When the debate was adjourned I was indicating how the Opposition, with their vehement opposition to this measure, were doing nothing but trying to stir up the industrialist and businessman in the country against the Government, and that they did not care tuppence whether our large metropolitan areas became blacker and blacker. But little did I realize how accurately my thrust had gone home, because last night I read in a letter from the hon. member for North Rand, published in the Cape Argus in which the Federated Chamber of Industries and the Associated Chambers of Commerce, were unashamedly reproached for not having helped the United Party to come into power last year. That is why, states the hon. member, the National Party is in power to-day and is piloting this measure through the House. If one reads between the lines in that letter it amounts to nothing else than that the hon. member for North Rand was reproaching the industrialists and businessmen for not having contributed funds to the election campaign of the United Party last year, and that that is the reason why they should not bewail the fact that this legislation is being piloted through by the Government. Sir, I have never before in my political career, either inside or outside this House, seen a more blatant example of political horse trading than was revealed in this letter. This side of the House is being accused of piloting through this Bill for political reasons, but I myself have never seen a more blatant example than this attempt of the Opposition to implicate our industrialists and businessmen openly and in public in politics.

What did Blaar do?

I think it is a disgrace, and I think the F.C.I. and Assocom ought to repudiate the hon. member for North Rand in regard to this matter immediately. Now the fig leaf of the United Party has been torn away and they stand revealed not only as a political party which is politically bankrupt, but also as one who wants to shake its empty collection boxes under the noses of the industrialists and businessmen of the country. The industrialists and the businessmen of South Africa ought, in their indignation, to stand up and state boldly to the Opposition that they will not incline their ears to this political scaremongering, because just as the prophecies of doom uttered in the past by the United Party in regard to measures which had been taken by this Government to the effect that the banks would close down and that our apples would lie and rot, so too these prophecies of doom will in due course appear to be nothing else but a damp squib.

Let me dwell for a moment on this argument of the United Party and their accusation that the Government is piloting through this measure for political reasons and that it wants in this way to ruin the industries and the economy of the country. Surely the Opposition is aware that they are distorting the truth, as Langenhoven said. That is. not what the Government intends doing. This Bill does not envisage the removal of a single existing factory or industry in the metropolitan areas. All that is being envisaged is the diversion of new Bantu-intensive factories. But I want to say this, if we were to be faced by an actual choice, a choice between white survival and an ever-increasing economy in South Africa —which is increasing to such an extent that it is becoming quite unmanageable in the large cities—then I say, preferably a little less economic development than that the Whites in those areas should be smothered. All that we are trying to accomplish with this Bill, as has been emphasized time and again here, is industrial decentralization. Now, last Friday the hon. the Minister stated very clearly to the Opposition what was being envisaged in regard to industrial decentralization throughout the world; in Britain, France, Greece and Italy, in all those countries with a homogenous white population, where they do not have those problems, as South Africa does, of cultural and social differences in a heterogeneous population. But when we act in the same way in regard to this matter as other countries in the West are acting, then it is suddenly anathema. I want to say that this is not only being done in the Western countries, but that one finds this kind of action even in the countries behind the Iron Curtain, such as Roumania, Yugoslavia, Poland and Russia. I am aware that in these countries the economy is controlled by the state and that the state can determine precisely where further economic expansion will take place, but in spite of that, these countries are still having second thoughts about the over-concentration of industries and are channeling their industries away to the lesser developed areas. I want to read here a quotation from a report which appeared recently in the Cape Times which came from Associated Press in Moscow. It reads as follows—

Then the report goes on to state that this is being done in Moscow because they want to make Moscow—I quote—“The most beautiful city in the world”. [Interjections.] That hon. member will have an opportunity of making his own speech. Sir, if South Africa wants to decentralize its industry, then it is anathema, then we are accused of wanting to ruin this country economically. It has also been said sneeringly by hon. members of the Opposition here that the Government is introducing this measure for ideological reasons, as if that were a terrible crime against the country. I say “thank the Lord” that we have a Government in power to-day which has a firm ideology, because where would we have been under a Government of that Party which has no ideas and which is politically bankrupt? What is wrong if this Government, in its attempt to establish a proportional industrial pattern and a more even distribution of the population, kills two birds with one stone and also furthers our policy of separate development in this way? The Government is taking the steps for which this measure is making provision because it wants to act in time, because it is not blind to the facts, as the Opposition is. This Government, as in the case of the Governments of other Western countries, is aware that the over-concentration of industries where Bantu and white elements of the population are brought together in an unequal proportion in a highly industrialized area, could create cultural and social evils which could eventually result in chaotic conditions. In every country where industrial decentralization is being applied, it is the general point of departure, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, that the workers should be as happy as possible. In this way this Government has, in all the measures which it has up to now introduced, endeavoured to bring about and further a greater measure of industrial happiness, a greater measure of industrial peace and quiet, but the Opposition takes no heed of that.

Sir, in order to illustrate my statement I want to refer you to a country such as Italy where this policy is being applied. Because the South of Italy is underdeveloped they initially transferred workers from the South to the North to go and work in the automobile factories in places such as Milan and Turin, but it was found that because there were so many cultural and social differences between the southerners and the northerners the southerners going to work in the north could not be assimilated into the community. What did they do then? They reversed the flow. They took the factories to the south and the result has been that there is to-day in those labour plus areas, to which the factories moved, greater productivity and greater industrial peace than ever before. I also want to mention a specific example in this regard. I want to refer to the Olivetti typewriter factory in Italy, of which there is also a major branch in South Africa. They made arrangements there to ensure that the factory workers in the south of Italy who worked in the typewriter factories during the day could also carry on with their farming activities on their farms as part-time farmers. The same procedure is being followed in countries such as Yugoslavia, and Poland. There the governments are granting all kinds of concessions and assistance to the workers in the factories so that they can continue with their farming activities and in this way retain their contact with the rural traditions of the workers. But when we want to follow the same policy in South Africa as far as our Bantu are concerned then the Opposition say that it is anathema. The actual reason why this measure is being opposed to such an extent is that the Opposition does not want us to adopt the same course other countries are adopting. They want us to follow the destructive course of steadily increasing integration of our urban areas. But that road is the road to destruction, it is the road leading to perdition and it is the road leading to the destruction of the white man, because in this way the seeds of a black revolution are being sown, and we will ultimately be sitting on a powder-keg which will blow the white man to shreds.

I want to conclude by saying thank you to the hon. the Minister that he and the Government have had the courage of their convictions to come forward with this legislation and pilot it through here. I want to say thank you to the Government for having come forward with such a strong measure to ward off the black wave washing up against Johannesburg and the Witwatersrand, a black wave which has so upset Johannesburgers that there is already serious talk in National Party circles of the possibility of introducing a curfew in future. Mr. Speaker, it fills our National Party members from the metropolitan areas with renewed hope that we will now, with the aid of this measure, be able to progress further and further and with greater success along the road of separate development.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF: Sir, it has been most interesting to listen to the hon. member for Turffontein and to evaluate the reasons he has given for the acceptance of this legislation. He says that the Opposition is opposing it because they do not want South Africa to follow the road of other countries in respect of the decentralization of industry. Sir, that is just what this side of the House wants. We want South Africa to follow the road of other countries in respect of decentralization of industry for economic and strategic reasons, and not for purely ideological reasons. The hon. member said, “Die Opposisie staan ’n ekonomiese lekker-beleid voor, met geen aandag aan sosiale faktore nie”. Sir, it is all very well to say those things, but surely the hon. member must realize, as must everyone in this House, that racial peace in South Africa depends to a very great extent upon high standards of living for our non-European population, and anything which endangers those high standards of living must be looked at extremely carefully by any responsible Opposition in South Africa. The hon. gentleman has even resorted to extravagance and exaggeration in a manner that surprises me. He speaks of Johannesburg being drowned in a black wave. Well, Sir, as you know, we had from the hon. member for Yeoville figures prepared by Professor Scheepers in his demographic survey of the Transvaal, and what did we find? We found that the Johannesburg area, apart from Pretoria and a small area around Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark, was one of the whitest areas in the whole of the Transvaal, one of the few areas where the ratio of White to non-White was good in comparison with what it was in other parts of the country. It is difficult sometimes to understand the reason ing of hon. members opposite. The hon. member speaks of the dangers of an unequal ratio as between White and non-White. Sir, what are they doing with the border industry development scheme? They are merely moving the location of that ratio from one area to another; they are not improving the ratio in any way. No, I do not think we can accept that reason.

I want to deal more particularly with some of the arguments advanced by the hon. the Minister and the effect which this debate has had upon me, and I am sure, upon most members on this side of the House, but before I do so I would like to put to the Minister a question which I know could be put in Committee Stage. I am sure, however, that if he dealt with this question at the Second Reading, it would make the Committee Stage easier. The hon. the Minister will find this phrase particularly in clause 4: Action can be taken “subject to the provisions of any other law” in force at the present time. Sir, what we want to know is whether this applies not only to new town planning schemes but whether it applies also to those in the course of preparation and awaiting approval, even if they are already in force in terms of the Townships Ordinance. In other words, where there has been a zoning under the Townships Ordinance which is already in force, is that regarded as an approved township which is excluded from the provisions of this Bill, or is it only where the final steps have been taken? I think the hon. the Minister will appreciate why this question is being put to him and what the difficulties are.

