was put on our tables yesterday afternoon, something I find to be an untenable situation since we had already started this debate. We went back to our offices to find this report on our desks after the debate had already commenced in the House. I want to refer to what he said on page 11 under the heading “Branch: Foreign Information.” I quote—

Reference is made to the increased force of the onslaught against South Africa, seeking to lay the blame on that. Let me, however, pose another question. What of the reactions of the Western World, in fact the whole world, to the non-pursuance of the hon. the Prime Minister’s initiatives in this country? What of the fact that the recommendations of the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions have come to a standstill? The outside world is critical of this situation. The outside world is watching and waiting to see what is happening, but nothing is happening. We are standing still. We are immobilized. I ask myself what actions we initiate, in this country, which causes this sort of criticism to be levelled against us, and the answer is actions on the part of the Government and on the part of the Opposition parties—we are also included in this—the churches, the Press, the White leaders, the Brown leaders and the Black leaders. Everyone must be on his toes. We must consider carefully the possible effects of any utterances that we may make. Everything we do and everything we say is conveyed to the outside world, because this is what information is all about. It is sent out and we receive it. Have we learnt our lesson? Will we ever learn our lesson? Have we learnt our lesson from the Information scandal, because it was indeed just that? It cannot be described as anything other than a scandal in which hundreds upon hundreds of prominent people were caught up in a web of lies, deceit and intrigue. One day the full story will be told because one day it must be told. I do not care what happens to the record, it will be told. I believe, however, that now we should lay this matter to rest.

So, are you still dreaming?

I think it is very important for the hon. the Minister who has just interjected, in fact everybody on that side of the House and on this side of the House, to know that the Select Committee had extreme difficulty in deciding on the relevance of evidence. I refer to page 7 of the report of the Select Committee on Publication of Evidence to indicate that the Committee had extreme difficulty in deciding on exactly what evidence would—

1. (a) … prejudice the security of the State;
2. (b) … reveal the identity of individuals, more particularly of foreign collaborators of the former Department of Information, without furthering the public interest; and
3. (c) … adversely affect the interests of the State.

This is so much so that I want to say that the chairman of the committee knows it and that every member of the committee knows it. I want to say that I think that every member of the House should seek permission from the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, in terms of the decision taken in this House last week, to go and view the confidential minutes of the proceedings. If one does so, one sees that in almost every case where there was a vote taken in respect of the release of evidence, this was not done within party lines, but the vote fluctuated from time to time. It was not simply one party versus the others. There was a tremendous difference of opinion within the governing party as to what should be released as evidence and what constituted a danger to the security of the State.

And in the Opposition parties?

I said: “In all parties.” I said that this was not done within party lines. [Interjections.] This is something that must be very clearly understood.

[Inaudible.]

I want the country to know this and this is possibly the only opportunity I will have of telling the country. I want to tell the country that there was this difference, particularly within the governing party. It was far more the case within the governing party than within Opposition parties.

I have only a few minutes left to me. I want to say that I do not agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. member for Yeoville has had to say about establishing a panel of Appeal Court judges to evaluate the evidence. I cannot go along with that. I cannot go along with it for the reason that I see no good reason at all why the State or the taxpayer must once again have to foot the bill for a panel of judges to be appointed. What must that panel of judges do? They must stop the Kilkenny cats from fighting—incidently, I must correct the hon. member for Yeoville there: He spoke of Kerry cats, but they are the “Kilkenny cats.” I want to say: To blazes with them. Let them fight. Let them brawl. Let Connie Mulder and the rest all have a go at one another. Let these wonderful comrades in arms fight, these wonderful men who were all in one place just a little while ago—incidently, for the hon. member for Pretoria East’s information, they were not on this side of the House, but they were all in one place, they were all in one little basket. Let them fight. Let them squabble. They are making a wonderful job of it. Let them get on with it, but not at the expense of the taxpayer of South Africa, because the taxpayer of South Africa is fed up to the back teeth with this. He has had enough of it. He does not want anymore of it. If those old comrades want to tear each other apart, if they want to expose themselves for what they really are and if they want to expose their comradeship and their support for each other for what it really is, let them go ahead and do it. Let them tear each other apart. I care not.

I want to say that, if we are going to have a special debate on this issue, let us do so and have done with it; if not, let us in heaven’s name forget about this thing, let us forget about it in the House and now start to work for the future.

Mr. Chairman, before I react briefly to the hon. member for Umhlanga, I must point out that unfortunately I was not here last night when the hon. member for Yeoville spoke about this specific matter. However, I have obtained a copy of his Hansard and taken note of the proposal that he made in this regard. Before I go into what the hon. member for Yeoville said last night and to which the hon. member for Mossel Bay has already given a decisive reply, I want to agree with the hon. member for Umhlanga that we approached the matter objectively in that Select Committee, in any event the Government party did. Throughout the proceedings, it was the standpoint of the Government members of that Select Committee, that apart from party interests, we would only allow ourselves to be guided by the criteria which were agreed upon by the members of that Select Committee. That is why, as the hon. member for Umhlanga said this afternoon—I did not want to make it public, but he did so—it is obvious that whereas there was in fact a difference of opinion in that Select Committee, it was not on a party basis. After all, it is obvious that there may also be a difference of opinion between intelligent people on what might or might not jeopardize State security at a given moment. It is obvious that there may be a difference of opinion, but, as the hon. member for Umhlanga pointed out to the Committee this afternoon, that Select Committee was not divided on a party political basis, and this is the best way to prove to this House that that Select Committee did not use party political considerations as a criterion in the first instance, but only considered what was in the interest of South Africa. This was our approach and our party’s members at that Select Committee make no excuse for it.

Last night the hon. member for Yeoville made a somewhat strange suggestion that at this late stage we should present all the evidence that was submitted to the Erasmus Commission, to a panel of three Appeal judges for a final decision. Apparently the hon. member for Yeoville’s memory is not so good, because in December 1978 there was an occasion when the entire Information affair was discussed in this House too. I quote what the hon. member’s standpoint was in December 1978. At the time the hon. member said (Hansard, col. 218)—

That was the standpoint of the hon. member for Yeoville in December 1978.

It is still correct. There is nothing wrong with it.

That request of the hon. member for Yeoville was in fact granted. All the relevant evidence, all the relevant exhibits pertaining to that evidence, were made completely public.

And now we see what happened.

If people now think that the Select Committee participated in a so-called “cover up” of this evidence, then I reject it and think that any member of that Select Committee, in fact every member of that Select Committee will reject such allegations, because that Select Committee passed judgment honestly and objectively, according to the criteria that it unanimously laid down for itself; with a majority vote on occasion it is true, but as we understand democracy, the majority vote is the deciding one.

Harry’s bosses told him what to do.

I think South Africa is tired of this whole Information story. There is no political capital to be made out of it any longer for any party today, except for the hon. member for Yeoville, who may still be trying to do so at this late stage. The hon. member for Yeoville now wants to act as a protagonist for the former Prime Minister and former State President and, believe it or not, for Dr. Connie Mulder too this afternoon. However, surely this is too transparent. Let us look at the latest events with regard to the case of Dr. Connie Mulder, viz. the letter which Dr. Mulder testified did in fact exist, whilst the former State President denied it. Dr. Mulder alleged that he had it somewhere. For the first time we now learn that that letter must be somewhere. Is it not transparent that Dr. Mulder is alleging at this stage that that letter, which he alone is aware of, must be somewhere amongst the documents of the former Department of Information which was handled by him? I venture to predict that, even if the Government were to give a hearing to the ridiculous proposal that we have had to listen to this afternoon and afford Dr. Mulder the opportunity to rummage through the documents of the department that he should have controlled earlier on and he is unable to find it, he will allege that this Government caused that document to disappear. Surely we have had enough now, and the country has already had enough, of allegations which do not tally with the facts of the matter.

My time has almost expired. I therefore want to conclude by saying that it was a privilege for me to be chairman of that Select Committee. I want to thank all hon. members for working very hard to make the final report available. I simply find it strange that some members of that Select Committee apparently worked harder than others. I ask hon. members just to take a look at this printed report of that Select Committee. Hon. members will see from it that, during the most important meetings of that Select Committee, where all the relevant decisions of that Select Committee were made, those members of the Select Committee who now have the most to say, were not present. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I only have a few minutes left of the half hour that I requested yesterday. Consequently, I want to come back very briefly to yesterday’s debate and once again refer to the question of South West Africa. I am satisfied with the answer that the hon. the Minister gave on the question of South West Africa yesterday and I am pleased that he gave such a full one. However, I just want to place on record that I am fully aware that the hon. the Minister cannot afford to be accused with any justification of departing from agreements or purposely delaying progress with regard to South West Africa. I did not expect him to put himself in such a position. In the nature of things, the proposals of the West as they stand have been accepted not only by the Government, but also by the parties inside South West Africa itself. I was addressing the other parties involved in the South West Africa question, particularly the five Western countries after the practical experience that they have had with Zimbabwe.

As matters stand at the moment with regard to the South West question, an election has to take place in South West Africa under the supervision of South Africa and the Security Council of the UN. However, that election will only take place if all the political parties of South West Africa participate in it, and this includes Swapo. The democratic parties of South West Africa have agreed to this.

In terms of the proposal of the West, a conference of all the elected parties must be held after the election in order to draw up a constitution for the territory. Such a conference of all the parties in order to draw up a constitution, has therefore already been included in the accepted Western proposal, but no provision has been made in the proposal as to who should control that conference or constituent assembly as it is called, discipline it and regulate it.

There will be nothing to prevent an elected majority party doing as it wishes and forcing through a constitution for a one-party state. There is nothing to ensure that it should be a democratic constitution which protects the minorities of South West Africa. Hon. members can imagine what will happen if matters were to develop in such a way that a majority party that is elected should be a revolutionary one.

I am the last one to believe that a conference of all the parties of South West Africa would be an easy matter, and that the parties with widely divergent opinions, will easily agree amongst themselves on a constitution. The question is simply whether it is not going to be better to do so before than after the election. It is my contention that when the Western proposal was accepted by the Government and the parties inside South West Africa, the principle of a constitutional conference of all the parties in South Africa was accepted together with it, except that it would take place after the election instead of before.

The principle of a constitutional conference of all parties, good or bad, has therefore been accepted already. All I am suggesting, is that such a conference, if at all possible, should be held before the election, so that the election can lead to the appointment of a government in terms of the provisions of an existing and accepted constitution. If the constitution is only to be drawn up after the election, under the control of no one but the majority party, I foresee the possibility of chaos, and discord which may be more serious than we have now. This is all I want to say further about this matter.

I want to refer briefly to another matter, and this is the question of the proposed constellation of States in the form of a confederation. The idea of an association or a confederation of States in Southern Africa is not a new one. There is no party or side that has right of ownership of the idea. The confederation idea had already arisen during the ’50s amongst the management of Sabra as well as the people in and around the Tomlinson Commission. However, Dr. Verwoerd preferred to speak about a commonwealth and Mr. Vorster spoke of a power block. Unfortunately, nothing was done about it. I hope I am not wrong, but I have the impression that the present hon. Prime Minister is serious about the idea of an association or confederation of States and that he will give practical effect to it. I hope he does so. We have no difference of principle with him on that.

However, I just want to point out that a good idea dies very easily if it is not put into effect. Since the idea of a confederation is going to effect countries with the status of republics in the first place, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs must play an important role in implementing it. He has already conferred with the BTV block, viz. Bophuthatswana, Transkei and Venda, in Port St. Johns. Everyone knows it is too early to expect the BLS countries to show a favourable reaction to something of this kind now, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not come to create a joint Secretariate between ourselves and the three republics of the BTV block, or a body modelled on the Pan-American Union. This will inject life into the idea and will have all sorts of benefits, about which I cannot unfortunately digress now due to limited time. Once the confederation has begun to take shape, it will most probably be easier for developing states like the Ciskei to decide whether they want to remain within the Republic of South Africa as autonomous territories or become republics in the confederation. I should like to submit this proposal.

Mr. Chairman, before I reply further to the questions and standpoints which hon. members raised in this debate, I should first like to deal with the Information matter and certain questions which the hon. member for Yeoville put in connection with this matter.

†To be very straight about it, I do not think it was necessary at all for this matter to be raised in the House at this stage.

When did you want it to be raised then?

I do not think it was necessary for it to be raised in this House at all …

Did you want us just to forget about it?

… because it was fully debated in the past. [Interjections.] Although the hon. member spoke late last night and although there was a Cabinet meeting today, I nevertheless, out of courtesy to the hon. member, did give attention to his questions together with my department’s legal advisers. I should like to deal first with what I should like to term the more technical and juridical aspects of the matter and then to discuss briefly what I should like to term the political nuances and aspects of this matter.

As far as the technical matters are concerned, the hon. member for Yeoville has raised a number of aspects, some of which involve complex questions of law. Being a lawyer himself, he will no doubt appreciate that ultimately it is only the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa, and not he, I, or this House, that can conclusively answer questions of law. It is to be clearly understood therefore that my opinion in regard to the aspects he has raised, is no more than an opinion. It does not purport to be conclusive and must be regarded as an attempt to bring certain considerations of law to the attention of the House in an attempt to provide greater clarity about and a better perspective of the insinuations the hon. member has made.

