Mr. Speaker, this House will dispose of the Order Paper next week. I hope it will be possible to do so in the sequence as printed, but if it should be necessary to change the Order Paper, that will be done in consultation with the Whips of the various parties. However, I hope that it will not be necessary to make too many changes to it.

Mr. Speaker, this morning there is a very noticeable empty seat in the ranks of the official Opposition in this House. I refer to the empty seat of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

A crocodile caught him. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a controversial speech in this House yesterday afternoon. If one had noted the expressions on the faces of hon. members seated behind him, it would have been clear even then that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was gambling with his membership of that party.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition issued a Press statement this morning in which he announced that Mr. Basson, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, was “no longer welcome as a member of the PFP caucus.” In other words, therefore, he was driven out or kicked out. The hon. Leader of the Opposition went on to say—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition therefore implies that it is as a result of the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in this House yesterday in which he gave his standpoint on the President’s Council that he is no longer welcome in the PFP’s caucus. However this explanation advanced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition holds no water, for two important reasons. The first reason, which was spelled out very clearly yesterday by the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, is that until very recently the hon. the Leader of the Opposition still agreed with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on the question of the President’s Council. Now all of a sudden he is advancing this as a reason why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is now no longer welcome in his caucus.

Kick him out too!

Surely this is really too transparent to be accepted as a valid argument or reason.

However, there is a second very important reason why this explanation is not acceptable, and that is the fact that yesterday was surely not the first time that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had stated his standpoint on the President’s Council. Surely he stated in public quite a while ago that he would be prepared to serve on the President’s Council. Surely he made his approach and standpoint on the President’s Council very clear even at that stage. Why then was he not repudiated and kicked out of the PFP’s caucus at that stage? It was only after yesterday’s speech that he was kicked out. Now I want to give hon. members the true reason why he was kicked out. It has nothing …

Aren’t you sorry that you do not also have a strong leader? [Interjections.]

If the hon. member for Bryanston would keep quiet now, I could proceed with my speech. I do not like it to appear in Hansard that while I am speaking, that hon. member’s name should also appear. I do not like it at all.

I want to give the true reason why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was driven out of the PFP’s caucus. The reason is that the hon. member dared to say yesterday that the PFP’s policy was not that of a Black majority Government. [Interjections.] That is the true reason for his being driven out of the PFP caucus: the fact that he had the courage to repudiate the hon. member for Houghton by name. The hon. member for Houghton was simply not prepared to tolerate that from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, bearing in mind that only recently she made it very clear to the hon. member for Simonstown by way of interjection, that she and that party were in favour of a system of one man, one vote in an open society. Those were her words. Whereas she made that very clear in this House, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout repudiated her yesterday. The hon. member for Houghton and the clique in the official Opposition, to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred, were simply not prepared to accept that from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. That is why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has been driven out of the PFP’s caucus. I maintain that the head of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was demanded by the clique, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had no choice in the matter.

Now I want to ask: What is the hon. member for Yeoville going to do about this matter when he sees very clearly where this clique is taking the PFP? What is he going to do about the matter? Is he simply going to accept it, or is he going to fight this clique in the party as he has on occasion bravely announced.

What about the “juts”?

Since he is not the blue-eyed boy of the clique, I want to ask the hon. member for Orange Grove, who has just entered, what his reaction is to the expulsion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Does he not see the direction in which the party is moving, and what is he going to do about the matter? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say in the Press report he issued—

Let me interrupt myself here by saying that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is quite adept at the art of choosing his words, but people are not as naïve as he believes. They see right through his careful choice of words. He says—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is nodding in acquiecence. I have already pointed out that he chooses his words carefully. He uses the words “onder andere” and in so doing creates for himself a convenient blind, for he takes the liberty of mentioning only two reasons, while keeping quiet about the others for convenience’ sake. He uses the words “onder andere”, but tries to create the impression that these are the only reasons. But surely this is untrue. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs and the hon. member for Virginia, among others, explained the reasons and the justification for this step very clearly and very expressly in this debate yesterday, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not refer to that. But that is not all. The summary or rendition given by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of the reasons advanced by the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, is anything but a fair rendition of what the hon. Minister said. He did not put it as simplistically as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is trying to imply. On the contrary, the hon. the Minister put it very well, viz. that the separate Black council was a logical outcome of the philosophy of this side of the House in respect of separateness. Surely it is unfair to say that the hon. the Minister argued that adequate constitutional provision had already been made for the Blacks. In fact, the hon. the Minister did not say that at all. I accuse the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of doing the hon. the Minister a grave injustice, and I maintain he owes the hon. the Minister an apology in that regard.

On examining this Press statement further, I find that the real reason for the expulsion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout comes to light very clearly on page 2, where the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says the following—

Therefore, what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is fundamentally concerned about is not the President’s Council, but the official Opposition’s political philosophy of power sharing in contrast to the political philosophy of this side of the House of a division of power. This is the fundamental reason why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was driven out of the PFP’s caucus.

In the few minutes I have left I should like to return to a discussion of the Bill under consideration. Since Wednesday this debate has covered a wide constitutional, political and philosophical spectrum. In this process it has been spelled out in detail that the purpose of this Bill is not to create a constitution for the Republic of South Africa, that the Bill is not even a blueprint or a framework for a constitution, but that it merely seeks to provide the instruments for negotiation and deliberation with the non-White national groups in an effort to formulate an amended constitution. This is all that is being envisaged with the Bill.

However, the hon. member for Houghton made it very clear in her speech yesterday that she did not understand this fact whatsoever, for the hon. member argued throughout as though we were already dealing here with a new constitution for the Republic of South Africa.

It is also clear that a considerable measure of consensus has been achieved between the Government and Opposition parties and that there is a difference of opinion on only three aspects of the Bill. Firstly, there is a difference of opinion on the constitution of the President’s Council and the fact that it will consist of White, Coloured, Indian and Chinese members with the exclusion of the Black people. Secondly, there is a difference of opinion as to the election of a Vice-State President. Thirdly, there is a difference of opinion on the proposed nomination and indirect election of a number of members of the House of Assembly.

All arguments that could possibly be relevant in this regard have already been stated comprehensively and clearly and I have no intention of entering that domain as well. I just want to make a few pertinent statements which I consider to be important, and to comment on some of the statements made by hon. members in the course of the debate.

The first statement I want to make is that terms and expressions ought to be chosen with the greatest circumspection in an important debate such as the present one on a fundamental matter such as a constitution. An arbitrary, inexact choice of words and imprecise formulation create confusion and unnecessary differences where fundamental consensus exists or could exist.

In this regard I want to refer to various hon. members who referred to the Bill under discussion as a point of departure or a first step to a new constitution. For example, the hon. member for Durban Point spoke of “the start on the road to the new Republic”, and the hon. member for Durban Central spoke of “the beginning of the process of change”. But the fact of the matter is that this measure could be considered a start or a first step only in a very relative sense. It is a first step only in so far as the status quo is regarded as the point of departure. Constitutional development is a constant process which never ceases, and the hon. member for Durban Point quite rightly remarked: “Constitutional development is never final.” Hence there can never be talk of a final target as far as constitutional development is concerned. For the same reason, I do not believe it is advisable to speak about a starting point in this regard. The path to the envisaged political dispensation did not start with or at the interim report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Constitution or with the Bill under discussion. It began far, far earlier—in fact in the distant past. In this regard, too, it is true that “our whole past proclaims our future”. The Bill under discussion is only one step in our constitutional development through the years and centuries. However, all progress or development consists of a series of separate steps. That is why it would be wrong to underestimate the importance of this step.

The hon. member for Musgrave argued that since the Black people were not being included in the President’s Council in terms of this Bill, “the Black population is being omitted from the proposed constitutional consultation”, and that this was ostensibly “an insult to the Black population and a tragic error of judgment”. The hon. member for Houghton made similar statements. But, Sir, surely it is untrue that the Black people are being excluded from this constitutional deliberation. The proposed section 106(4)(b) as contained in clause 34 of the Bill, expressly stipulates that the President’s Council or a committee thereof—

Due provision is therefore being made for an instrument whereby to deliberate with the Black people, too, in regard to the constitutional development. Surely it is clear to anyone who is not blinded by his own prejudices that this clause makes provision for meaningful and real deliberation and consultation with Black people on the envisaged constitutional evolution. Then hon. members of the official Opposition, like well-trained parrots, come and ask: “Yes, but why negotiate with the Black people in a separate council and not in the President’s Council?” In this connection I refer to the replies which have already been given to this and to which I too have referred.

Due to a lack of time I must be brief. Finally, let me just refer to the hon. member for Sandton. This hon. member told this House very piously about the honesty and sincerity of the motives with which he and his fellow PFP commissioners had approached these discussions. I want to tell the hon. member for Sandton that although I may believe him, he should not be surprised if other people do not. The hon. member referred to their record as members of the commission. However, I say to him that after the radical about-face and the repudiation by the PFP of the standpoints adopted by hon. members of the PFP in the commission, he should not be surprised if people do not attach more value to the assurances given by him in this regard. Against the background of his allegations concerning their honesty and sincerity in regard to this initiative, this effort to bring about realistic and meaningful change in our constitutional structure, I ask him whether he believes that his conduct in this debate, and that of other hon. members of the official Opposition, has been conducive to the achievement of a dispensation in which according to their ideas, it would be possible to afford the other population groups of this country real participation in the Government of this country? Or have they contributed, through their very actions, towards casting suspicion on the only realistic and acceptable machinery with which to initiate and sustain the constitutional debate, to contribute towards defusing a potentially explosive situation, and by so doing endangered the chances of success?

I allege that the official Opposition has exchanged a unique opportunity to strike a blow for orderly constitutional evolution in South Africa for a mess of pottage, in an effort to play politics regardless of the harm it would do to race relations in South Africa in the process. The official Opposition has once again been weighed against South Africa’s best interests and been found wanting.

Mr. Speaker, what has now happened in the ranks of the official Opposition is a revelation of the type of democracy they advocate. I think all of us will admit that it is a fundamental principle of democracy that a minority or opposition, even if it is a hopeless minority, nevertheless does not withdraw itself, but continues to participate in order to allow the system to work. One then retains one’s right of opposition, and along with that one’s right of having a say, one’s right of participation. That is why I consider it tragic that hon. members of the official Opposition, who so often present themselves as the democrats, could allow something like that to happen to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He is expelled from their caucus specifically due to the fact that he, who agrees with them on many points, endorses the idea of continued participation despite the fact that one differs and is in a minority position. The official Opposition has decided that he is not entitled to do so. In other words, the line of conduct the PFP is following is that when one is in a hopeless minority, or when one’s standpoint is unacceptable to the majority one starts to boycott.

With whom are these people associating themselves, with people who endorse the democratic system in South Africa or with those who are in favour of boycotts and the undermining of the whole constitutional structure in South Africa? I want to state here today that by its standpoint with regard to the President’s Council, the official Opposition is today revealing itself to the whole of South Africa, and that it is telling in particular those who follow the path of nonparticipation, of boycotts and, last but not least, of sabotage, that it sympathizes with them, and not in the first instance with democracy.

That is why this is a very grave and tragic phenomenon, and I want to hazard the prediction today that at least two or three members of the official Opposition cannot swallow this attitude of theirs. In addition I must tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that many of the people who have supported him up to this point will no longer support him and his party. He can be sure of that, for he is degrading his party into a party which is indissolubly linked to the people who do not want to participate positively in the process of the development of constitutional processes in South Africa. In other words, it is the path of confrontation.

In addition, I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I could refer to two or three hon. members of the official Opposition. I shall not mention the second person, but he stands approximately third in line of those whose position will become untenable in the official Opposition. He can listen to me today and try to maintain his position, but fact of the matter is that he has undeniably chosen between the standpoint of the hon. member for Houghton and that of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He made an undeniable choice between the two directions of one man, one vote in South Africa, irrespective of nation, race or colour, or the acceptance of a situation of multinationality and the preservation of the right of minorities to enjoy protection.

As regards the PFP’s major objection to the proposed President’s Council, I want to say that we can no longer deny today that the Black population groups in South Africa have already followed a different path to that which has so far been followed by the Coloureds and Indians and the small group of Chinese. We cannot lead the Black population groups, which form part of the greater Southern Africa and are already independent, back again and tell them to surrender their sovereignty and independence and once again take their place here in a new political structure, and accept a subordinate position. Those people have travelled that road and we cannot bring them back. We are not entitled to do so, nor have we any claim whatsoever in that regard.

In the development of the Black peoples in South Africa we cannot even prescribe what form of Government they are to choose in the future. In view of the political dispensation in which we find ourselves and the future we foresee, we accept that the Coloured population group and the Asian population groups will, like us, pledge themselves to a democratic dispensation in which they will find their place. However, if independent Black states in the greater South Africa prefer an alternative form of Government to the democratic or parliamentary systems such as we know it, viz. the Westminster system, we cannot prevent them from choosing that alternative. What is more, Great Britain did not reserve the right to prescribe to Lesotho or Botswana or Swaziland the structure of their future forms of Government. Nor do we intend to prescribing to the Black States. We must, therefore, foresee that separate systems, varying forms of government, could take shape in the greater South Africa.

When we look at the rest of Africa, I am tempted to hazard the prediction here today that it is possible that some of the Black States will say that they will not support the democratic system as spread throughout the world by the British. If other States in Africa, other Black peoples, are entitled to accept and introduce a dictatorship or a form of a dictatorship or a totalitarian system, we must accept that the Black peoples in South Africa also have that right, however much we may differ from it. Despite that we still cannot exclude them, for those reasons, from the greater constellation of States in Southern Africa. They will then have that right, a right which we shall recognize, and in that capacity we shall not only work with them, but also take them with us.

Furthermore, I want to state that the proposed President’s Council will function in direct relation to this Parliament. The proposed President’s Council, as an advisory body to both the State President and the Government, will function in direct relation to this Parliament. That is why it is essential for the Black peoples to have a separate council which will effect the necessary liaison, but which will also liaise with the Governments of Black States in South Africa, or with possible future independent or self-governing national States within the borders of South Africa. That is why it is also essential that this body should not fulfil that function. It does not have a function of that nature to fulfil. That is why there is to be a Black body, which will liaise with the President’s Council, and which will effect liaison with the Governments of independent Black States, as well as with the Governments of Black States which may still become independent. I consider it as being of equally fundamental importance that these people, not only because they live in South Africa, are not assimilated on the same level, but that they will Haise by way of a council of Black people with both the Government of the Republic and the President’s Council, and that they will also liaise with the Black States and their Parliaments, the Parliaments in which those States or their Governments have representation.

Finally I just want to express one further thought. We as democrats are compelled— since this proposed President’s Council is the start of a phase of development which holds tremendous possibilities, the start of proper consultation by selected and responsible people—since we endorse democracy, at least to offer this body and this new phase a far better opportunity to prove itself fully and to investigate and suggest all possibilities for future development. In this way there is a chance that we shall not only unify White people, Coloured people and Asians in their common endeavour, but also that we shall approach the Black States and Black people who still have a desire to achieve national self-realization, build up good relations with them and also encourage them to associate with us on their own path of development, to co-operate with us and to help us to make the Republic of South Africa a country of peace, order, prosperity and welfare for all its people, for all the peoples within the borders of the greater South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances it is perhaps understandable that the governing party derives a certain pleasure out of the circumstances which have developed around Mr. Basson, but even as far as these circumstances are concerned, the two hon. members on that side of the House who spoke, contradicted one another. The hon. member for Piketberg said that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was expelled from the party about the question whether this party wanted to serve on the President’s Council or not, while the hon. member for Mossel Bay said that that had nothing to do with the matter. He said that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was kicked out because he rejects the policy of “one man, one vote” in a unitary system. Therefore they expressed different standpoints on this simple situation.

Who knows more about being kicked out than you?

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal very briefly …

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

No, Mr. Speaker, I have no time now to answer a question from the hon. member. Let me deal very briefly with the situation. I can accept that it was no easy decision for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to make the speech he made yesterday.

He spoke with the greatest of ease.

I can also accept that it was no easy decision for the hon. Leader of the Opposition to make the decision he made today to call for the expulsion of Mr. Basson from the caucus of the PFP. I also know from personal experience that no man has any meaning …

It is very limited.

Mr. Speaker, coming from one of the most limited members of Parliament, I take that as a compliment. I believe that no one who wants to have any meaning in politics should do anything other than follow the dictates of his own conscience. Perhaps that should also apply to the hon. member for Walmer.

My sympathy lies with Japie.

He should follow his conscience and be prepared to accept the consequences of the action to which that leads. I believe that this has happened, and I support the painful decision of the hon. Leader of the Opposition to act in the way in which he has acted. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout and this party have at this stage come to the parting of the ways. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has indicated that from his point of view there is no rancour or bitterness, and I sincerely hope that that situation will continue in spite of these differences of opinion. My personal point of view is that whatever differences there are and whatever further differences may arise, I cannot erase from my memory the days in which Mr. Basson and I helped to form the Progressive Federal Party and found it possible to work together in the interests of South Africa.

This is an important occasion, but nevertheless, against the broad sweep of this debate, it is merely another one of the Government’s red herrings. There has been a number of red herrings. I want to deal with three of them before coming to the crux of this debate today. I am very pleased that this debate is being handled by the gentleman who is also the chairman of the Constitutional Commission, because assertions, based on vague references to minutes of the commission, have been made that the hon. Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members of the PFP who have served as commissioners were responsible for a shift of ground or an about face during the course of the deliberations of that commission. It was alluded to by the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Mossel Bay. I want to say that the minutes when published will show that these allegations are arrant nonsense and unworthy of the people who have made them, because they destroy the trust that should exist between commissioners, even if they happen to disagree on matters of policy. The reality is that this commission met on only three occasions to deliberate on the interim report. Subsequently it met once more just to sign the report. On 14 March it met and considered and reached consensus on clauses 7 and 8. We support clauses 7 and 8 in our minority report. It was then agreed to appoint a drafting committee. Five weeks later, on 25 April, it met to consider the second draft report which was presented to it by that drafting committee. Prior to the start of the deliberations, the hon. Leader of the Opposition said that he wanted to make it quite clear that he had three objections in principle. The first was the exclusion of Blacks; the second, the unilateral creation of constitutional structures and the third, for the enlargement of Parliament. He wanted to know whether in those circumstances it would be appropriate to proceed. The commission decided to proceed, and when the minutes are published one day they will contain the following words—

This was clearly understood, and the hon. member knows it.