Sir, the first thing that struck me in listening to this debate was that it was highly improbable that this Bill was the Minister’s own brain child. It seemed to me that it had probably been prepared before he returned from overseas and that it had been wished on him by the Department and by the enthusiastic Ministers in the Ministry of Bantu Administration and Development, because it emerged from this debate that this legislation is part of a pattern which the Government is seeking to weave for South Africa for ideological purposes. If you have a look, Sir, you will see the various controls which exist already. We know that on mining grounds any conditions can be imposed in granting a licence to persons who trade on such ground. We know that local labour bureaux can exert pressure by reducing or neglecting to supply labour to manufacturers. We know that the Department of Labour operating through the factory inspectors can impose onerous conditions on industrialists in respect of factory registration. We know the powers that local authorities have. We know the manner in which labour and its presence in an area can be controlled. We know the new industries committee of import control and the permanent committee for the location of industries exert pressure on new industries. We know that there is control in respect of the water usage of industries. We know of the powers that the Minister of Community Development has and the building control committee under section 81 of the Housing Act. We know it has become customary to consult the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development on the registration of industrial townships in urban areas. We know it has tended to become the custom for the Administrators concerned to take the advice of the Department in respect of those matters.

But that does not seem to have satisfied this Government, because only recently we had the hon. the Deputy Minister threatening to revise the whole system of subsidies on the transport systems from the Bantu townships to the urban areas. That is a most serious business in respect of industrialists who are already paying a certain sum monthly per employee in respect of site and service and things of that kind. It may lead to a rise in prices, a rise in wages, and a rise in prices to the consumer.

Then we have had this continual talk by members of the Government of the expense of housing Bantu labourers in and around our urban and industrial areas. Of course, the fact has been lost sight of that the industrialist is not in the same position as the farmer when it comes to financing housing for his employees. As the Minister knows, the farmer can deduct what he spends on housing, he can deduct it from income. In the case of a company it is regarded as an investment of capital and only a certain percentage can be written off, and then only under certain exceptional circumstances.

So it seems that what we have here is a piece of legislation fitting into a pattern and that pattern quite clearly is designed to impress upon the country the ideological objectives of the Government. The Minister was quite frank: He described the objectives of the Bill as being “socio-economic”. It is quite clear that the emphasis was on the social and not on the economic side. I say that particularly because it is most significant that while we have an economic advisory council which exists, I believe, for the purpose of advising on planning which, according to the statement made in this House by the Minister of Labour in 1958, was to be as follows—

I repeat: “general economic co-ordination and physical planning”. If that is the function of the economic advisory council then it seems to me that that is the first body that should have been consulted in respect of this Bill. The Minister has told us that despite that body’s existence, it was prejudiced against this Bill— “gekant is teen hierdie wetsontwerp”. But he has not told us what the reasons were for that council being opposed to this Bill. I believe that council was probably opposed to this Bill, if I know anything of the calibre of the men there, because of the element of compulsion, because of the danger of upsetting the normal economic development of the country, and because emphasis was intended to be laid on ideological objectives and not on economic objectives. If the primary object of this Bill is economic, then it is strange that the Federated Chamber of Industries should be so opposed to it for good sound reasons as set out in their memorandum. It is strange also that if the primary object was economic, that the Associated Chambers of Commerce should be opposed to this Bill. Therefore I think that when the Minister says that the primary object is socio-economic, it is a masterly under-statement. The object of this Bill is ideological and socio-but not economic. It also interested me to find the hon. the Minister admitting that the Administrators are against the detail of this Bill, although he claims their support for the general principle. It is common cause that this Bill is an interference in the powers of the Administrators in the various provinces. It is common cause that it is an interference in local government throughout South Africa. It is quite clear that this is an interference in the powers of the provincial councils in respect of town planning in South Africa. Despite that there has been no petition from any province for a Bill of this kind to be brought forward. You will remember that section 114 of our Constitution Act provides that:

There we have this provision. I know that it has been held not to be applicable as a rule which binds Parliament but by the same token it is an indication of the sort of procedure one would have expected this Minister to adopt in introducing legislation of this kind. This is an abridgement of the powers of the provincial councils.

Surely you listened to my Second Reading speech?

I listened very carefully to the Minister’s Second Reading speech. The hon. gentleman told me that he had consulted with the Administrators and that the Administrators had certain objections but has a single provincial council discussed this Bill? Is there a petition from any provincial council? That is what the Act provides for. Has it been before the provincial councils concerned? Only one provincial council has dealt with this matter and that was the Cape Provincial Council on a motion introduced by the Opposition protesting against the reduction of the council’s powers. What is significant also is that nowhere have we been given the reasons for the abolition of the Natural Resources Development Council. We have been told that the Act of 1947 is going to be repealed by this Bill. Nowhere have we been told why the Natural Resources Development Council must be done away with. Has it not done satisfactory work? Has it not done some magnificent regional planning throughout South Africa? Why is it suddenly to be abolished? The hon. the Minister has told us that there is going to be a Planning Council to which he will refer matters of this kind, but there is nothing in the Bill saying that he must do so. Nowhere in this Bill is there reference made to the Planning Council. In the past there was the Natural Resources Development Council which dealt with all these matters and it was given a statutory position. Here we are in the position that that council is abolished, the Minister tells us that he will consult with the Planning Council, but nowhere in this Bill is there a provision forcing him to do so or calling upon him to do so or requiring him to do so before he takes action in terms of this Bill. In fact, what do we have now? What we have at the moment provided for in the Bill is a departmental committee to which the hon. the Minister may delegate certain of his powers. But he says that long-range planning will be determined by him and if necessary by the Cabinet. This will be done with some consultation with that Planning Council. But there is no provision in the Bill for this. He can overlook the Planning Council and go straight ahead. He can act alone. He can delegate his powers and there is no restriction of any kind whatever. The Bill has a provision to the effect that if the members of that departmental committee to which he can delegate power, are not ad idem, then there will be reference to the Minister. I wonder what he means by ad idem. Must their finding be unanimous?

Yes.

Thank you. I wanted to be clear on that point. I do not think that it in any way detracts from my criticism of the Bill because my criticism is that the Natural Resources Development Council has been removed and nothing put in its place as a statutory body to which the Minister must refer and which is responsible for long-term planning.

The other thing that is significant about this Bill is that while the Minister has given us a reference to the results of certain research work done in Italy, he has been unable to produce, or he has so far failed to produce, a single example of comparative sets of figures to indicate that despite the enormous cost of establishing the necessary infrastructures in border areas, it is going to be cheaper to develop new factories in those border areas than in the established industrial townships. Nowhere have we any proof. Nowhere have we seen any research. This Minister does not come to the House and say that he needs these powers because in this way he is going to bring down the costs of production and that he is going to reduce the cost of establishing factories. All we have is a reference to some work done in Italy which may or may not be of application here in South Africa. There is no indication that we have reached the saturation point in certain urban areas, where it is cheaper to move industries out than to establish them in the urban areas concerned. We must never forget that when we move an industry to a border area as the hon. the Minister is intending to do, or to influence, under the powers given him in this Bill, we have to establish two infrastructures, not just one. We have to establish an infrastructure for the factory and the European community attached to that factory, and we also have to establish an infrastructure for the Bantu worker inside the reserve. That may very often not exist. I agree that those two infrastructures will be correlated. Transport will be correlated. Water supplies may or may not be correlated. It is quite clear, however, that on this system the movement of industries into rural areas, with the necessary establishment of two infrastructures because of our South African situation, may be a very much more costly affair than is the case in other countries of the world, to which reference has been made by way of comparison. We see here something rather dangerous and something which is very significant when we evaluate the importance of this Bill and what should be done about it.

The Minister referred continuously to the practice in overseas countries, but it is quite clear that this Bill gives our Minister greater powers than have been taken in any other overseas country in the Western World in peace time. Why does he need those powers? We have been given no reasons why he should have powers greater than those in any of the other countries of the world. Why is this Minister suddenly being clothed with powers of that kind, greater indeed than those in any of the other countries in the Western World at the present time? The hon. the Minister is empowered to ride roughshod over the Administrators, over the provinces and over the local authorities. Although he provides for consultation with the Administrators in two or three events, he has removed from the Act of 1947 the provision that there should be concurrence by the Administrators. In other words, he is the boss. He is going to lay down the law and he is going to determine exactly what should be done. I wonder why he had to take that step? Have the Administrators been so unreasonable? Have they refused to co-operate with the Natural Resources Development Council? Have they refused to assist in regional planning? Why is it that this power must suddenly be taken by the Minister to override what the Administrators want to do? After all, the Administrators are the Government’s nominees. The Government appoints them. Surely if they appoint them, they should be consulted and their concurrence should be obtained, or is the policy changing so fast that the Administrators cannot keep up? Is that really what is at the root of it all? I would say, to summarize my preliminary observations that it appears to me that an unsatisfactory case has been made out for the taking of dictatorial powers which may have a very important effect on the cost structure of industry in this country. What is interesting is that they appear to have been taken contrary to the undertaking given by the previous Prime Minister. In a statement made in this House, he said:

That assurance having been given, we find now that this Minister has taken powers which have been taken in no other country, except perhaps Communist Russia, but certainly no other country in the Western World. How is it that we so differ from those other countries, that this Minister needs those extra powers?I think the reason is that this Government is looking at the problem not with economic motives at all. They are looking at it, not merely as a social problem, but purely as a racial problem, and from ideological points of view. When one looks at this legislation from a point of view of first principles economically, then it is clear that, when one goes into the question of the location of industry, a large number of factors has to be considered. I think that in considering what those factors are, one cannot do better than look at the interim report of the Board of Trade and Industries, which was given on the manufacturing industries in South Africa in 1945. There they state:

Then come these very significant words, further down in the paragraph:

Later on in this report it is indicated again what the duties of the industrialist are:

Then they go into the various factors which the Minister should look at in coming to this conclusion. You see. Sir, one principle underlying the problems as a practical issue is that every prospective manufacturer should make a thorough investigation into all relevant locational factors, and plan the size and the location of his factory accordingly. He should do that, not only in his own interest, but also for the sake of the sound industrial development of the country, for as has been said, wrong location means an uneconomic diversion of productive resources. The report goes on—

In the factors which the hon. the Minister is to take account of in determining whether location of industries is to take place in South Africa, is there mention of the health, the cleanliness or the productivity of the working population? No, Mr. Speaker, they are not mentioned in this Bill. One is inclined to ask: “What is the Government’s concept of decentralization and what are its objectives?” I think that the Government’s concept seems to have been that stated by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education on 21st June, 1966, at Benoni. This is what the hon. member said:

And later on he says:

That is the problem, namely an over concentration of Bantu labour on the Witwatersrand, one of the whitest portions of the whole Transvaal. It is one of the areas where the ratio of White to non-White is the best in the whole Transvaal. The problem he says, is the over concentration of Bantu labour on the Witwatersrand. And then he goes on—

It looks to me that industry could not and the Minister could not and that we now have the Minister of Planning taking exceptional powers in order to find the formula. The hon. the Minister goes on and he says—

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says “Hear, hear!” I repeat “… the favourable development of the country as a whole including the Bantu homelands”. What would happen if somebody had to come along and ask to establish an industry in the Bantu homelands with white capital and white initiative?