In the first place the hon. member inquired as to whether a commission of inquiry was the proper instrument to investigate matters concerning the former Department of Information. If one considers what has subsequently become known about the doings of that department and what was known at that time—one must not judge things with hindsight—it should be obvious that at that stage the options were indeed very limited. For one, there would have been no guarantee whatsoever that if the matter were to have been referred to a court of law, every shred of information would have become known. This is so, because in a criminal case a court is interested in the facts that will enable it to come to a fair and just conclusion as to the question of the guilt or otherwise of the accused, and nothing else. If one also considers that we had only a few facts at our disposal, one sees that at the time there was no guarantee that an Attorney-General would have decided to institute criminal proceedings against any individual or individuals. The facts that were subsequently disclosed by the Erasmus Commission did lead to such criminal proceedings. However, I do not have to rely on a process of elimination to prove that a commission of inquiry was the proper instrument to investigate the Information affair. On page 280 of Joubert The Law of South Africa, Vol. 2, the learned author states as follows—

I can think of no reason why this observation does not apply equally to so-called common law commissions. As a matter of fact, the same author, discussing common law commissions, makes the following statement on page 281—

It is also true that a commission of inquiry is not hampered by countless restrictive rules in the process of establishing the truth. Thus the learned author to whom I have referred observes on page 281—

This is in terms of an Act of this Parliament! This is what we have instituted and if we want to criticize we must also criticize Parliament.

In my submission, therefore, a commission of inquiry was indeed the most appropriate instrument to ascertain the truth.

The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to the possibility that individuals who think that they have been libelled by witnesses of the commission could institute civil proceedings against such witnesses since the evidence which was given in camera has now been disclosed. I should like to deal with this as well. The first observation I have to make in this regard is that the Government cannot interfere in matters which are essentially of a private nature. If an individual considers himself to have been libelled and is advised by counsel that he has a good case in law, then there is nothing that prevents such an aggrieved person approaching the courts.

However, there are a few facts that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. member. Firstly, although as a general rule sittings of commissions should preferably be held in public, section 4 of the Commissions Act, Act No. 8 of 1947, provides that the chairman of a commission may, in his discretion, exclude from the place where evidence is given all persons whose presence is in his opinion not desirable. As a matter of law, therefore, the commission could conduct its proceedings in camera. Secondly, I do not have to refer to authority for the proposition that Parliament in its wisdom has by law the authority to make public evidence which a commission heard in camera. Thirdly, the suggestion that once Parliament has done precisely that, individuals who gave evidence under the impression that whatever they said would remain secret, may find themselves faced with claims for damages on account of defamation, would seem to involve no real possibility because, in terms of section 3(4) of the Act, persons who give evidence before a commission are entitled to the same privilege as that applicable to a witness giving evidence in a superior court. The extent of such privilege is described by Gibson in Wille’s Principles of South African Law, 7th edition, page 542, as follows—

On page 543 it is said—

In this regard I refer the hon. member to the provisions of sections 3 and 6 of the Commissions Act. The hon. member is also referred to the requirement of animus injuriandi, the intention to defame, and considerations relating to public interest. Even if it were possible to prove that one or more of the witnesses had the intention to defame another person, a possibility which seems remote if one considers that the witnesses were under the impression that their evidence would remain secret, it is to be noted that Gibson on page 544 is of the opinion that an intention to defame is lawful on a privileged occasion.

The hon. member also suggested that the Government should appoint a panel of judges of appeal to consider the evidence which was given before the commission. Before dealing with this matter I want to say that I hope that the impression one gets that the hon. member is desperately trying to keep the Information affair alive is wrong. [Interjections.] If that is the correct impression, it stands in sharp contrast to the observations made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout yesterday who seemed to think that the matter should now be closed. A step such as proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville would be very unusual indeed. Let us consider for a moment the legal nature of a commission, in conjunction with the legal requirements which pertain to the manner in which it conducts its business. In this regard Joubert, op. cit. page 281, gives the following comments—

The learned author cites the case of Minister of the Interior v. Bechler and Beier v. The Minister of the Interior, 1948 (3), S.A., page 409 (A.D.), in support of this contention—

In essence a commission cannot adversely affect the rights of the subjects of the law. It merely makes recommendations and brings certain facts to the fore. A panel of judges would have no more power than that, since it would not be a court properly constituted. The hon. member is therefore merely suggesting that we appoint another commission of inquiry, in this case comprising judges of the Appellate Division. This suggestion will serve no purpose other than to drag out the matter even more. The fact that Parliament has made the evidence available to every person who cares to consult it, completely invalidates his suggestion and reaffirms the bona fides of the Government.

I do not intend to say much as regards the hon. member’s remarks concerning Dr. Rhoodie’s statements in last Sunday’s Sunday Tribune. If, as he says, that statement amounts to civil libel, it is obviously a personal matter. If, on the other hand, it is also criminal libel, as the hon. member suggests, it is a matter for the Attorney-General.

That is as far as the legal aspects are concerned.

I should wish to turn now to the political implications and aspects of the hon. member’s questions and the way in which he tried yesterday to drag the Government and the former State President into this matter once more.

The point of view of the Government, as far as the former State President is concerned, is beyond any doubt. I cannot see how anyone can argue about it. Allow me to refer to four important instances that took place in this House as evidence of the Government’s approach and basic views regarding the former State President. In the first case, on Monday, 5 February 1979, in this House, the hon. the Prime Minister proposed an address to the former State President. That address reads as follows, and I might as well quote it for the sake of the record so that we can judge this matter on the basis of all the relevant facts in the hope that this will be the last time that we hear about this subject in this House—

This was the motion moved by the hon. the Prime Minister. Must I point out what the reaction of the official Opposition was and are they quite happy with what everybody knows about their reaction? [Interjections.] It was not only negative. It also contained an element of hurt.

It was far-sighted.

It contained a slight and was almost insulting to the former State President.

We made an intelligent guess.

Thank you. [Interjections.]

Order!

Secondly, on 4 June 1979, after the appearance of the supplementary report of the Erasmus Commission, the hon. the Prime Minister made a statement in this House and said—

1. (i) that the Honourable Mr. Vorster fulfilled his duties under very trying circumstances and under great pressure during the last year of his premiership due to his state of health;
2. (ii) that the Honourable Mr. Vorster wanted to relinquish his post as early as 1977 but that his colleagues persuaded him not to do so in the national interest at that stage;
3. (iii) that the Cabinet would like to state its appreciation for the sacrificial services rendered by Mr. and Mrs. Vorster to the country at all times with honesty and without any personal gain;
4. (iv) that, after consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances, the Cabinet accepts that the Commission’s deductions and decisions as embodied in paragraph 3.69 on page 10 of its supplementary report, do not in any way reflect upon the honesty and integrity of Mr. Vorster;
5. (v) that, regarding paragraph 3.47 of the report, the Cabinet confirms that Mr. Vorster informed the Cabinet on 26 September 1978 as to all the irregularities known at that stage without withholding available details;
6. (vi) that the Cabinet expresses the wish that Mr. and Mrs. Vorster be afforded the opportunity to enjoy their well-earned rest in peace.

The third occasion on which this Government reacted in a matter involving Mr. Vorster, only indirectly, but nevertheless involving him, was when on 19 June 1979 the Leader of the House moved (Hansard, Vol. 79, col. 9202)—

We moved for an increase in the salary of President Marais Viljoen. Again the official Opposition opposed the motion because of its peripheral advantage to Mr. Vorster, from a financial point of view.

Do you call that peripheral?

Yes, in the sense that he was no more the State President and in his case it would have applied only to a certain date.

Do you know how much it was?

I am not arguing about how large it was. I am trying to argue how the official Opposition hounded and humiliated the former State President throughout, and how all of them went out of their way both inside and outside of this House to associate themselves with even the slightest suggestion that his integrity was in question. The official Opposition was against everything complimentary to Mr. Vorster, including the addresses of appreciation and the increase of salary, which was only slightly to his advantage. [Interjections.] The official Opposition must take this medicine.

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

No, the hon. member may not ask me a question. My time is limited. The hon. member has had his field day, in fact too many of them already.

And there are many more to come.

Fourthly, on 20 June 1979, after all the Erasmus Commission reports were available, the hon. the Prime Minister again moved in this House an address to the retired State President again expressing appreciation to him and Mrs. Vorster. In particular the Prime Minister said—

This, in brief, represents this Government’s approach as far as Mr. Vorster is concerned. So why should we on this side of the House feel any guilt as far as that is concerned?

So why did you sack him?

You protesteth too much.

What has happened here? I shall tell hon. members what the truth of the matter is. I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Yeoville is beginning to have qualms of conscience, because he and others like him did their level best to try to drive Mr. Vorster out. Everyone in this House knows it. [Interjections.] Everyone in the country knows it; everyone who reads the newspapers, knows it, and everyone who knows the Progs knows it. No fair-minded person can blame anyone for thinking that justice should be done to Mr. Vorster. If it is possible for him to clear his name, or if it is possible for justice to be done to him in some other way, no fair-minded person would be opposed to that in principle.

Then give him a chance.

The hon. member does not have the right credentials in this respect. One need only read the Hansard speeches of members of the PFP. Read the record of the debate after the first Erasmus report.

Yes, read my Hansard speeches.

What did he say about the former Prime Minister then? They set a witch-hunt in motion. They were engaged in a disembowelling process. All of us know this to be the truth. I should now like to put a question to the hon. member for Yeoville. If he is suddenly so concerned about justice being done, why did he associate himself on four occasions with the standpoint which in fact amounted to a conviction of Mr. Vorster? If Mr. Vorster has been innocent up to now, and a panel of jurists were to be appointed to prove it, why did the hon. member not at the time dissociate himself from the opposition which his party presented when we congratulated Mr. Vorster and conveyed our appreciation to him, and when they impugned his honour, integrity and decency? [Interjections.] That is the question to which the hon. member will have to reply.

You pay him compliments but you do not give him a fair trial.

I want to conclude by saying that the public of this country are tired of this whole débacle. We are all aware of the human suffering, pathos and tragedy involved in this. My appeal to that hon. member, and other hon. members of his party, is: Stop it! Stop dragging this matter out on every possible occasion. Everything has been opened up. Let everybody read the evidence and come to his own conclusion, and let those who have the means and the opportunity to clear their names, do so. If the Government had tried to cover up anything, why then did it eventually release the evidence? That is my final answer to him. But there always is a spider of fate spinning its web of intrigue. That is the reason for the hon. member for Yeoville participating in this debate on this matter which, as far as I am concerned, is past.

*It was an unpleasant event for all of us. It grieved everyone in the country, and shocked all of us. It is true that blatant lies were told. I see Gen. Van den Bergh referred to a person as having lied like a trooper. I would say that the trooper, or at least his profession, is being maligned here. However, I also want to tell the hon. member that we should be careful not to adopt too pious an attitude to this matter. Let us all be careful, all who were concerned to a certain extent in the tragedy which preceeded the election of the Prime Minister, with all the tensions prevailing at the time. As far as our party is concerned, we have left it all behind us. We are over it. We do not wish to dwell on it anymore. We wish to serve the country. We have more important matters to which attention must be given. We now wish to go forward, with respect for our former State President. We do not wish him to be drawn into this matter at every inopportune moment. The hon. member should have thought of this when he attacked the former State President so harshly. They hounded him. That was the expression that was used by many people I came across. My advise to the hon. members opposite is that, if they wish to anger the South African public further, they must keep on employing this kind of tactic. There is nothing more to pick from those bones. With the exposure and disclosure of the evidence one can see that the bones are white. They have been picked clean. Who did the picking we do not know and perhaps shall never know. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I would not say too much if I were you.

What happened to your R1 000?

Order!

I really hope we can drop this matter now.

The hon. member then referred to Dr. Mulder’s note which had been lost. As soon as reports appeared in the newspapers stating that Dr. Mulder had indicated that that note was perhaps in the official records of the old department, I asked officials who were acquainted with the matter and who had been working for the department at the time, but who had not been involved in the secret projects, to institute an inquiry, and the reply which I received from them was that Dr. Mulder’s private secretary had emptied the safe in which all his personal documents were kept and had taken the contents of the safe to Dr. Mulder. There is nothing else in this connection left in the department. I understand that Gen. Van den Bergh took over certain other documents which were still there. That is all the officials know about this. Consequently, as far as the files, the official records, are concerned, there is no such piece of paper. There is no place, no file, in which one would be able to look for such a piece of paper. Let me make this very clear.

The hon. member then referred to Dr. Rhoodie and said that Dr. Rhoodie was threatening certain people and that there was silence on our part, that we did not react every time Dr. Rhoodie made accusations. With all due respect I ask: Does the hon. member not know Dr. Rhoodie yet? I do not really wish to talk about Dr. Rhoodie. But let me say here today that sitting in this House are two former supporters of Dr. Mulder who are my friends. Before I was sent as Ambassador to Washington in 1974—at the time they were zealous supporters of Dr. Mulder and I did not take it amiss of them, for he was the Transvaal leader—my parting words to them were: “You are closer to Connie than I am. Perhaps he will listen to you since he will not listen to me. Go and warn him. Rhoodie is going to break him.” Those two members are here in the House. If they wish, they can openly admit that I did in fact say this to them.

Hands up!

I told them: “Go and warn Dr. Mulder that Eschel Rhoodie is going to break him.” I do not want to say these things today. After all, the hon. member knows the modus operandi of the gentlemen concerned. If I had to furnish all the facts on the trouble he caused between Foreign Affairs and Information, I would require hours to do so. I myself, as Ambassador in Washington, was at the receiving end. The greatest distrust and ill-feeling existed between officials, but we rectified this with the integration of the two departments.

Did you report it to the Cabinet?

With the amalgamation has come a new team spirit a new hope and new courage.

Did you report it to the Cabinet?