The commission met for the third time on 30 April, and on that occasion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition submitted a draft report, which contained the following words—

That was rejected by all the members of the commission, save the four members of the PFP, including Mr. Japie Basson and it was decided to proceed with the discussion of the report of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, which contained the following words—

That was on the second occasion and that is exactly what we did. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs has suggested that there was agreement on the Vice-State President. I did object. I objected and posed the question whether he should also be the chairman of the President’s Council. Let us read the minutes to get this correct. When the minutes are published one day, they will reveal that it was stated on 25 March that the paragraph entitled “Vice-State President” stand over. When the clause was put on 30 April, we find on page 40, that the paragraph “The Vice-State President” standing over was put, whereupon the committee divided. All four members of the PFP opposed it and all 17 members of the other parties supported it. There was a consistency of attitude, and I take the strongest exception to people taking what they say are extracts from the minutes in order to try to make a political point.

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

Not at this stage. There will be plenty of time in the Committee Stage. I want to deal further with this matter. Throughout we showed a willingness to seek consensus, but in fairness to the four of us, hon. members must admit that we constantly said that this was subject to Blacks not being excluded and subject to no unilateral setting-up of constitutional structures. That was fundamental to the nature of the deliberations that took place. I hope that the chairman of the commission, who is also handling this debate, will peruse those minutes and support this interpretation of what has taken place.

The second red herring was that the PFP, by supporting clause 8, which deals with the rejection of the “one man, one vote” system within the present constitutional system, was abandoning its political policy. There were great cries that we were abandoning our political policy. The hon. member for Mossel Bay said that it was for this reason that Mr. Japie Basson had been turned out of the caucus.

That is right.

Once again let me say that this is arrant nonsense. It is well known that I was the PFP-member on the drafting committee and therefore responsible on behalf of my party for co-operating and producing that draft which is now included in the minority report of the commission.

Are you a member of the clique?

At least I know the policy of the PFP. [Interjections.]

You are the only one who knows it.

We have consistently rejected the Westminster system of Government as being appropriate to South Africa. We have consistently said that a “one man, one vote” system within the framework of the present unitary system of Government is going to lead to majority domination. We have said that time and time again. One can read the policy pamphlet endorsed by the congress of the party. It says—

Those are the exact words which are contained in the majority report to which we subscribed. We do not have time to debate the merits—I am trying to get the facts straight.

Sing the whole song.

That then is the second red herring. [Interjections.]

The third red herring was raised by those hon. members on the Government side and certain hon. members in the other Opposition parties, especially the hon. member for Durban North, who heralds this Bill—we are dealing with the Bill, not the report of the Commission—as a major step forward, an advance in Government policy and thinking.

In constitution-making.

That is how it is hailed. Of course, when one radically alters a constitution it is the precursor for political change, but very often not the kind of political change which the originators of the change originally conceived.

I argue that this Bill is a massive retreat in a “verkrampte” direction, away from the policy of the NP as presented to the electorate in 1977. [Interjections.] It does not even measure up to that policy which, even then, was rejected by this party and the NRP as being totally inadequate to meet the needs of the South African people. Let us look at the position. I have the policy pamphlets here, and other hon. members will also have copies. The great new deal the NP put to the electorate was opposed by the PFP and NRP. Let us compare the situation. Even under the policy presented in 1977 the Coloureds and the Indians were going to have equal Parliaments, fully elected. They were going to have Cabinet Ministers and Prime Ministers; there were going to be joint Cabinet councils and consultative committees and there was going to be a President who, according to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, need not have been necessarily White.

That still holds good.

There was going to be an electoral college which would not only have consisted of Whites, but also of Coloureds and Indians. [Interjections.] That was put to the electorate. But what do we have here now? There is no Coloured Representative Council; just a nominated body. There is to be no Coloured Prime Minister or Coloured MPs.

Where do you read that?

It is inherent in the Bill … [Interjections.]

That is not a new constitution.

It is; it is an amendment to the constitution. [Interjections.] In the policy presented in 1977 a number of the members of the President’s Council were going to be elected by the Coloured and Indian people, but according to this Bill they are now all to be nominees of this White Government. The chairman of the President’s Council would have been elected by the council, but in this Bill it is now going to be a White nominated by the White Parliament. He will preside over the processes of the multiracial council.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just do not have the time. There will be plenty of time in the Committee Stage. [Interjections.] This Bill is a retreat, and I believe that it should be seen as such.

Having said that, let me say a few words about the debate, because it is an important occasion, not merely because we are amending the constitution of South Africa in a fundamental way. Its importance goes beyond the proposals before us and beyond the differences which there are between the various parties in this House. I believe the importance of the debate that is taking place in this House on this Bill lies in the fact that although MPs, elected by White voters, are responding in different ways, they are nevertheless responding to two basic realities. We have two fundamental options: Firstly, either we negotiate or we have conflict, either we talk it out or we fight it out. That is the first basic reality which has given rise to this debate in this House today.

Why do you not want to talk it out?

With whom?

With all races.

We will talk it out.

The second reality is that this all-White Parliament, with all its power and sovereign majesty, cannot on its own bring a new constitution which will provide a framework for peaceful co-existence in South Africa. That is the importance of this debate. Perhaps as never before, Parliament is on this occasion entering the arena of survival politics. We are giving a message to the people of South Africa. We are saying to them in differing ways that if those in South Africa who have the vote want to survive under a constitutional form of government, then we have to reach agreement on the structure of our constitution with the vote-less millions in South Africa. That is the essence of this debate, however much we might differ. That is the vital importance of this occasion and the message which comes from this debate. It was certainly the message that was thumped home to those of us who sat on the constitutional commission. It was the message which was given to us by the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks who gave evidence, and I believe that that message made an impact on the commission, although we differed. The evidence given before the commission on the mounting urgency of the situation facing South Africa made a profound impact on those of us who sat on the commission.

It was because of that impact and our realization of the gravity of the situation that those commissioners who were members of the PFP tried in some way to reach a consensus on that commission. We were prepared to put to one side important aspects of our own policy. We were prepared to accept the abolition of the Senate, although we believed in a bicameral legislature. We were prepared to accept changes in the entrenched clauses of the constitution, although we would have preferred stronger entrenchments. We were prepared to accept the principle of nominations to the President’s Council, although we would have preferred direct election. We were prepared to accept the concept of an advisory constitutional council, although we still believe that a national convention is the best way of reaching the stage of negotiation. We were willing to compromise, in the light of the urgency and the gravity of the situation, on all kinds of details of our policy. However, we could not and we cannot give our support to proposals which, in our judgment, make the reaching of agreement for a peaceful constitutional development even more difficult than it is today. We cannot in all conscience lend our support to the introduction of new constitutional structures, even while they may be intended to remove conflict, if in our judgment those new constitutional structures are going to become part of the conflict itself, and that is what is going to happen. In all conscience, we cannot take the first steps together along the road of a new constitutional dispensation if in our judgment those first steps are a slight or an insult to 70% of the people of our country, who happen to be the Blacks.

I do not attribute ulterior motives to my fellow commissioners. I accept their bona fides, but surely we are entitled to challenge the judgment, the wisdom and perception of each other. We do not attribute ulterior motives and mala fides to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications because of his statement about Black and Coloured people he made a few days ago. He said that he did not intend to insult them. Even if we accept that he did not intend doing so, it was an insult nevertheless. The Government can say that it does not intend to slight the Blacks by leaving them off the President’s Council. I say that the intention of leaving 70% of the people of South Africa off the President’s Council is, in fact, a slight and an insult to the Blacks. It is a sobering thought that in all the time that we sat and all the evidence we heard that only one Black organization in the whole of South Africa—and I have read the minutes very carefully—took the opportunity to come and give evidence before the Schlebusch Commission. That in itself has a message. This organization was Inkatha. It could not have been an easy decision for Inkatha to take. It exposed Inkatha to the risk that it could be accused by radicals and others who wish to detract from Gatsha Buthelezi and Inkatha that it was surrendering and selling out by negotiating and using this particular set of circumstances. What happened? Inkatha gave evidence in depth, but the Government is now proceeding with a measure that is in diametric conflict with the evidence and the requests of Inkatha. Only one powerful Black organization gives evidence, and the Government then proceeds on a course of action which flies in the fact of all the requests, advice and evidence given by that organization. I wonder what Inkatha and Chief Buthelezi must be feeling today when, after having taken their courage in their hands and saying they want to negotiate, they find that the Government says that they are not good enough to serve on the President’s Council of South Africa. What are Black South Africans going to feel when they hear Government members talking about the President’s Council being a prestige body, but no Blacks can serve on it? I wonder how they will feel when they watch on television, listen on the radio and read in the Press of the pomp and ceremony when that new council is opened, while no Black man may ever be a member of the President’s Council? By excluding Black South Africans from the President’s Council the Government has alienated the goodwill of Black South Africans. By excluding Blacks from the President’s Council the Government has made the process of peaceful negotiation in South Africa more and more difficult. And not only this. By excluding Blacks from the President’s Council the Government—and they know it—have already placed many Coloured and Indian leaders in an invidious position. They are the people who would like to negotiate, but are not prepared to negotiate if they are to be amongst those who can serve on the President’s Council while Black people are not allowed to serve on it.

In spite of the differences that there may be over the substance of this Bill, there are some refreshing changes. In listening to Government members, I understand that there is, in fact, an atmosphere of trauma about the situation.

I can understand this. They are severing ties with a system to which they have become accustomed. They are moving away from constitutional structures which in the past they felt gave them their security. They are taking a step which the hon. the Prime Minister described in the Joint Sitting the other day: “This step we are taking is a step in the dark until the light breaks through.” I can understand why they think this is traumatic. To move out of the light into the dark when one does not know where one is going is a traumatic experience. This Bill and the trauma of the situation indicates that it is dawning on the National Party, albeit in an imperfect way, that, in spite of the vote and in spite of their authority, Whites cannot on their own bring about peaceful constitutional development in South Africa. That is dawning on them and it is going to develop until it changes into something more fulfilling. It is, however, a fascinating commentary on our divided country that, whilst there is trauma in the National Party over what is taking place and whilst there is exaltation on the part of the NRP about “the bold steps forward” that are being taken, in fact the announcement of what is to take place has been greeted with indifference, with scorn and with outright rejection by the overwhelming majority of Coloured, Indian and Black leaders. Whilst we talk about these great things, the other people of South Africa reject it, scorn it or are indifferent to it.

I can understand the Government’s annoyance at the fact that we of the official Opposition are not only opposing this measure, but we will also have nothing to do with the President’s Council. I ask the hon. the Minister in charge of this Bill to try to understand our point of view on this as well. As I have said before, we cannot in all conscience take the first step together if in our judgment that step will in fact lead South Africa away from agreement and make the prospect of an acceptable constitutional dispensation so much more difficult to attain. We would have supported these proposals if we had believed that they had reached the threshold of viability. We do not believe that they have reached that threshold. Our judgment on these matters is stated in our minority report. We say there that the new constitutional dispensation “must be the result of negotiation and agreement between the various groups in our population”. Our adherence to this principle is not because we are uptight, not because of an ideological commitment, not because of any party-political gain we want to make, but our commitment to this principle is based on our fundamental belief that we want our constitution to be safe and secure, that we want it to be respected and that we want it to last. We want it genuinely to provide the framework for peaceful coexistence in South Africa. It will not be viable and it will not be legitimate unless in fact this basic criterion is met. As we understand it, it is not going to be met in this measure. All the groups will not be brought together in the process of negotiation and consultation. In fact, through this Bill important new constitutional structures of a unilateral kind are being created in a unilateral way. It is for these reasons that we cannot in all conscience either support the measure or take part in the subsequent council.

Government members have been at some pains to explain why Blacks should be excluded from the President’s Council. First of all we have had the racist reason, the reason the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications put forward. I am shocked that the hon. the Prime Minister today has once again failed to repudiate that racist statement. The hon. the Prime Minister quickly repudiated the hon. the Minister of Tourism over the Craven Week. Within 12 hours his Press Secretary was handing out a statement repudiating the leader of the National Party in the Transvaal on that issue, while here we have a man who actually by his words has sabotaged the Government’s own legislation and yet the hon. the Prime Minister, because the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications is a trusted lieutenant of his, merely says: “With my knowledge he has given the explanation he has given, and the matter is now closed.”

Try another game.

That has not ended the matter. It was bad enough, but I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister has done a disservice to peaceful negotiation in South Africa by not repudiating that hon. Minister. The second reason we have had was the ideological reason, the reason given by the hon. member for Virginia and the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. The ideological reason is that the Black people are already on the path of separate development and that the institution for the Blacks is not with a view to designing a new constitutional dispensation for South Africa, but to implement the policy of apartheid. I want to say that along this road I believe that not only the President’s Council is doomed, but also future peaceful negotiation in South Africa is put in the gravest jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I want to tell the hon. member for Sea Point that I regard his wordy speech as a camouflage of the great embarrassment they have just experienced in their party. The hon. member tried to make the point that these plans we have now come up with are more verkramp than the ones in our draft plan. He specifically referred to one aspect. According to that draft plan, he said, the members of the President’s Council would to some extent have been nominated by the respective legislative bodies. However, the reply to that is a simple one. The reply is that the Indian Council, as presently constituted, is not a legislative body. It has administrative powers, but no legislative powers. For reasons which are not relevant now, there is no legislative body for the Coloureds at the moment either. Therefore it is obvious that one has to constitute the President’s Council in a different way until such time as there is a system according to which members can be appointed in another way, whether by a legislative body or according to some other method. Let me say something quite frankly at this stage. It is true that temporarily, for an interim period, members of the President’s Council will indeed be nominated by the Government only. However, I repeat— as I have said on many occasions, and as I said again yesterday to a very important colour group in our country—that the way in which the Government constitutes that President’s Council, with regard to colour groups as well, will determine whether or not the Council will have any credibility. Under the circumstances, I am sure that the Government will be very careful in the way in which it constitutes the council, provided that the PFP does not succeed in its deliberate attempt at intimidation aimed at keeping all persons of colour out of that council. [Interjections.]

You make a mess and then you blame us.

The hon. member for Sea Point referred in a derogatory way to the fact that we had said that the President’s Council would be a prestige body. It is true that it is going to be a prestige body, and the Black Council, when that is established, will also be a prestige body. As far as I am concerned, therefore, that is a hollow argument.

I regret that I shall not be able to reply to every one of the about 28 speakers who participated. I should like us to vote on this Second Reading before we adjourn for lunch. In the first place, however, I should like to convey my thanks to all speakers who supported the Second Reading of this Bill. I want to address a special word of thanks to the leaders of the two Opposition parties who offered their support on behalf of their parties. I made this note yesterday: I also want to thank the only independent member who pledged his support. Now, I think, one could almost say: “Our sincere thanks to the two independent members who pledged their support.” [Interjections.]

†It might at this stage surprise the House if I direct my attention to our prophet of doom in this House, the hon. member for East London North. If he was reported correctly, he said recently that the first commission under my chairmanship broke up the old United Party and he then gave a sinister warning that the present constitutional commission under my chairmanship would do the same to the present NRP. After what happened this morning in the PFP caucus, it is obvious that his attempt at being a prophet was exceedingly amateurish. [Interjections.] It is quite obvious that, although it is a small and insignificant party, the official Opposition has at least three factions. The first and the most important faction is the Boraine-Suzman-Eglin faction, the most radical and relentless faction. The second is the Harry Schwarz section, the most mischievous faction. Finally there is the Van Zyl Slabbert section, and this is the most flabbergasted faction. The degree of cohesion between these three groups is so delicate that it is hardly likely that it can withstand a dynamic catalyst like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. [Interjections.]

Which clause is that?

In contrast, the NRP took a stand in this debate which, though partly critical, spelt out a spirit of unity and true South Africanism.

*My person has nothing to do with the political difficulties which arose around the two commissions. I am a person of average intellectual abilities and I am a peace-maker and not a trouble-maker. However, I want to give the official Opposition some free advice as an Afrikaner and a South African. During the life of the first commission, a prominent member of the United Party crossed over to the National Party, and when I asked him why he had done so, he replied: “I see the time rapidly approaching when heads will be counted, and when that happens I want to be counted with my people.” I think the same idea is taking shape in the heart of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member has done a great deal of original thinking, writing and speaking in many fields, specifically in the field of ethnic and human relations. He was an inspired member of Sabra, for example, before his political views began to change.

I honestly think that there is a yearning in the hon. member’s heart for a new kind of loyalty, a greater loyalty than merely to one’s people. It is a yearning we should all be feeling in these times. It is a yearning for a White unitary view which should attempt, without petty politics, as practised by the PFP, to work out a sober, but honest and equitable right of existence for everyone in this country. Allow me, then, to give a clear and stark account of the two poles in the official Opposition. On the one hand we have the hon. member for Houghton …

Yes, here I am.

… who made the most destructive and most negative speech of her career in this House. [Interjections.] She said the proposed Black council was an insult to the Black people.

You obviously did not listen to her speech. [Interjections.]

As usual, she used her right as a member of this House to call upon radical elements outside this House to have nothing to do with any of the proposed councils.

They do have their own minds, believe it or not, slow as they may be in their thinking processes.

Slow, but sure.

Yes, slow, but sure.

What the hon. member for Houghton said was a clear contradiction of the remarks by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. It may be true that there are no hon. members of the PFP sitting in this House who share the opinions of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, but I do want to put it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that there are many such members of his party outside Parliament. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout once used these winged words: “I do not believe in a policy of withdrawal.” He does not believe in it, but sometimes he is forced to withdraw.

Now I first want to deliver a little sermon to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Yes, he is going to leave, too.

As a text for my sermon, I quote from the hon. Leader’s own book, which he published with a co-author, one David Welsh. From that book, South Africa’s Options—Strategies for Sharing Power, I now want to quote to the hon. member, from page 166—

Now he is repudiating himself.

I want to put it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today that we on this side of the House have done our very best to persuade our part of the so-called White politics to get moving. In the first place, in response to the recommendations of the Erika Theron Commission, we appointed a constitutional committee of the party, under the leadership of the present hon. Prime Minister. In 1977, arising from that Committee’s report, we published a constitutional plan, and this was frankly and openly put to the various congresses. In 1979 we produced draft legislation, and shortly before coming to this House with this Bill, the Government decided that we should create further opportunity for consultation, and the Constitutional Commission was appointed. The Constitutional Commission was appointed, and we spent almost a year collecting evidence from all groups, from all colours. What is more, apart from that and parallel to the work I have just referred to, the hon. the Prime Minister moved about in an imaginative and dynamic way, speaking to people of colour in this country, specifically to the Black leaders. It was not merely a question of words; he also showed compassion and he showed his willingness to ease and defuse the political situation in this country. But now, at the end of it all, at this important moment, which, as the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs said, may be the last chance we shall have to create an instrument for constitutional solutions in a peaceful way, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, whose basic philosophy I have just quoted, responds with a hollow, negative “No”. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that valid arguments have been advanced from this side of the House as well as by the other Opposition parties to show why, in the light of its opposition to the crucial elements of this legislation, the PFP should withdraw from this White Parliament if it wants to be logical and act logically.

Nonsense. [Interjections.]

I hear the remark “Nonsense”. I say that those hon. members’ conduct is nonsensical in this regard.