On an agency basis … [Interjections.]

Is it really aimed at the more effective use of factors of production and a more equitable distribution of income? Is there going to be a more equitable distribution of income if you force up cost of production? This is the sort of nonsense underlying this Bill and the reasons for it. It is quite clear from this that the motivation of the Government policy has very little, if any relationship whatever, to economic interests. It is purely ideological. The Minister has tended to emphasize the factor of the supply of labour. He said little or nothing about markets and distribution of the goods produced. We have heard nothing about supplies of raw materials and their transportation to the factories. And we see nothing about them in the Bill either. The Government seems to be obsessed with the social pattern that is to be created. And it seems that you may very easily find that by creating that social pattern you will so increase costs as to render important industries in South Africa non-competitive in world markets. What provision is there in this Bill for the investigation of matters of that kind? The Minister “may” cause an investigation to be made under clause 4 There is no compulsion. There is provision there, namely for the resources of the Republic to be exploited, developed or utilized. They are permissive and not mandatory. And the test is how may they best be exploited. And what is the criterion going to be? Is it going to be an economic criterion or is it going to be the ideological criterion set up by the Deputy Minister, namely that the big problem is the over-concentration of Bantu labour on the Witwatersrand? Here in South Africa at the present moment we are engaged in the battle against inflation. The hon. the Minister of Finance is only too aware of that. The rise in the cost of living has been felt on all sides. The pressure on the Government to increase wages and to increase salaries are becoming tremendous, as hon. gentlemen will know. The Minister is asking us here to hand over powers to him which may have serious effects upon the whole economy with a very real possibility of their forcing up living costs. This is being done without public debate by the recognized advisory bodies as to the wisdom or otherwise of the actions he proposes to take. He is very charmingly asking for co-operation from all concerned provided they agree with what he wants to do. Provided they agree with what he wants to do, there will be co-operation. But there is no provision anywhere compelling the Minister to co-operate. Everyone else is being compelled to co-operate, but not the Minister. Now he is trying to justify his actions on the basis of strategic and economic advantages attached to the decentralization of industries generally in South Africa. Is he drawing attention to the fact that decentralization in South Africa to the border areas may have certain disadvantages for which we will have to pay very dearly indeed and which do not exist in other parts of the world? Recently a survey was made in connection with this matter by certain sociologists and their findings were very interesting indeed. If I may summarize, the problems arising from decentralization can be set out as follows. Depending upon the size and the complexity of the industrial organization and on the actual location of the factory the factors to consider in relation to the white group are as follows:

1. (1) Are the desired skills those which will be available to the new community? If not, then the managerial and technical echelon need to be imported. They will then be faced with adaptation to semi-rural or rural communities after being urban dwellers. But if the units are not located within an existing white community there will be a considerable degree of isolation.

What report is this?

It is a report by a sociologist, Mrs. Glass. If the unit is not located within an existing white community there will be a considerable degree of isolation. This may be mitigated by the size of the white employee group. If there is a large enough group for inter-action, then the equivalent of a company town may develop. This, too, gives rise to a set of problems. But these are not unique, and there are existing approaches for handling such difficulties. From the white employees angle the locality and the size of the industrial community are two significant aspects. But then you come to the position in respect of the African population. In this respect it says that the problem of social integration will fall away since it is assumed that they will be drawn from existing communities. The crucial industrial problem is associated with the degree of industrial commitment of such a labour force. This commitment is closely related to aspects of motivation and of productivity. So what has the experience been in other parts of Africa and Asia where industries have been established in rural areas? It was found that foreign migrant labour drawn from industrially poorly developed communities in Europe could be trained to a level of proficiency equivalent to that of the local workers with a long industrial history. More important, however, was their level of commitment and motivation which tended to coincide with that of the local population. However, when factories were established in their countries of origin, their work patterns approximated those of an under-developed industrial society. This factor is a key consideration, namely the need to be part of a functioning community to absorb the required work habits and skills which come with industrialization. While the emphasis has been on the problem of decentralization here in South Africa we must appreciate that what is envisaged is decentralization among a rural community not committed to industrial work values. The reason is that a wide range of investigation on industrialization in many areas, Africa, South-East Asia, South America, indicate that an absence of such commitments and motivation seriously affect performance and limit industrial growth. That is the danger of forcing decentralization in South Africa into rural communities. Are we going to get the same standard of efficiency that we get in the big industrial centres? Are our costs of production going to remain the same, or will they be forced up? Is the time taken for training the employees going to be the same, or longer? The arguments we have heard from the other side of the House have been arguments referring to decentralization in industrially mature countries, and not to decentralization in a developing young country like South Africa. These are very real dangers which we have to bear in mind when we have regard to the principle underlying this Bill.

The Minister has made great play of the fact that he is not taking power to compel industry to move from one point to another. Of course that is so, but what he is doing is to take powers to prevent development in certain areas and to permit it only in certain other areas. Industry is the breath of life to any developing country, and what the Minister is saying is: I am not forcing you to draw breath through your mouth, but I am going to close your nose; if you want to go on drawing breath it is up to you, but you need not draw breath if you do not want to. If we have no industry we will not develop. The Minister knows that it is the breath of life to South Africa, but he is preventing one of the channels of development because he is going to close the nose, although he says he is not compelling us to breathe through our mouths. He is involving the old industrialist in a vast amount of red tape if he wants to extend, and he is placing the up and coming man in a position where development in the existing area can be so stultified that he will have to move. Consider a man like William Morris starting a little bicycle shop in a back street in Oxford, and how his factory developed. What would his position have been here if he suddenly finds that he is not going to be able to get the labour that he requires to expand his factory, owing to the activities of these two Ministers? Then he must either be stultified or he has to move, and if he has to move, will his trained team of workers, the skilled people he has trained around him, go out with him to those areas? That is what we are up against. These are the considerations that do not seem to have been seriously considered in regard to this Bill. Look at the beginnings of a man like Henry Ford and his factory. Look at the position of a man like Anton Rupert. What is going to happen if he suddenly finds his labour limited by the activities of these two Ministers? This business of moving expert labour teams into other areas is not an easy one to cope with. It is one which involves not only unsettling factors for the skilled people, but very often it results in the facts that the training period becomes very much longer because there is not an industrial environment in which these people can be taught to do the work that has to be done.

We have been asked to make all these changes by means of the Bill. We have been asked to make these sacrifices to avoid integration. That is what it amounts to; to avoid an undesirable ratio of Bantu to White in certain urban areas. What is going to be the effect of this legislation if it is applied in the way I suspect it will be? It merely means that you are moving integration from certain towns where it exists at the moment to new areas on the borders of the Reserves, because your white workers will have to go there. There is no question about that. [Interjection.] The Minister says there will be a smaller ratio, but how does he know it will be a smaller ratio? How does he know that those industrial complexes will not become bigger than the existing ones? How does he know that when you establish growth points of that kind you may not start hindering the development of the existing growth points? How does he know that the tremendous development and the attraction of capital into those areas will not make them as big as the complexes which exist at present? Is there going to be any different ratio there? What interests me so much, too, is that these border industries are being established in those areas to which Prof. Scheepers referred in the excerpt the hon. member for Yeoville gave to this House, and in which he said there were areas where there were black concentrations and white concentrations against each other, “waar daar kranse was”, as he put it, which were the areas of maximum friction in the iso-ratio of population. I see the hon. the Minister frowning. Perhaps I can help him by reading that excerpt again—

In other words, we are going to establish these border industries in areas where the chances of friction are greatest, in the view of this professor. But we are also establishing them on the borders of what may become independent states, within easy reach of any raiding or striking force that might be established in a state of that kind. In fact, we are placing our industries, or a large number of them, right on our very boundaries, and putting them within easy reach of any enemy wanting to attack South Africa. That is one of the objectives of this Bill.

It seems extraordinary to me that a Bill which the Minister obviously regards as so important and which could have such far-reaching effects should have been made available to the public only about ten days before it came to this House for second reading. Surely this is a Bill essentially on which there should have been opportunities for discussion and debate throughout South Africa, on which we could have had the views of all the various local authorities and of every single provincial council, and on which we should have consultations at every level with important industrialists and industrialists’ organizations in South Africa. What was it? Were they afraid that the public would not support it? Were they afraid that important organized bodies of industry and commerce would not support them in this Bill? Now even the municipalities are beginning to wake up. This matter has never been before the National Municipal Executive. It is a tragedy that we should embark on legislation of this kind in this way. The Minister keeps seeking to justify his Bill by saying that other sections of the community have their labour, etc. controlled by the Government and that the manufacturing industry is not being made a scapegoat. Well, it is perfectly true that other sections of the community do have their labour controlled, but it does seem that he is giving a tremendous amount of attention to the manufacturing industry, despite the fact that it employs so small a percentage of the total Bantu in employment in South Africa. Here are some figures from the 1960 Census. The economically active population is 3,890,000, of which agriculture employed 1,438,000; mining and quarrying 548,000; the manufacturing industries 308,000; Government, business, recreation and personal services 821,000; commerce and finance 188,000; transport, storage and communication 68,000. Sir, all of a sudden attention is directed to industry because that is something that can be moved, and for that reason tremendous attention is being directed towards industry. But what is the result going to be?