With the amalgamation there is a new team spirit and a new zeal. There are new expectations, there is joint planning and Government directives are being implemented jointly and on a co-ordinated basis. There is new pleasure for the entire staff in Information and in Foreign Affairs. There is a new zest for work which has come in the place of the underhand, cloak-and-dagger methods which Dr. Rhoodie adopted and frequently forced officials to adopt. Only the other day, Dr. Brand Fourie brought it to my attention that the former Prime Minister’s instruction that the Minister of Foreign Affairs should be consulted on certain aspects of Information work, was deliberately omitted by Dr. Rhoodie from a letter in which the Treasury was approached in connection with certain guest programmes. I can continue in this vein, but I do not wish to conduct a debate on this issue today. To keep Parliament functioning is an expensive business. It costs a great deal of money. Is the hon. member not aware that Dr. Rhoodie says these things to advertise the books he wants to write? Apparently he is going to write dozens which he is going to release to the public, always with his side of the matter, his noble motives. Apparently he never did anything wrong. Sometimes one gets the impression that the Government, Parliament, the entire nation will have to apologize to him, so correct and so noble were his motives. One gets the impression that just as long as one has a pure motive in life, one can do whatever one likes. You can exceed all norms of control and proper administration left, right and centre. The strangest part of all this is that when the Government was unable to bring him back to South Africa, the Government was accused of being in collusion with him. And the moment he was brought back, we had to stand by and see how the newspapers wrote all kinds of things about him. He then became a martyr. He was the poor man with the noble motives, and we the villains of the piece. Oh please, Mr. Chairman, one is really becoming sick and tired of this situation now. I think our public are sick and tired of this situation. Why should Government members reply every time to Dr. Rhoodie’s nonsense, just to give free publicity to the books which he may write and write until he is blue in the face? I want to predict that very few people in South Africa will pay any further heed to him. His time is past. His time is up. The Government wishes to move forward. We wish to get rid of the distress, the grief and the misery; we want to get it behind us. There is more important work to do in South Africa. Consequently I am now making an appeal to the Opposition: “Leave it alone now. Drop this matter from which you can derive no benefit. It is only going to be to your detriment.”

Finally, I should like to reply further to the debate which was conducted yesterday, to the more positive part of that debate.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus expressed misgivings about a policy which would bind South Africa indissolubly to the West. In his opinion individuals and organizations have established opinions which allow no understanding for our standpoints and problems. He is in favour of a change of priority to place us in closer contact with Africa and particularly with our immediate environment. I support this school of thought and I wish to assure the hon. member that this idea has for some considerable time now being receiving active consideration from the Government. The hon. the Prime Minister was one of the first to give expression to this possibility, years before he became the leader of the Government.

The hon. member for Parys identified a problem with which South Africa is increasingly having to contend with abroad. It is the exaggerated obsession to condemn our country, frequently without any regard for reality and with little understanding for problem situations. I wish to associate myself with the hon. member’s remarks on the economic conference held in Lusaka last month by nine African States. South Africa understands the magnitude of the economic problem and the very difficult living conditions of the inhabitants of these countries. South Africa is Africa orientated, and we regard with sympathy any attempts to improve conditions for the people of our continent. Consequently we do not inevitably see in that conference of nine in Lusaka an anti-constellation aim, or see it in the first instance as an anti-South African conference. We should like to see in it an attempt on their part to improve their own economic situation and circumstances, and in that sense we welcome it. We welcome it if they are able to obtain funds, if they are able to obtain capital and assistance from the industrialized world to improve the circumstances in their own countries, for if conditions around us improve and things go well, the same will apply in South Africa.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein North made a gesture which is appreciated by giving recognition to the work being done by our Information Division. He drew an enlightening distinction between internal and external demands on the Information effort. In our particular circumstances the need for an objectively informed public has become a priority. I shall give further attention to the hon. member’s suggestion. I just wish to say that I agree with him that Information also has an important, a very important, internal task, particularly as we make progress towards a constellation or confederation of States in Southern Africa. We have a task to perform in respect of all ethnic groups in this country, not in order to introduce them to the politics of one party, but to convey to them Government decisions, economic and financial facts and all aspects of this country in an objective way.

†The hon. member for Maitland has articulated one of the basic problems confronting the world order today. The world population is growing unabatedly and food is becoming a diminishing resource. We notice an ever-widening gap between the industrial world and the Third World. We often find inflated promises and pledges of assistance to the needy for political considerations, but when it comes to substantive help, the expectations are simply not fulfilled.

Here Zimbabwe is a case in point. I hold no brief to request funds for Zimbabwe, but it has not escaped my notice that many of the Western powers which, before the elections in Zimbabwe had such a lot to say about Zimbabwe and its future, are now reluctant to put their money where their mouth was. They are now reluctant to assist Zimbabwe with the funds that are necessary in its reconstruction period. I understand that the USA, for instance, is to give only approximately R14 million this year, $17 million. As far as I am concerned, I would not be surprised if Zimbabwe rejects this with contempt, because the United States of America could certainly afford to give a loan or credit or assist Zimbabwe to the order of $200 million, $300 million, or $400 million. Surely it should do so if it follows the line propogated by it previously as far as its interest was concerned in achieving a peaceful solution in Zimbabwe.

What has happened to the trust fund they were going to set up five years ago?

One hears nothing about it anymore.

*The hon. member for Pinetown focused attention on the attempts in the USA to withdraw American investments from South Africa. This is an important matter for our economy. We may not adopt an attitude of indifference to these onslaughts, but should constantly monitor such attempts and strengthen our defence until it is impervious to attack. His ideas and suggestions on the active involvement of all sectors of the South African community were stimulating, and are welcome. Owing to the vehemence of the onslaught we must make our defences multi-dimensional. I give his constructive proposals my whole-hearted support.

†The hon. member for Von Brandis has focused attention on the many and powerful assets that South Africa commands, not only in the African context, but also in world affairs. He has further pointed out what key role our country can play in the Southern African sub-continent with its sophisticated industrial development and advanced human infrastructure. I agree with him. All of this imposes a particular responsibility on us, and we have clear commitments. I appreciate these perspectives by the hon. member and want to assure him that the Government shares his concern.

*The hon. member for Sunnyside spoke with understanding of the needs of our Information effort and the challenges which our officials are set overseas. I took cognizance with appreciation of his support for an expanded programme. Within the limits of circumstances, we shall constantly continue to strengthen our machinery and make it more sophisticated. I particularly appreciate his appealing for more funds for our Information effort. However, the problem is that a stigma attached to the Information Service—and I hope that stigma no longer exists—which made it psychologically more difficult to request more funds in leaps and bounds, owing to the fear that one might again be asked by the public why funds are again necessary now on a large scale. We should rather have funded more of the old secret projects openly. We could have done it. Many of the old secret projects and comparable projects have already been made public, and funds for them are being openly appropriated in the Estimates. If we had rather done this in good time, the budget for Information, normally organized, would have grown to a larger one than it is today. I am grateful for the hon. member’s support in this connection.

The hon. member for Randburg spoke with insight of the responsibilities in connection with our foreign policy. He pledged his support to a foreign policy which is aimed to a greater extent at Africa and takes the realities of our continent into account. In this connection I just wish to add that it is important in our relations with Africa, as I said yesterday, that we act towards one another as equal continental partners. Equality in my opinion means that we should look one another straight in the eye and not hold talks with one another under pretences.

We should be able to talk openly and candidly with one another, without being paternalistic or trying to pretend that a specific problem does not exist. We should be able to point out to one another that there are elements in the systems of each which are unacceptable to the other. If it is true that there are elements in our system, in our system of values, in our approach, in our dimensions, in our way of thinking and mode of conduct, which are unacceptable to Black groups, one usually finds that they tell us. In the same way we, too, must tell them that there are certain aspects of their systems which are not really worse than ours and which are not inferior, but which are nevertheless not acceptable to us. Here lies the crux of the South African dilemma. If we cannot speak honestly and candidly to one another and reach a mutual agreement in regard to these important points, there will be no progress, not in Africa and not in South Africa either. We must move away from the paternalism of the past, of the idea that a White person should not mention a certain aspect for fear that it is sensitive and will hurt the Black man, or that the Black may not mention a certain aspect for fear that he will not look like a Western Democrat. We must move away from that, and then we shall be able to speak openly and candidly with one another around a conference table. We shall then be able to reach agreements through which we will be able to survive side by side in this country and make a progress to the benefit of all our people.

Hon. members will recall that I also referred yesterday to Mr. Edem Kodjo, the Secretary-General of the OAU, who mentioned that the “gross national product of the 50 African states is only 2,7% of the world figure, hardly as much as that of the three Benelux countries”. Hon. members referred repeatedly to the position of economic strangulation in which Africa finds itself. This gross national product figure emphasizes the magnitude of this strangulation, viz. that three small European countries, in surface area a fraction of the world, have achieved more than Africa which comprises 22% of the surface area of the globe. If the gross national product of the 50 African countries of the OAU is compared with that of the Benelux countries, we can see how much more Africa still has to produce and how much progress it still has to make.

The Government understands this problem. The Government does not speak disparagingly of Africa’s problems and plight. We do not refer to these things in a colonialistic, imperialistic or paternalistic way. We understand the average African leader whose country is ostensibly unable to achieve in 300 years the present British standards of living. He must be frustrated. However, we also wish to say to Africa that they must get their priorities straight, and they are not going to do so by making South Africa the whipping boy for Africa’s afflictions. We wish to adopt a different approach to the problems of Africa. Every African leader must be prepared to examine his own conscience and to ask whether he is doing his utmost to improve the destiny of his people in the various spheres of life.

The hon. member for Randburg also made a strong appeal for the promotion of economic interdependence. This is a consideration which is an important facet of our foreign relations with independent Black States. I thank him for his constructive contribution.

The hon. member for Vasco presented African realities and South Africa’s position in the international community in a balanced perspective. He pointed out the importance which internal unity, among all sectors of the community, has for our prosperity and security. I appreciate the hon. members’ constructive ideas on the strengthening of our foreign relations by means of internal initiatives. Our own future will be served exceptionally well by presenting a united front to the foreign onslaughts. There is no doubt about that.

The hon. member for Benoni supported the idea of close co-operation between South Africa and the Black States. He readily foresaw the advantages of such co-operation if African States could overcome their political prejudices and liaise with South Africa in a pragmatic way. The hon. member pointed out the economic desperation of most African Governments, and ascribed this to deficiencies in the administrations of those countries. He advocated a review of South Africa’s foreign aid programme to African states. I wish to tell him that this should much rather be applied close to our own borders. I think the hon. member will agree with me, because the practical benefits for us then materialize so much closer to our borders. This country does not have the means to launch large programmes everywhere in the underdeveloped world, and moreover, “charity begins at home”.

In future, therefore, we shall, in my opinion, look first to those countries which became independent in our midst. We shall have to ensure that Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda, although they differ drastically from us on many points of colour discrimination, can nevertheless in essence help us to develop the basic commonwealth of nations idea. We may not allow them to begin to feel that they are in a weaker position owing to their decision to become independent. We may not allow them to feel that they are being penalised because they became independent. Consequently I shall, as far as it is within my means, advocate that preference should be given to these countries over the Black communities which are not yet independent, so that a feeling of frustration among the independent States does not arise. I am not saying that those who are not independent should be rebuffed, but if preference has to be given, it has to be given to Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member for Winburg pointed out the advantages which South Africa offers its neighbouring states. The miscellaneous economic aid which is, through co-operation, being made available to the benefit of the inhabitants of these countries, brings stability which would otherwise have been absent. Good neighbourliness, however, also entails obligations which have to be discharged by all individual States.

The vision of the hon. member for Geduld of a bastion of peace and progress in Southern Africa is an ideal which ought to be supported by all interest groups in South Africa. It offers security to all the inhabitants of the respective countries. It can be developed into an effective counter to the onslaught of ideological enemies. In this way we could possibly, in a constellation of States, get through to Black Africa. A successful policy of co-operation with the rest of Africa will undoubtedly promote our own position in the Western community. I am grateful for the hon. member’s sturdy contribution.

The hon. member for Pretoria East emphasized the value of healthy and strong commercial links for our foreign relations. He found it a deficiency that growing trade with the East did not enjoy comparable status in political relations with these countries. He suggested that we should devote increasing attention to a country such as the Republic of China, which is not only a trading partner of ours, but also has a thorough understanding of our oppressive international position. He said that a need exists for direct representation in Taipeh instead of this being done via Hong Kong. Although this is a matter for the hon. the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, I can point out that a post for a trade representative is at present about to be created in Taipeh.

The hon. member for Umlazi saw special merit in ample development aid to the TBV countries in particular. The political existence of these countries stems from their earlier constitutional ties with South Africa. Up to now they have received no international recognition. This is a great dilemma for all of us, and it places additional restrictions on their means. The hon. member asked the valid question whether these circumstances did not perhaps place an additional responsibility upon South Africa to prevent, through the rendering of economic assistance, these states from becoming economic casualties. I want to assure the hon. member, as I have just done now, that the Government will consider the special circumstances with these countries with compassion and understanding. We should like to help these countries, within our means, to develop to the greatest advantage of their citizens, and also of all the inhabitants of the Southern African complex.

The hon. member for King William’s Town explained the situation of the free Western community on the basis of America’s foreign policy. In view of recent events on the world scene, and particularly in view of the expansion of Russian influence, one must have an understanding of the feeling of disillusionment among former friends at the fact that America is withdrawing from its leadership responsibilities. One could almost say to America: “Please! Love your enemies a little bit less and do a little bit more for your friends.”