This is not a nominated body. It is an elected body.

I now want to deal with the principal objections to this proposed legislation. I think the main reason why the official Opposition is opposed to the President’s Council is that Black people cannot serve on it. In my opinion, this is their principal objection to it, an objection they have raised repeatedly. I do not want to reiterate many of the arguments that have been advanced. In fact, this field has been covered quite widely enough. However, I want to advance another argument, and hon. members must forgive me if I approach my argument in a rather roundabout way.

In the first place, I want to say that we have to take into consideration the given hard and actual facts of our present political situation in this country. The first hard fact—and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also spelled this out to some extent in the extract I have read here—is that there are White people in this country too. What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not say, however, but what I do say, is that there are Whites in this country who do not apologize for being here.

I say so too.

There are Whites in this country who do not apologize for having obtained a certain territory and certain rights morally and legitimately, according to any moral and legal standards in the world. If anyone in the world denies those rights of ours, they must also demand that the people of the USA give back their country to the Red Indians and that the Australians give back their country to their Black indigenous population. I say that we do not apologize for that, and I am not saying either that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition apologizes for being White and having certain rights in this country, but I do want to say that there are elements in the PFP that are inclined to apologize for the fact that we are White and that we live in this country.

A further fact is that since Union, successive Governments of this country, and obviously not only National Governments, have promoted some form of parallel development, even though it was not really laid down in law. It has not necessarily been confined to National Governments. Nor do I apologize for the fact that the system was intensified after 1948, because at the time this was done, certain measures were necessary. Afterwards, when certain negative measures had been taken, there was a change to positive measures. There was a change to independence for self-governing States, there was a change to self-governing States, and deep thought has been given—I am not saying any finality has been reached—to Blacks in metropolitan Black areas. During the discussion of my Justice Vote, I once again made an important announcement to the effect that Blacks in metropolitan areas would be given an opportunity to build up their own micro-economy by receiving the right to distribute liquor in their own areas, and eventually, perhaps, to handle its licensing themselves as well. Important ideas have taken shape, such as the constellation of States, and the idea that self-governing States and even metropolitan Black areas would have associated representation, through the mother country, in the council of States in such a constellation. All these positive things have developed. The present state of affairs is that the Blacks have followed their own course of development. What is more, in the draft legislation which we introduced to the country last year, there was a clear relevance between the President’s Council and the new form of government, and this relevance was that we only put those people on the President’s Council who would eventually have their own separate Parliaments. Above those Parliaments they would then have been finked in a casual relationship to form a Council of Cabinets, and right at the top there would have been an executive State President. That precedent was created in our draft legislation last year, and it is also a hard fact of the development of our politics up to date.

The point I want to make is that I do not wish to say here today that this is the end of the process of reflection on the Black man. On the contrary, it goes without saying that the President’s Council that is to be established will be able, either at the direction of the State President or of its own volition, to re-examine the position of the Black man, and that it will in fact do so. I do not wish to imply here in advance, or to give any undertaking, that this party will change its policy in respect of the Blacks, but the matter can be argued again de novo in this consultative body. Surely it would be seriously prejudicial to the present position and to the discussions in this body if one took a final decision at this stage by admitting the Blacks to the President’s Council without abiding by the interim position, where we are going to nominate a President’s Council without the Blacks, which will then be able, however, on the basis we have explained here, to consult with the Black man. I repeat that we could not involve the Blacks in the President’s Council at this stage because that would have prejudiced the whole matter.

I want to go further. An attempt has been made to create the impression here that the Black council will be inferior and that it is only creating a third-rate avenue for them through which to approach the Government. I want to reject this completely, for not only do the Blacks have direct good liaison with the Government in many ways—which will remain open—but this Black council, which will also be a prestige body, will have a voice on the President’s Council on a very definite and continuous basis, through the process of liaison we have explained here. I want to predict that this liaison will come to mean a great deal to the Blacks in our country, whom I hold in high esteem.

Concerning the Black council as a mechanism for consultation, the Government has been accused of attaching no importance to this Black council because we are not going to establish it on a parallel level to the President’s Council. However, the hon. member for Mooi River and the hon. the Minister for Mineral and Energy Affairs have pointed out very effectively that it would have been an insult to the Blacks and Black leaders in this country if we had introduced such a body overnight. We did not discuss the interim report of the commission in the NP caucus. The interim report of the commission appeared on 6 May 1980. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development saw the recommendation concerned, along with other hon. members. Do hon. members of the Opposition, as intelligent people, really believe that a Minister can satisfactorily consult Black leaders within the space of a month and that he can constitute a proper and dignified council within that period? This is an absolute insult to the Black leaders and the Black people themselves.

I come now to the objection to the Vice-State President. The hon. member for Brakpan was quite right in pointing out that two bodies did recommend the institution of this office in their evidence. The objection has been raised that in the Bill which is before the House, we wish to protect the dignity of the Vice-State President in the same way as that of the State President. I want to concede that that is a debatable point. However, my contention is that this person will often act as Vice-State President in his own right, that he will often act as State President, and I think that under those circumstances, his dignity should be protected, just like that of the State President. Unfortunately, his person is not divisible, and ex officio he is also going to be a member of the President’s Council. It is true that as such he may be a political target now and then, but I am not prepared to consider any amendment to the clause concerned at this stage, because I strongly hope that his office as chairman of the President’s Council will be so dignified and so objective that it will very soon be felt that his person and office as a whole can be protected in terms of the provisions of the same section of the Constitution which protects the dignity of the State President.

I am very grateful for the fact that the hon. member for Durban Point specifically, and other hon. members by implication— although they did not refer to it directly— approved of the addition of two members to the Cabinet. This shows the hon. member for Groote Schuur what nonsense he was talking in this House on two occasions when he said that members of the Cabinet had too little to do.

He often talks nonsense. It comes naturally. [Interjections.]

Then I come to the question of the four nominated members and the eight elected members. In the first place, I reject with contempt what has been implied in this House and outside, namely that this is an attempt on the part of the Prime Minister to strengthen his own position. If the hon. the Prime Minister had to strengthen his own position in this House through four nominated members—for in practice he can only nominate four members himself—this is the greatest joke I have ever heard. The hon. the Prime Minister has strengthened his position in a way in which the hon. Leader of the Opposition cannot strengthen his party, and that is by ensuring that he has the unanimous support of his caucus.

On 1 January 1981, Parliament will consist of only the State President and the House of Assembly, while at the moment, it consists of the State President, the Senate, and the House of Assembly. Obviously, the Senate used to be part of Parliament. Few of us realize that the Senate actually had a very strong say in this legislative body. In the first place, they had the statutory power, along with the members of the House of Assembly, to appoint the State President, the highest office in the land. What is almost more important is that in fact, in the course of practical politics over the years, and probably not in this party only, the Senators have had an integral and important say in the designation of the Prime Minister of the country. Therefore, the Senate has always been an important part of our legislature, apart from the other powers it has had. In spite of this, it has been deemed fit over all the years since Union to give the Government the right to nominate eight members to that body, while the other members, of whom there are 43 at the moment, were indirectly elected by members of the House of Assembly and provincial councillors.

Let us see for a moment how terrible this idea really is of electing eight additional members to the House of Assembly, apart from the four members that the State President may nominate. The problem with the hon. Opposition is that they are so fatalistic, so given to pessimism, that they see the political future for all eternity as one in which the NP will be the strong governing party and they will be a small minority party. When can this question of eight additional members—actually 12, but I am only dealing now with the eight to be elected by the House of Assembly—become a crucial issue? It will obviously be a crucial issue when the party in power has a small majority. What will then be the position? If the governing party has a majority of only five—this was the position in 1948 and immediately afterwards—the Government and the Opposition will each be able to elect four members, according to the system which is being proposed here. If the majority is 11, the position remains the same. The Government elects four and the Opposition elects four. Only when the majority is 21 can the Government elect five and the Opposition three. Is this such a terrible danger? Is this such a terrible violation of the principle of democracy? No, Sir. It is just another spectre which is being raised. Then there is also the “terrible” prospect of the House of Assembly being able to elect another 100 or 200 members. I think we should spend the time of this House more soberly than by discussing such foolish notions. [Interjections.]

Order!

We are faced with immediate and extremely important challenges. The hon. the Minister of Community Development spelt out in a very impressive way the other day how well-endowed we are in the material field. Fortunately our Heavenly Father has given us the opportunity— and the means, specifically in the material field—to solve our problems in so far as money and means can do so. What is needed, however, is an honest and a unanimous desire to seek those solutions in the future, and to do so fairly soon. Our step forward may be a careful one, but it is nevertheless a sound and honest step.

I want to conclude by saying that we should approach the new dispensation with courage and faith and we should thrust aside the people who only want to be destructive and negative.

Mr. Chairman, I have already given notice of an amendment that I wish to move to clause 1. It is not the amendment which is printed on my name on the Order Paper at the moment. I therefore move the amendment, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I accept the hon. member’s amendment. [Interjections.]

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, as we can see, the table in this Bill relates only to individuals and makes no allowance for the taxation of family units. This is, of course, the situation pertaining to the taxation of Whites. I want to make it very clear that we have nothing against the concept of individual taxation. In fact, a large number of professional women in South Africa would be in favour of this.

Mr. Speaker, may I just inquire to which clause the hon. member is referring?

He is talking on the principle.

As the first speaker I am talking on the principle of it.

Are we not in the Committee Stage now?

Yes, of course.

He is actually allowed to talk about it. The hon. the Deputy Minister should know that.

I am asking on what clause he is speaking.

Clause 1. One characteristic of the Bill is that it makes no provision for the deduction of insurance contributions or medical aid contributions. What I should like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that he takes this up with the hon. the Minister of Finance. This is clearly wrong, because in the first instance it is discriminatory and in the second instance it runs counter to the whole basic philosophy of the economic and tax systems that we practise in South Africa, namely systems which encourage people to provide for their own social welfare, for their own retirement and so forth. Consequently we encourage people under the White tax system to contribute to medical aid and insurance funds. At the present moment there exists an urgent need to offer Black taxpayers the same encouragement.

Mr. Tex Sebakwane, for instance, pointed out when addressing the Insurance Institute of the Cape of Good Hope, that at the present moment there were only 418 000 Blacks in South Africa who hold life insurance policies. This constitutes only 2% of the total Black population. Sir, this cannot be delayed any longer, because if we do not encourage Blacks to provide for themselves by means of insurance or medical aid funds, we are going to place the burden on the State and on the taxpayers of the future. The solution, if we are going to continue with the system of levying tax on individuals rather than on family units, could be to make the abatements that are available to Whites at present also available to Blacks, but taken at half of the value that Whites would receive, because Whites receive their abatements per family unit. A White family unit receives greater abatements than single people, whereas Blacks are taxed as single individuals.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, there are a few points to which I should like to come back when we get to clause 5, points which are particularly relevant to that clause.

I must point out to the hon. member that in terms of the rules a party is allowed one speaker during the Committee Stage to discuss the principle of the Bill. We shall therefore cross that bridge when we come to it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, clause 5 makes no specific provision at all for abatements or deductions for insurance purposes. If one looks at the table, one sees that people are taxed as individuals and not as family units. What I should like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that he raises with the hon. the Minister of Finance the question of whether we could not in future introduce some sort of abatement system for insurance premiums and medical aid premiums in respect of Blacks’ tax payments. What one could do here is to take the deductions that are allowable to White taxpayers as a family unit and perhaps halve them, or allow Blacks to claim the same deductions as a single White taxpayer can. I think this would encourage people to contribute to medical aid funds and insurance funds, and in the long term I think it would help the State, because people would be providing for themselves rather than relying on the State to provide for them.

Mr. Chairman, I should once again like to raise the point with the hon. the Deputy Minister that I raised in the Second Reading in connection with persons who, because they are just over the R1 800 mark, might be interpreted in terms of subsection (2) of clause 5, at the top of page 7, as being eligible to claim a refund. In that connection I pointed out that a person who pays 4c tax in the two months mentioned in subsection (2), would in fact be entitled to a refund of R3,40. In that case the hon. the Deputy Minister would have to move up the threshold limit of R1 800 to accommodate such people. The usual procedure in our own tax system is that people who have paid, as they always do, an excess amount of tax when tax is reduced, that is in the three months from the end of March to 1 July when the new tables come into effect, have that amount taken into account by the new tables which are then levied from 1 July. I should therefore just like the assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister that the same procedure will take place in this case and that the tables contained in the schedule to this clause will take into account the fact that people who fall in the over R1 800 bracket are in fact going to obtain that relief and that they will receive a refund of the R3 that they have already paid.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Edenvale I should just like to tell him what is taken into consideration when we tax people separately. In the first place they pay tax on the combined incomes of wives and husbands. The single taxpayer pays tax as if he is a married man with two children. Those concessions we do make. This year they will still receive another rebate of about 20% on last year’s rating.

With regard to the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Mooi River, clause 5(2) does not provide for that matter. It prohibits the refund to a Black man of tax already paid. The position here is that the tax starts on 1 March, and we can only get the PAYE tables in working order by 1 May.

So this clause actually debars him from claiming a refund if he had paid as if he was in that particular category. On the other hand, we will have administrative difficulties, of which there are a number, although not many. Administratively it will be impossible. These tables come into operation two months later. If he is still a taxpayer for that particular year then the amount which he has been overcharged those two months is taken into account for the rest of the year.

That is what I want to know.

If he is not a taxpayer any longer, then he may not ask for a refund of this money. That is all that this clause really contains.

I shall give attention to the matters raised by the hon. member for Edenvale. I did tell him, however, in which way we do assist these people. I shall discuss it with the hon. the Minister of Finance and we will see what we can do about it.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a Bill where something happens on the way to the forum, because it seems to be a chapter of errors. We went through the Act in the early part of 1978 and thereafter certain regulations had to be planned. The regulations were apparently published towards the end of the year, on 28 December 1978. The Act provided that the amendment would only come into force on promulgation by the State President, and it was intended to come into force on 1 January 1979, but through some accident it was only gazetted at a much later stage, viz. 11 January, and since the Gazette and the proclamation cannot be retrospective, it would appear that the whole thing was unlawful. We can understand that anybody can make a mistake, and we are here to condone this particular mistake.

There are two important points that I must make. Firstly, somebody must have been responsible for that mistake, and I think they should take responsibility for it. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us how it came about that that was not done, because there are two implications here. The first implication is a financial one, namely the cost of the reprinting of the Bill. I note that 1 350 copies of the Bill were printed. This means a waste in expenditure which will have to be accounted for, and the Auditor-General will no doubt want to know how this occurred. Secondly, and more importantly, the original the Radio Amendment Act, 1978, to which I am referring contained very important provisions. For example …

You cannot discuss that now.

Why not? Is the hon. the Minister the Chairman of the Committee?

For example, under the provisions of section 9 the holder of a licence could have his licence suspended or cancelled. Assuming a suspension or a cancellation of the licence …

Order! The only principle contained in this clause pertains to the fact that the Radio Amendment Act, 1978, shall be deemed to have come into operation on 28 December 1979.

Mr. Chairman, I have no quarrel with the fact that the problem is being put right. However, I think we are entitled to call upon the hon. the Minister in the Committee Stage to give us an explanation and not to treat the matter lightly. Somebody must accept responsibility for this because the legal implications are very severe.

I am pointing out the legal implications when, for example, a licence was wrongly suspended. Because the law was not in force, the Government is open to be sued for damages. I therefore think the hon. the Minister must take the matter seriously and give us an explanation of how this occurred.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pity that the caucus of the official Opposition decided that they would not allow more than one stage of a Bill to be taken on the same day during the course of last week and this week. Had the hon. member for Hillbrow been present when the Second Reading debate took place …

I read the hon. the Minister’s Hansard.

… he would have heard what I said in reply to the hon. member for Constantia.

You did not say it slowly enough. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, therefore I wonder whether it is really necessary for me to repeat what I said in my reply to the Second Reading debate. The fact is that the hon. member for Hillbrow was not present.

You said nothing.

The hon. member for Hillbrow is a slow thinker.

Yes, apparently he is.

He reads slowly too.

Order! The hon. the Minister is replying to a question put to him by the hon. member for Hillbrow and I think if a Minister is replying to a question, he should at least be given the opportunity to reply in a proper fashion. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the hon. member for Hillbrow, with whom I have particular difficulties, I want to say first of all that he was not present in the Chamber when he should have been and he therefore could not listen to my reply to the debate. I want to reiterate that there is no question of a chapter of errors as the hon. member said. There is no question of a mistake. I said to the hon. member for Constantia, and he can bear out on this, that the State President signed the document in Durban on 22 December. It then had to be posted to Pretoria. The hon. member must bear in mind that there was no publication of the Government Gazette on 1 January 1980. The first Government Gazette thereafter was only published on 11 January 1980.

Can the hon. the Minister explain why it was only sent to the State President on 22 December when the legislation was passed before June of that year?

Mr. Chairman, I signed that document early in December and as hon. members will have observed, the proclamation was published as early as 15 December. The documents were sent from Pretoria to Durban where the State President was on leave and during that process this happened. It is no mistake; it just happened.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill under discussion contains two divergent aspects which I should like to discuss separately.

1. (a) Control over the export and marketing of armaments.

The compulsory arms embargo which was imposed by the UN on the Republic of South Africa in 1977 served as an incentive to the Republic to achieve an even higher degree of self-sufficiency than had previously been the case. The hon. the Minister of Defence has pointed out on various occasions in the past that South Africa’s armaments industry has to a large extent succeeded in this purpose. However, it must be accepted that it will not be a paying proposition to operate an armaments industry solely for the purpose of meeting our own needs and that exports will in future form an essential and growing component of this industry. In addition it is essential that all exports of armaments, components and related materials are effectively controlled.

In terms of existing legislation, control over the export of goods, including armaments, is exercised by the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs in terms of the Import and Export Control Act, 1963, (Act 45 of 1963). However, it is becoming clear that there are certain deficiencies in the existing export control measures and that they no longer serve their purpose fully.

In view of the Republic’s unique position in the world it is necessary for us, more than any other country, to ensure that South Africa’s national strategy is not harmed by unco-ordinated procedures in the export of armaments. It goes without saying that ill-considered marketing efforts may not only defeat a comprehensive marketing plan, but may also harm the political connections of the Republic. Consequently it is considered to be essential that control over the export of armaments should be centralized under one body.

For various reasons Armscor is considered to be best qualified to exercise control over the export and marketing of armaments. However, a strongly centralized control over the export and marketing of armaments by Armscor does not mean that other organizations will not also have to make a contribution, and Armscor will perform this function in close consultation with the Government departments and industries involved. In practice it will mean that the Minister of Defence, by way of notices published in the Gazette or addressed to a specific person, will place the export and marketing of certain types of armaments under his control. Within these guidelines Armscor will then decide, in very close consultation with the S.A. Defence Force, which armaments, arms components and related materials may be exported without being detrimental to the preparedness of the Defence Force.