What moves with industry?

Workers move with industry. Sometimes the buyers move with industry. I should hope that the Government may move with industry but at the present time it is being left far behind; it is being left so far behind that it may find that what it has done is that it has established growth centres with all the attendant ancillary services in new areas but that it has so impeded the growth of industry in South Africa that there are certain existing growth areas that will lose their momentum. Already what has happened in Cape Town as a result of the activities of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education and people of his kind? How many industries have not been frightened away from this area? What has happened to the municipality’s industrial township at Epping No. 9? Why is it that in a town like Worcester 70 per cent of their industrial lots are unsold? These things have happened as the result of the activities of these gentlemen. Look what has happened to the clothing industry on the Reef as a result of the establishment of clothing factories in other areas. Sir, the odd thing is that this is being done to direct industry away from what as a general rule is the whitest part of South Africa, where the ratio of White to non-White is better than in any other area, because, Sir, if you look at the map you will find that the area where the ratio is best is where you have intensive industrial development, and that is the very area that the hon. the Minister wants to attack; that is the extraordinary part about it. He is going to find that as border areas become highly industrialized, he is going to have a growing white population being established there. Because, Sir, who says that what is a labour-intensive industry to-day is going to remain labour-intensive? Who says that they are not going to find means of mechanizing it on the borders of the reserves? Who says that if it is profitable you will not find so-called labour-intensive industries becoming highly mechanized, automated industries? And what will the result be? You will find that the result will be some of the biggest concentrations of the white population on the borders of the reserves. That will be the result of the performance of this Minister. Inevitably, with the development of mechanization, you will attract a stream of highly skilled technicians to these areas, with their families, and all the ancillary services that must go with it.

You will have influx control against the Whites.

You rather want it the other way.

Sir, the hon. the Minister seems to have forgotten that it is a golden rule in economics never to push the economy but always to try to pull it. You can only pull it by making new areas sufficiently attractive and by exploiting the profit motive. That is positive; this measure is not positive; this measure is negative, because they are seeking to push industry in different directions by prohibiting their development in areas in which industrialists feel that it would be most economic. The danger of this negative approach in what the Minister calls the most positive piece of legislation ever to have been put on the Statute Book, is that when you push you do not know what it is going to cost because you cannot see all the consequences, but when you offer attractions or inducements to industry, you know exactly what it is going to cost. That is why it is so important and so vital that that rule of economics should be observed. Sir, you will find this rule set out very clearly in the report of the commission on the protection of industry. The commission says—

I repeat, ‘"positive measures as long as these do not involve uneconomic considerations”. Sir, if we look at this Bill as a whole, what do we find? We find that it is an admission, a concession, by the Government that the entire border industries policy as it has been applied so far has failed, that the inducements were inadequate, that the threats and the influence of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education have been ineffective, and that now the Government has to come along and take these very wide powers in order to see that the policy is carried out. Sir, let me say straight away that we on this side of the House are not against planning; we have never been against planning; we have never been against the decentralization of industry for economic or strategic purposes; what we are against is the abuse of the decentralization of industry; what we are against is the creation of machinery to abuse that very policy, for ideological purposes. What is the result going to be, Sir? I think the consequences are going to be that in certain areas like the Western Cape industrial development is going to be hindered because of the lack of labour. Development in and around the existing industrial towns will be subject to bureaucratic limitations and very probably frustrating delay. The hon. the Minister says that he anticipates that people will just be able to ring up his committee on the telephone and get an answer. Sir, he has been away too long; he does not realize that State Departments do not work that way.

They cannot get telephones.

The first thing, Sir, is to get a telephone, as the hon. member correctly says. Very often it takes three months before you even get an acknowledgment of your letter to the Department, let alone get a decision. I think industrial expansion will not depend now on private enterprise and the law of supply and demand but on ideological instead of sound economic considerations, and in consequence I believe that productivity will suffer, that the cost of living will rise and that inflation will continue. I believe that the dangers of favoritism and the dangers of corruption are going to be multiplied by a Bill of this kind. We know that the hon. the Minister will fight against it; we know him well enough but, Sir, here is a possibility which cannot be overlooked and which will have to be guarded against very carefully indeed. Then, Sir, I think this Bill represents a further step in the direction of bureaucracy and dictatorial control. I know that we cannot have laissez-faire entirely, but by the same token we are moving in the direction of dictatorial control and bureaucracy, in a dangerous manner.

It is for those reasons that we on this side of the House cannot support this Bill. We believe that we have a very satisfactory instrument in the Act of 1947; we believe that it has worked extremely well, and we believe that it could be made to work well in the future, provided decentralization was sought for economic and strategic reasons and not for an ideological reason, which we believe is the root of the changes sought to be brought about in this new legislation.

The speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is the 14th speech made on that side since last Friday, and each one of those speeches had two characteristics; two characteristics which ran through them, not like a golden thread, but like a worn thread. One is: “Let matters take their course”, and in this respect the Party on that side remains true to the principles of the old United Party, as it was in the days of the late General Smuts, when their policy was also: “Let things develop”. The second characteristic of all the speakers on that side was that it was shadow-boxing from beginning to end. Imaginary situations are simply conjured up here; things are read into this legislation—phantoms of the imagination— which are not in the legislation, and this is done for lack of argument on that side of the House. During the past few days I have seen a puppet show on that side of the House as never before. The sole motive was to escape from the reality of the situation. Let me make it very clear that this is not the only reason why I am disappointed in the Opposition. To me one of the greatest disappointments was the superficiality of the attack by that side. There is no depth in the Opposition in this House of Assembly.

Answer our questions.

I shall make my own speech to-day—I shall reply in all fairness to the hon. member if he asks me questions on mining. Let me say that one’s actions cannot be anything but superficial if one acts not from one’s own convictions, but as the agent of certain other parties. The hon. member for Yeoville, who is not here at the moment, foamed at the mouth—it was not heated foam, because it was superficial—and called out indignantly: “Superficiality … frivolity!” What did he achieve by that? He merely used the words in this House for which he has been known since I came to know him in South Africa’s politics. In the course of this debate I heard nothing from the hon. member for Yeoville—or from the Opposition—which displayed profound thought. This is perhaps one of the alarming things, that we are saddled with an Opposition which adopts a superficial approach to everything.

I have a second problem with the United Party, namely that it is a party that lacks nerve. They do not have the courage of their convictions. What has happened in this debate? I asked: “What is good in this legislation?” and I received the reply: “The only part that is good is the part which you did not touch.” The hon. member for Green Point told me: “Nothing is good in this Bill”.

Except what you included from the 1947 Act.

I am coming to that. If that is the case, and that Party had the courage of its convictions, what would it have done? They would have got up here, as a man would have done, and have moved: “We read this Bill this day six months.” If that had been done, everything taken from the 1947 legislation and included in this measure would still have been on the Statute Book. That legislation is not being repealed. But that Party does not have the courage of its convictions. I was also disappointed in the hon. member for Houghton. They did not adopt an unequivocal attitude and say that they did not want this legislation. No, they came along with arguments

We said we did not want it and we stated the reasons.

According to the procedure of this House there are two ways of saying that one does not want a measure. The first way is to say it unequivocally with the courage of one’s convictions, and the other is to say it in a roundabout manner. In this debate the United Party came in a roundabout manner and said that they did not want this legislation. [Interjections.] I say I am disgusted with people who do not have the courage of their convictions. Now I am not speaking personally, of course, I am speaking of the United Party.

There is also something else, something with which I am not merely disgusted, and that is the following: I have no respect for a person or a thing that lacks the nerve to state his convictions as he sees it. The thing to which I am referring is the United Party. That is the thing which in this debate has not merely shown that it lacks the courage and the nerve of its convictions, but that it is also keeping a back door open. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) is in favour of border industry development.

No.

The hon. member said that here in this debate.

I deny that; I said I am for decentralization.

The hon. member said in this debate that he was in favour of border industry development. During the Third Reading debate I shall quote what he said. Hon. members on the opposite side said that they were in favour of decentralization, but that they were opposed to this legislation. Why? Because in certain circumstances they want to speak for people who are opposed to decentralization, and in other circumstances they want to speak for those people who live in the border areas.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said very clearly in the past that he was opposed to border industry development, and that if he came into power he would repeal what is now being done to promote it. I say that my problem is that I am dealing with a party which lacks the courage of its convictions.

There is also another characteristic of this debate, and that is the old characteristic of the United Party, namely that they approach any matter from the angle of opportunism. Their approach is: “Do whatever is most convenient and best suited to a given moment.” Here the United Party acted once again as it has acted in other cases. They adopt this attitude of theirs not only in respect of this measure. What is the attitude of an opportunist? He is a person who is willing to be pushed around, or to trim his sails to the wind. That is the attitude adopted by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: If pressure from the outside, or from wherever it may be, is strong enough, then he says there should be Bantu in Parliament, but if the pressure lets up, then it is no longer necessary.

Did Dr. Verwoerd not promise independence to the Bantu as a result of pressure from outside? [Interjections.]