†The hon. member for Klip River expressed support for South Africa’s traditional alignment with the West, but cautioned against blind loyalty in the face of duplicity and indifference shown by our former allies towards their relations with our country. He suggested that we determine the value to the West of stability and peace in Southern Africa. I believe that our stability is of decisive importance to them but they will not admit that. The hon. member has accurately pointed out that political expediency has imposed unnatural political alignments and that South Africans of all political persuasions should view world events with concern.

*The hon. member for Losberg pointed out the practical problems which South African representatives are experiencing in their representative functions in the USA. I thank him for his sympathetic treatment of this matter. The physical extremities of America with its huge population and the leading role which the country plays in world politics, makes a substantive expansion of the staff at our missions essential. The hon. member advocated the appointment of more diplomatic staff members in the USA. I respect his judgment and appreciate his interest. Our overseas staff requirements is a matter which is constantly being reviewed and I shall request my department to give careful consideration to his proposals. I support them, but I wish to add that it is not always all that easy to find the additional staff and the necessary funds for that purpose.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay spoke with appreciation about the report of the Erasmus Commission. He dealt, in a well-balanced assessment, with the way in which the commission’s evidence was dealt with by means of the prescribed parliamentary procedure. It is a sensitive matter and covers an era which did not redound to South Africa’s credit and was not to her advantage. The behaviour of the hon. member contributed to bringing about greater moderation in the debate on that topic.

†The hon. member for Mooi River will appreciate that it is my view that the real external danger comes from the Soviet Union, which exploits situations in an opportunistic way. I do not think he disagrees with that. As a matter of fact, I think that that was also his basic point of departure. Control of our natural and mineral resources coupled with our geographic location will vastly improve the Soviet Union’s position vis-à-vis the rest of the world. As a matter of fact, there are observers and commentators who say that if the Soviet Union should succeed in gaining a grip on Southern Africa, including South Africa, it would have an almost greater disturbing effect and be of greater advantage to the Soviet Union than if Russia were to take possession of the oil-producing countries of the Middle East. It would be of the same magnitude. I agree with the hon. member that there is an institutionalized bias and prejudice against South Africa in the international media, which deny us the opportunity of presenting our position and circumstances unslanted. We are doing our best to overcome this. It is a hard battle. The waters are heavy, but we are doing our best within the means at our disposal.

The hon. member for Wynberg made a very valid point about the importance of foreign trade to the Republic. We must have economic growth in order to improve the living standards of all our peoples, and hence we need markets. Therefore we are always looking for new outlets, while it is certainly not our intention to abandon our traditional markets. Our relationships with the West continue to have a high priority for us. While we seek to improve our relationships with Africa, it should not be done at the cost of our traditional trading partners and markets. However, our interests as an African State must always come first.

I fully agree with the hon. member on the positive impact that the hon. the Prime Minister’s initiatives have had on the general attitude abroad towards South Africa. In this respect I wish to state that I reject the contention that the positive impact which the hon. the Prime Minister’s initiatives have had abroad has suddenly come to an end. I do agree that there is now a bit of a wait-and-see attitude after the initial positive and constructive reactions abroad. But how has this come about? How has this come about while from within this country the Government is continuing to increase the pace and bring about a new impetus? It has come about because reports are being sent abroad creating the impression that the hon. the Prime Minister is now backtracking and that things have come to a complete standstill. My time is limited and my very brief answer to this is that it is simply not true. I believe hon. members know it. They taunt us for tactical reasons, in order to try to exploit what they perceive to be possible differences of opinion within the ranks of the NP. My answer to them is that they will not succeed. They might as well return to the positive aspects of the hon. the Prime Minister’s initiatives and begin to help us so that we can inform the world correctly.

I am in full agreement with the hon. member for Constantia when he says that a secure environment within Southern Africa is essential for constructive relationships with Africa. It is important that we attempt to overcome the economic paralysis in some of these countries. His suggestions on the role that businessmen can play were first initiated by the hon. the Prime Minister when he outlined the course of partnership between the Government and the private sector at the Carlton Hotel meeting. These efforts are being pursued energetically and are beginning to show results. In this connection I wish to pay tribute to the constructive approach by the private sector.

The hon. member for Simonstown raised the question of our continued membership of the United Nations. We all share his resentment of the subversive activities of some of the UN bodies. Unfortunately nothing would be resolved by leaving that organization. From the time that we were denied our full rights as a member of the United Nations we have stopped our payments towards the organization’s budget. So it is not costing us anything. We are there. It is a listening post. We are aware throughout of what is being planned against us. Although the General Assembly is denied to us as a forum, we still have access to the Security Council, where I have appeared seven times. We can submit documents to the United Nations, which are translated into the five official languages of the organization and distributed worldwide. South Africa therefore has a voice. Finally, it is our enemies who want us to withdraw. It is our enemies who want to terminate our membership. Most of the time it is reasonably safe to adopt the attitude that what one’s enemy wants one should not concede.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether the Government has requested a special meeting of the Security Council to deal with the threat to world peace as the result of the race riots in Miami? That is the first question. Secondly, has he lodged any protest with the American ambassador in South Africa at this affront to civilized people all over the world? Thirdly, will he instruct our ambassador in the United States to attend the funeral of the people who are the victims of racial violence?

We have not lodged any complaints and have not asked for a meeting of the Security Council for the simple reason that it would be useless to waste time considering such a move quite apart from the matter of principle involved in asking for such a meeting. As far as lodging a complaint to the US Government is concerned, we must not make the same mistake that many of our enemies make. Until such time as we have established the facts, the circumstances, the truth, the causes of those riots, I would not only be hesitant, but would also take the view that the Government should not react. We should not react to situations of this nature unless we know the facts. Otherwise we are acting like a bull in a china shop. I hope the hon. member will accept that explanation.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti expressed concern about the fact that we might approach the wrong kind of people abroad in our efforts to put South Africa’s case. He identified and analysed the main interest groups and warned against those people who might cause us more harm than good. I want to allay his fears. We are conscious of these difficulties, and implement our programmes abroad in a considered and analytical way.

He was critical of what he called the failure to carry out projected reforms. I think the same criticism was levelled by the hon. member for Umhlanga. I believe, however, that he proceeded from a premise that is unfounded. We are in the process of creating further impetus in dealing with human relations. With a divergence of sensitivity, policy programmes should be diligently implemented. We cannot rush things, but we are going ahead with deliberate speed, as fast as we can and as fast as funds allow us to. How often have we attempted a serious debate in this House about the financial implications—to which the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs has so often referred—of some of the policies, proposals and suggestions that are made in this House? Not even Mr. Mugabe can do today, in Zimbabwe, what he might possibly wish to do, because there simply is not enough money.

To say that the hon. the Prime Minister has back-pedalled is merely an attempt at being frivolous about a situation which has arisen in this country as the result of certain misunderstandings which are nobody’s fault. We are going right ahead, however. There is complete unity in the NP. There is complete unity as far as purpose and objectives are concerned. There are, it is true, differences of opinion at times about the specific road to be taken to achieve the same objectives. I think it was the hon. member for Durban Point who invited me to take over a seat in Natal. Let me tell him that it will not be necessary. We may still find ourselves in one party one of these days. He must simply join the NP, and then we will be in the same party. [Interjections.]

You have just slammed the door now.

The hon. member for Durban Point made a contribution with positive overtones. His approach to South West Africa was positive and helpful. I can assure him that we are not buying time with our negotiations for the sake of gaining a little respite. We are searching for a permanent, peaceful settlement.

He offered me a seat in Natal. I have already dealt with that aspect. The easiest solution is for him to join the NP.

No. You are going to come this way.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked at the end of the debate whether we could not create certain structures in co-operation with the independent States. The answer is “Yes”. In the Department of Foreign Affairs we have created an important new division, the Economic Development Co-operation Division, and in that division five leading experts have already been appointed, under the guidance of Mr. Richter. They already form the embryo, the nucleus of a secretariat which will involve itself in the creation of structures in an effort to give shape to a Southern African confederation. We must tackle this enormous task, as hon. members realize, on a proper and voluntary basis, together with the independent Governments. The Port St. Johns declaration stated the ideal. We are moving forward as rapidly as possible. In the days which lie ahead the hon. the Prime Minister may perhaps make a further announcement on steps which will be taken in this regard, a statement which will be of importance to us all.

It is time I concluded. I thank all the hon. members who participated in this debate. In particular I thank the chairman of the Select Committee who was responsible for going into the question of which evidence of the Erasmus Commission should be released. I thank him for the assistance which he gave me throughout with certain problems which were involved in the matter from the point of view of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information. I thank him for his contribution here today, and for hitting the nail on the head when he described the reasons of the hon. member for Yeoville for kicking up a row about this matter.

Finally, I thank the ladies of the Nasionale Vroueklub of Parliament, who sent me a bouquet of flowers when the discussion of my Vote began. It consisted of a variety of proteas. Now I wish to conclude with the idea that every flower has a unique attraction, beauty and inherent value of its own. Yet, arranged together, it is as though each flower, with its particular beauty and attractiveness, lays claim to its own place in the total image of the arrangement. Without ousting one another, each contributes to the total image. May this become the symbol of the Southern African confederation which we willingly and voluntarily wish to bring into existence with the Blacks, Coloureds, Asiatics and Whites in this country, not for negative purposes, but for our children and our children’s children. We want to find a place, a rightful place for everyone, in the bright Southern African sun.

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—

As hon. members know, the various Acts relating to the attorneys’ profession were consolidated last year in the Attorneys Act, 1979 (Act 53 of 1979). However, a few matters were left in abeyance concerning which finality had not yet been reached at that stage. They form the subject of this Bill.

The attorneys’ profession is one which maintains strict discipline among its members and which lays down exacting requirements for the admission of attorneys. Accordingly, the profession is constantly trying to improve the standard of training of attorneys. To this end it is intended, among other things, to offer courses under the supervision of the law societies in order to supplement and round off the training of clerks who are serving under articles of clerkship. However, it would not be fair to extend the period of service under articles of clerkship of a clerk attending a training course because he is not actually under the supervision of his principal for the period during which he attends the course. Therefore provision is being made in clause 1 of the Bill for such period to be deemed to have been served under articles of clerkship.

†In terms of section 13(1) of the Attorneys Act, 1979, a person who has been admitted as a solicitor or an attorney in a country or territory approved for purposes of that section, is in certain circumstances exempted from service under articles of clerkship in the Republic. The requirements are that such a person must have been lawfully admitted to the Republic for permanent residence, must be ordinarily resident in the Republic and must have practised as an attorney in the country concerned for at least five years. Southern Rhodesia was in 1937 approved by regulations for purposes of the corresponding section of Act 23 of 1934, and it can be accepted that these regulations now apply to Zimbabwe for purposes of section 13(1) of Act 53 of 1979.

Some years ago the Law Society of Rhodesia approached the Association of Law Societies of the Republic with a view to having Rhodesian attorneys who have not yet practised for at least five years, also exempted from articles of clerkship. After lengthy negotiations it was agreed that such persons could be exempted from articles provided that they would not be allowed to practise in the Republic on their own account immediately after their admission. They would only be allowed to do so after having practised as professional assistants or in partnership for a certain period. Thus the new attorney would get the opportunity of acquainting himself with practice and procedure in the Republic before being allowed to practise on his own.

In clauses 2, 3 and 5 of the Bill provision is made for the implementation of these arrangements.

Clause 2 introduces the new category of persons who will be exempted from service under articles of clerkship. Clause 3 provides that such persons will not be allowed to practise on their own unless they have for a period of three years practised on conditions prescribed by regulation. Clause 5 provides for regulations designating the countries whose attorneys will be exempted from service under articles of clerkship and prescribing the conditions which will have to be complied with by such attorneys. If Zimbabwe is designated, service as a professional assistant or as a partner of an established South African attorney can then be prescribed.

In terms of section 81(1)(b) of the Attorneys Act, 1979, regulations may be made prescribing the examinations in the principles of Roman Dutch law and the statute law of the Republic which a person referred to in section 13(1) of the Act shall be required to pass before being admitted as an attorney in the Republic. Since the passing of examinations in Roman-Dutch law is also a prerequisite for admission as an attorney in certain countries that might be approved or designated for purposes of section 13(1), provision is made in clause 5 that examinations in the statute law of the Republic only, may be prescribed by regulation.

*Law societies applying to a court for an attorney to be struck off the roll are sometimes faced with the problem that the attorney concerned has fled from the Republic and that his whereabouts are uncertain. When application is made for the edictal citation of the respondent, the court requires that the whereabouts of the respondent be indicated so that an appropriate order may be made with regard to the serving of process on the respondent. Attempts to trace the respondent abroad involve the law societies in irrecoverable costs and are not always successful.

In clause 4 of the Bill, provision is made for the court to direct that the process may be served by the publication of such process in an Afrikaans and an English newspaper circulating in the district in which the respondent’s last business address is situated, if it appears to the court that the respondent has left the Republic, that he probably does not intend to return to the Republic and that his whereabouts are unknown.

If it is borne in mind that an attorney is subject to the discipline of his law society, and that the society has certain obligations towards the clients of the attorney if he abandons his practice, the proposed provision is not unreasonable.

In clause 6 of the Bill, provision is made for a penalty to be imposed for contravention of the prohibition created by clause 3.