†The Bill under discussion therefore in the first place aims, by means of an amendment to the Armaments Development and Production Act, 1968 (Act 57 of 1968), at giving the Minister of Defence the power to exercise control over the export and marketing of certain types of armaments. This control is exercised by means of a permit system. Furthermore the Import and Export Control Act, 1963, will be amended in order to exclude the application of the said Act with regard to the export of some armaments.

(b) Prohibition on the unauthorized disclosure of information.

There can be no doubt that, as a result of the United Nations arms embargo against the Republic, this country is extremely vulnerable with regard to international pressure concerning its programme for the procurement and marketing of armaments. The present conflict situation, of which subversion, sabotage and terror constitute important facets, has caused the armaments industry to be a main target in the struggle in so far as its personnel, plants and means of transportation are concerned. In the interests of State security, as well as the safety of its personnel and assets, this conspicuously sensitive area requires urgent protection against possible disclosure of its activities.

Although reporting on and the furnishing of information regarding the armaments industry are, to a certain degree, controlled by the overlapping provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1956 (Act 16 of 1956), it is nevertheless regarded as essential that more specific provisions be embodied in the Armaments Production and Development Act. At present this Act affords limited protection, if any, to Armscor, its subsidiaries or contractors regarding the publication of information in respect of their activities.

The Commission of Inquiry into Reporting on Security Matters concerning the S.A. Defence Force and the S.A. Police Force, under the chairmanship of the hon. Mr. Justice M. T. Steyn, in its report directed attention to the above-mentioned defects in the existing legislation and recommended that the Armaments Development and Production Act be amended to remove these defects. The commission drew attention, in particular, to the danger of the unpremeditated disclosure of Armscor’s activities in court cases and other legal proceedings and recommended that a system be designed to protect Armscor’s interests as well as the rights of its contractors and subcontractors. The difficult reconciliation of the security interests of the armaments industry, and the rights of persons wishing to institute legal proceedings to enforce rights arising from armaments transactions, is effected by placing a prohibition on the disclosure of security information but, at the same time, providing for its disclosure with the consent of the hon. the Minister of Defence or someone authorized thereto by him.

*Secondly the Bill seeks, by means of an amendment to the Armaments Development and Production Act, 1968 to protect the armaments industry against the unauthorized disclosure of information in this connection.

I shall now proceed to a brief discussion of the separate clauses of the Bill.

Clause 1:

1. (a) The insertion of the definition of “marketing” is intended to facilitate the formulation of the measures for the control of marketing, as further provided for by this Bill.
2. (b) The definition of “armaments” is being amended in order to eliminate certain deficiencies. The word “includes” is being inserted to provide that the definition will not be regarded as being all-embracing and that the word “armaments” will continue to have its normal meaning.
3. (c) The definition of “technique” is being inserted in order to ensure that all expertise, whether written, diagrammatical, on tape, magnetically written or in whichever way it has been recorded, is also included in the definition of “armaments”. The ordinary meaning of “technique” is retained.

Clause 2:

1. (a) The insertion of the words “on its own account or as the representative of any other person” in section 3(2)(1) of the principal Act is intended to empower Armscor to be able to intervene in transactions when this is desirable for strategic or other reasons.
2. (b) The amendment of section 3(2)(1A) of the principal Act is intended to empower Armscor, in addition to its existing powers, to exercise control over the development, export or marketing of armaments.

Clause 3:

1. (a) Proposed new section 4C: The proposed new section 4C of the principal Act is based on the provisions of the Import and Export Control Act and is intended to empower the Minister of Defence to control the export and marketing of armaments. The Minister may furthermore order that armaments, the export of which he has prohibited, shall be delivered to him or to any person designated by him, or shall be marketed through his mediation.
2. (b) Proposed new section 4D: This new section is also based on the Import and Export Control Act and serves to enable the Minister of Defence or any person authorized by him to obtain information in order to exercise effective control over the export and marketing of armaments.
3. (c) Proposed new section 4E: This new section is also based on the Import and Export Control Act and contains the definitions of offences and penalties which are necessary for the efficient functioning of the proposed control measures. Since a contravention of these measures could cause the Republic great embarrassment, provision is being made for relatively severe penalties, and forfeiture is being inserted as an additional sanction. Subsections (3) and (4) of the new section are based on subsections (4) and (5) of section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955. Since the aforesaid Act has been repealed, it is necessary to repeat the provisions thereof here. In terms of subsection (5) magistrates’ courts are being vested with jurisdiction to try alleged contraveners of this section.

†Clause 4:

The proposed new section 11A of the principal Act prohibits the disclosure, without the consent of the hon. the Minister of Defence or a person authorized by him, of certain information concerning Armscor and its subsidiaries. Since such disclosure could have serious results, the proposed section makes provision for severe penalties.

Clause 5:

The application of the Import and Export Control Act is in certain cases excluded by the proposed new section 5A of the principal Act. The intention is that exclusion should be restricted to cases where the export of armaments is prohibited or for which a permit is required. The wording of subsection (2) makes it clear that any existing prohibition or permit in respect of goods issued in terms of the Import and Export Control Act shall lapse if the hon. the Minister of Defence has issued a notice in respect of those same goods in terms of the Armaments Development and Production Act.

Clause 6:

This clause provides for the short title of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this measure contains two principles. The first is the control over arms transactions, both locally and for export, and the second, the limitation on the publication of information relating to armaments. Both those principles are accepted by us, and we shall therefore support this measure at Second Reading.

If I may, however, I should like to deal with some aspects of it, because there are a number of matters that we should like to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister, matters which arise from the legislation. Firstly, when it comes to the control over arms transactions, the arms business is generally regarded internationally as a very difficult one, to put it at its mildest. It is also a very tough business in many respects. Therefore, from our point of view it is highly desirable that the greatest degree of control should be exercised by the arms industry in the Republic of South Africa. In addition to that, we are of course concerned that arms which are manufactured locally, or which are held locally, or which are possessed by the Defence Force, remain in the hands for which they are intended and that they do not, by any means whatsoever, fall into hostile hands. Therefore, from a local point of view we would quite obviously like to see the greatest degree of control over the manufacture of arms in South Africa.

Secondly, as far as exports are concerned, we should like to see it aa matter of policy of the Government that arms are not exported by this Government to any other country, or to any other organization in any other country, unless, firstly, the political implications of that have been fully considered, and secondly, we have made absolutely sure that the arms do not fall into hostile hands in any form whatsoever. The question of arms not falling into hostile hands is actually important, not merely from a point of view that one does not like to assist those who are politically opposed to us, but because it has implications for the very soldiers who are defending South Africa and who are using those arms. Let me illustrate that as an example, and I do not expect the hon. the Deputy Minister to react to the facts as to whether they are true or false. I do not know that myself, but there have been Press reports that South African armoured vehicles had been captured by the Polisario Front in fighting with troops in Morocco. If that is correct, the danger of those vehicles falling into the hands of people who, I believe, have hostile intent towards South Africa as well, is that their links—and I am talking about the links of the Polisario Front—are not only in North Africa, but with terror organizations all over the world. If they had South African armoured vehicles in their possession and could assess their capabilities, how they operate and how they function in combat, they would be able to pass on that information to those against whom our soldiers have to fight. That would, to my mind, be harmful information which could be used to the disadvantage of our troops. Therefore, while I make no reproaches, I do want to make it clear in regard to what has happened. All I am saying to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that the greatest degree of control has to be exercised in respect of arms exports and that not only the military and political implications have to be considered, but also the whole situation of such arms possibly being examined and scrutinized in a way which could perhaps ultimately be disadvantageous to us, should at all times be taken into consideration. Therefore we are willing to support measures in regard to the control of arms, which we would be unwilling to support in respect of other matters. That is why we support the principle in this particular matter.

Then we come to the limitation on the publication of information relating to armaments. Here again our philosophy is that if one is producing arms for one’s defence that is not a matter which should be publicized. I do not believe that that is a matter in connection with which there is any question of the freedom of the Press or the right of the people to know, or any such consideration becoming material. This is a matter which is purely of a defence nature. It is a matter which relates to the national security, and therefore one can support this without any difficulty whatsoever. We do, however, have a problem in connection with this legislation, a problem which I asked the hon. Senator Winchester to raise in debate in the Other Place so that the hon. the Deputy Minister would have an opportunity of considering it. That problem concerns the definition of “armaments”, as it is contained in this measure. It is a definition with which we have no problems as far as the changes are concerned which the hon. the Minister wishes to bring about in this particular bit of legislation. We do, however, have a problem with the definition as contained in the existing legislation, bearing in mind the changes that are now being made to the Act. In other words, the existing definition, which, by reason of the rules of the House, we cannot move to be amended now, creates certain problems because of the changes that are now being effected. That problem arises from the fact that the definition of “armaments”, according to the new wording in the Bill, includes, and I quote—

And here follow the material words—

It is important to note that the words used are “capable of being used”—

The operative words here are “capable of being used” and “for defence purposes”.

The hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me that there are many things which are capable of being used for defence purposes, which, in themselves, are not truly armaments. I can quote a vast range of articles which would, in fact, fall into that category. The prohibitions which are contained in the measures which relate to exports would cover those as well. Furthermore, this is also covered by the prohibition on the disclosure of information. Let me give a simple example. There are matters used for defence purposes, which are not armaments in the true sense of the word, but which are necessary to keep a defence force going, for example, vehicles and spare parts for vehicles—matters which are used for everyday life. All of those are capable of being used for defence purposes, and these particular things are also subject to the limitations contained in the Act.

I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will not, during the coming parliamentary recess, consider whether the definition should not be altered in order to overcome this particular problem. I should suggest that he consider using the words “intended to be used” rather than “capable of being used”, because the problem which is created by the proposed new definition is such that it affects all sorts of matters which are now included owing to the wideness of this definition, which, I believe, was never the intention of the draftsmen at the time, but now becomes a problem because of the proposed amendments which are contained in the Bill under discussion.

Let us just take an example. In terms of this new measure we could have a limitation on exports of foodstuffs. Foodstuffs are part of what could be used for defence purposes. Foodstuffs now become an essential ingredient in view of the wideness of this definition. I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me that it has never been intended to deal with this kind of situation. I do hope he will give some attention to this matter.

Then, if I may, I should also like to refer to clause 4 of the Bill. Again our problem is that the wording here appears to be somewhat wide. The reason for that is that the following wording is used in the proposed section 11A(1), and I quote—

Then it goes on to say—

In other words, this is intended to deal with the passing of information not only between people who are employed by the corporation and by its subsidiaries, but also those who actually manufacture, develop or otherwise act on behalf of or for the benefit of the corporation and its subsidiaries. It is no secret—and nobody has ever pretended that it is a secret—that private enterprise is also involved in the armaments industry in South Africa. Much is manufactured for the corporation by private industry. They are therefore also affected, and again the definition of “armaments”, which is a wide definition, is involved. If one looks at what is restricted in terms of this provision and one takes into account subsection (2), which is intended to allow a passing of information between people who need to receive it in certain circumstances, it does appear that in these circumstances one is restricting the disclosure of information to companies unconnected with Armscor except as suppliers or as developers, a disclosure of information which may well be necessary for the ordinary functioning of those particular businesses. In other words, one is therefore imposing a restriction on those concerns that are not subsidiaries of Armscor and which may be manufacturing articles which in terms of the definition of “armaments” are capable of being used for defence purposes.

I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider this so that we can deal with this in the Committee Stage, which I think is the appropriate stage for dealing with the details of it. Our attitude is that we support the restriction of the passing of information which is necessary in respect of true armaments, but we would not like to see ordinary business hindered as a result of a technical interpretation which I do not believe was ever intended by the people who originally drafted this Bill. The Second Reading of this Bill therefore has our blessing. We believe it is necessary, but we hope that in the spirit in which we have approached it, the hon. the Deputy Minister will approach the suggestions I have made to him this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, in the main I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville on the principle he referred to as it applied to the marketing and export of armaments. I think we are agreed that this amending Bill is in fact aimed at ensuring that the armaments organizations will exercise the necessary control over the export and marketing of armaments for the sake of the political and security implications which the export or marketing of armaments may have for South Africa and for South Africa’s forces. Consequently I think it was unnecessary for the hon. member to point out an example which was not relevant to this Bill, for I think that this Bill is in fact aimed at making provision for the necessary control measures. I think that the hon. member for Yeoville, particularly on the basis of the definition of “armaments”, attached rather too wide an interpretation to the question of the disclosure of information. The proposed section 11A is in fact concerned with the disclosure of information pertaining to the manufacture of armaments for the corporation and for or by its subsidiaries. Consequently this does not happen on a broad basis, as the hon. member tried to imply it did. It is limited to those armaments which are manufactured on behalf of the corporation or by the subsidiaries or the private sector. The proposed section 4C is concerned with the publication in the Gazette of information pertaining to armaments which must be identified for marketing and export purposes. Only those armaments fall under this proposed section. The shots of the hon. member for Yeoville were consequently fired too haphazardly. I do not think the hon. member had very much criticism to level at the legislation. He tried to fire a general salvo and in that way while away a little time here.

When we consider this amending Bill, I wish to say that I think that we as a House do not appreciate how important a milestone this apparently minor amending Bill is in the entire armaments set-up and in the armaments manufacturing process in South Africa. This amending Bill ushers in a completely new era in our efforts to make South Africa independent in respect of armaments and also in respect of the manufacturing of armaments.

When one discusses armaments development, one could probably speak for a full half-hour on the background which gave rise to the amending Bill before us this afternoon. We could probably discuss it in view of the circumstances which developed at home as well as abroad, how the situation unfolded from the beginning of the ’sixties until we eventually had a manufacturing industry in South Africa of which we may be justifiably proud.

I had the privilege, and I consider it to be a great privilege, of having been involved in this development process in the ’sixties, step by step and day after day. I saw how we began with the old Armaments Production Corporation and what I am now going to say may perhaps sound irrelevant to the legislation, but I should like to single out the principles in this development process which gave rise to this amending Bill.

We began with the old Armaments Production Office and subsequently, as we developed, the Armaments Production Office dealt with the purchasing of armaments. This developed into the Armaments Board in 1964, which began to manufacture armaments. Subsequently, in 1968, we established the Armaments Development and Manufacturing Corporation—Armscor—which took over the subsidiaries that had been established by the Armaments Board in order to place these on sound economic and technical foundations so that we could also create a sound armaments subsidiary industry. Subsequently, in 1977, we amalgamated the old Armscor and the Armaments Board. That was already the beginnings of a rationalization process on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister. It was a huge rationalization step in our entire armaments industry.

We began on a small scale, and when I say that we began on a small scale, it is actually an exaggeration, because we began our armaments industry in South Africa from scratch. From that initial situation we have, over the past two decades, developed our military manufacturing industry in South Africa into what is probably the largest manufacturing industry in South Africa. When I say that, what I mean is that it has drastic implications. It is a manufacturing industry which creates work opportunities for thousands of people, a manufacturing industry in which the private sector is actively involved in their hundreds, if not already in their thousands by now, an industry in which many of Armscor’s subsidiaries are involved on a large scale. This is an industry which offers work opportunities, not only to the Whites, but to all our population groups, an industry in which Whites, Blacks or Coloureds and Indians work shoulder to shoulder to make South Africa independent in the armaments world.

This is an industry of which we in South Africa may be proud, and one in which experts have been brought together under one umbrella body. When I speak of experts, I am referring to scientists, engineers and technicians in all the disciplines, for example the chemical, electronics, mechanical and metallurgical industries. This is a team of experts unparalleled in any other industry in South Africa, and I think I can speak with authority when I say that this team of experts which has been brought together in the military industry of South Africa, is a team of armaments experts which compares favourably and in most cases is better than any team of armaments experts in most other countries of the world, and I make so bold as to say that they are better than any other team of armaments experts in almost any other country in the world. It is such a team of armaments experts that we in South Africa have built up over the past 10 years, under the protection of this Act and its predecessors, and it is something of which we may rightly be proud. I believe—and I know what I am talking about, because I saw these experts in action when they were negotiating with foreign experts—that we need not take second place to any overseas country in hardly any sphere.

When we discuss armaments, we speak in the same breath of the threat to and onslaught on South Africa and its people. When we consider the armaments set-up in South Africa, we are considering only one of the legs which we need to be prepared to ward off the onslaught on us successfully. If we consider the onslaughts we are experiencing on our borders, and see what happened at Silverton, Booysens and the assaults on Sasol and Natref last week, I do not think there is anyone left in South Africa whose object it is that South Africa should work out its future dispensation in peace, who does not realize in the face of these events that a total onslaught is being waged on South Africa and its people. If there are still people in South Africa who wish to have a peaceful future, but do not believe that there is a total onslaught on us, I want to make an appeal to them to reflect again and to appreciate, in the light of the events, the seriousness of the onslaught on South Africa, and to reorientate themselves accordingly.

When we refer to a conventional onslaught, we are referring to a mobilized and identified force which one can see and against which one can plan. One is then dealing with a military chess game of strategy and counter-strategy. We, however, are dealing with a non-conventional onslaught which occurs sporadically and on and ad hoc and isolated basis, and one in which the seriousness of the danger of the onslaught must be appreciated by the people of the RSA. The seriousness of such an onslaught must not be underestimated by our people, because it is no respector of persons. Such an onslaught is usually covert, and for that reason it is cowardly. Therefore the attitude of our people must change in such a way that, in the face of the seriousness of this onslaught from day to day, we should appreciate the need for a peaceful solution to our problems in South Africa.

One of the legs of the total onslaught on South Africa is the arms embargo. This arms embargo grew from a voluntary embargo in the ’sixties to a compulsory arms embargo in 1977. It is a Marxist-inspired embargo which is aimed at one thing only, and that is to destroy South Africa’s attempts to defend itself physically and militarily. That is the object of the arms embargo. As this arms embargo grew over the years from a voluntary to a compulsory embargo our ability to make ourselves independent in the field of armaments manufacture has also grown over the years.

We did indeed begin with nothing, and our first priority in the ’sixties was to purchase armaments for the Defence Force of the Republic of South Africa. Out of the increase in and intensification of the arms embargo grew our need to be able to manufacture armaments ourselves. Under licence agreements we began to manufacture armaments.

When we refer to armaments to combat a specific threat, we are referring to specific aspects of armaments. Not all armaments are suitable to counteract every type of threat. That is why we must, when we are considering armaments with which to combat the threat against us, purchase, manufacture or develop armaments to meet our own particular requirements. These particular requirements are our unique geographic, environmental, and climatological structure and the unique threat with which we are faced. From that followed the next phase, the phase of development and research, and the subsequent phase is the one with which this legislation deals, viz. marketing. We have reached the subsequent phase in which we are dealing with unique armaments and a unique armaments industry. The primary function of this manufacturing industry, is to meet the needs of the Defence Force. The second requirement is to make development possible and to undertake research into the unique nature of armaments for the S.A. Defence Force. The third requirement is that this industry should comply with economic parameters. It must be an industry which is based on economic foundations.