What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? He says: “The answer to that is very simple. Pressures build up. Pressures at that stage were very bad in the country. I do not believe that those pressures are insurmountable at the present time.” That is the type of approach adopted by the hon. Leader. The hon. member for Yeoville should not sit staring at me like that. I ask him again: Could a black man sit in this Parliament, in terms of the policy of the United Party? [Interjections.] In London I heard what the hon. member for Yeoville said on the B.B.C. That I heard. The fact of the matter is that hon. members on the opposite side took the course of the opportunist. They came here with the most superficial arguments I could imagine. Now in this connection I also want to say the following, and I say this in all seriousness: We have a beautiful, a promising, a virile country.

But a poor Government.

Like all other hon. members, I am proud of our country. But unfortunately there are also certain things in this country which belong to this country, which belong to South Africa, for which it has now become necessary to apologize—with a capital A. I am referring to the Opposition in this country.

No, it is the Government.

To be saddled with such an Opposition is not worthy of South Africa —not with an Opposition which has conducted such a debate. Let me say at once that abroad they do not act in this fashion. When they say something abroad, they are not so weak. Do you know why that is so? It is because over there they take a more national line than we on this side. And that is also fortunate. But here in South Africa we are unfortunately saddled with such an Opposition. May I just ask in passing: I wonder which hon. member is going to be the next one to jump out of the United Party?

Let me say that in the course of this debate certain points were raised which caused me some joy. I want to say that I am grateful for and appreciate the excellent contributions made by all hon. members on this side who spoke during the debate. The speeches showed that they had made a study of the subject. Their speeches carried the stamp of research and of incisive discussion before they spoke. I must say one admires that, because such speeches could only be as good as an Opposition like this allows them to be. [Interjections.] Hon. members on the opposite side are laughing because I express my appreciation. But the fact of the matter is that even Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, of all people, has quite a high regard for this Government and for people on the Government side. Last Thursday he said the following in London—

I want to convey my appreciation to every hon. member on this side of the House.

Let me now say this: It is said that we need a stronger opposition. I do not believe a word of that, and I shall tell you why. Long before this measure was before the House, much more assistance, ideas and suggestions for improvements to the Bill came from this side of the House than ever came across the floor of this House. Our Opposition, which helps us to do the best, is sitting on this side of the House. It is done when we are all together.

There is also another hon. member to whom I should like to address a word. That is the hon. member for Outeniqua. For his part the hon. member for Outeniqua made a sensible contribution. He thought about this matter and he brought his ideas to the House and rendered a service to the people of South Africa. The hon. member asked me two questions to which I should like to reply. He apologized because he would not be here. The hon. member asked: “How long will it take to get a reply to an application?” I just want to say that during my Second Reading speech I dealt with that at considerable length. He then asked a second question. The hon. member referred to the 14,000 Coloureds in the Transkei and he asked that we should provide for them in our planning. I see the hon. member is now returning.

I want to tell him that it is implicit in our policy that we will specifically also plan in such a way that these people are looked after.

I now come to the attack by the Opposition. I began by saying that it had been a puppet show. All they did was to create figments of the imagination. Let me give some examples of this and let me start with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? He used this image, that we are putting a clamp on a man’s nose so that he has to breathe through his mouth. In addition he advanced the argument used by so many other hon. members, namely that there is compulsion here. I now want to make it very clear that in this legislation there is no compulsion of any nature whatsoever, and nobody can read that into it. In the second place I want to refer to the measures taken in Britain. I think this is a conclusive reply, also in respect of this charge of so-called compulsion in the Bill. This is what an official brochure of the British Information Service says—

That is also true of this Government and of this Bill—

I think this is conclusive proof of the absolute fiction of the charge that this Bill contains compulsion. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition leveled a further charge. He said: “There is nothing in the Bill providing for the transport of raw materials, etc.”

I think you misunderstood me. I said that in the criteria laid down in the Bill, there was nothing having regard to the transport of raw materials to the factories, marketing and distribution.

That is exactly what I tried to represent. Now I just want to tell the hon. member this. As far as I know the iron ore from Thabazimbi has been transported to Pretoria and to Vanderbijlpark for many years. In what Act is that laid down? Surely one does not lay down such provisions in an Act? This is simply raising an imaginary objection in respect of something which exists in no legislation in South Africa. Here we are supposed to provide for the transportation of raw materials. The hon. the Leader raised another matter as well. He said: “The Witwatersrand is one of the whitest areas of the Transvaal.” That is an argument which was used not only by him but also by the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Newton Park started it, and let us give him due credit for that. He explained what was taking place in Port Elizabeth. The argument amounted to this: Hon. members said that as far as industry was concerned, not even 50 per cent of the Bantu were working in the metropolitan areas. The hon. member for Newton Park went further and said that the percentage was 40 per cent. By now it has come down to 38.5 per cent. He asked why industry should be the scapegoat and why industry should be drawn in by legislation while far more Bantu were in other employment. That is true. I am not disputing those figures. But what I do want to say is this: What is the catalyst that induces employment? Let me give a practical example. If Uniewinkels had gone to Vanderbijlpark in 1942, the steel factory would have followed. It is industry which brings other development, and it gives rise to the influx of the Bantu. These hon. members argued that there were more Bantu domestic servants, and as the hon. member for Yeoville said, more Bantu in Government service and in the service of the city councils, etc. Why are the city councils and the Government there? It is because industry is there. It is not the Government and the city council and the domestic servant which get there first. It is industry which is the draw-card. What we mean specifically by growth points is, for example, to take the third Iscor to a place where it can become the growth point causing the influx of Bantu, if it is not a labour-intensive industry. Mr. Speaker, can you see what a superficial analysis those hon. members made?

The point is that proportionally more Whites will go there.

The point is that there is over-concentration. There are one million people on 2 per cent of the land of all South Africa. The hon. member for Yeoville demonstrated here that the White/non-White ratio on the Witwatersrand was approximately 1:1. There it is almost even, whereas in the rest of South Africa it is 1: 4. If a further million Bantu were added to the Witwatersrand in the next year, the ratio would be only 1: 2. Would that satisfy him? [Interjections.] The point is that there is over-concentration in a certain area. It has nothing to do with the percentage in industry. Industry is the point of growth and the catalyst which attracts the others. That is why I made it very clear in my Second Reading Speech. I want this to be taken note of. I said that these measures which are being taken are being taken with regard to industry, but there are other concerns which will also have to contribute their share in future. There are other concerns which will also have to contribute, and we shall have to do more in respect of the development of the border industries.

Let me now come to some other points which have been raised here. In the course of my speech I shall deal with the other points raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I say with all respect that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not raise one new point. I shall reply to every point he put to me, except the point he raised in respect of clause 2 (1) (a] and clause 4, because they are matters which will be dealt with at the Committee Stage. We have now come to the end of this debate.

If you could reply to that, it would facilitate the Committee Stage.

I shall deal with that right at the beginning of the Committee Stage.

I could reply to it now, but it is not appropriate at this stage. The hon. member for Constantia took up the battle-axe. Unsmilingly he began to sow dragons’ teeth in this House. He put the United Party on the warpath, but in actual fact he started another puppet show. What did he say? I want to devote some attention to him, because he introduced the debate. He said—

† May I ask the hon. member who took the initial steps in this country to help private enterprise, and especially industry, to get onto its feet to the extent that it is on its feet to-day. [Interjections.] It is the old South African Party which fought the establishment of Iscor tooth and nail and even asked what we were going to do with the steel once it was produced. It was not only the old United Party which did so. Since I have been in this House. I can remember what difficulty we had with this Party to get Sasol going. [Interjections.]

I shall now deal with the question of what has been done for industry since 1948.

What has industry done for itself?

Of course, I am not disputing that fact. But what did the hon. member say? He said: “This is an attempt to bolster Government racial policy”. Mr. Speaker, taking all developments into account, if there was ever a time when we did not need to bolster our racial policy, then it is to-day. The racial policy of South Africa is being accepted not only by Whites, but by non-Whites and the countries around us as never before. Contact with our neighbours and our Black neighbours was made this year and last year as never before. If ever there was a time that we need not bolster our racial policy, it is to-day.

*What did the hon. member say then? After he had tried to scare the people, he said: “This Bill will not attain its objects.” Then why all the opposition, if we are not going to achieve what we seek to achieve by this legislation? There is at least one point on which we are agreed, and that is also the only point.

†I should like to thank the hon. member for reminding me to put on record my sincere appreciation for what the Natural Resources Development Council has done. A long line of eminent men have been active in this council for many years. They have rendered excellent service to South Africa. But the question was posed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: “Why abolish this Natural Resources Development Council?” The answer is very simple. It was a statutory body. The statutory body is now the Department of Planning. Before there was a Department of Planning it was necessary to have a statutory body, but now that the statutory body is the Department of Planning, there is no need to have it any more. Long before this council was abolished the new Natural Resources and Planning Advisory Board was set up and is functioning to-day. I gave full details of it in my Second Reading Speech. That was done two years in advance of the legislation repealing the 1947 Act. There is full consultation with all the bodies which were consulted before.