Clause 7 of the Bill provides for a number of textual improvements in respect of erroneous references which crept into the Consolidation Act of 1979.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from what the hon. the Minister said that the measure before this House at present is one which has the unanimous approval of all the law societie’s and the legal practitioners directly involved in the matter. In fact, there are two attributes which characterize the lawyers’ organizations in South Africa. The one was pointed out by the hon. the Minister, viz. the strict internal discipline which is maintained in the ranks of the legal profession. The other is the purely democratic way things are done where change, amendment or rectification by Parliament appear to be necessary. We can accept that in this case, too, where new principles and new measures are being introduced, although they are not of a very drastic nature, there is total unanimity in respect of them and that everyone’s opinions were taken into account before the hon. the Minister was requested to submit these amendments to Parliament.

The amendment contained in clause 1 concerns the question of the special training. For a long time now this has been considered necessary in the legal profession. In both the bar and the side bar it has been felt that practical and direct, as well as, to a certain extent, theoretical training was necessary. In this case it concerns training which is prescribed and provided by the law society itself. It thus has the approval of the highest authority in the organized legal profession involved. The requirement is stipulated that exemption from the period the course involves, as far as the articles are concerned is only valid, if the examination has been completed successfully. We can take it that if the examination has not been successful as far as the candidate is concerned, the extra period set aside for the sake of the course will be added to his total service contract. There can be no objection whatsoever to that.

Clause 2, as the hon. the Minister indicated, largely concerns Zimbabwe. Since we have a new Government there, the position has changed. The question at once arises as to what the official attitude is going to be in connection with future applications from that State in terms of the provision in question. Will we be prepared to designate that State as one of the States with which we negotiate this agreement, and will there be reciprocity? Thus, if there are lawyers in South Africa who want to practise in Zimbabwe, will they be accorded the same benefits as lawyers from Zimbabwe who want to practise here? The legal profession is satisfied that if a person meets the requirements and has not practised on his own in South Africa for three years, he will be allowed to practise on his own. The legal profession is apparently of the opinion that this is an adequate guarantee that the standard of the administration of justice will not be adversely affected as a result of this concession. Consequently we have no objection to it and there is nothing further to be said about it.

Clause 4 envisages that in circumstances such as those indicated by the hon. the Minister and set out in full in the new proposed subsection, any process, (2), instead of being served, will be published. In my opinion there can be no valid objection to that either.

Accordingly it is a pleasure for me to indicate to the hon. the Minister and this House that we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the great measure of unanimity there is in connection with this Bill which affects the legal profession as a whole. I maintain that this particular law will become increasingly important as more States here in Southern Africa become independent. The hon. member for Johannesburg North referred specifically to Rhodesia which has now become independent, and he asked whether it was now the position that we would designate Zimbabwe under the new regime as a country. I want to point out to the hon. member that it is already the position under the existing regulations that Southern Rhodesia is the only country singled out for the implementation of these particular legal aspects.

The Bill before this House at present only really adds two new principles to the existing Attorneys Act, 1979. The existing section 7 of the principal Act regulates the period in which and the circumstances under which an articled attorney’s clerk may be legally absent from his principal’s office as the hon. member for Johannesburg North also indicated. This is not being changed.

However, clause 1 of the Bill now stipulates that an articled clerk may be absent from his principal’s office for a period of up to six months without its influencing the term of his articles of clerkship, provided he takes an approved training course during that period to the satisfaction of the attorneys’ society. In this way, training away from the principal’s office is being legalized for the first time as part of the training of the prospective attorney. Such a step can make a positive contribution to the knowledge and the professional polish of the prospective attorney. I hope that this experiment will be so successful that it will soon constitute a compulsory part of every attorney’s training.

Clause 2 amends section 13 of the principal Act as far as the admission of attorneys from foreign territories as attorneys in the RSA is concerned. To date the position has been that the Minister stipulated certain approved areas under regulation and under the only existing proclamation, viz. proclamation No. 638 of 24 April 1937, those approved areas comprise Southern Rhodesia and the countries of the British Commonwealth, with only Southern Rhodesia approved without qualification. Furthermore, the position at present is that the attorney in question should already be admitted to the Republic for permanent residence and should ordinarily be resident here. In the third instance he must already have practised as a qualified attorney in his country of origin for a fixed period, at present five years. If all these requirements have been complied with, such a foreign attorney is still not admitted as an attorney in the Republic, but is merely exempted from service under articles. Thus the position remains the same, but two new additions are being made. In the first instance there is the proposed section 13(1)(a)(ii) which stipulates that qualified attorneys from territories approved under regulation, also without their having practised in their country of origin for a certain period, may be exempted from service under articles. This exemption has nothing to do with the formal admission examination which every attorney has to complete. Nor has it anything to do with the prescribed language requirement. In the second instance there is the proposed section 13A which stipulates that if the latter attorney has been admitted as an attorney in the Republic, he may practise on his own account only after a period of three years after admission, and provided he has practised for the stipulated period of three years as prescribed by the regulation. That prescription will probably mean that he will have to practise under supervision. These changes are practical and realistic ones with a view to countries becoming independent in Southern Africa. It is important that inter-state procedures be created, as far as the attorneys’ profession is concerned too, for among the attorneys who will in future practise in foreign territories there may even be attorneys who have received their training within the Republic of South Africa. I hope that these regulations will also become reciprocal in due course.

These changes carry the full approval of the law societies and were drafted judiciously and carefully to ensure that there will be no lowering of the standards, and accordingly it is a pleasure for me to support them.

Mr. Speaker, I shall resist the temptation to give a fourth explanation of what this Bill envisages! I think that the hon. the Minister explained it satisfactorily. I rise merely to say that this party will support the measure in all its stages.

I should, however, like to take this opportunity to draw particular attention to one of the consequences of the amendment to clause 1, which I think is to be welcomed. That is that where there has previously been an advantage for those who work in the cities, in that they could quite easily study extramurally during the evenings and would therefore not lose any period of their articles, those in the platteland were not able to enjoy that privilege. They had to take specific courses, which meant being away from their articles and losing those periods of time. This now specifically brings an advantage to those articled to country attorneys, whose numbers, as the hon. the Minister knows, are dwindling and who are having a thin time. I particularly want to welcome the advantage that this brings to that group of attorneys who are articled in the platteland and have previously not been able to benefit by way of extramural study.

We shall support the measure in all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to endorse very strongly the principles contained in clause 1. I believe that one should not only thank the law societies of South Africa, but should also congratulate them on the fact that on their own initiative they want to increase the training for and the standard of their already excellent profession even further, even more so because their profession has built up such a proud history over the years and has maintained an excellent standard. The law societies of the Republic of South Africa seek to promote and round off the academic and practical training of their articled clerks through the insertion of this clause. One can accept that they may want to place more emphasis on practice. We have taken cognizance of the intention of the law societies to introduce a type of training school for attorneys’ clerks. This training will then fall under the direct supervision and discipline of the attorneys themselves. In addition one may assume that they will draw their lecturers from among their own ranks. In the nature of the matter, the attorneys know where the emphasis must be placed on practice, what the needs are and where legal developments requiring special attention have taken place. We know that recently there has been a great deal of development in the legal sphere in particular, and the attorneys want to adapt to it. For the past few years now there has been a need for all professional men and women to improve their own profession constantly and to keep abreast of new developments. With this in mind, we want to thank the law societies for their positive action.

I should also like to support the important principle contained in clauses 2 and 5, viz. that the principles of the Roman Dutch Law also be stipulated as a legal requirement for examination purposes in countries or areas which are to be mentioned later. This is a tremendous compliment for and endorsement of the universal principle of the Roman Dutch Law which has been applied, in our country too, from the earliest times. This demonstrates that these countries want to maintain security of justice and confidence in justice as far as their system of law is concerned, and we all know that if they ensure that justice is meted out to their citizens, this will make their citizens satisfied and happy people, a prerequisite for stable government. That is why I gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to convey my sincere gratitude to hon. members on both sides for their friendly support of this legislation. There was really only one question put to me, put by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He asked whether there would be reciprocity. The Zimbabwean Law Society is still trying to bring about reciprocity, but hon. members will realize that under the present circumstances the Association of Law Societies of the Republic is not demanding reciprocity. I might just mention in passing that the draft legislation is aimed at helping two classes of persons, viz. those who are already in the Republic and those who still want to come to the Republic. Those who want to come to the Republic are few at the moment. Their numbers are very small. Thus we are not demanding reciprocity at this stage. Once again I want to thank hon. members for their support of this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when we debated this Bill some weeks ago, we in the PFP indicated that we would support this Bill and that it was, in fact, a welcome measure for the very necessary job of protecting the sea. We also indicated that there were a number of things that we would like to comment on. We also want to serve notice that there are some amendments which the hon. member for East London North will move in the course of the Committee Stage. However, at this stage we want to give our full support to this Bill and make a few comments which we believe are important.

When the debate on this measure was adjourned, I was talking about the very fortunate position that South Africa is in in comparison with other countries in that we can, in fact, take timeous steps to prevent the destruction of the sea as a source of food and as an extremely important amenity. We can prevent its destruction through over-exploitation and pollution by taking the necessary measures at this stage so that we will not suffer the misfortune of other, highly industrialized countries where the destruction of the seas, mainly inland seas, has reached a very advanced stage and it is questionable whether the seas will ever be restored to the condition in which they were before.

I think it is terribly important to point out that the sea is the single most important source of high quality protein which is available to the populations of all countries. Protein is today the most sought after food and a vital type of food in terms of the health of people. Protein is very important indeed for the normal physical and mental development of human beings. In countries of the Third World where there is a protein deficiency, the consequences of that deficiency, viz. the stultified physical and mental development of people, are there for all to see. This deficiency has many very unfortunate consequences. A protein deficiency stultifies the normal development of people, reduces their ability to perform, both intellectually and physically, reduces their resistance to disease and has an overall, extremely unfortunate effect on the populations of those countries. Provided we conduct ourselves in a responsible manner, the sea can continue to be a very important source of high quality protein for all time. However, that source can be cut off if the nations of the world do not take the necessary steps to prevent two very important things. First of all they must prevent the over-exploitation of the fish resources of the oceans. This is something that has been discussed and certainly will be discussed in this House on future occasions. In Walvis Bay too we have experienced the consequences of such an over-exploitation of resources.

However, on this occasion we are specifically dealing with the pollution of the oceans on a large scale by chemicals, oil, possibly radio-active material and the various other pollutants which are dumped in the sea, either illegally or legally after permission has been obtained. This Bill in fact deals with the control of the dumping at sea of substances which can be dumped with permission and substances which cannot be dumped and over which control has to be exercised. I think it is important to indicate that the effect of the pollution of the sea can be extremely damaging to the ecology of the oceans. In many cases it reduces the oxygen content of water which is part of the support system of life in the sea, upsets the ecology, blankets large areas of very delicate forms of growth in the sea and kills off this growth. Whether that pollution is due to chemical substances, sewage, heat or radio-active material, it will always interfere, in one way or another, with the normal ecology of the oceans. The heating up of the water as a result of pollution may give rise to the advanced development or accelerated growth of life forms such as crayfish and mussels in the seas or result in kelp, which is an extremely important food source for sea life, being totally destroyed. So whatever happens, there is interference with, and disruption of, the normal ecology of the sea. It has a chain reaction which, in the final analysis, results in the destruction of the potential of the oceans to produce food.

Right here in Cape Town two examples of pollution of the sea by sewage are to be found. People who have gone down to study the ocean floor have reported on the consequences of this pollution. I can refer to the very unfortunate situation of Green Point, where raw sewage is let out into the sea. Divers tell us that the ecology in a very large area surrounding that outlet has all but been destroyed by this sewage being pumped into the sea there. Also at Hout Bay a problem of this nature, with most unfortunate consequences, is at present being experienced.

The future threats against which we must guard, are set out in the Bill. South Africa, in particular, is constantly subject to the threat of major oil pollution. We have had some near misses. We can remember the near miss we had at the time of Venpet and Venoil adventure, which very seriously threatened the very valuable and extremely delicate ecological area outside the Storms River mouth, and had it happened closer to the shore, or if there had been prevailing currents or winds driving towards the shore, the damage might never have been repaired or could have taken many decades to repair.

In future we will also have to face up to the consequences of mining activities on our sea-bed, activities which can obviously also cause the destruction of the marine ecology. It is as well that at this early stage South Africa is now taking steps by way of legislation to control such activities in order to conserve the sea and its potentials. I had an experience only a couple of weeks ago, at Sea Point. Sea Point is a very busy and very popular beach, where thousands of Capetonians gather on fine days for their own enjoyment. My little daughter went into the surf and returned some minutes later, pitch-black. For a moment I thought the authorities have relented and had opened Sea Point beaches to people of all races. I did, however, soon recognize my own child, who said to me: “Look at me.” She was covered with a layer of sticky, unsightly, foul-smelling oil. I can assure hon. members it takes a lot of time and a lot of detergent to remove such a layer of oil from one’s child. This particular oil-slick obviously did not come from a large spill. It was possibly the result of an accidental spill that had occurred many miles away on the high seas. Such spills, of course, can so easily cause extensive damage to our beautiful beaches. I hope therefore that when this measure is ultimately put into operation it will be applied without mercy to people who contravene its provisions, because I believe that to pollute our beaches and oceans is an unforgivable action, an action which should be punished in the strongest possible way.