We know that South Africa’s need for armaments is not big enough to ensure that the manufacturing industry is at all times able to manufacture such armaments on an economic basis. We now come to the phase in which we are meeting our own needs, and to keep the industry economic, it is important that we must be able to export. We must be able to market.

I come now to the points which the hon. member for Yeoville also raised and these are to a very large extent what the legislation is concerned with. We must be able to determine to whom we can market. I do not want to repeat the arguments, because the hon. member for Yeoville has already enumerated them, but it is extremely important to determine to whom we shall export and where we shall market. There is another important aspect as well: What are we going to export and market? The legislation determines this. The legislation provides that the hon. the Minister shall by way of regulation in the Gazette determine what shall be marketed and to whom it shall be marketed.

However, there is another very important aspect which has not been mentioned, and that is the quantity of armaments which can be exported and marketed. The hon. member for Yeoville stated in passing that it was extremely important that we should not export and market such quantities that our own needs are harmed in the process. It is very important that this Bill should control these particular aspects.

If we wish to apply the principles to which I have referred to this Bill we see firstly that in clause 1 there is a definition of “marketing”. Unfortunately, however, it deals only with the marketing of “products, materials or techniques”. I wish to suggest that “products, materials or techniques” is not descriptive enough and that there are a vast number of loopholes by means of which one can circumvent this definition. I should like to move during the Committee Stage that the word “armaments” be substituted for those words, in order to make it more comprehensive.

As regards the definition of “armaments” I wish to say that to a large extent I agree with the reservations raised by the hon. member for Yeoville in this regard, viz. that what is involved is far more extensive than the object for which this legislation was originally drafted.

Are you going to vote in support of the Bill?

Of course. [Interjections.] I am making my own speech. The hon. member can make his later on. I think I know more about this industry than all the Opposition members put together. They must therefore give me a chance to make my own speech, so that it can be placed on record.

As far as armaments is concerned, what we are involved with here is development. We have entered the phase where we have to develop our own armaments. That is why this clause has been inserted. If we consider the rest of the legislation, we see that we have only two objects in it, viz. to exercise control over any information pertaining to armaments being manufactured for the corporation or on behalf of the corporation by its subsidiaries, and to exercise control over by whom, what quantity of and what armaments will be exported and sold. With that I should like to support this Bill, on behalf of this side of the House.

Before I conclude, I just make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister. When permits are issued in terms of the proposed 4C(1)(a)(ii) to market, sell or export armaments, I wish to propose that it should be possible for the manufacturers of those armaments who receive permits to be able to export, to undertake those activities of exporting, selling and marketing armaments within the parameters of the private sector, and that it should not be made difficult for them. I wish to propose, therefore, that no obstacles be placed in their way in that, with the issuing of permits, no delay is caused in the export of armaments. We on this side gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with most of what was said by the hon. member and I want to congratulate him on actually getting to the Bill towards the end of his speech. [Interjections.] As he suggested at the end, the object of this Bill is to control the export of armaments as well as to control the publication of information relating to armaments.

†I want to say that we shall support this measure. It has already been debated in the Other Place. I do not intend repeating arguments, but there is no doubt that it is essential at this point in time and in the circumstances in which South Africa finds itself that control be exercised in this connection. When one reads the allegations that South African weapons are being used for instance by rebels in Lesotho, one realizes the implications of the question of weapons ending up in the wrong hands being used in the propaganda war against us. We have no question about the control aspect.

There is, however, one point I should like to raise. The Bill provides for the ordering of a manufacturer to deliver armaments to the hon. the Minister, or a person designated by him, but there is no provision in this measure for payment for that delivery. In other words, the implication is that the hon. the Minister can simply order that armaments be delivered to anyone he designates without compensation. The compensation reference applies only to instances of a court confiscating any armaments. In such a case provision is made for any person claiming to be the owner to go to the courts and obtain compensation in accordance with the value of goods confiscated by a court decision. There is no similar provision, however, for an owner to claim payment for delivery ordered by the Minister. I think it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to clarify that point.

Another aspect about which I had some doubt was the right to determine the price at which a product may be sold.

Surely that is a Committee Stage speech.

It does have something to do with the Bill at least. Surely the manufacturer is the person who must establish the price. With those two questions, which I hope the hon. the Minister will clear up, let me say that we support the control aspect.

This brings me to the question of the prohibition on the publication of information on armaments. In contrast with his view in regard to the recent police legislation, I am glad to be able to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that I can agree with him completely. This is necessary. We felt it was equally necessary in the other measure in the combating of terrorism. When it comes to armaments, it is also a necessary provision. I therefore agree with the official Opposition, and we shall support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I am gratified that all the parties in this House are ad idem about the necessity for the control measures proposed in this Bill. I shall make some comments on the doubts raised by the hon. member for Yeoville about the definition of armaments when I get to that point in my speech. Since the principles have been discussed and agreed upon, I think it might be useful to look at the strategic background over the last 12 years which have brought us from the principal Act to these amendments, and to do so in a similar way to that in which my colleague the hon. member for Wonderboom looked at the background from a technological and historic point of view.

It is 12 years since the passage of the principal Act brought Armscor into being, and we are all agreed that the amendments under discussion are essential, vital, an urgent necessity. In the first place South Africa was not, in any appreciable sense, an exporter of armaments or ammunition at that time, although the principal Act did provide for—in fact, did envisage—this possibility. Whatever weaponry or armaments we did manufacture at that time, exported or intended to export, were of course not anywhere near the level of sophistication of the weaponry we are capable of manufacturing today. Consequently any risks to the security of the State and its survival, entailed in their disposal, were that much smaller than they are today.

When one reads the debates of that time, in fact, one finds it interesting to note that this risk factor was hardly considered a risk factor at all. The hon. member for Durban Point will remember, in the debate leading up to the passage of the principal Act, that he saw the greatest risk in the fact that Armscor might encroach upon the terrain of the private sector, e.g. by embarking upon the manufacture of footwear. If one looks at the situation today, however, I think one realizes that that never was a risk at all. Far from encroaching upon the private sector, Armscor has, in fact, encouraged its expansion. It has created opportunities and not curtailed them. At that time the risk factor was so much lower than it is today that the then hon. member for Pinetown also felt that even the limited controls in the principal Act were perhaps less than necessary, and I refer to his Hansard, Vol. 23, col. 4878 of May 1968, in which he said—

That statement may very well have been true 12 years ago, but I think we are all agreed that it is certainly not true today. Although the principal Act was passed after Sharpeville and after the Rivonia trials and other events of that kind, I do not think that any of those events could have been described as a “hot” war. Today, however, we are engaged in a “hot” war on the borders of South West Africa, albeit one of relatively low intensity. Nevertheless, it is intensifying and nobody can doubt any longer that it is, in fact, a “hot” war, coupled with a concerted Soviet-backed campaign of external and internal subversion designed to undermine the stability of the country in order to create those reactionary conditions of chaos and anarchy in which Marxism thrives.

Although there was a voluntary arms embargo against us in 1968, few people were particularly perturbed as long as Gaullist France continued to pursue an independent line and supply us with those military requirements which we were unable, or found inexpedient, to manufacture ourselves. In fact, few people outside the Government had the foresight to realize that this embargo would have become total and absolute by 1977. It is clear when one reads the debates leading to the passage of the principal Act now being amended that the Government in fact had this foresight to develop a sophisticated arms manufacturing industry, capable not only of making us all but self-sufficient, but also enabling us to export appreciably. This is, I think, a cause for gratitude in the circumstances in which we find ourselves today.

I pointed out that the arms embargo against us is total and absolute and this brings me to the point raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. In this situation many commodities which are designed and intended principally for civilian use, such as certain vehicles and even nuts and bolts, but which could be capable of being used, even in the remotest sense, in a military situation, we are today finding difficulty in importing. Since that is the position regarding the importing of those arms, I think that the definition should stand as it is, because this definition does not only apply to the amendments we are introducing here today, namely to the export of arms, but it also applies to their procurement and manufacture.

So one must not talk about maintenance, nuts and bolts, etc.

As my colleague the hon. member for Wonderboom pointed out, this is not a blanket prohibition. It is subject to certain decisions by the hon. the Minister. One can, of course, talk about nuts and bolts. However, this also covers the eventuality of difficulties being experienced in, for instance, importing certain nuts and bolts or whatever. Those are things we cannot talk about.

Although the Soviet’s strategy for Africa, to which I have already referred, had already been enunciated as early as 1955, who, by 1968, or even until much more recently than that, could have foreseen the success of its deployment, aided and abetted as it is by the decline of the West into a paralytic debility which was unthinkable a decade ago, when the principal Act was passed? This Soviet strategy, which was openly announced by Nikita Krushchev, Marshall Shukov and Adm. Gorskov, was to get at the West through its soft underbelly by encircling areas of strategic importance to it in Africa.

Order! The hon. member has already given the history and the background of this whole measure. He should try to come back to the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, what I have merely pointed out is that, 12 years ago, when the principal Act was passed, the more strict security measures which are now proposed in this amending legislation were not as necessary as today, because this has led to, not only an external onslaught on us, but also to one within our midsts. Therefore, it is essential that certain measures of secrecy surround all our security legislation. It is against this background that I want to quote what the Steyn Commission report has to say on the legislation under discussion.

*Paragraph 413 on page 188 of the Steyn report reads as follows—

In paragraph 415, on the same page, the report goes on to state—

The proposed section 11 A, as contained in clause 4 of the Bill, was designed for the express purpose of eliminating this deficiency.

The report of the Steyn Commission also states, in paragraph 261, on page 141—

I have been sketching a certain background. I should have liked to have delineated it further, but I shall content myself with saying that this last statement is obviously applicable as well to the marketing, the supply and the export of armaments beyond the country’s borders. The secrecy imposed on the manufacturers, suppliers and marketers of the armaments should also apply ipso facto to the purchasers, recipients and users thereof. As the hon. member for Yeoville was quite right in saying, we should guard against the materials, the plans, the construction methods, etc., falling into the hands of our military enemies.

One of the best methods of determining the defence capability and fighting power of one’s adversary, so that one may adapt one’s own armaments, is to get hold of his. The truth of this fact was emphasized a few years ago by America’s joy at the defection of a Russian Fox Bat pilot, with aircraft and all, to Japan. In this way we have also benefited from Russian arms which we seized from terrorists over the years.

This finally brings me to the question whether South Africa, because of the position in which it finds itself, and precisely because of the dangers pointed out by hon. members, should export arms at all. I feel that this is essential, provided certain guarantees and secrecy requirements are observed. This is essential because every country in the world that manufactures arms does so also to distribute the enormous financial burden involved.

Secondly, every country in the world that manufactures arms also uses this arms export as a political and diplomatic lever to enable it to achieve certain objects, and for this reason I think that South Africa, because of its particular position, should not do without this lever. We could only employ this lever successfully if sufficient protective measures, such as those contained in this Bill, existed. For that reason I have no hesitation in supporting it.

I should just like to express the same misgivings as the hon. member for Durban Point about the compensation aspect, an aspect which the hon. the Deputy Minister may perhaps deal with during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Benoni for a thoroughly prepared speech. It is clear that the hon. member knows precisely what matters gave rise to the arms embargo against us, and that he appreciates the need for control over arms exports which is being proposed in this Bill.

I wish to deal at once with the question which the hon. member for Benoni, further to the one asked by the hon. member for Durban Central, put to me on the compensation aspect. He asked what compensation was relevant in a situation in which the Minister were to order that armaments be delivered to the department or marketed in a certain way. The proposed section 4E provides that the Minister may order that armaments may be exported. Surely it is clear that when the marketing of armaments is undertaken through the agency of a person designated by the Minister, the question of compensation is raised by implication. Surely one cannot market something without expecting compensation for it. By implication, therefore, it is very clear that when goods are delivered to the Minister and he orders that those goods shall be marketed, the matter of compensation does arise.

On the other hand one wonders for what purposes the armaments which the Minister causes to be delivered to himself on conditions which he finds appropriate, may be utilized. Surely it is clear that one of the objects of the Bill is to ensure that, in the first place, the domestic need will be satisfied. Consequently the Minister is entitled to cause such armaments to be utilized for the purposes of either the S.A. Defence Force or another component of our security forces. One is therefore entitled to ask what compensation is relevant here. It is my standpoint, and we have obtained legal advice to this effect, that it is inherent in common law that illigitimate enrichment will not occur when a commodity is alienated, as it were, and the intention is not to prejudice any person. It is very clear from the proposed section dealing with the marketing aspect that this is not the intention.

I also wish to refer the hon. member to Die Uitleg van Wette by Steyn. The hon. member, who is normally keen on doing research, can go and look it up. In the fourth edition he will find it on page 111. From this judgment it is very clear that sufficient references exist to cause the presumption to arise that the legislature, when it deprives people of rights, does not intend there to be no compensation. I quote—

I suggest that there is a very clear intention in the preceding provision, viz. the marketing part, that there will in fact be compensation.

The hon. member for Wonderboom raised quite a few matters. He gave me notice of one or two amendments which he has in mind. His arguments sounded reasonable and we shall consider them during the Committee Stage. Finally the hon. member asked me to ensure that the permits issued in terms of the proposed section 4C(1) should be relatively unfettered so that bodies to whom permits are issued can enjoy the greatest measure of freedom in respect of negotiation, offer, tenders, publicity and marketing as far as the relevant equipment is concerned. In this connection it must be pointed out that on the one hand, while provision is made in the Bill that the export of armaments and the co-ordination thereof can be taken under control by way of notice or permit, the intention on the other hand is not to waste our internal ability and skills on unnecessary attempts to enter the export trade. However, where Armscor with its years of experience and knowledge knows where marketing possibilities are situated, it is probably fit and proper that our domestic skills, capital and investment should be aimed at that market. Consequently this Bill should not only be interpreted as being restrictive, but also as being of assistance and guidance to the entrepreneur who wishes to enter this market.

Having said that, I must add that we should simultaneously preserve an equilibrium when it comes to tenders, publicity, etc. The hon. member argued that in the proposed 11A, by means of which a restriction is placed on the furnishing of information in respect of Armscor’s own activities, as well as those of its subsidiaries, contractors and subcontractors, the word “marketing” must be considered so that that publicity can also be properly regulated. We shall make certain, in so far as it is in our power to apply quality control, that publicity and quality are reconciled and that the good name we are building up as far as our armaments exports are concerned, will be upheld. I am convinced that the hon. member will understand what we mean by maintaining an equilibrium between the various interests involved here. Otherwise I think he may feel assured that within the economic laws, specifically of supply and demand, within the objectives of the preservation of the national interest, the necessary liberties will not be ignored and will definitely be taken into consideration.

†As far as the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned, I can assure him that the export of armaments will naturally be regarded as an instrument which is supplementary to our foreign policy. Of course we shall neither sell nor deliver armaments to any country which is or may be hostile towards South Africa. At the same time, however, we must bear in mind that should we deliver armaments to a country which is friendly disposed towards South Africa and such a country loses a particular article in a skirmish, that article may eventually find its way to the terrorists who are involved in a war against us. It is hardly possible to give a guarantee that this will never happen. However, with our policy of only doing business of this kind with countries well-disposed towards us, it is hardly likely to happen, but naturally no fixed guarantee can be given. I thank the hon. member for supporting the principle of doing business with those countries well-disposed towards South Africa.

The hon. member for Yeoville obviously appreciates the problem of defining armaments in such a way that, on the one hand, we cover such items that will qualify as armaments but, on the other hand, that we do not limit and restrict private enterprise. Our dilemma, of course, is that if we use the words “intended to be” the test becomes a subjective test, in other words we shall have to pick a man’s brain to establish what he actually intended to do with a particular article and in any court case this would prove to be well-nigh impossible. The hon. member is well aware of that, but I realize the problem and I also realize that he has suggested a sufficient period of time to look at this problem. We do not wish to include every possible item, for example such as those acceptable to private enterprise and those which are non-military, etc. That is definitely not the purpose and objective of this legislation. However, the very fact that the hon. member has requested us to look at this definition during the recess shows appreciation for the problem.

Then the hon. member had a problem with the proposed new section 11A introduced by clause 4. I wish to point out to him that there is no prohibition against the disclosure of information when, for instance, it comes to a private concern doing research which may eventually lead to a development in some military field. However, there is a prohibition against any disclosure of information relating to Armscor, its subsidiaries and contractors or sub-contractors. Therefore I can argue that in the proposed subsection (2), once private enterprise—a company or a private concern—becomes involved with Armscor, there is no limitation, provided the provision is lifted under subsection (2).

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question?

Yes, certainly.

Let me put a hypothetical case of a private contractor for example doing optical research on behalf of, or for the benefit of, the corporation, work which is in itself not of a military nature but which could be used for military purposes. Is it not covered by this Act and would there then not be a restriction?

There would not be a restriction before it was being done on behalf of Armscor.

No, no it is non-military, but merely capable of use for military purposes.

I think the hon. member is perhaps confusing this with the proposed section 4D.

No, may I put the question again? If Armscor engages a firm to do research in respect of an optical matter, which is of a non-military nature but which is actually necessary, for example, for the sights of a particular type of weapon, it cannot be discussed with anybody because it is capable of being used by, and is being done on behalf of, Armscor.

I agree that that would definitely be covered by this provision, but if such a firm has that relationship with Armscor, it may approach Armscor for release or publication by the hon. the Minister or a person authorized by him. If, at one and the same time, the article concerned has a peaceful application it would, of course, be senseless to prohibit total publication, provided permission is obtained from the hon. the Minister, and provided it has the declared objective of enhancing and encouraging the potential and capability of private enterprise to enter the armaments trade with the co-operation of, and in conjunction with, Armscor. With those limitations, of course permission will be given. I hope I have satisfied the hon. member.

I am not.

He should be satisfied.