*May I refer to another matter in this connection. This relates to the origin of the Department of Planning and its development. It comes from the report of their own Social and Economic Planning Council, of 1944. It reads, inter alia, as follows—

Note the following two points—

The recommendation of the 1944 report is brought to reality in this Department of Planning and in this legislation. But what did the hon. member for Constantia say? He said: “Industry was not consulted.” This charge was also leveled by many other hon. members. During my Second Reading Speech I indicated what consultations had taken place. They were warned long beforehand. They were told what would happen. On 17th May last year, more than a year ago. on the occasion of a banque of the Executive Committee of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said the following (translation)—

In June the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration said the following, with reference to this policy—

There is no truth in the statement that they were ignorant of what was coming. There was an invitation. Let me repeat that I am aware of the fact that the principle is not agreed upon. For that reason the Government accepted the responsibility as far as the principle of this Bill is concerned. There has also been some hawking with the name of the late Dr. Verwoerd and with what he had supposedly said, and it was alleged that what we are doing in this legislation could not be inferred from Dr. Verwoerd’s words, and that the late Dr. Verwoerd had in actual fact said: “This will not happen.” What is the truth of the matter? Is the late Dr. Verwoerd not the father of this border industry policy? To what end did he bring about the establishment of the border industries? It was with the specific object of allowing the Bantu to live in his homeland and yet make a reasonable and a decent living, and not to flow to the metropolitan areas. But secondly, was the late Dr. Verwoerd not also the father of legislation such as the “locations in the air” legislation? Was he not the father of legislation to cope with the domestic servant problem, to apply influx control and to bring about the development of the homelands? Was the late Dr. Verwoerd not specifically the father of this Department of Planning? Let me say at once that when the present Prime Minister said, upon assuming office, “We shall go further along the road of H. F. Verwoerd”, he specifically had this legislation in mind, amongst other things. If anybody wants to know how we are going further along the road of H. F. Verwoerd, he should read this legislation. Then he will know what those words mean.

Let me briefly mention some of those other phantoms of the Opposition’s. The hon. member for Pinetown said that this legislation was dynamite. He spoke of an “economic calamity”. He said: “Prospective industrialists will not come to South Africa. It will shake the confidence of overseas investors.” Now the hon. member denies parenthood of that. [Interjections.] You see, Sir, this Party acts differently from ours.

It was the hon. member for Parktown.

I say the hon. member for Parktown said that.

You said it was the hon. member for Pinetown.

Of course I can see the difference. The hon. member for Parktown is not prepared to accept that.

I never said that.

In any event, that is what the hon. member said. Let me just tell hon. members this. These international industrialists are familiar with this kind of control measure. They were not deterred by 19 years of National Party regime. In fact, in this year’s Budget my colleague had to take specific measures to put some curb on the influx of industrialists and their money. Our trouble is that the world has too much confidence in us as far as economic matters are concerned. That is our problem at the moment. The confidence of the overseas industrialists in South Africa centres specifically on the policy of separate development and the measures taken by us to implement apartheid, and I use the word “apartheid”, because this is the word which is used overseas. Let me now ask hon. members a simple question, one which I frequently asked overseas. Tell any industrialist abroad that the Government of South Africa is going to abolish apartheid to-morrow, and what becomes of the confidence of those people in this country? The confidence of world industrialists in South Africa and also of our own industrialists is founded on the fact that they know that this Government applies the policy of separate development consistently and will do so in future.

Another point mentioned here was that there is no place for the small man in the border area. I want to say at once that the small man, the small industrialist in South Africa, will do himself a favour if he goes and sees what there is for him in the border areas. It is an infamous misrepresentation of the truth and of experience in several border areas that there is no place for the small industrialist.

Then the hon. member for Hillbrow said: “Have the effects of this legislation been projected or our real growth rate?” Of course that has been done, and the hon. member knows that. But he conveniently omitted something. When he speaks of our “real growth rate”, surely he knows about the steps that have been taken? They were not steps to increase to 5 per cent. Our problem in this country was the same as that in Japan. Our growth rate was close on 8 per cent, which is too high, and it was reduced to 5½ per cent, and it is intended to keep it at 5½ per cent, and in this process all these factors have very clearly been taken into account.

†The hon. member for Houghton had a lot to say about free enterprise. I do not think I am being unfair in saying that for the most part of the speech it was purely a hypothetical tirade really. For her own convenience, she read her own fears into this Bill, but they are not contained in this Bill. May I say, apropos of what she had to say, that South Africa will remain a Lee enterprise country. We pride ourselves on that. That is the one thing this Government will see to, and moreover, free enterprise will be assured of law and order and protection of their property, and they will also be sure that South Africa will not develop into an inflammable powder-keg by overlooking the social aspects of industrial development in South Africa. They will further be assured of the fruits of co-ordinated physical planning in South Africa.

The hon. member for Houghton raised another point which I should like to deal with. She made the point that if there is a demand for water in the metropolitan area, why not take it away from a scheme like Vaalharts where it is used for agricultural purposes? Why does she not propose that at some later stage?

Will you accept it?

Certainly not, but then at least the country will know what the attitude of her party is, and that she wants to withdraw water from people who need it desperately.

*Sir, in my view this was one of the most shocking suggestions in the entire debate, that water should simply be taken away from people who depend on it for a living, the people who are on 30 morgen of land. [Interjection.] The hon. member asks what is wrong with taking it away from them. It is quite clear to me that the hon. member is the last one of her party who will be here, and that this will be her last term here.

You said that last time as well.

I have mentioned some points to demonstrate that the entire attack of the Opposition was based on imaginary and subtle comparisons just to sow suspicion and raise opposition to this Bill, and furthermore, to present South Africa in an unfavourable light. Someone said here: “The Nationalist Party has always decried the socialist system.” Why does he say that? It is to hang the label of socialism around the neck of this party. If it is not Nazism or “dictatorial powers”, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, then it is insinuated that we are becoming socialists in South Africa. What did the hon. member for Umlazi say? “The intention of this Bill is to direct all our industries to the border areas, and the Minister must reply to that.” Surely the hon. member knows that that is not in the Bill. He also said: “Durban will become a ghost town.” [Interjections.] He said: “Durban will become a ghost town because it cannot compete against the border areas,” and in the same breath he said that the border industries could not be a success. One moment the hon. members say that border industries are uneconomic, and the next moment they say that Durban is going to become a ghost town as a result of border industries.

† I should like to refer the hon. member for Umlazi to his own people in Durban. I would refer him to the report of the Executive Committee of the Natal Chamber of Industries, the people who, according to this hon. member, live in a place which will become a ghost town because of the development of border industries. The Natal Chamber of Industries in its report for 1965-’66 says this—

This is the Natal Chamber of Industries. They go further and say this—

*Then the hon. member for Umlazi also asked me: “What did you attain in the last six years in regard to border industries?” I may tell the hon. member that what we had to do immediately, and what we managed, was to overcome the prejudice and the fear sown by the United Party, and secondly, to put paid to their attempts at sabotage in respect of this development. Let me in this regard refer to just one further matter. Here I have the Daily Dispatch of 10th May, in which this prominent headline appears: “The Case for Border Industries”, and then there is a collection of photographs of “the men making the appeal”. I shall come back to this later; I think it is necessary to make some observations in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, let me just refer to two final points. I think the jewel of this debate came from the hon. member for Kensington, for do you know what he read into this legislation? He read into the Bill “that this legislation will take a Bantu child away from its mother”.

Your proposal; not the Bill.

“This Bill will take the Bantu child away from its mother.” I could almost say: “Dad, it can’t be true!” I quote, Mr. Speaker, to show you what is broadcast to the world on a Bill such as this.

It has nothing to do with the Bill. It refers to the proposal of the Department of Bantu Education. Why are you trying to twist what I said?

Order!

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member allowed to say to the hon. the Minister: “Don’t try to twist what I said?”

He tried, but he did not succeed in doing so.

Order! Did the hon. member accuse the hon. the Minister of twisting his words?

I said he should not try to do so.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Do you officially wish me to withdraw what I said?

Yes.

I withdraw it.

Then I just want to mention a last point. I think this is the greatest untruth produced in this debate, and it came from the hon. member for Green Point, who said that industry would not co-operate. It is a grave allegation which the hon. member made there. The Federated Chamber of Industries repudiates his statement absolutely, and I also repudiate it. Regardless of his influence, the Federated Chamber of Industries and this Government and I personally will cooperate to implement this legislation to the best of our abilities.

I now come to a pamphlet circulated by the Federated Chamber of Industries. Let me say at once that I shall deal with it in detail, because the entire debate on the part of the United Party was conducted on the basis of that pamphlet. At the outset I want to say that I am not seeking a quarrel with the Federated Chamber of Industries; I seek their co-operation, although I am aware of their opposition, but I want to warn them against one thing. I want to warn them against the United Party and against those people who mislead them. I know who supplied the United Party with all the necessary information; I know that the battle waged here was a joint battle. Let us get this very clear. I shall still seek their co-operation, but the time has come for them to search their own hearts and to see where their salvation is to be found in South Africa.

Is that a threat?

I am coming to a specific threat straightaway, if the hon. member will allow me to continue. That threat emanated from the hon. member for North Rand. It was contained in a letter which was published last night in the Cape Argus. In saying this the hon. member uttered a specific threat—

Looking for money—

Like the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. But he did not do it in his capacity as Minister.

The hon. member went on to say—

*Mr. Speaker, this is shameless begging for money on behalf of the United Party. This letter reminds me of the little Egyptians who followed people during the war years and hawked their goods and called out: “Very nice, very nice!” In future members of the Federated Chamber of Industries should please not merely pick the fruits of this Government’s actions, but should also be cautious when it comes to matters such as these. In saying this, Sir, I wish, to Present matters in their full perspective and for the edification of the Federated Chamber of Industry, to bring specifically to the attention of this House what the authorities have done, amongst other things, for the promotion of industry, and here I am referring specifically to the National Party regime. The National Party is the mother of industry in Southern Africa. The National Party nursed, fed and protected industry, and the National Party created the climate for industry to be able to exist and to be able to achieve what it has now achieved. That climate was fostered by the specific policy of this side of the House. Although industry made its contribution to the welfare of the Republic, I want to point out that it also made profits, profits to which it was fully entitled, but I want to point out that on those profits industry in this country is paying less in taxes than in most civilized countries of the world.

Not anymore today.