Next I should like to refer very briefly to one of the definitions in this Bill, as set out in clause 1. What I find very interesting is the definition of “sea”, which reads as follows—

This means that “sea” by definition includes that part of the sea between the high- and low-water marks. If I am correct that does mean that when we talk about the sea in terms of this Bill, which includes the area between the high- and low-water marks, we also include a vast beach area, as well as marine estuaries. If that is so we obviously also include any land-based pollution that also causes pollution of our beaches and marine estuaries. If that is so, I believe, and if the measures contained in this Bill will also be used to act against industries and other bodies that cause pollution of a chemical or other nature of large areas of our beaches and of our marine estuaries, this measure will be effective in controlling a source of pollution which is particularly damaging to the ecology of the sea. It will be particularly effective as far as our marine estuaries are concerned, which, as the hon. the Minister should know, are the places where a vast percentage of our marine life is bred. Should that ecology be allowed to be destroyed the breeding of marine life also stops and consequently the restocking of the ocean with certain particular forms of marine life is prevented.

One of the unfortunate aspects of the legislation we are dealing with now is the fact that we are dealing with the control of the protection and conservation of the environment in a piecemeal and ad hoc manner, which is very, very unfortunate indeed. The environment cannot be compartmentalized. The environment consists of fluid mediums. It consists of water and air, which are both fluid mediums. Because they are fluid mediums they move constantly from place to place on the surface of the earth, in an uncontrolled and unrestricted way. Therefore, when one talks about pollution of the environment one can only do so within an integrated and holistic concept. One has to look at the entire picture. When one talks about the pollution of the sea one talks of pollution that can either result from polluting the sea as such or by polluting the beaches, marine estuaries, harbours and rivers, right up to the furthest inland industrial areas where pollution of the ocean can originate. Therefore it would be far more effective—and I think we may possibly have legislation of that nature before us in due course—if the whole concept of the conservation of the environment were encompassed in an integrated programme of legislation so that the problem can be looked at and dealt with in its entirety. We have the position in South Africa where our anti-pollution or environmental conservation legislation is subject to the control of a large number of different departments and levels of government. For example, this Bill relating to the pollution of the sea falls under the Department of Industries, while the Division of Fisheries which has to do with the production of food from the sea and which also to a certain extent involves the conservation of that resource falls under the Department of Agriculture. The water in marine estuaries falls under the Province, but the land falls under the control of the Department of Agriculture. So one finds, for example, that water pollution falls under the Department of Water Affairs, air pollution under the Department of Health and so on. The result is that, as far as the protection of the environment is concerned, which is something which must be looked at in its entirety, we find that in South Africa it is fragmented and falls under the control of a large number of different departments. That makes it very much more difficult to control the problem of pollution effectively and it makes it difficult to produce legislation which is uniform and effective in meeting all the requirements. I hope we shall in the very near future see legislation which will deal with conservation as a whole. Despite the one difficulty that we have, we are pleased that the hon. the Minister has presented this legislation to the House. We wish him well with it. I hope it will be applied very strictly in order to ensure that our seas, beaches and estuaries are not polluted or destroyed in any way at all.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I thank the hon. members for their general support of this Bill.

*In particular, I want to thank the hon. members for Maitland and Alberton for their interesting contributions. Other speakers, too, have made interesting contributions which have been thought-provoking and which have proved that they really take an interest in this subject.

The hon. member for Alberton, for example, expressed concern about the illegal activities of ships outside the territorial waters of the RSA. Unfortunately, even though we should very much like to do something about that, and although this matter has been discussed at the London Dumping Convention, the LDC—where it was said that this problem hampered effective action—according to international law, and I have checked this with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information as well as the London Dumping Convention, we can actually only take effective action against ships within our territorial waters. In terms of international law, we actually have no right to act outside our territorial waters. Objections have been raised, and therefore we shall have to leave matters as they are for the moment. I say “for the moment”, because I feel that there should be an extension of the law through consultation and consensus between nations, so that action of this nature can be taken on the high seas as well. Nevertheless, this discussion is continuing and this subject, the control of pollution on the high seas, will be debated again at the discussions which are expected to be held in the future, because it is felt that we have not reached a final solution in this connection.

†From the responses of the hon. member for East London North and the hon. member for Berea it seems to me as if there might just be a slight misunderstanding between us as regards the general effect of the legislation as it reads at present. It is not the object to control sewage from factories, local authority areas, etc. It actually relates to the open sea. In the legislation “dumping” refers to the deliberate disposal of any substance at sea from any vessel, aircraft, platform or other man-made structure, either by incineration or by depositing such substance in the sea. It does not, however, include the dumping of waste from the land by means of pipelines, rivers, etc. So as far as that is concerned, I think the Bill is clear enough. Just to put hon. members’ minds at ease, however, let me say that we do have by-laws, and these by-laws must be considered to be additional, complementary to existing legislation. In any event, all the aspects in this Bill have been drafted in accordance with what the London Dumping Convention decided. So it is by consensus.

The hon. member for East London North did make certain suggestions, but I think I can discuss them in the Committee Stage. I have some amendments of my own on the Order Paper, and I hope hon. members will allow me to proceed with the Committee Stage just after the Second Reading debate. He referred to clause 3 which empowers the departmental head to issue permits. He feels that that official should not take on all this responsibility, but should rather consult an expert body before making such decisions. He also spoke of appeals against decisions of the departmental head. He suggested that the provisions of section 21(5) of the Water Act should come into operation in that case, or at least should be taken as a guideline in such instances. As I have indicated, I shall come back to that in the Committee Stage.

This brings to me the remarks made by the other hon. members, specifically those made by the hon. member for Bryanston. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Bryanston on his speech today. We have often crossed swords in the past because things which I had not regarded as political, he had always managed to link up with some or other political element.

What about the Black little girl on the beach?

His speech today, however, was a constructive speech. I listened to him very carefully and I must congratulate him.

You said nice things about him the other day too.

In preserving our environment we must always be completely alert to all the suggestions that we get from people, even from fanatics on the subject of the preservation of our environment. To me that is very important. Both the hon. member for East London North and the hon. member for Bryanston spoke about coordinating action. I can assure hon. members that the fact that I am introducing this Bill does not mean that this is a matter that will continue to be my problem. We are in the process of rationalizing the Public Service, and although I cannot say at this stage what functionary will eventually control this legislation, I can say that this aspect has been taken into account. I can assure him, however, that he will be satisfied when we eventually do decide how we can possibly effect better co-ordination by placing this legislation under the proper Minister. It is sometimes impossible to effect complete co-ordination, but as far as I am concerned, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Department of Water Affairs, Forestry and Environmental Conservation do come into the picture as well.

The hon. member for Berea was, I think, concerned about item 6 in schedule 1. He dealt with chemical warfare and with biological warfare. It is so that there might have been some doubt in his mind whether or not we have or manufacture such substances and whether or not we are perhaps keeping some secret up our sleeves as far as chemical warfare is concerned. It does not mean at all that we have these substances or intend using them if we had them. It is, however, common knowledge that these substances are used at times and that they are generally always mentioned in connection with war fare. The fact that they are there must lead one to the conclusion that it is only right that in accordance with the London Dumping Convention we should also make provision to cover these substances. I feel that we should prevent the dumping of such substances in our waters.

*I agree with the hon. member for Bryanston that we have an important source of protein in the sea, a source which we must preserve very carefully, and that we must do much more research in this connection. Research is in fact being done. Marine life and marine products will become increasingly important in the years ahead, because the sea is a resource which is largely unexploited as yet. Therefore I agree with what he said. I also agree that we must have control over any form of pollution between the high- and low-water marks and beyond.

Having said all this, I feel that I have replied to all the matters raised here by hon. members. I shall discuss the amendments that have been proposed in the Committee Stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, as this is the first clause, one can to a certain extent react to matters of principle in terms of it. In answer to the hon. the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate, I want to point out that, in mentioning the emission of sewage into the sea in Cape Town, East London and elsewhere, I really did so—and I think that this possibly applies to the hon. member for Berea as well—in relation to the fact that the hon. the Minister is setting up a new committee which will look into pollution of the sea and whose job will be related to pollution of the sea. As the hon. the Minister will remember, I recommended that that committee should be given as one of its first tasks the job of looking into the pollution of the sea by means of untreated sewage being poured into the sea by municipalities. I also recommended that the expense in overcoming this problem was so great that the hon. the Minister should seriously consider having the Government participate financially in a scheme of this nature.

I have a number of amendments on page 194 of the Order Paper. The first amendment is in the English text, on page 3, in line 11, to omit “dispose” and to substitute “disposal”, and the second amendment is to the same effect in the next clause and relates to the word “depositing”. I do not now intend to put these amendments. My motivation in putting them forward was that I found that the usage of the English language in this particular clause was not acceptable as it was not good English usage, and my motivation was simply to clean up that particular factor. However, I see that the hon. the Minister has an amendment on the Order Paper to clause 1 which is as a result of a suggestion I made to a member of his staff. But as they apparently did not like the way I had changed it they decided to insert the word “to” in line 10, after “include”. I see that the hon. the Minister intends to move that amendment, and therefore I shall quite happily drop the amendment which I have in that regard, because his amendment does accomplish the same effect.

Whilst I am on the subject of the usage of the English language, I want to state that in terms of Bills and in terms of replies of hon. Ministers to questions I find that there is to an extent a deterioration in usage of the English language. There are some fairly awful grammatical usages, and I would therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister and to other hon. Ministers that they and their departments should take more care to see that in the usage of the official language of English more correct English is used.

The third amendment to clause 1 which I have on the Order Paper is as follows, and I move—

I am glad to see that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is sitting in the House at this stage, because this particular amendment affects him. The intention of my amendment is to delete the words “with the concurrence of” and to substitute “after consultation with”. I believe there is a fairly important difference here. I believe that the Minister administering this Bill, whoever he might be in the future, should have the right to make the decision on his own account with items of pollution in mind. He should not have to get the concurrence of any other Minister before he can for instance refuse to allow a permit, etc., but the main consideration in making a decision should be the consideration of pollution and no matter how adversely it might affect for instance the S.A. Railways or the S.A. Airways, I still believe that the prime consideration should be pollution of the sea and the desire to prevent it. Therefore I believe that while the hon. the Minister should consult with the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, I do not believe that it should be necessary for the hon. the Minister, who in this instance is the hon. the Minister of Industries, actually to have to get the consent of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. That is the motivation for this amendment which I have moved.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that as far as the hon. member’s first and second amendments are concerned we are ad idem now and I consequently move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I took the point about the determination of the English language. As far as that is concerned, we are always open to suggestions in effecting better legislation and better worded legislation.

In reply to the hon. member with regard to this third amendment, I regret to state that this is unacceptable. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, who is sitting next to me, has heard my sentiments as far as pollution is concerned and I trust that he will take due cognizance of the fact. Harbours fall under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, and I do not want to make inroads into his area of control. That is why we have decided that we should consult. If we force him to agree, it might result in lengthy processes. Now we are putting responsibility on both of us. I feel that even pollution is something about which one should consult and work together and not introduce any coercive element. That is why I regret that I cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister worries me in this regard. What he has suggested, is that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs can actually dump anything he likes in a harbour, but as soon as he gets out of the harbour, he cannot do so any more. This is in fact what the hon. the Minister has said. He says he has no control over what is dumped in the harbour, but that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs has. So, in fact, what the hon. the Minister is implying is that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs can take some horrible compound and dump it into a harbour. I am not suggesting that he would do so, but I do think there is a certain amount of conflict here which should not be allowed to exist. I certainly was not brought under the impression by this Bill that the harbours were not covered in terms of this legislation. I should like the hon. the Minister’s assurance that harbours are in fact covered in terms of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, harbours are covered, but not in a coercive kind of way. It has been suggested even that this legislation should come under the aegis of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. The general feeling has been that this is a matter for co-operation. More than one hon. Minister will come into this picture, and I regret that I am not able to accept the hon. member’s suggestion. This is not a principle with which we started off. I think the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs also feels very strongly about pollution. I might perhaps let out a little secret by saying that he asked me whether it would not perhaps be more appropriate for him to handle this legislation. Therefore he was prepared to take all the responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, as far as we are concerned, the intention of the legislation is perfectly clear. As we understand it, it does not lead in any way to a situation where one hon. Minister could decide that he might allow certain substances to be dumped in a harbour, which we understand is clearly part of the sea in terms of the provision in line 28. That is all that we on this side should like to say at this stage.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Industries agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. D. J. N. Malcomess negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This amendment has the effect of removing “citizen” from the provisions of this particular clause, from the provisions of subsections (1) to (5). Subsections (1) to (5) now apply to any South African citizen on the high seas, including the fishing zone, etc. What does this mean? This means a South African citizen working on a foreign ship, for instance a Liberian registered ship. He might be a captain, an officer or simply a crew member. If he were to work on such a ship and that ship had to be responsible for dumping some substance in the sea off, shall we say, Madeira or somewhere in mid-Atlantic, obviously the South African citizen, in terms of this clause, could be charged when he came back to South Africa, even though the ultimate responsibility was not his. He might only have been carrying out the orders of his superiors. I do not believe it is fair that the hon. the Minister should impose a penalty on a South African citizen who, while earning his living under the flag of a foreign ship, merely carried out the orders of some foreign steamboat company or the orders of his captain. I do not believe it is equitable.

Even if he himself is the captain?

Even if he is the captain. He might be carrying out his company’s orders, and that is fair enough. If he is working for some foreign company and he receives orders to dump a certain product in the sea, he has the horrible decision to make that, either he retains his job as captain or he disobeys the order, which will probably lead to his being fired. I do not believe it is wise to have this provision in the Bill. I am very happy that it should apply throughout the world if it is a South African vessel or a South African aircraft, but I do not think it is equitable to apply it to a South African citizen.