I want to deal with one final point which was raised by the hon. member for Durban Point. He questioned the advisability of fixing the price of certain armaments when they are available for trade, delivery, etc. This clause is derived from section 2(3) of the old Import and Export Control Act which dates back to 1963. The reason behind this is purely economical. With the practice of transfer pricing, which entails the sale of goods at a lower price to a subsidiary in a foreign country and the resale taking place there at an exorbitant price, this country loses foreign exchange. In other words, prescribing a fixed price has as its objective ensuring that this country does not lose foreign exchange. I think the hon. member for Yeoville saw that point. He did not raise the matter at all and I therefore take it that he is happy with it. I gave this reply to the hon. Senator Henderson in the Other Place and he was also happy with it. I assume that my reply will be conveyed to the hon. member for Durban Point who indicated that for business reasons he would not be able to be here this afternoon. I think this concludes the argument.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, our attitude to the Bill, which consists virtually of clause 1 only, was made clear during the Second Reading debate, but I want to make a few comments arising out of some of the replies which came from hon. members in the Government benches during the course of the Second Reading debate and I want again to stress the reason why we are opposed to this clause. We believe that this clause places restrictions on the Press which are totally unreasonable and unnecessary. We believe that the effect of this clause will be to allow the suppression of news which the public is entitled to know. We further believe that the powers given to the police to operate under the protection of this clause are much too wide and indeed go very much further than even those recommended by the Steyn Commission. During his Second Reading reply the hon. the Minister indicated again and again that he relied very much on the Steyn Commission in support of this legislation. Other hon. members said the same, including the hon. member for Brakpan who made the statement that the recommendations of the Steyn Commission were substantially the same as the provisions contained in the Bill. If the hon. member for Brakpan applies his mind to that statement and to the provisions of the Bill and compares them with the recommendations of the Steyn Commission, I do not believe that he can really stand by that statement.

In the first instance the recommendations of the Steyn Commission refer to “police operations”, which are very different from the provisions of this clause which refer to “any action” taken by the police. Clearly, the hon. the Minister is allowing for a much wider scope in terms of this legislation than there is in the question of “police operations” as referred to by the Steyn Commission. If one reads the proposed amendments on page 193 of the Steyn Commission’s report where it suggests a new section 27(c) of the Police Act, they provide the following—

That is a very clear definition. I repeat—

Very clear, but very difficult to prove.

Well, Sir, in the Second Reading the hon. the Minister kept telling me that he was going by what a judge had said. A judge drew up this measure, and I think he did so with a very clear purpose. I do not believe that the Steyn Commission wanted this legislation to have the wide scope the hon. the Minister is giving it. As I have said, there is a very wide difference between the Steyn Commission’s recommendations and the provisions contained in this clause. We know, of course, that the hon. the Minister, for example, has on two occasions, first in the Other Place and then also in the House during the Second Reading, made very clear that the words “any action” could include detention and arrest. That makes the scope of these provisions wider still. Quite clearly, this too is something that was not in the mind of the Steyn Commission at the time it made its recommendations. I believe it is quite wrong for the Government to rest upon the recommendations of the Steyn Commission as being the justification for this. Quite clearly, this measure goes far beyond the recommendations of the Steyn Commission.

We take the view that co-operation between the police and the Press and consultation between the police and the Press could take place and could achieve much the same purpose the hon. the Minister is trying to achieve. This is a point I made in my Second Reading speech. It is not necessary to come with legislation of this nature which has such far-reaching effects on the operation of the Press and on the right of the public to know what is taking place. During his reply to the Second Reading, the hon. the Minister repeated much of what he told us during the discussion under his Vote when he told us that the relationship between the police and the Press had not broken down, that it was in fact very good and that he had set up machinery to see to it that that relationship was kept in a reasonable state and that the police and the Press would co-operate. We welcome that. That, in fact, is how it should be working. We believe, that, with a responsible Press—and I believe that there has been no evidence that we have an irresponsible Press in South Africa—with a Press that is a South African Press …

You have not read the report.

The hon. the Minister says that I have not read the report, but he must give us some examples. These are South African newspapers we are dealing with here and there is no reason why any South African newspaper would want to take any action that would harm the general security of South Africa. At the same time it is clearly the function and duty of a newspaper to publish news, as it is the right of the public to hear news and to be able to read news. We believe that this could probably be regulated by better co-ordination of activities between the police and the Press and by a better understanding between the police and the Press on these matters. Instead of that, the hon. the Minister comes with a clause which provides for a blanket ban on reporting police activities in respect of any anti-terrorist activities, save with the permission of the Minister or the Commissioner of Police. As such, we find this clause totally obnoxious and totally unacceptable.

We believe, in the first instance, that it is going against the interests of the general public. We also believe that it places newspapers in an impossible position. Newspapers are placed in the impossible position of having to decide, in terms of this clause, when the police are engaged in activities relating to terrorism. It places newspapers in the further impossible position that, if there is any error of judgment on their part in reporting police activities which might relate to terrorists, massive maximum penalties can be imposed in that regard. I know that the hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading said that the provisions contained in this clause would be selectively applied. That is hardly reassuring. It is nice to know that he is not going to go all out to apply it. It is nice to know that he is going to try to apply it selectively. At the same time we are dealing with a Bill which, once it is passed, will have the force of law. However much we might like to hear the assurances of the hon. the Minister, it is not our function as a Parliament and as an Opposition considering legislation to be influenced simply by the hon. the Minister’s statement that he will apply it selectively.

I am not giving any assurances, because you do not even want to consider them.

Do not sulk.

The hon. the Minister must not get all coy. He would be in exactly the same position we are in if he were sitting in an Opposition bench. The effect of this clause will still be to impose a black-out on matters which, without this provision, would be normally reported and which the public is entitled to know about. We believe that, notwithstanding the assurances of the hon. the Minister, the Bill remains a thoroughly bad Bill. This clause is a thoroughly bad clause which does a disservice to South Africa and we shall therefore vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, before crossing swords with the hon. member for Musgrave on clause 1 of the Bill, let us just consider once again what clause 1 is all about. Clause 1 is more or less the entire Bill.

Very good!

Surely it basically concerns only one thing, and that is control over information which the Press may publish in the event of terrorist activities. What does the hon. member for Musgrave say, however? The hon. member for Musgrave quotes from the report of the Steyn Commission in support of his point of view. I should now like the hon. member for Musgrave please to listen to me. Does he accept the full content of the report of the Steyn Commission? He shakes his head. So he does not accept it, then? The hon. member tells this House that he does not accept the report of the Steyn Commission, but he uses that very same report to shoot down the hon. the Minister.

No, you are using it.

Now wait a bit. We have to let logic prevail somewhere. Surely the hon. member is also a legal man. After all, one cannot say one rejects something on the basis of the Koran if one does not believe in the Koran? [Interjections.] I do not wish to embarrass the hon. member. Why should I? Therefore as far as that aspect is concerned, I shall leave the hon. member at that.

The hon. member also said, however, that relations between the Press and the police were not what they should be. Moreover, during the Second Reading debate the hon. member did not accept the assurance given by the hon. the Minister. Does the hon. member not occasionally also read newspapers that say favourable things about the police?

Of course.

The hon. member says “of course”. Does the hon. member agree with me that there was friction and dissatisfaction at the Silverton incident? The Press felt it had had a raw deal and the police thought there had not been proper liaison. But what does the hon. member say about the Carlton Hotel case? I should like the hon. member to listen carefully. After all, we are debating matters in the Committee Stage. What did the Press say after the Carlton Hotel episode? Did the Press not change its tune then and say there had indeed been liaison then?

Now he keeps quiet.

Did the Press not say on that occasion that there had indeed been liaison, and did they not say that they were satisfied? Does the hon. member agree with me? It is true, is it not? After all, the hon. the Minister created a new instrument, or reactivated an existing instrument to establish liaison, and everybody said they were satisfied. But the hon. member will not admit it. [Interjections.] Wait a moment. Some of the newspapers that support the hon. member then maintained a deathly silence. I think the hon. member made a good point when he said the public had the right to know. On that we are all agreed. I wish to put another question to the hon. member, however. [Interjections.] I agree with that and the hon. the Minister agrees too. However, is the public also entitled to protection?

Of course.

Now comes the crunch. If, then, the public is entitled to protection, what does that hon. member put first: The fact that a man should have the right to know by way of the Press, or the fact that a man should have the right to be protected against terrorism? [Interjections.] I put a question to the hon. member during the Second Reading debate. I said the hon. member should take time to think it over and then state during the Committee Stage what he would tell his voters. Is he going to tell his voters that he regards freedom of the Press, as he sees it, as being more important than the safety of his own voters? The hon. member did not answer me, however.

That is not the choice.

The hon. member for Pinelands says: “That is not the choice.” But what did the hon. member for Pinelands do when Black people walked along the street among his voters? This was merely in the street, on their way from the station. [Interjections.] He wrote a letter and he “moaned”.

That is not true.

Yes, it is true. I do not wish to create embarrassment for the hon. member for Pinelands now. It is unnecessary.

I think the hon. members for Pinelands and Musgrave will agree with me that the hon. the Minister of Police, the Commissioner of Police and the Force have an obligation towards each and every one of us and that we have an obligation towards each and everyone of our voters. This House has an obligation towards the entire South Africa and all its inhabitants to see to it that they enjoy the maximum protection, particularly against insurgence and terrorism, against the man who goes around at night and perhaps sticks a limpet bomb to a petrol installation or perhaps to the front door of an hon. member. This is the sort of thing in respect of which this hon. Minister is asking us to pass legislation so that he can enable his Police Force to prevent people being tipped off through the medium of the Press before the police have completed their task, in other words, before the police have completed their investigation. After all, this is basically all we are asking.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member how the public was protected in so wide a manner before this particular Bill was introduced?

That is a terribly easy question. I am now going to explain the matter in detail so that even the hon. member will understand.

I am a slow thinker. Be careful.

The hon. member is not so quick on the uptake, either; that is why he asks. Surely it is the duty and the task of the hon. Minister involved to review existing legislation from time to time. If he becomes convinced that the public is not being sufficiently protected, then surely he has to adapt the legislation.

The hon. member is evading the question.

The hon. member cannot tell me that one should not adapt legislation for the simple reason that all legislation has always been perfect. We are not dealing with the Ten Commandments here. We are dealing here with security legislation.

Then the hon. member for Musgrave says the hon. the Minister should not be so nasty since, if the hon. the Minister had sat in the Opposition benches, he would have argued in the same way. Surely one does not oppose security legislation merely because one is in the Opposition benches. That is what the hon. member said. I wish to ask the hon. member: What about the other Opposition parties? They agree with the hon. the Minister that this security legislation should be adapted. The hon. member, however, is saying that he is merely arguing that way because he sits in the Opposition benches and that if the hon. the Minister had sat there, he would also have argued that way.

I do not think the hon. member for Musgrave has put forward a convincing argument that we should not carry through this clause. Consequently, I should like to say that the hon. member for Musgrave ought really to withdraw his objection to this clause, because I think the hon. member for Musgrave knows in his heart of hearts that this is not a matter of restrictions on the Press. It is a matter of greater protection for the public as such.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria East repeated a number of arguments here. He made, with all due respect, no fresh contribution to the debate. He repeated arguments that had been used previously, arguments with which he played off the protection of the public against the right to know. He did not even attempt to indicate that there is an essential conflict between the public’s right to know and the protection of the public against terrorism. He did not furnish a single example or advance even one argument to indicate that there was an essential conflict between these two aspects. We have, time and again, asked for examples of situations where it was so essential to the police that publication should not take place; we asked for such examples during the course of this debate, during the Second Reading, and again now, and there have also been requests for examples in the Other Place.

Does the hon. member wish to convey the information to the terrorists?

The hon. member is saying a very interesting thing now. It is a very interesting remark he has just made. He says I could convey the information to the terrorists. The hon. member for Pretoria East should rather go and read the Bill. In terms of this Bill one is prohibited from conveying anything to a terrorist—neither I, nor the hon. member, nor anyone else. It does not prohibit any person from conveying anything to any other person, either by word of mouth or in writing. It prohibits publication. The hon. member and his colleagues should consequently get away from the idea that this Bill makes any contribution to the protection of State secrets. There is no such thing. Furthermore, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the confidentiality of operational plans and the safe custody of such plans. It has nothing to do with that. It merely prohibits publication. It prohibits publication which, in 99% of the cases, takes place after everything has already been taken care of.

The hon. the Minister referred to one example. I must add that it was, moreover, purely hypothetical. He mentioned one example of where it might possibly be desirable that the accomplices of one particular terrorist should not know that he has been arrested by the police. The hon. the Minister has given us only a single example. I wish to suggest that there is much room for cooperation with the Press with a view to delaying publication or preventing it altogether in cases such as these.

I also wish to say once again that the whole tenor of the report of the Steyn Commission indicates that there is much room for co-operation, and that there is also considerable room for improvement. I wish to point out once again that this legislation suggests that co-operation is so impossible that it is necessary for the Government to use this big stick with which to beat the Press. That is the object of this legislation; nothing more. [Interjections.]

I just wish to refer to a very simple example in connection with the recent events here in Cape Town. Think of the whole situation at Elsies River, for example.

Tell us a little more about Elsies River.

I wish the hon. the Minister would tell us more.

The hon. the Minister knows everything that I know about Elsies River.

You are an expert on Elsies River, are you not? Tell us about it.

I know the hon. the Minister knows exactly what I know about Elsies River. [Interjections.] In any event, we hope that the hon. the Minister knows everything. [Interjections.]

I just wish to point out one thing. I wonder what the Press would actually have been able to report in connection with what happened at Ravensmead, at Elsies River and elsewhere throughout the country if the provisions of the Bill we are dealing with, had already been in force. I do so merely because so many of those activities could fall within the definition of terrorist activities in the Terrorism Act. Consequently I should like to know which of those activities the Press would have been allowed to report on. At the same time I also wish to know from the hon. the Minister what dangerous effects any of these newspaper reports have so far had on the country or the State. There were certain reports in connection with police action that were, under certain circumstances, excessive, that exceeded certain bounds and that were undisciplined. However, what damage have they in fact done? They merely exposed certain actions which, while being prejudicial to certain individuals, were to the benefit of others. They also create the opportunity for the hon. the Minister in this House, as well as for the public, to raise objections so that the situation can in fact be rectified.

There were interesting reports about events at Elsies River, some of which I personally witnessed. In reply to a question I was advised by the hon. the Minister earlier today that a member of the SAP riot squad had lost his fire-arm during the operations at Elsies River that day, but that it was subsequently recovered.

Who told you that?

That was the hon. member’s reply to my question.

Who prompted you to put the question?

No one prompted me. I put the question of my own accord.

Then how did you know about the whole business? [Interjections.]

I put the question to the hon. the Minister. In his reply he said that the specific policeman had lost his fire-arm there, but that it was subsequently recovered. I wish to make the point now that a situation of this nature is indicative of a perilous degree of poor planning. It is indicative of poor planning or a lack of discipline in the handling of that specific situation. I think it is necessary and that it is in the interests of every policeman as well as in the interests of every member of the public, that people should know when such things go wrong, so that improvements can be effected. Concealment of facts has never yet helped anybody. Every hon. member on that side of the House should have learned that lesson from the Information scandal, and I hope the hon. the Minister has also learned a lesson in this regard.

The domestic activities of the Police Force, particularly in situations such as these, do not have much to do with secrecy. They are not altogether comparable to the actions of the Defence Force in the operational area. Surely there are other means of keeping plans of intended operations secret apart from a prohibition of publication. I do not think that this Bill makes any contribution whatsoever towards ensuring security in South Africa. I think it is very obviously directed at the Press and that as such, it is potentially harmful.

Mr. Chairman, I really think I owe it to the Committee to make a reply.

In the first place I wish to say that I really cannot understand how the minds of the hon. members of the official Opposition work. In the debate on the previous Bill, which took place within the past hour, the Opposition agreed with the Government that information applicable to the production of armaments should not be published because our country finds itself in a dangerous situation. They had no objection to the Bill introduced by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence, but the moment the Minister of Police says that he wishes to cause those armaments to be used against certain people who wish to endanger the safety of the State by violent means, the official Opposition says that we must disclose that information, and consequently they are fighting this Bill tooth and nail. Those hon. members say that we should not disclose the information at all when the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence causes a machine gun, which can be a sophisticated weapon, to be manufactured, but they want us to disclose the information when he makes that weapon available to the police through the agency of Armscor, and we use it against a terrorist. How do their minds work?

Their minds do not work.

It is clear to me that their minds do not work at all. Surely we are now wasting our time with absurdities.

That is a very bad analogy.

No, it is not a very bad analogy. I am convinced that I am correct. Those hon. members have no appreciation for this whatsoever.

I wish to point out a second absurdity. Those hon. members have a campaign against the Press on their brain. They say that everything which is contained in this Bill is aimed at the Press, and the more I tell them that the Press and I are not at loggerheads, the less they wish to accept it. Do they not wish to accept anything positive in this life? Do they want the Press and I to be at loggerheads so that they can again reproach me by saying that we are? We are not at loggerheads, and we are co-operating pleasantly. There are members of the Press who are acting in a highly responsible way with regard to this Bill. One need only read this morning’s leading article in Beeld. I could point to other examples as well. But that is not what the official Opposition wants. After all, they do not wish success to be achieved or co-operation to be accomplished. They do not wish to see South Africans prepared to support one another in a security situation. If that happens, they are unhappy about it. At all costs they now want there to be a quarrel between the Ministry of Police and the S.A. Police on the one hand and the Press on the other—a quarrel which does not exist. Cannot we get the necessary sense of responsibility from the official Opposition to at least be able to appreciate the situation which exists?

Let us take a third example. The serious objection of the official Opposition to this legislation is, inter alia, the fact that people can be detained without their detention being disclosed. This is happening in terms of the Terrorism Act, for this provision has nothing to do with any other legislation …

That is not correct.

Of course it is correct.

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

No, wait a minute. I shall reply to your question later. If the hon. member will remind me, I shall reply to it later.

In the Second Reading debate I stated that a person could leave a country, that he could go to Angola, that he could go to Libya, that he could go to East Germany and also that he could go to Moscow to be trained there. He has left, and his people here know that he has left for that purpose. There is not only one; large numbers of them have left for that purpose. And not a word is said about it. No one in South Africa is asking: But why is this not being published in the Press? No one is reproaching the Government for this not being published in the Press, but the movement that man returns, and hurls his bomb and shoots and kills policemen, then this must be made public. Then we must tell everyone: This man has returned. Here we now have a highly trained man, he is engaged in this kind of operation and it must be disclosed that he is being detained, why he is being detained and where. In addition we must also tell all his friends that he is now in detention. How is one to understand this?

Then the same official Opposition comes forward and states through two of their members, the hon. member for Hillbrow and, if I remember correctly, the hon. member for Orange Grove, that they have no objection to the matters specified in paragraph 421, which include arrests. All the provisions are covered here, viz. armaments, operations, strategy, arrests—the lot. However, this must only happen during an operation. But the hon. member for Green Point says that these operations are not comparable to Defence Force operations. He says the circumstances are different.

Where does the official Opposition expect the line to be drawn in regard to what is an operation and what is not? After all, we are engaged in a highly sophisticated war, but unless we fire off cannons at one another, it is not an operation. While we are involved with highly sophisticated armaments in sophisticated circumstances, this is suddenly not comparable with a Defence Force operation, and for that reason it must be possible to publish information concerning it. But here, two hon. members of the official Opposition are saying that they do not wish to have these things published. Consequently I ask this question again: How is one to reconcile what those hon. members are saying if there is any possibility that their minds are in fact functioning?