That the opinion could be expressed in certain quarters in South Africa that the Government of the country is capable of devising measures which are in fact aimed at prejudicing certain sectors, is more amusing than anything else, and does not merit discussion. In fact, the facts make it clear that the Government in power, and in particular the National Party Government, has to a large extent taken the measures which helped to provide and bring about for industry its status, its position and the prosperity it is enjoying at present. Let me mention some of these measures. (1) In 1924 the protective policy for industrial development was introduced by the National Party: the Board of Trade and Industries was established to promote the positive policy of industrial development; (2) the Government, through its Department of Commerce and Industry, is still displaying a sympathetic attitude, and by means of this policy a favourable industrial climate was created through the years, reinforced by customs tariffs and agreements. The validity of this policy is apparent from prevailing conditions. The production of mining, which has a limited lifespan, and of agriculture, which is not adequate to provide all the essentials of life, is augmented by sustained and purposeful industrial development. (3) The fiscal and monetary policy which is pursued provides consistently for a favourable but balanced development climate. In slack times support is given and in times of overheating the brake is applied. Members of the Chamber of Industries will know what I am speaking of now. Sound growth could not be experienced in any country which lacks efficient administration. High-ranking and sound Government and administration are a feature of our country. (4) During the past decade an export credit reinsurance scheme was established in which the Government takes unto itself a considerable risk in the export of industrial products. (5) On export promotion the Government is spending large amounts by way of advice and guidance through its local and overseas officials. (6) Our labour legislation, which is responsible for the exceptionally high degree of peace and order in the country, may be regarded as a model for the world. Does industry appreciate the tremendous labour peace as known in the Republic for so many years? (7) The establishment and maintenance of sound trade relations were promoted and the present standard of trade etiquette with our overseas trade partners is among the highest in the world. (8) Effect is given to the recommendation of the 1958 Viljoen Commission, which provides effective and wider protection to the local industries. (9) Although import control is not designed for the protection of industries, it is applied on such a selective basis in practice that the available scarce foreign exchange is concentrated on those commodities which are not at all or inadequately manufactured in South Africa. In consequence, of course, articles which are manufactured in South Africa do enjoy some protection as a result of this. (10) In the import replacement policy which has been pursued in recent years, valuable advice and basic guidance is provided to industry. (11) Finally, and surely one of the most important and over-arching factors in a sound development climate which inspires confidence and optimism, there is a stable national policy, which includes a definite political defence and industrial policy. If the hon. the Leader therefore wants to call this measure ideological legislation, he may go ahead and do so. I said I wanted to give a fairly detailed reply to the Federated Chamber of Industries. I should like to do so, as I said, because hon. members on that side of the House based their speeches mainly on what is written in this pamphlet.

†Mr. Speaker, I do not want to deal with the paper issued jointly by the F.C.I. and ASSOCOM which formed the basis of the attack by the United Party on this Bill. Before dealing with the issues, however, the first question which comes to mind is whether these organizations in fact represent the private sector as such. In this particular instance I cannot accept that these two organizations can claim to represent the majority viewpoint of the private sector. My predecessor, myself and senior members of my department are continuously in close contact with individuals in the commercial and industrial sectors, not only in the decentralized areas but also with those in the metropolitan areas. For us all it has been encouraging to learn, and we are continuously reminded of the substantial measure of support which the Government’s policy finds within these circles. I will now deal seriatim with the points raised in the paper.

It is worth nothing that although the private sector recognizes the Government’s objective to promote industrial development in border areas, it is, however, most unfortunate that the Government so far has received no support from organized industry in regard to the implementation of this policy. The support which has come forward, and which is welcomed by the Government, has come from individual members and rural branches of organized industry and trade.

It is indeed well known that the Government is employing positive measures to encourage a decentralization programme and to avoid as much as possible any negative steps to achieve this. However, experience in other countries as well as in South Africa over the last years has proved conclusively that all forces operate in favour of a continued centralization of economic development to such an extent that major socio-economic problems are created in over-populated areas. Proof of this undesirable tendency is found in the fact that in other countries the population in urban areas generally increases at the rate of 4 per cent as against an overall increase of 2 per cent. Some critics may hold the view that there is no serious over-concentration in South Africa, but, as I said before, if cognizance is taken of the fact that 81 per cent of the total industrial goods produced, are produced on 2.2 per cent of the country’s geographical area, there is no gainsaying the fact that overconcentration in our country is alarming. The Government is convinced that the problem is already a serious one—so serious, in fact, that the Government is determined and compelled to take steps to speed up its policy of decentralization of economic activities. We are certainly not attempting to spread industries over too wide an area. Economic growth points are carefully selected and where necessary the Government takes steps to create the necessary basic facilities for the location of industry on a sound economic basis. Whilst details of steps taken in the selection and promotion of growth points in certain decentralized areas are fully described in the 1966 report of the permanent committee, it can be summarized as follows, in reply to these particular points.

Areas or points are selected because of the fact that they already offer basic services such as industrial land, water, power, housing, Bantu labour and local administration. If Required, and in consultation with the local authorities, assistance by the Central Government and the provinces are offered to augment such facilities which might militate against location. Examples are low interest rate loans for rail facilities in industrial areas, fox instance at Pietersburg, Newcastle and East London. Furthermore, there are State water schemes in the Pietersburg, East London and Pietermaritzburg areas. We also have power facilities by ESCOM, for instance in the Northern Transvaal and the Northern Natal areas. We have housing loans and tax facilities from Government funds for key personnel in border areas at East London, Rustenburg, Ladysmith and Pietermaritzburg. Where surplus labour from Bantu homelands are offered and other facilities can be provided but where a local authority does not exist or is not financially in a position to develop an industrial area, the Government undertakes it…

The R220 million mentioned in the permanent committee report which was severely criticized under the vote of the Minister of Economic Affairs, for being too much, but now, in this debate, for being too little, to a large extent accounts for investment on infrastructure in decentralized areas. Since its inception the permanent committee is continually giving attention to improving locational conditions in growth points and to suggest new growth points. New growth points are also regularly being considered by the Government. Only three weeks ago the whole question of growth points was considered by a Cabinet committee.

Never before in the South African history has so much research and scientific investigation been concentrated upon the subject of decentralized and regional development. Never before have we had so much co-operation from provincial and local authorities as well as from universities and other organizations from the public and private sector. Our economic and political structure in South Africa is based upon our democratic way of life. This the Government is determined to maintain. The economic growth will continue to be based on the freedom of private initiative, but upon the freedom which must be contained within the framework of general Government political policy.

Finally I wish to mention the following. It is readily conceded that conditions in South Africa, and in fact the Africa we as fellow white Africans know, differ widely from other countries. We can nevertheless learn a lot from more advanced industrial countries and with adaptation to local conditions adapt such measures with great success. In fact it has been done in many spheres in the past. This will also be done in the development of our retarded areas with their peculiar socio-economic problems.

This Bill will be proceeded with and the private sector is invited to be associated with it in the formulation of practical measures to achieve the objects contained therein. The Government has the necessary machinery, such as the permanent committee, and I have the fullest confidence in the existing channels to co-operate with success and goodwill with the private sector to implement the objectives contained in the Bill, in pursuance of the total socio-economic interest of our South Africa.

When are you going to answer the points they make in that memorandum?

Does the hon. member want that now? Then I am going to keep him all day. I will answer them seriatim—one by one.

Then answer them, don’t just talk about it.

I have come to 4 (a), and I am now continuing from 4 (b). Shall I give it to the hon. member?

You have not replied to it.

I replied to it in brief. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member does not understand what is going on.

But you have replied to nothing.

The fact of the matter is that this is my reply to industry, which has picked the fruits of a national policy for many years. But it is also my reply to a party which did not have the courage of its convictions, or which was not prepared to think for itself— other people had to think for it. That party reminds me—and I conclude with this—of a building which is dilapidated, so that people are ashamed of going in through the front door. Now they slip in through the ruins, unseen if possible. That is what that side has done in this debate.

I say again, if they had the courage of their convictions, they would have opposed this Bill as one would have expected of anyone who had the courage of his convictions. I also give this reply to a Party which would not grant the rural areas the opportunity to get their small share of decentralization, a Party which merely pays lip-service to decentralization, but which does not say how far they are prepared to go or where decentralization should take place. It is a Party which not merely seeks to break up border development, with all the good it contains for all the nations in South Africa, but which would even unmake everything that has been done if they came into power. We hear that from the Leader of the Opposition. It is a party which wants to enlist the industrialists to put into effect their integration plans, if possible. This is also my reply to a party which misleads the Bantu in South Africa with their statement of the “rate for the job”, because that party knows, while saying that, that this rate for the job is in fact the reason why the White man is regarded with such hatred in the rest of Africa to-day. It is because they discovered the truth, and because they know that the rate for the job which is advocated by that party is flagrant deceit in respect of the black man. That is also my reply to a party which is, sometimes unknowingly but sometimes deliberately, the grave-diggers of the White nation and the future of the White man at the southern end of Africa.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr.Speaker, I move—

This measure is of a very far-reaching nature because it makes provision not only for the detention for an unlimited time of persons who are suspected of having committed terroristic activities, but also of persons who are suspected of withholding information in regard to terroristic activities. In appropriate cases the Bill also makes provision for the death penalty, the highest toll. Nevertheless I am not offering the slightest excuse for this measure because it is one which deals with people who want to sow death and destruction in South-West Africa and the Republic.

This Bill is aimed at terrorism. The concept of terrorism is a reasonably modern one, but we have already seen enough of terrorists both within and outside our country’s borders to know precisely who and what they are. If you were to ask me to define who they are, I would say that they are a group of conspirators who did not dispose of the legal or political power to declare war in an honest and open way against their enemy. They are political adventurers and possibly hirelings of our enemies who wage a campaign of terror and who recklessly sow or try to sow murder, arson and terror. All their actions are aimed principally at the overthrow of the rule of law in our country.