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance no person can be expected to be forced to perform a crime or a criminal offence. So, if he is a captain of a vessel and his company instructs him to dump a substance at sea, that company will be responsible in the first instance. If the hon. member looks carefully at subsection (6), which he seeks to amend, and then reverts to subsections (1) to (5), he will see that the person on whom the responsibility rests in this instance, and where the law will come into play, is the master, owner or pilot of the vessel, the person in charge. So, by virtue of being employed on the ship or being a passenger on the ship, that person is exonerated completely. The wording of this provision is specifically aimed at warning South African citizens aboard any aircraft or any vessel of which they are in control, where they participate in the decision to dump a particular substance at sea, that they will be liable to prosecution in the event of a contravention. This is part of the action that we can take in cases of dumping on the high seas where we have until now been hampered to a certain extent in our efforts as far as taking action on dumping on the high seas is concerned. I therefore think that to accept the hon. member’s amendment in this instance will negate this objective, and I am therefore sorry I cannot accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the contention of the hon. the Minister is in fact correct, because the provisions of subsections (1) to (5) are covered by subsection (6). If one looks at (1), the first of these six subsections, one will see that any person who dumps any substance mentioned in schedule 1 or schedule 2 shall be guilty of an offence. It does not state that it is only the master or the owner. It simply says “any person”. So I think the contention that the person involved would be the master or the owner, is not actually a correct one. Any person who takes part in a dumping operation at sea, whether he is a crew member or anybody else, would be liable in terms of this legislation. I do not think there can be any doubt about this at all. I must stress that I am obviously in favour of the intention of this provision. I am very keen to see that no dumping at sea should take place, but I think in trying to apply the law, we must apply it in such a way that we are not creating as many problems as we are solving. I appreciate that the hon. the Minister is not going to accept this amendment and I do not expect him necessarily to reply to what I am saying now, but I do think that he and the members of his department should perhaps give this further consideration before this Bill comes before the Other Place.

Amendment negatived. (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments to this clause on the Order Paper. The first one reads—

If I have the hon. the Minister’s assurance that he will in due course move the amendments he has on the Order Paper, amendments of which the wording is almost, but not quite, identical to mine and which have been put on the Order Paper subsequent to the time when I put mine on the Order Paper, I am happy not to move this amendment I have on the Order Paper in this regard. It is fairly obvious that the hon. the Minister has had a look at the amendment I put on the Order Paper, kicked it around a little bit, decided that probably it was a good amendment and then decided to put it on the Order Paper in his own words. I accept that and I am quite happy about it.

I move the second amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The purpose of this amendment is a fairly simple one. In terms of clause 3 the Secretary is able, after consultation, we hope, with the new Standing Committee, to issue permits authorizing the dumping in the sea of all the items listed in Schedule 2. It is possible that, after the permit has been issued, somebody might object to it. The dumping of such substances could take place in the sea adjacent to the area where such a person lives, adjacent to a local municipal area, adjacent to a divisional council area or adjacent to a Natal Parks Board reserve. Any of these situations could arise. We believe, therefore, that the person so affected by that dumping should have somebody to whom he can appeal and say that he certainly does not want the substance dumped into the sea off-shore from his area. He should be able to go to a court and present a case to that court to have the permit put aside.

In looking at this aspect, we discovered that already a series of water courts have been established in terms of the Water Act of 1956. These water courts were established for the very reason I have suggested, namely that there might be people who wish to object to certain actions taking place. They are set up throughout the country. They are adjacent to every area of coast. They are courts that have jurisdiction over every area of coast of South Africa, and I believe it to be justifiable to suggest that anybody who objects to a permit being issued shall have the right of appeal to a court in order to have that permit set aside. I believe this is reasonable. I believe it is in the interests of conservation. I believe it is in the interests of combating pollution of the sea.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that we should see these two amendments by the hon. member for East London North in relation to each other.

†The hon. member expressed his doubt regarding the powers of the Secretary, and said he should act in consultation with a standing committee or a committee of experts. I am prepared to accept his first amendment in an amended form. That is why I have placed my own amendment on the Order Paper. The reason why I have done this can be found in the hon. member’s second amendment in respect of which I want to point out that the provisions of the Water Act, 1956—and I refer specifically to section 34 of the Act—do not really refer to sea-water as such. It only refers to industrial sea-water, in other words water from the sea that has been used by factories, etc. It does not, however, refer to proper sea-water in general. I do not believe the hon. member should be unnecessarily disturbed, because if my amendment is accepted, the hon. member will have the assurance that the Secretary will be very, very careful in issuing permits. He will do it with great circumspection, taking into account all the relevant environmental factors. That is why I believe we should not introduce something here which might create problems later.

Section 21 of the Water Act actually refers to a different type of anti-pollution action. Although it may perhaps be auxiliary, it is nevertheless part and parcel of our whole anti-pollution action. Yet, as far as this specific definition of “sea-water” is concerned, the Water Act cannot apply in these circumstances.

Therefore, I am quite prepared to accept the hon. member’s first amendment as rephrased by me personally. His second amendment, however, I am not prepared to accept. I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I regret to say that somebody here has not done his homework.

Is that you, John?

The hon. the Minister pretends that the Water Act, 1956, has nothing to do with the sea. Therefore I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to, for instance, section 21 of that Act, which relates to the purification and disposal of industrial water and effluents. In this specific section the following is very clearly stated—

There are a number of other sections in this same Act in which it is specifically stated that it is the intention of the Act not only to cover fresh water but to cover sea-water as well, and also to cover the pollution of the sea in a number of respects. As I have said, one can go through the Act and one will find it throughout in fine detail. I happened to get hold of Butterworth very quickly in order to point out to the hon. the Minister one specific section of the Act, with which I am familiar, and in which sea-water is specifically mentioned. Throughout the Act, I happen to know, it is clear that it is not the intention of this specific legislation purely to cover fresh water. It definitely covers seawater.

Therefore I am afraid that the case that the hon. the Minister has made out for not accepting my amendment really does not hold water.

Sea-water or fresh water?

It does not hold fresh or sea-water, I am afraid. Therefore, I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister again to reconsider the matter. I believe it is quite clear that it is our intention that the maximum protection of our natural resource of the sea should be given. This is another means of providing that attention. If the Secretary and Standing Committee have issued a permit, they might just possibly not have been aware of all of the circumstances relating to the issuing of that permit, and someone might have an objection. We believe that that person should have the right of appeal in order to stop that particular pollution happening. The person might have knowledge relating to the substance concerned, knowledge which is not general knowledge. There are many possible applications. I do not see how that the acceptance of my amendment can create any problems for the department. I cannot see that it will create anything other than a better situation concerning pollution.

Mr. Chairman, this Bill would go too far. In terms of the Water Act the Water Board has jurisdiction over public water, and over sea-water which is used for public purposes —and this might include industrial water— and is usually discharged from factories into the sea. In that case the by-laws of the local authority come into play. However, we are concerned with the open sea. I realize that the problem of a ship discharging anything on the open sea is the same as that for an industrial concern. However, in that case, this legislation is quite in order. If a factory, for industrial purposes, discharges effluent into the sea from the land, the by-laws of the local authority come into play. So I feel that this draft Bill would go too far and that we would have more problems disentangling the jurisdiction of the Water Court with regard to this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I honestly do believe the hon. the Minister is labouring under a misapprehension. This Bill does not only cover dumping in the open sea. It also covers dumping within the territorial limits. It covers dumping at sea wherever it might occur, whether it be in a harbour, a 100 yards off the beach …

An estuary?

It may cover an estuary, but it does cover the sea from the shoreline outwards. This could be a distance of 100 yards, 500 yards or 500 miles. We are now talking about dumping at sea from a ship or aircraft. The permit may be granted to dump some horrible substance into the sea, and this could be done just beyond the breakers. It could be as close to the land as that. The hon. the Minister might be talking about the open sea, but what I am talking about is the fact that this Bill covers the sea from the shoreline outwards and not only the open sea, which one might think of as being well away from the coast. It can cover areas adjacent to the coast. The permits granted could affect local authorities, game parks and a number of other persons, and I believe they should have the right of appeal. I think the hon. the Minister is labouring under a misapprehension.

Mr. Chairman, if it appears that there is any confusion of powers as far as the various Acts are concerned, I shall consult my legal advisers. I can always move an amendment in the Other Place. However, with the knowledge and advice at my disposal, I do not see my way clear to accepting the amendment because there are two sides to this question. There is no doubt about that. The intention of the Act is not to govern the disposal of anything else but public water or sea water used by a factory or an industry at the coast or at a place perhaps situated so very near the sea, as the hon. member has said, that it can also discharge polluting matter between the high-water mark and the low-water mark. That is so. About that I can agree. There is some doubt, however, about whether the other Act covers everything involving public water and sea water for industrial purposes. We must try and find out where the gaps are. I cannot, however, agree to having Acts overlap because that would lead to difficulties. I shall again hold consultations on this matter.

Thank you.

I shall be glad to do so, and I shall let the hon. member know what transpires. If I am convinced that there should be an amendment, I shall act accordingly. Gathered here today we are, I think, ad idem on many points and I think we also all agree that we should have good legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I think the intention of this clause is fairly clear. I think one should look at the substances mentioned in schedule 2. If one reads these in conjunction with the conditions that will relate to the issuing of a permit, which is issued at the discretion of the Secretary and his committee, I think one sees quite clearly that the permit will not permit the discharge of the substances mentioned in schedule 2 in anything like objectionable quantities close to our shoreline. Clause 3(1)(a)(i) reads—

I think the prerequisite is quite clearly that those substances will not be dumped on our coastline. I read the intention of this clause, taken in conjunction with the schedule, in that light.

But they could be.

Yes, they could be. To that extent I agree with the arguments of the hon. member for East London North. I think, however, that the hon. the Minister has put forward a reasonable compromise here in the sense of suggesting that this will be looked at again in the future. I would be very unhappy if I thought that we were voting today to allow for the dumping, close to our coastline, of the sort of substances clearly mentioned in schedule 2. As I understand this in the whole context of the Act, however, the intention is clearly that these substances will be dumped as far out to sea as possible where conditions of tide and current can disperse them as rapidly as possible. If the hon. the Minister can give us the assurance that that is his intention, and that it is not the intention to allow for the dumping of significant quantities of these schedule 2 substances—some of them very toxic substances—close to the shore, we in the NRP would not, I think, have any problems, and I do not think there is any real need, at this stage, to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London North.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept the amendment. I think the intention is clear. We do not want overlapping, but we do at least want to make sure that everything is covered. That is so. I also think that is what the hon. member for East London North intends, but I do not find his arguments convincing enough in the light of the information at my disposal. That is why I would appreciate it if he would accept my compromise, if one can call it that. I shall have a look at this matter again, because I want the field to be covered completely. All of us want the field to be covered completely. We do not want noxious substances dumped anywhere near the coast, except under specifications that are very strict. So I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Industries agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. D. J. N. Malcomess negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, we welcome clause 4 in the sense that it will be clearly ascertainable on an annual basis what quantities of substances have been dumped. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can indicate to us whether it is the intention to table the report furnished in terms of clause 4 in the House. I feel that it might be desirable that it should be so tabled. If it is the hon. the Minister’s intention that this should be the case, perhaps the clause could be amended accordingly.

Mr. Chairman, it depends on whether it is feasible. As far as I am concerned, the House should be informed of the progress with this legislation and to what extent it is successful. Therefore, if it can at all be done—and I see no reason why it cannot be done—I am not averse to that suggestion.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I obviously made a reasonably good job of motivating in the Second Reading the amendment I proposed should be made to this clause, because I see that the hon. the Minister has also put an amendment to this clause on the Order Paper. However, I think that the job I did was only halfway good enough, because the hon. the Minister has come only halfway towards meeting me. I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 9, in line 10, to omit “R50 000” and to substitute “R500 000”;
2. (2) on page 9, in line 18, to omit “R20 000” and to substitute “R200 000”.

As can be seen from my amendments, I have used a multiple of 10 to escalate the fines that will be imposed on people who have polluted the sea unlawfully. I see that in the hon. the Minister’s amendment on the Order Paper he has actually used a multiple of five rather than a multiple of 10. I am happy to accept the hon. the Minister’s amendment. I think, however, that my amendments are stricter, better and provide a bigger deterrent, which is my intention.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate we made it clear that we felt that for an interim period, during which we could see how this legislation works in practice, the fines as contained in the Bill were adequate.

Are you going to vote against the Minister’s amendment?

The problems with the amendments of both the hon. member for East London North and the hon. the Minister is that they are increasing only one aspect of the fine which, to my way of thinking, gives rise to a discrepancy. If one increases the fine provided for in paragraph (a) from R50 000 to R500 000 or to R250 000 and lower down in the same clause one does not likewise change the amount by which the fine is increased, namely an amount of R5 000 per day for the period during which the offence continued, this gives rise to a rather significant anomaly. I am still not convinced that it is necessary to push up the fine in accordance with the amendments of either the hon. member for East London North or the hon. the Minister. I believe that a fine of R50 000, plus a five year jail sentence, gives a very clear indication of the severity with which the House views dumping at sea of the substances as listed. It is all very well saying that if large companies were fined R50 000, that is an insignificant amount of money. I do not believe that the threat of a five-year gaol sentence plus a fine of R50 000 is in any way an insignificant sentence or deterrent, and I think that it would be quite in order to leave the Bill as printed. That is our viewpoint, and we shall be interested to hear the motivation of the hon. the Minister for his meeting the hon. member for East London North half way. However, I want to put our point of view quite clearly. If we are going to change the first amount for the major offence, I think it is also incumbent upon us to look at the subsequent amount in terms of the amounts payable for each day on which the offence is continued. Otherwise they are certainly out of all proportion.