The hon. member for Green Point is constantly asking for examples. The other hon. members are constantly doing so as well. I said specifically that I did not wish to become unnecessarily involved in the finer details here, because these are matters which can be discussed amicably and with a great measure of confidentiality with the Press Union. Let us furnish only examples which are general knowledge, just to have them placed on record. I have already given the example where more than one person was involved in an operation. Let us take the attack on Soekmekaar for example, where, say, three people took part in the operation and attacked the police station. The police instituted an investigation and ultimately arrested accused No. 1 in the Lydenburg area. From thence their information led them to, say, the Nelspruit area to arrest the second accused.

In Houghton.

It could even happen in Houghton.

Their information then leads them to accept that the remaining culprits are in Pietersburg. But as we proceed, we publish. If we catch the man in Lydenburg this morning, we must have it published in the evening newspaper that he has been caught, for if we do not do this it is after all a restriction of Press freedom. And if we catch the next man in Nelspruit, we must have it in the morning newspapers the next morning, otherwise it is a restriction of Press freedom. Do hon. members see how ridiculous this is? Surely the hon. member is also a jurist. Does he see how absurd it is if one wishes to extend the analogy in this way? This is precisely what has happened in practice, and could happen again. For that reason I am saying, as the responsible Minister, that I am going to help the police to prevent this from happening so easily again in future.

I wish to mention another example. Let us take the type of weapons. After all, we are not fast asleep in South Africa. We must look after ourselves, and we are doing so. We manufacture and purchase weapons, but we are not going to tell every Tom, Dick and Harry what weapons we are manufacturing and purchasing.

No one expects that.

The hon. member for Green Point wants us to publish the details if we use any of these weapons—the disclosure of this information could be sensitive or the weapons could be sophisticated, for whatever reason—because if we do not do so, it is a restriction of Press freedom. I am not prepared to do that. This is an example of the reasons for this legislation.

I shall give another example so that there will be a few on record.

Would that not be covered under the Official Secrets Act?

I have replied to that in full, but the hon. member was not in the House. He can read my Second Reading speech. I took some trouble to reply to this in considerable detail. The hon. member could also read the relevant pages in the Steyn Report. The report is very interesting and enlightening on section 3 of the Official Secrets Act. Consequently I do not wish to reply to that question now.

As a third example I shall refer to strategy. For example an operation may last from one to four weeks. At present there are circumstances in South Africa which could develop into an operation which could last longer than a few hours, and even a few days or weeks. Such things can happen at any moment in South Africa. The police are adopting a certain strategy to cope with the problem. But it is not a Defence Force operation. No, it is after all the police officers who are doing precisely the same thing in practice, but because the one is wearing a blue uniform and the other a khaki uniform, it is not an operation. We are probably playing cowboys and crooks. This strategy in the operation must be published. The hon. member for Green Point asked for it. That is why I say again that I cannot understand their rationale. One moment two hon. members of that party are saying that these are things which should not be published, but the next the hon. member for Green Point rises and says that these things should be published. Hon. members can therefore see where this leads us. Therefore I say that, under these circumstances, I am not prepared to concede that this legislation is not essential.

I wish to raise a second-last point in regard to the hon. member for Green Point. He asked what reports on events in Elsies River would have been prejudicial to the State because they had been published. No one said that. What does the schools boycott as such have to do with terrorism? What has the meat boycott as such have to do with terrorism? Why are these matters, which have nothing on earth to do with terrorism, being dragged in here? And this is not the first time that it has been done. I wish to ask hon. members, some of whom are after all responsible people, and I wish to accept that all of them are responsible …

Those fall under the definition in the proposed subsection (2).

… why they are dragging in absurd examples of this kind, of school children who are doing certain things, under the Terrorism Act. Surely this is the kind of argument which people badly want to be raised for the purposes of providing adverse publicity against South Africa. There is no other reason. I am not saying that the hon. member deliberately did so for that reason this afternoon, but these are things which are seized upon. They have nothing on earth to do with this legislation or with the Terrorism Act. This legislation refers only to matters and operations which occur under the Terrorism Act. For that reason the hon. member need not put such a question to me. Those things have nothing on earth to do with this legislation. There is no restriction on publication as long as the events have nothing to do with these specific circumstances.

For the sake of the hon. members for Green Point and Musgrave—they are very concerned about information being concealed and withheld from the public, and they have other worries as well—I want to repeat what was said earlier. I said in good faith to the hon. member for Houghton—she realizes that it was said in that spirit—that I was unable to give any assurances in this regard. However, I do wish to confirm one matter on a serious note. This need not be regarded as an assurance either. The hon. members said that in the past they had been disappointed in assurances that had been given, and consequently I want to tell them that I cannot give them any assurances with this legislation. But I think hon. members can accept one thing. I wish to refer them to paragraph 185 of the Steyn Commission report, to which I have already referred in my Second Reading speech. In this connection I told hon. members that this legislation would be applied in the spirit and attitude in which Prof. Cillié testified before the commission when he said—

This is a sound principle, and I think that if it is possible to apply legislation on this basis in future, we should not have too many problems as regards some of the points of criticism which hon. members on the other side of the House raised.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has asked why we keep dragging the question of the school boycotts and the meat strikes into this discussion. He said the Bill before the House has nothing to do with that at all. I am amazed to hear that from the hon. the Minister. He knows that people have been arrested from the time the school boycotts began and the meat strike and other events took place in the Western Cape and elsewhere. They have not been arrested in terms of the provisions of the Riotous Assemblies Act or on a normal charge of committing public violence, but in terms of section 22 of the General Law Amendment Act.

Where does that fit into this Bill?

The General Law Amendment Act is the “little” Terrorism Act.

Where do you find that in the Bill? [Interjections.]

I am aware that the clause which referred to section 22 of the General Law Amendment Act has been removed from the Bill, but it is my submission—and this has been borne out by legal people with whom I have discussed this— that the definition of “terrorism”, as contained in section 2 of the Terrorism Act of 1967, would include the activities of people arrested in terms of section 22 of the General Law Amendment Act. [Interjections.] Is that not correct?

Why do you bring this in when you know it is not in the Bill?

But it is contained in the Bill by virtue of the larger circumference, if one likes, of section 2 of the Terrorism Act which goes much wider than section 22 of the General Law Amendment Act. That is known as the “Little Terrorism Act.” People could be held for 14 days and thereafter they could only be held if a Judge in Chambers agreed that the Commissioner of Police had advanced sufficiently good reasons for the holding of those people for a longer period. Under what law were the school boycotters arrested? They were arrested in terms of section 22 of the General Law Amendment Act, and therefore we are fully entitled to believe that the hon. the Minister is going to use the powers that he is now taking in terms of this Bill, to include people who have been arrested in terms of section 22 of the General Law Amendment Act. Only today I received a reply to a written question informing me that 156 people are now being held in terms of section 22 of the General Law Amendment Act. It is my contention that …

Who told you that?

You did.

Did I tell you?

Yes.

I only answered one question today.

Well, I received a written answer.

From the expert on Elsies River?

No, it was a written answer from the hon. the Minister. I can show it to the hon. the Minister.

Oh, a written answer. I recall it now.

I therefore cannot understand the hon. the Minister’s amazement that we should discuss it under this clause. The hon. the Minister himself has said that arrests under the Terrorism Act will be included in the purview of this Bill, that after this Bill becomes law nobody will be able to publish the names of people who have been arrested under the Terrorism Act. As far as I am concerned, that includes section 22 of the General Law Amendment Act. Would the hon. the Minister like to explain that away? The country has had explosions and attempts at sabotage and various other things happening for a number of years. Can the hon. the Minister also tell us, therefore, how come he and his department have managed to get along without laws like this in the past? The relations between the Press and the Police have also been very good indeed. Surely the hon. the Minister will admit that an appeal by the police to the Press not to publish anything which might in any way be harmful to the investigation being made into acts of terrorism will be honoured by the Press. I do not think the hon. the Minister has produced a single example of where the Press has in fact interfered with the investigations into terrorist activities. The hon. the Minister must, however, admit that section 22 of the General Law Amendment Act falls within the broader ambit of section 6 of the Terrorism Act.

What is your authority for that?

Well, the definition under section 2 is very wide. Has the hon. the Minister forgotten that? There are about 12 paragraphs to subsection (2) of section 2.

I know. I have got it with me.

Well, let the hon. the Minister look at it.

Where do you find any mention of section 22 in the Bill or in the Act? What is your authority for it? I am just asking. Quote me your authority.

One does not find disinvestment specifically mentioned in the Act. Yet, according to legal opinion, anyone who promotes disinvestment would fall within …

Well, quote me your legal opinion. Then I can consider it.

Well, there is John Dugard’s book on Human Rights. He is Professor of Law at the University of the Witwatersrand and he is on record as saying that.

Oh, no, please.

Does the hon. the Minister think that people arrested under the “Little Terrorism Act”, which is section 22, do not fall within the wide definition of “terrorism”, which covers a vast field? Firstly, it includes—

That, surely, covers a stone-throwing schoolchild. The definition further includes—

That, I would say, would include a bus boycott or people stopping other people from boarding buses. The definition also includes—

What do bus boycotts, meat strikes, etc., do if they do not create general disorder or dislocation? As the hon. member for Musgrave points out, how at the moment of an act being committed do the police decide whether those acts fall or do not fall within the broad general definition of “terrorism”, a definition ranging from paragraphs (a) to (1) and covering every imaginable type of disturbance? Paragraph (g) reads—

That is stone throwing all right. Another paragraph reads—

So one can go on. I cannot understand it. Paragraph (k) reads—

Does that not include bus boycotts?

With what purpose?

Who can tell?

How can the newspaperman on the spot decide on that?

The Act provides in section 2(1)(a)—

I should think that a lot of these people have that intention and would therefore fall under that definition. Then, if they are arrested under section 22, I believe that the hon. the Minister would be able to use these strictures against the Press should they go ahead and publish those facts. That is why we think this is a very big incursion into the freedom of the Press.

Mr. Chairman, before I react to the hon. member for Houghton, I want to come back to the remark that the hon. member for Musgrave made with regard to the difference between the section contained in the clause and the proposed section in the Steyn report. In the first instance he draws a distinction between “police operations” and “police action”.

Is there a difference, or not?

I think that that is an exercise in semantics. The two are the same.

*Then we come to the words “of use to terrorists”, or in Afrikaans “wat van nut kan wees vir terroriste”. The situation is that according to the section, as it is worded at present, one may not publish information in connection with the police force itself, or with regard to the person or group of persons against whom any action is being taken, nor with regard to the joint action of the police, the Railway Police and the Defence Force. Therefore, the Bill accepts that these three activities are of use to people who practise terrorism. That is why I say that the provisions of the Bill are essentially the same as those recommended in the report of the Steyn Commission. However, I want to go further. The hon. member for East London City said that the Terrorism Act should not be referred to.

I did not say that.

Then it was the hon. member for Hillbrow who argued that there should be a different definition of terrorism. I am sure it was the hon. member for East London City who advocated this. However, why should this be so? How can one have sound legislation if every Act defines terrorism in a different way? Sound legislation that refers to terrorism, should always refer back to the definition of terrorism under the existing Terrorism Act.

In conclusion, this brings me to the hon. member for Houghton who has left the Chamber. She made her point and then she left. She did not even wait to see what the reply would be. She does not take into account the very important reference in section 2 of the Terrorism Act to a person who does something of this kind with a view to endangering the maintenance of law and order in the Republic or a part thereof. Mention is made of certain presumptions, and the accused can overthrow those presumptions merely by proving beyond any reasonable doubt that he did not intend to have a detrimental effect on law and order. I do not think there is any substance in the arguments of the hon. members of the official Opposition, and I think we can go ahead and accept this clause.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! I want to draw hon. members attention to the fact that the principles in this Bill have already been discussed fully during the Second Reading debate. I have permitted more discussions of this nature during the Committee Stage than the Chairmen before me have done in the past. From now on I am going to restrict hon. members to the particulars of each clause, in terms of the rules that govern the Committee Stage. The hon. member for Green Point may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to try to keep to …

Order! The hon. member must not “try” to keep to it. He must keep to my ruling, because otherwise I shall interrupt him.

Mr. Chairman, I shall restrict myself to the details and the practical implementation of this provision.

With reference to a certain subsection of section 2 of the Terrorism Act, the hon. member for Brakpan said that if someone is charged in terms of section 2 of the Terrorism Act …

Order! On what particulars of this clause is the hon. member speaking now?

Sir, I

I am asking the hon. member what aspect of the clause he is discussing.

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to indicate …

Order! No, I am asking the hon. member what particulars of this clause he is discussing.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like a chance to reply. I am trying to indicate that it will be practically impossible for a Pressman to know beforehand what will fall under the description that is referred to in the Terrorism Act.

Order! I think that argument has already been advanced.

Mr. Chairman, this is the only …

Order! The hon. member is repeating his arguments, and as the hon. member knows, the rule is that arguments may not be repeated.

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to show that it will be impossible for the Pressman, the police officer or the hon. the Minister who grants authorization, to interpret this proposed section properly, due to the wide definition in the Bill.

Order! I must draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that I think that in respect of this clause the Chair has been more than reasonable with regard to allowing hon. members on both sides of this House to discuss the principle, particularly members of the official Opposition. I think the arguments that the hon. member is using now, have also been used before. It is in fact a rule of the Committee Stage that the purpose of the Committee Stage is to dot the i’s and cross the t’s and I think that since opportunities have been given with regard to the principle, we must now restrict ourselves to the real purpose of the Committee Stage.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect I want to indicate that if we cannot go into this aspect of the legislation, then it is in fact not permitted to discuss how the proposed section will work, and I have always been under the impression …

Order! The working of the clause is discussed in the Third Reading. The hon. member may discuss it in the Third Reading.

Very well, Mr. Chairman, then I shall say nothing more.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton referred very clearly to section 2 of the Terrorism Act and endeavoured to persuade the hon. the Minister that the provisions in that clause were so wide that they would inevitably cover people who had been detained in terms of section 22 of the General Laws Amendment Act, No. 62 of 1966. Mr. Speaker …

Order! I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that we are not busy with the Second Reading now.

I do appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. The fact that I called you “Mr. Speaker”, was purely a Freudian slip.

In response to this the hon. member for Brakpan seemed to suggest that this definition was not too wide.

Order! I think the hon. member for Brakpan, as a result of the leniency of the Chair, also made a Second Reading speech and also discussed more the principle of this Bill. I would not say that it would now be apt for me to allow the hon. member to reply on a speech which dealt more with the principle than anything else.

In terms of my understanding of the principle established in the Second Reading, this was to the effect that there should not be publication of certain things. What we are attempting to suggest in the Committee Stage is that, having established the principle of restricting publication, we now wish to try to limit the extent over which the restriction of publication can take place. We are attempting to point out to the hon. the Minister …

That is exactly what you have in the Bill.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the hon. the Minister is actually attempting to take over your position in the Chair.

Order! I think the hon. member can leave it to the Chair to hold its own.

Mr. Chairman, I accept that wholeheartedly. The point we have to make, I believe, in terms of the extent to which this restriction on publication covers various aspects of our South African life, relates, as the hon. member for Houghton said, to all these various definitions in section 2 of the Terrorism Act.

Order! I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to Standing Order No. 63, which reads explicitly—

The hon. member is again dealing with the principle of the Bill. The hon. member for Houghton was not in the House when I gave my ruling. I pointed out that I had allowed more than sufficient discussion on the principle of the Bill. The hon. member for East London North may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should just like to discuss your ruling with you, Mr. Chairman, in order to establish clearly, for my own benefit, what the principle contained in this Bill is. As I understood the principle, it was the restriction of publication. As far as section 2 of the Terrorism Act is concerned, I would have thought that this was a detail of how that restriction of publication is to take place and, as such, would be a fitting subject for discussion during the Committee Stage of this Bill. If you agree with me on this, Sir …

Order! No, I do not agree with the hon. member. I do not believe it is necessary for any hon. member to point out to me certain things purely in an effort to side-step the provisions of Standing Order No. 63, and to try to do so by attempting to discuss with me what the principle is or not. The rule in this respect is very clear. Hon. members have to discuss the details of the Bill now, and I should urge them to abide by my ruling from now on.

The specific issue which I therefore wish to discuss is the phrase: “With intent to endanger the maintenance of law and order in the Republic.”

Very clever.

That being the case, what I should like to know is how any newspaper editor is to put himself into the mind of the person who has committed an act and then to decide what the intent was of that particular violator of the law—let us put it that way—or encourager of boycotts or institutor of strikes. How is the newspaper editor to be aware …

Order! I think enough has been said now on this point for everybody to be quite aware of it.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask which hon. member in these benches actually referred to this?

Order! I am not here to give reasons or explanations for my rulings.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I wonder if you appreciate that what the hon. member for East London North is actually dealing with now is not just the definition of terrorism, as contained in section 2 of the Terrorism Act, but the requirement of that definition that particular conduct be committed with a particular intent. That has not been dealt with yet.

Order! The hon. member for East London North may proceed. I shall listen to what he is saying.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was referring to the portion of this clause which regards intent. Let us try now to put ourselves into the situation of a newspaper editor.

What portion are you referring to now?

I am referring to section 2(1)(a) of the Terrorism Act, where it is said: “With intent to endanger the maintenance of law and order in the Republic …”. If certain acts are committed, it is stated, they are terroristic acts. This is fine in regard to this particular Act, but when applied to the clause under consideration, in this Bill which is in front of us today, it does without doubt create very great problems, because the newspaper editor has to decide, in connection with any item which he wishes to report in his newspaper, what intent the perpetrator of that particular action had in mind when he committed or created that specific incident. Let us take a practical example. We have the practical example at the moment, here in the Western Cape, of the Workers’ Union having gone on strike as a result of certain problems in connection with red meat. How is a newspaper editor to know, in regard to that strike, what the intent is of the people who are on strike?

In this situation a newspaper editor will, in fact, have to put himself into the place of a court of law. Before he can publish anything he is going to have to make that very decision, i.e. whether the act which he is now going to report in his newspaper will be construed, by a court of law, as being an act of terror in terms of the Terrorism Act. If he makes a mistake in this regard, if he wrongly interprets, shall we say, the state of mind of the perpetrator of the act, he is in terms of this Bill going to be liable to penalties which are, without doubt, extremely severe. He shall be liable on conviction to a fine of up to, but not exceeding, R15 000 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding eight years, or to both such fine and such imprisonment. Therefore, in making this decision the editor is placed, in terms of this Bill, in a most unfortunate position, because in making the decision his entire future life can be placed in jeopardy.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, to your relief I have actually finished my speech. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think the hon. member should remain seated for the rest of the afternoon. I shall abide by your decision, Mr. Chairman, and I shall reply in full to the specific arguments which the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for East London North raised during the Third Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

In other words, what I propose to do, is to bring this provision within the confines of what has been recommended by the Steyn Commission, which covers all the aspects relating to terrorism to which the hon. the Minister has referred and which we agree are covered by “terrorism” itself. With this amendment I hope to remove from this measure the broad spectrum of section 2(2) of the Terrorism Act. Hon. members on this side of the House particularly have argued that this section 2(2), in terms of which a person can be arrested, is too broad. Section 2(2) of the Terrorism Act provides, inter alia, with regard to acts that are committed—

Once the commission of that act has had such a result, how on earth, with great respect, can any newspaperman on the spot or any editor who has to decide whether to print the report or not, decide, in the heat of what is happening at that particular stage, whether the person concerned, if he is arrested, has had or was likely to have had the intention to commit an offence which would have any of the results contained in paragraphs (a) to (1), such as embarrassing the administration, restricting the free movement of people, etc? We are against terrorism and we shall help the Government to fight terrorism on all fronts.

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but as far as I can decipher his amendment, he has moved …

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for my hasty writing.

… that “on page 3, in line 12, after the word ‘activities’, to delete T967’”. What does that mean?

Mr. Chairman, I have moved—

In other words, I have moved to delete the words “as referred to in section 2 of the Terrorism Act, 1967 (Act No. 83 of 1967).

That is not what is written in the amendment the hon. member has given to me.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I think quickly, but I write slowly. [Interjections.]

Order! I would say that out of respect for the Chair, the hon. member should hand in amendments of which the wording is complete. The hon. member may proceed.

Since section 2 is so broad, they cannot make a decision. In those circumstances it is going to be impossible for the Press actually to decide whether to print the information or not. Because of these very heavy penalties, we are imposing a terrible burden on the Press.

I now wish to move on to one other point. In relation to this the hon. the Minister has—and I commend him for it—appointed a public relations officer like Lt.-Col. Mellet, who is doing a fairly good job in the sense that he is a newspaperman, brought up in the newspaper world. As such he understands what the newspaper people require. I think it is a very commendable appointment and I think he is doing a fairly good job. Many of the incidents thus far reported have, I see, been reported fairly, and I think the public have had a good insight into what has taken place. Why can we not just continue in this way? Why can the public relations officer not continue with the good relations that have been established, and if he is exercising his mind with regard to terrorism and with regard to what has been published, and has the co-operation of the Press, surely this is sufficient. Otherwise the hon. the Minister must please help us in this regard. If we do not delete the portion as I have recommended, leaving the section as it is at the moment, the hon. the Minister must please tell us how he will use this any differently with regard to the reporting of any incident which the Press, radio or TV has reported on so far in relation to any of the incidents which have taken place and which can be referred to as terrorism, be it at Booysens, at Silverton or here in Cape Town. The hon. the Minister must please tell us how this would be used any differently, and what would not have been printed had this provision, which we are still debating, not been in force. I should very much like that point to be explained.

In the last instance, does the hon. the Minister not think that it is incongruous to have a recommendation for a new section 27C which is actually in conflict with section 27B, because in terms of section 27B, if the Press or anyone reports anything that is untrue, there is a heavy penalty of R8 000 or imprisonment of five years. However, if the truth is reported, one is liable to a fine of R15 000 or a term of imprisonment of eight years. So where do we stand?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition that I have never yet broken the rules of the House in a single debate. I want to set his mind at rest that I do not intend to act disrespectfully towards the official Opposition, by not replying fully to these arguments now, but my argument is simply that I am abiding by the decision of the Chair, viz. that 99% of the arguments that have been raised now, since the hon. member for Houghton began her speech, have been Third Reading arguments. That is why I shall reply in full during the Third Reading.

I am not going to use the Committee Stage too for Third Reading speeches, because what do we have now? A matter that has been fully settled during the Second Reading debate, must now be discussed in full once again, and then we will have the same story again during this Third Reading debate. That is why I assure hon. members that I shall reply to their questions in full during the Third Reading debate. It is not even necessary for me to prepare myself for it or anything of this nature, but I am respecting the decision of the Chair. I also want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow that I shall give him a complete reply to this during the Second Reading, but there is not a single committee argument to which I have to reply now. I shall reply to it during the Second Reading debate.

Order! What is the hon. the Minister’s attitude with regard to the amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I understood that you did not accept the amendment, because the hon. member gave it to you in that form and therefore I did not have to reply to it. I am sorry that I accepted it as such, otherwise I would have replied to it. Mr. Chairman, I thought you did not accept it because it was in such an illegible form that you could not even read it. Under those circumstances I agreed with you and accepted that it had been rejected.

The hon. member for Hillbrow has now indicated that his amendment reads as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I accept that you have accepted the amendment. My reply to this is simply to tell the hon. member that I am really not prepared to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister seems reluctant to respond to the point made by the hon. member for Houghton, and his reason is that he wants to abide the Chairman’s ruling. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the proposed section 27C(1)—

It is specifically in terms of that subparagraph that the point made by the hon. member for Houghton is relevant. One must not only put oneself in the position of the policeman in that situation, but also in the position of the Press reporter who observes a situation. How does he determine whether what he is seeing is somebody acting in terms of section 22 of the General Laws Amendment Act or someone acting in terms of the Terrorism Act? That is specifically related to the intent of this subparagraph. I believe it would be helpful if the hon. the Minister would give an answer to that particular question, at this stage, so that the matter may be reconsidered at Third Reading.

What about the Carlton Hotel operation?

Mr. Chairman, I shall not go into too much detail, but I would just like to mention that we already have, I think, more than 50 Acts applying to security in one form or another in South Africa. The Press already has numerous Acts …

You are telling me.

… in terms of which they must decide whether something can be printed or not.

That is the trouble.

So what do they do? They pick up the telephone and telephone the Commissioner of Police or the office of the Minister of Police—I am talking about the top strata in the police and ask which section is relevant. They get the information and know whether they can print or not. I am not trying to be simplistic, but the hon. member did ask me to answer briefly. I mentioned the available machinery in the Second Reading debate, and in my Vote, and I said that I am quite prepared to discuss it again in the Third Reading debate.

All right.

I also explained in the Second Reading debate that direct consultation will be started immediately after the session between myself and the NPU concerning the practical application of this Bill. What more do the hon. members want from me this afternoon, apart from this explanation? I do not think that I have to take this argument any further. I reiterate that I shall answer the hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members and indicate whether section 22 of the General Laws Amendment Act can be regarded as being included in this Bill. All I can say at this stage is that I take very strong exception to that line of argument.

Why, though.

It follows the line of argument of the editor of the Sunday Tribune on 1 June 1980, who writes—

He knows very well that that is not the position in terms of this Bill, and the hon. member for Houghton also knows that very well, but we can go into that argument in the Third Reading debate.

You are wrong.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided:

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Mr. B. R. Bamford, Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. I. F. A. de Villiers, B. B. Goodall, R. J. Lorimer, D. J. N. Malcomess, P. A. Myburgh, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. R. A. F. Swart, S. S. van der Merwe, H. E. J. van Rensburg and A. B. Widman) appeared on one side,

Clause declared agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, whilst we accept the request of the hon. the Leader of the House, I do not want this moment to pass without me pointing out that we have already been told that Orders Nos. 6 and 7 are to be postponed because the hon. Ministers involved cannot be here. Now, in the last hour, we are told that Orders Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are to be postponed as well. I am not casting any blame on the hon. the Leader of the House, but I am pointing out that it makes it extremely difficult for us to try to tackle what is sometimes major legislation if, within an hour, six or seven Orders are postponed in order to go on. I am prepared to accept this, but I do hope that, as far as possible, this will not happen again.

Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the hon. member for Pinelands has raised a question which I should like to ask. I wonder if this kind of thing could not be avoided. Could the hon. the Leader of the House not give consideration to the suspension of Standing Rules, so that we could deal, particularly with unopposed Bills, with the Bills in all their stages during one sitting. We seem to be accumulating a certain amount of work on the Order Paper because more than one stage is not being permitted in one sitting on measures that are unopposed. We have been in agreement across the floor of the House. There is no opposition and yet, for some reason or other, more than one stage is not being given.

But we opposed the Bill.

If the hon. member for Pinelands would just bear with me. I think earlier today we dealt with Order No. 2—the Committee Stage of the Insolvency Amendment Bill—Order No. 3—the Committee Stage of the Taxation of Blacks Amendment Bill—Order No. 4—the Committee Stage of the Radio Amendment Bill —and Order No. 5—the Second Reading of the Armaments Development and Production Amendment Bill. Now why could we not give more than one stage to each of these measures? [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As in previous years, I again proposed this year, after the First Reading of the Water Amendment Bill, that it be referred to a Select Committee.

With the exception of two clauses, the proposed amendments are not of exceptional scope or implication. Most of them are minor improvements which have resulted from the identification of deficiencies which will now be eliminated to make efficient and expeditious administration possible.

Earlier during the session, I tabled an explanatory memorandum in which the reasons for the proposed amendments were set out. Hon. members will also notice that the Select Committee proposed certain further amendments with which I agree.

I do not think it is necessary for me to discuss the proposed amendments in full in this House, since they have already been explained in the explanatory memorandum, but I do consider it necessary to refer to two clauses in particular.

The first of the two contentious clauses I wish to refer to is clause 7. Clause 7(a) is intended to eliminate administrative obstructions, and since it has been explained in detail in the explanatory memorandum, I shall say no more about it.

Hon. members will notice that the Select Committee recommended that clause 7(b) and (c) be deleted. The Committee came to this decision after evidence by some of our larger municipalities, as well as some other institutions, had been heard or submitted. The deletion of clause 7(b) means that section 60(2)(b) of the Water Act remains unchanged. Clause 7(c) briefly proposed guidelines for ensuring that expropriated persons did not benefit excessively when their works were expropriated by the State, a water board or an irrigation board. However, the Select Committee believes that the wording of the clause, as proposed in the Bill, may not result in a fair compensation in all cases.

I accept this opinion, but I wish to emphasize that since it is still felt that the Expropriation Act of 1975 does not make proper provision for compensation in all the cases for which the clause was intended, I have requested my department to obtain greater certainty about it. If, after further consideration, it still appears that the existing legal provision is insufficient, I shall consult the hon. the Minister of Agriculture in an attempt to have the Expropriation Act of 1975 amended to provide for such exceptional circumstances.

In spite of what I have just said about the fact that the suitability of the Expropriation Act of 1975 in cases of this nature will have to be investigated further, the opportunity still exists for negotiations to be conducted. This is a very delicate matter, and I give the assurance that there is ample opportunity for negotiations at this stage.

The integration of water resources by buying or expropriating those of local authorities, for example, is an essential step in our arid country, and whether it be done by the State, a water board or an irrigation board, I think the hon. members will agree with me that such a step will hold short- as well as long-term advantages for the communities concerned and even for our country as a whole. My department will always endeavour to arrive at a negotiated settlement, thus staying on good terms with local authorities and retaining their co-operation, etc., but I want to appeal to everyone to cooperate, for in this way, relations are developed and improved. Powers of expropriation should be used as a last resort, when all other alternatives have failed.

The second important clause, one of those that have remained unchanged, is clause 8.

†The supply and distribution of water from Government water works for irrigation purposes is regulated by section 63 of the Water Act, 1956. In terms of section 63(2) the power vests in me, as Minister, to fix the quantity of water which may be supplied to each property within a Government water control area. The considerations for making a determination relate to the availability of irrigable land and to the quantity of water which can be made available from that Government water work.

In the case of a few Government water works, the quantity of water for irrigation is so favourable that irrigation development may be permitted to exceed the basic determination. Such cases, would, however, result in the individuals concerned receiving a considerable benefit by way of appreciation to the value of their properties, and it is deemed desirable that part of this benefit should be recouped by the State, which in the first place made such benefits possible by large capital expenditure. This can be done by way of a single payment of an amount per hectare for which additional water is supplied.

In this way a more equitable treatment of riparian owners will result, without leading to undesirable speculation in property which would otherwise not be entitled to water over and above the original determination. This aim cannot be achieved within the framework of the existing legislation. Hence the proposed addition to the Act to accommodate this new principle.

The amount payable per hectare for the additional water right will be fixed with regard to the estimated capital appreciation which will accrue to property owners as a result of the additional water, having due regard to expenditure which the owners must incur to beneficially use the water thus made available.

*If this addition to the Act is accepted, I trust that there will not be a flood of applications for the purchase of increased water rights from all over the country. Because South Africa is such an arid country, this principle can only be applied in exceptional cases, where water is available for this purpose, and here I am thinking in particular of certain parts of the Orange River project. Further particulars will be announced in due course concerning the purchase of such water rights in areas where water from the Orange River is made available.

I think I have now covered the most important parts of the Bill. Finally, I just want to address a word of special thanks to the Chairman, the hon. member for Piketberg, who is unfortunately not here this afternoon, and members of the Select Committee that had to deliberate on this Bill. Their task was indeed a difficult one, but the end product which is before us today testifies to their thorough study and careful deliberation. I want to convey my sincere appreciation to every member of that committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would say at the outset that it would be appreciated if hon. Whips on the other side of the House could let hon. members on this side of the House know when Bills of this nature are due to come up for discussion. Having had very short notice that this Bill was going to come up for discussion this afternoon, I regard it as extremely regrettable that I have not had the opportunity to marshal my thoughts on the Bill, although one has obviously given considerable consideration to it over the period in which the Select Committee sat.

And being a slow thinker …

And being a fairly slow thinker myself, perhaps I had difficulties in this respect.

As the hon. the Minister has said, a fairly full explanatory memorandum has been made available. It is not my intention to deal with most of what is contained in that explanatory memorandum.

However, there is the matter of clause 7 to which I must refer. As hon. members know, it has been proposed by the Select Committee that paragraphs (b) and (c) of that clause be omitted. This is a most interesting clause. A specific case in point had to do with the negotiations the Durban Corporation and the Pietermaritzburg City Council had with the Umgeni Water Board. These bodies have been negotiating for some considerable time, because it is necessary for the supply of water in that area to be rationalized. I think I am correct in saying that the Umgeni Water Board was specifically formed so that the whole supply of water in the Umgeni catchment area could be rationalized. However, over a period of many years the Durban Corporation had, of course, built up their own waterworks consisting of dams belonging to the Corporation, pipelines, tunnels and reticulation and distribution mechanisms. Quite logically, it became necessary, however, for the Government to form a water board in that area and so the Umgeni Water Board was formed. As far as a rational approach to the supply of water is concerned, the water boards are, of course, of considerable benefit. One has seen huge water boards like the Rand Water Board operating very successfully. They supply water for all the municipalities in the Vaal Triangle and do so very successfully. I believe it was a logical step the hon. the Minister took when he decided that it was necessary to have a water board for the Umgeni area. But, of course, this rationalization process involves the getting together under the control of that water board all the existing waterworks. Negotiations have been going on for some considerable time in connection with the take-over of waterworks owned by the Durban Corporation and the Pietermaritzburg City Council by the Umgeni Water Board.

And Howick.

And the Howick waterworks, although the negotiations with regard to the Howick waterworks have actually been completed. The Howick waterworks have been taken over. I hope the hon. member for Mooi River feels that Howick has been fairly treated.

However, the two particular provisions would have departed from the principle of the Expropriation Act of 1975. Perhaps I should talk about the Expropriation Act, because before it was promulgated there were various different statutes which had to do with expropriation, and in many instances expropriation was not carried out in a uniform manner. Different authorities were able to expropriate, but the rules, regulations and statutes governing that expropriation were in many cases very different indeed. Very laudably, the Government decided that expropriation should be put on an equitable basis and that expropriation by any department should be carried out under one statute. They approached all the authorities concerned with draft legislation. This draft legislation was considered by all the authorities concerned and they expressed their agreement with it, where after the Expropriation Bill came before this House and later became the Expropriation Act of 1975. At the same time the Department of Water Affairs was also given details of the legislation and agreed to it. But we were then faced with clause 7, and specifically clause 7(b) and (c). If we had agreed to pass this clause, it would have meant that the Umgeni Water Board would have been able to take over the assets of the Durban Corporation with regard to waterworks at a very small cost, at the written-down book value and not at the replacement cost, less any depreciation. The principle contained in the 1975 Expropriation Act states that expropriation must take place on the basis of replacement cost, that is present-day replacement cost, less depreciation. Replacement costs in days of inflation, such as we are going through now, of course are considerably more than the original outlay in many cases. When the hon. the Minister submitted this legislation, it was obviously felt by the department that they would not be prejudicing the interests of the people who were being supplied with water in the Durban Corporation area if these assets were taken over at book value, but the Durban Corporation and the Pietermaritzburg city council felt very differently about this. They felt that because of their foresight they had built up waterworks, dams, etc, which were for the benefit of the users of water whom they had been supplying. Over a period, people living in Durban and some surrounding areas had paid for the establishment of these particular waterworks, and they had paid a considerable amount of money too. It was the contention of these two municipal bodies that the users who had built up this particular asset should receive the benefit. They felt it would be most inequitable if the procedures laid down in the Expropriation Act of 1975 were not followed because, as hon. members can understand if they read clause 7(b) and (c), these waterworks would have been handed over for virtually nothing.

The Select Committee considered this matter at considerable length. We received evidence from both councils and also from the United Municipal Executive. They had to look at this matter in principle and because there are obviously going to be other water board areas in the future. I think there was a representative from the Port Elizabeth council who also submitted his viewpoint on this matter as part of the delegation of the United Municipal Executive. They all felt, in principle, that it would be very bad indeed to depart from the procedures of the Expropriation Act. Although he is not here, I should like to pay tribute to the chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. member for Piketberg, who did a very excellent job indeed. He was an extremely fair chairman who listened to arguments and gave everybody the opportunity of giving their evidence. I think he did a very competent job.

I think it is worthwhile discussing the question of expropriation because, obviously, as a result of the hon. the Minister’s speech, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries will have to have a look at the Expropriation Act of 1975 with a view to possibly changing some of the principles behind that Act which have to do with the situation which exists at present. It is a different situation in that the normal expropriation principle of a willing buyer and a willing seller is not there, because who wants to buy waterworks? Who is the alternative buyer who would like to buy waterworks, apart from the Umgeni Water Board?

As one gets older, it would be nice to have one.

Therefore, if there was a willing buyer, one would have to give consideration to what he would pay for that particular waterwork. There is legal precedent for this, and we received long and very interesting legal arguments from members of the delegation from the city councils concerned on the whole question of what constituted a willing buyer in this situation. They claimed that these particular city councils, although willing to sell, were not really all that willing unless they had an equitable payment for their assets. However, they claimed and I think quite rightly—that there was no valid reason for drawing a distinction between a local authority and any other person for the purpose of expropriation. Why should a local authority not be considered like any other property owner? Why should it specifically be a local authority that should be dealt with in this clause, but any other person who was having anything expropriated would be paid a fair price based on replacement value less depreciation?