Mr. Chairman, I never thought I would five to see the day when I would have to compromise between the two Opposition parties when making a decision, but I am now in the position where I have to make a decision. I think that the mere fact that these two hon. members agree to this extent perhaps proves that I have followed the right fine. Those of us who are for the saving of the environment, and this includes the sea, are usually not very vindictive, but we should not be too meek either. I have found some cogency in the arguments of the hon. member for East London North, and that is why I have decided on this amendment. Let us admit that it is arbitrary to a large extent but, after all, hon. members know what kind of pollution we have had from oil and other substances. We are moving into a world where we are being confronted more and more by very, very serious radio-active substances. That is why I feel that this fine should not be too small a fine. It should really be a fine that has an effect and that people will feel. So although I originally thought of starting with a fine of R500 000, I must grant the hon. member his arguments against that and in favour of imposing a lower fine. I have decided that I shall bargain in this instance, but this is still an impressive sum, and we must remember that imprisonment can be added to that as well. So, as far as I am concerned, I think I have made the best decision that I can make under the circumstances, and I am going to stand by this. I therefore move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 9, in line 10, to omit “R50 000” and to substitute “R250 000”;
2. (2) on page 9, in line 18, to omit “R20 000” and to substitute “R100 000”.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that the hon. the Minister was not swayed by the hon. member for Berea, and on behalf of those people who are genuinely against the pollution of the sea, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I have a small problem with the argument advanced by the hon. the Minister in his reply. I am referring specifically to his reference to highly active radio-active substances. To my way of thinking the only people who would be in possession of such wastes in this country would be servants of the State. I think that if he had used another argument, I might have been able to follow it more closely, because surely there are, in any event, restrictions on public servants in South Africa being in possession of the substances he has in mind. Therefore I do have a small problem with his argument.

Mr. Chairman, no person in the employ of the State will ever be required to act illegally. In other words, no such person will ever be required to dump a noxious substance like that, a very dangerous substance, in a place where he is not allowed to do so. That is my only answer. If he were to do so, he would be committing a crime.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put my oar into this argument. Let us forget about the radio-active substances and talk about the super-tanker flushing its holds and pumping out its bilges in territorial waters and being caught doing this within the vicinity of our shore-line.

That must surely be covered by other legislation.

It starts to pollute the area with whatever it might have in its holds, be it oil or be it anything else. The initial fine of R250 000—and here I agree with what the hon. member for Berea has said—is a handsome sort of fine, but the ship-owner would not feel R5 000 per day when he continues his offence—and the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs will agree with me on this matter—because when one brings a ship into the dry-dock for repairs, one is not talking in terms of R5 000 a day. One is talking in terms of R150 000 a day or sometimes R250 000 a day. These people do not talk in terms of R5 000 a day. That amount is nothing to them. Once they have committed that initial offence and are found liable, they will continue with it quite happily at R5 000 a day rather than stop. I want to support the argument put forward by the hon. member for Berea. His argument is that, having increased the initial fine to R250 000, the fine that follows on that, should be made commensurate. It should be increased from R5 000 a day in order to really lay such a person’s actions to rest for ever, otherwise one is always going to have this problem.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to point out to the hon. member for Umhlanga, who talked about the pollution of the sea by oil from these super-tankers, that there is the Prevention and Combating of Pollution of the Sea by Oil Act, Act No. 67 of 1971. The tanker situation is not covered by this Bill at all. It only relates to the substances listed in schedules 1 and 2.

What if the tanker is carrying anything else?

The second point relates to the hon. member for Berea who argued about highly radio-active substances. He said that only employees of the State could have such a substance. This, of course, is patently not so. One could very easily have the situation of a neighbouring country having nuclear waste to dispose of and deciding to dump it within our territorial waters, within the 20-mile limit. What one wants to do, in terms of the Bill, is not only to control our own people, but also to control a situation in which some other country could try to dump its wastes on our doorstep. That being the case, I think it is a very good argument indicating why we should stick to a very high fine. I am very happy that the hon. the Minister intends to do so.

Amendments moved by the Minister of Industries agreed to and amendments moved by Mr. D. J. N. Malcomess dropped.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, we have made it quite clear that in principle we support measures taken against persons who wilfully dump substances at sea, but the wording in subsection (2)(b), line 56, is very wide indeed in the sense that it refers to “any information obtained by means of any instrument or chart”. I know it is difficult to find a better definition than that. I know it is difficult to redefine this by adding the words “any nationally or internationally recognized” before “instrument or chart”, because that in itself is not an easily administered definition. For that reason I have not moved any formal amendment to this, but while we accept this provision in principle, I think we should look for some adjective which will more closely define the words “instrument” and “chart”, because the present wording of “any instrument or chart” is clearly open to abuse. I should like the hon. the Minister to consider this with a view to defining more closely the instrument or chart that can be used. To what standards they must conform is, I think, unimportant, if he just accepts in principle that it should be a nationally or internationally recognized instrument or chart, or that some words are used that would define it more closely. I think that would, in fact, tidy up the wording and make it far more specific.

Mr. Chairman, I realize that there must be international standards adopted to make any conviction as far as this aspect is concerned honest and fair, but this legislation has been drafted in accordance with what was decided at the London Dumping Convention. As far as I am concerned, if we do not have any regulations that describe precisely whether this should be an internationally accepted instrument or chart or whether the metrology should be internationally accepted, I suppose this is something we should look into. I am quite prepared to assure the hon. member that, as far as this is concerned, we have no problems.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, before this debate adjourned last week, I had moved an amendment to the effect that we could not support this Bill even though there were certain aspects and clauses of the Bill that were acceptable and were improvements to the Road Transportation Act. However, specifically because of clause 5 I moved the following amendment—

Hon. members may remember the arguments I advanced on that occasion. We cannot accept any Bill which precludes a court from issuing an injunction in this respect. This is clearly the result of the City Tramways v. Rommel Roberts case and is designed to avoid that sort of action in future. We do not believe that this is desirable.

There are other clauses that are quite acceptable. Clause 10, which I did not have an opportunity to discuss, is one we have a certain amount of trepidation in accepting. We wonder what the hon. the Minister’s intention is with the following words in the proposed section 15(1)(c)—

Section 15 of the Act has to do with matters which have to be taken into consideration by the National Transport Commission or a Road Transportation Board in disposing of an application in respect of a public permit. This could be construed as being a totally pro-South African Railways clause. The S.A. Railways has already electrified a large number of its operations, and it also has some which are still steam-operated, but it is a big user of diesel fuel. On this occasion I should like to say that we in these benches do not necessarily believe that a local Road Transportation Board is in a position to be able to assess national priorities in terms of fuel shortages. The words “circumstances of the case”, for example, about which we shall argue in the Committee Stage, can be interpreted very broadly and loosely. I should like the hon. the Minister to go a little further into the justification behind this clause. We all accept that it is necessary to conserve fuel, but if this clause is going to be used as a weapon to wipe out private enterprise operations, it is not acceptable. We should therefore like to hear a little bit more about the spirit that has moved the hon. the Minister to introduce this clause.

I think clause 11 is an improvement. The conveyance of any goods by a person who has undertaken to maintain, clean, renovate, repair or alter those goods for any other person, may now be undertaken under a private permit rather than a public permit. I should like to say that in this instance a case could possibly be made out for the hon. the Minister to go a little further and declare these goods to be exempted goods which do not fall under the road transportation provisions at all. I do not think a tremendous quantity of goods is involved in this. I know that it can be abused in that somebody who transports road construction machinery might take that machinery to his yard, which might well be a long way away, on the basis that he wants to repaint it, when in actual fact he is making use of his transport to do it. There are therefore areas which would have to be covered if the hon. the Minister did decide to declare them exempted goods, but when he comes next year, as I am sure he will, with similar amendments to the Road Transportation Act, he might consider declaring this class of goods to be exempted goods. In the proposed section 17(2) I note the following words—

The other night the hon. the Minister talked about technicalities. It amuses me that the hon. the Minister is quite happy to let all these technicalities, which he is insisting on here, apply to applicants for permits, but that he does not want them to apply to the department itself.

That is a misstatement of fact.

That was not a misstatement of fact at all.

Clause 12 of the Bill has to do with section 18 of the principal Act, which again has to do with private permits. It is interesting to note that, if one looks at page 19 of the Bill, line 5, there is reference to “any interested person”. Here again, I want to talk about the general principle of this clause. It is interesting that in the case of a private permit there is no compulsion on anybody to publish an application. So, private permits are actually issued privately by road transportation boards. It is interesting that the S.A. Railways always know about applications for private permits. In Cape Town, for example, City Tramways always know about applications for private permits. The fact that there is no publication does not seem to restrict things. This is one of the reasons why private enterprise operations say that local road transportation boards always, without exception, favour the S.A. Railways. They claim that road transportation boards in fact automatically submit copies of any applications for a private or public permit to the Railways.

Are you implying that this also applies to City Tramways?

Yes, certainly.

I refer next to clause 12(c). It seems to me that the deletion of the words—

broaden the number of people who have the onus on them to prove—

In other words, it seems that it is again pointed in the direction of the Railways. I am not sure that I understand that correctly and would therefore like some clarification on that section of the clause. Again I put forward the argument that the Railways use a considerable amount of diesel. If this was restricted to Railway electrical services, it might be acceptable, but if one is going to give the Railways, no matter what source of power they use, an advantage in this situation, it is unacceptable as far as we are concerned.

The last lines of clause 13 also refer to the saving of petrol. There is a situation where both clause 10 and this clause might be of benefit to private enterprise, in that where a road transportation board has to take petroleum saving into consideration, when people apply for empty-leg permits, the road transportation board would have to give favourable consideration to giving them a permit to carry a load on that otherwise empty-leg, the argument being that one does not want empty-legs because they are a waste of fuel. So I would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s interpretation of that. Does he believe that this will benefit private enterprise operators and will get them more favourable treatment from road transportation boards, because it will cut out a lot of empty-legs. I do not know whether this is the intention or not. It is not clear.

Clause 14 is an improvement. It allows for an automatic changeover of permits in respect of a vehicle in the event of a breakdown, an accident or something of that nature. I shall move an amendment to this during the Committee Stage, because I think the hon. the Minister could extend the period beyond 14 days, especially because where a vehicle breaks down in the country and has to be towed to the nearest garage or back to the workshop, it usually takes more than 14 days before it gets back on the road again. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he considers extending that period. Possibly 28 days would be adequate. After all, 14 days amounts to only 10 working days in the normal transport week.

Clause 16 again inserts a petrol-saving provision.

In terms of section 25 the withdrawal, suspension or variation of any permit can come about, and the particular amendment the hon. the Minister has moved applies to paragraph (c) of subsection (1) and has to do with the variation or cancellation of any condition or requirement of a permit; not the cancellation of the permit itself, but the variation of any condition or requirement of a permit. Although I see that it does not involve complete cancellation, unless private enterprise is given due warning, variations of this nature can be very damaging to private enterprise. I think the hon. the Minister appreciates the fact that if one puts trucks or buses into operation, considerable capital investment is involved. Millions of rands can go into capital investment, and if a Road Transportation Board can, as a whim, vary any condition of a permit, an investor can lose a considerable amount of money. I realize that the Road Transportation Board already has this power, but the hon. the Minister has now underlined it by inserting the special provision “if the commission or that board deems it necessary with a view to the promotion of economy in the use of petroleum fuel, or for any other reason”. It is the “any other reason” which worries the road transport industry considerably, because for any reason at all, as I say at the whim of a Road Transportation Board, the conditions of a permit may be varied or cancelled.

Finally, the proposed section 25(2)(c) on page 23 reads “in the case of a public permit authorizing the daily conveyance of persons”, i.e. the hon. the Minister has inserted the word “daily”. I did not quite understand his motivation for that and, if possible, I should like to get an answer, during his reply to the Second Reading debate, to indicate why he wants to put in that word. It appears to me that there is a possibility that he is actually getting at the weekend commuters, and I should very much like some clarification on this particular insertion.

Otherwise, in concluding my speech, I can only say that there are certain provisions in the Bill making things easier for private enterprise, but I can only urge the hon. the Minister to follow through on the speech he made during his Transport Affairs Vote when he put forward the idea that there should be a national transport strategy. I think we all accept the facts that there is a place for private enterprise and also a place for State-owned operations in the industry. It is very necessary, in times of petroleum shortage, that these be co-ordinated to the maximum degree. There is plenty of room in the transport industry for both operations. I believe that at the moment the two parts of the industry are battling with each other, are fighting each other. Private enterprise feels that the State favours State operations. It is always very nice for the hon. the Minister, as Minister of Transport Affairs, to have the Railways make a profit, but private enterprise is also entitled to protection from the hon. the Minister. Private enterprise is also entitled to make a profit and is also entitled to be judged on the merits of the case rather than on a pro-Railways basis.

Including the bus companies?

Well, bus companies as well.

Touché!

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti, whom I presume will be talking on this Bill, obviously agrees with the hon. the Minister in this case. I can tell him that as far as the bus companies are concerned we shall continue to support the right of the commuter to object when fares are raised, and if it happens to be on the subject of technicalities, more strength to their arm, because far too often we believe Road Transportation Boards tend to look after the interests of all the bus companies without paying the due regard they should pay to the interests of the commuter.

What evidence do you have for that?

There is plenty of evidence, and I think the recent Rommel Roberts case is very much an indication of exactly that. In fact I believe that the Bill was designed to look after the bus company without thinking of the interests of the commuters in that instance. It just happened that commuters found technical loopholes which enabled them to stave off tariff increases for a considerable period of time.