Sir, we would like to live at peace with all men—also with those who do not think as we do—but we dare not surrender our heritage if that is the price which we are being asked to pay for peace. This hon. House is aware of the fact that we have already joined battle with the vanguard of the terroristic onslaught. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Police has already informed you about this and will in the subsequent debates furnish you with further details. We warded off the first onslaught successfully, thanks to the quick action of our police. We have warded off the onslaught but not yet dealt with it. We must still, amongst other things, deal with those who fell into our hands. And that, Mr. Speaker, is precisely the difference between our approach and theirs. They want us dead, but we are not seeking to take their lives. Their violent attack on us was met with only as much violence in return as was absolutely necessary to render them harmless. We are not going to reply to their violent assault with machine guns but are going to try them in our courts in accordance with the norms of a civilized community and if they should be condemned we will ask that they be punished according to their merits.

But those who fell into our hands are not the only ones. They are only the vanguard, and we must be prepared to cope with this new evil in all its ramifications and implications. What we cannot allow is for our legal machinery to be insufficiently properly streamlined and adjusted in order to cope with this new phenomenon effectively. It is for that reason that I am coming to this House again to-day with this measure. I come to this House with the firm belief that there is nobody sitting in this hon. House who underestimates the safety of those whom we have been called upon to govern. The maintenance of law and order in our country is worth more than gold. That is why I come to this House in the firm belief that any criticism, of any kind whatsoever, which may be expressed against this measure will attest to an unshakeable loyalty towards South Africa, South-West Africa and its people.

Mr. Speaker, I must warn hon. members against thinking that those who are engaged in terroristic activities and who are planning further onslaughts are all beyond our borders and that all we have to do in order to ensure our safety is to guard our borders. One must form an opinion of this measure against the entire background of the domestic onslaughts which have been made against law and order in our country since 1960. These terrorists who are returning now are to a great extent the fruits of the undermining activities of the A.N.C., the P.A.C., S.W.A.P.O. and the communists. It is for the most part their so-called trained freedom fighters who are now returning. We may as well recall Rivonia, the Bashee Bridge murders, the Paarl riots, etc. The Bashee Bridge murders were a typical example of terroristic activities where unsuspecting, innocent people were suddenly overwhelmed and wiped out. There have been numerous attacks on witnesses and many of them have lost their lives. You see, Mr. Speaker: Everything which helps to sow confusion and anarchy falls within the framework of the planned activities of these people and in that very fact lies the danger that there are people within our borders who are in liaison with them. We have already paid too heavy a toll in human lives since 1960 to allow any further loss to take place. It must cease now and this measure must contribute towards that end and be the last nail in their coffin.

Hon. members are justified in asking whether we cannot merely make use of the already existing measures to combat this new evil, and then I want to admit straight away that existing legislation will to a certain extent meet the needs, but yet not fully.

As you know, there are already provisions in terms of which any person who has received training in the Republic or elsewhere which could be of use in furthering the realization of any of the objects of communism is guilty of an offence. You will also remember that we expanded those provisions last year by providing that training which could be of use in the committing of the offence of sabotage is also deemed to be training which could have been of use in the furthering of the realization of any of the objects of communism. You are also aware that people receiving training contrary to the provisions in question usually receive military training or training in the committing of acts of sabotage. I also believe that you are not unaware of the purpose for which that training is being received. Indeed, it is generally known that people are being trained for the exclusive purpose of destroying law and order in this country. I also want to assume that there is not a single member in this hon. House who expects people who have received such training to remain unpunished.

However, the question which may perhaps be causing hon. members concern is why further legislation is necessary now to make it possible to take steps against these people. In this regard I must say that there is a certain amount of doubt amongst some jurists in regard to whether last year’s expansion of the provisions in question can successfully be applied in the case of people who received training which could be of use in the committing of the offence of sabotage in the territory of South-West Africa before 4th November, 1966, i.e. the date on which sabotage became an offence in that territory. Sabotage, so the argument goes, was not an offence in that territory prior to that date and it cannot therefore be said that the training which they received prior to that date could have been of use in committing the offence of sabotage. You will understand therefore that the argument of those people who have doubts in regard to the efficacy of the relevant provisions cannot be entirely without substance.

You are undoubtedly aware that there are people who received training specifically for the purpose of committing acts of sabotage in South-West Africa before 4th November, 1966. Suppose those who have their doubts in regard to the provisions in question are correct, then it would mean that it would not be possible to take steps against prospective saboteurs in South-West Africa who received their training before 4th November. If we were to apprehend such people we would, in spite of proof to the effect that they wanted to murder and exterminate us, have to let them go and wait until they have first proceeded to act.

Obviously we cannot allow anything like that. But whether or not there is any substance in this view, it is in any case undesirable that there should be even the slightest possibility of a legal uncertainty. We cannot afford to stand and argue in the courts in regard to what the legislator could have meant, or deal with a series of appeals before coming to the heart of the matter, i.e. whether or not the accused wanted to disrupt our law and order.

There is a second reason why we would prefer not to make use of the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act, particularly where it concerns incidents in South-West Africa. In the past our enemies have always seized upon this Act, quite unjustifiably, to accuse us of using it as a means of silencing our political opponents. We prefer now to meet the invaders on their own terms and in terms of their own appellation, namely that of terrorists. In dealing with these people we have passed the stage of the ideological struggle against communism which we chiefly want to oppose by means of that Act. What we are dealing with now is no longer red ideology but red weapons. We are now dealing with the backwash of the tide of rebellion which was set in motion years ago by the organizations I mentioned earlier on and which has continued unabated.

As further background to the provisions of this Bill I should like to point out to hon. members that the form and planning of the onslaught against us is not easy to anticipate. The terrorists do not co-operate with us and inform us of their intentions, and when we do apprehend them they do not overwhelm us with confessions. They conspire against us far beyond our borders where we have no access. The indications are that training outside the Republic often takes place on a joint basis for all members of the various organizations, although in different countries. On their return they sometimes come in groups, sometimes individually. Some of them return to their own organizations and the places where they were recruited, in order to continue their activities there. Sometimes the actions are coordinated, sometimes isolated, and so we are compelled to meet them on their own terms. However, Mr. Speaker, one thing is very clear, and that is that the actions are aimed at the entire Republic and South-West Africa. It would therefore be very foolish of us if, in our planning against them, we were to stare ourselves blind at the customary territorial jurisdiction of our courts or of our various Attorneys-General, or at the normal purview of our process, and so on. In order to be effective we must be able to bring together and try terrorists whom we have apprehended in the Cape and whose deeds we can associate with those of other terrorists in South-West Africa or Natal. It is not Transvaal or Natal or South-West Africa against the terrorists, but the entire Republic and South-West Africa against them.

Mr. Speaker, I have now sketched the background and I should like to present the contents of the Bill briefly. In clause 2 we are creating a new offence, i.e. that of participation in terroristic activities and that includes in general any deed which is committed with the purpose of endangering the maintenance of law and order and also includes training, possession of explosives, ammunition and firearms which could have been of use in participating in terroristic activities. I know that hon. members will maintain that the provision is a very wide one—and that I readily admit —but, Mr. Speaker, if we were to tabulate in the Bill all the possible deeds which could endanger the maintenance of law and order, where would it all end? It is often the small deed at the night time which can result in a great advantage to the terrorists and it would be useless to try to limit the purview. When we were discussing the provisions of the Sabotage Act examples were also quoted of deeds which were being brought within the purview of the measure, deeds which could have had an innocent purpose.

I do not think we must rake up all those old stories again. I do not think that there is one hon. member of this House who can indicate one single instance of where we acted in terms of the Sabotage Act and where those provisions were abused or applied in regard to acts which have not specifically been committed with intent to commit sabotage. Here too, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the terrorist and nobody else, but it is foolish to try and catch him with a net which is full of gaping holes. Hon. members can therefore save themselves the trouble of trying to indicate to me everything and everybody who might be caught in the net of the offence— I am aware of that—but I assure you that it we draw the net closer and in the process happen to catch a little fish which does not belong there, then the Attorney-General will immediately throw it back into the water because I have once again provided in clause 8 that only he or the person acting in his place can order a prosecution in terms of this Act.

And now something about the principles contained in clause 2 (2) which creates certain presumptions. In this clause certain acts or consequences are tabulated and it is those consequences which, in our estimation, the terrorists envisage in order to achieve their objects. But as I have already said earlier on, it is impossible to define all the acts and consequences which they may be aiming at. I want to ask hon. members to study the subsection carefully before they comment on it, and I want to ask them not to jump to the conclusion that it places the entire onus of proof upon the accused. It will be noted that the presumption which is being created by that subsection in regard to the accused’s intentions does not in any way come into effect before the State has first proved two things: Firstly, that the accused was in fact responsible for a specific deed which he is being charged with; and secondly, that that deed which has been proved against him had the effect, or apparently has had some or other, or some or all of the effects mentioned in the subsection.

It is only after the State has adduced evidence to that effect that the accused’s actions justify a judgment to the effect that he wanted for example to further intimidation or dislocation, disturbance or disorder, or wanted to cause serious bodily injury to or endanger the safety of any person that there will be a presumption against him that he had committed that deed or deeds proved against him with the intent of endangering the maintenance of law and order. Sir, this presumption will in my opinion not place any indefensible burden upon the accused. In my opinion it is in fact lighter than is at present the case in terms of the Sabotage Act, and I repeat what I said earlier on, that I do not believe that an hon. member can level an accusation that the provisions of that Act have in any way been abused, or that they have been used against persons other than saboteurs. If no injustice has been done up to now, why should we expect it in the future?

In subsection (3) of clause 2 it is further indicated what documentary evidence will be allowable at prosecutions and under what circumstances. It will probably not be possible to dispute the relevancy of the evidence or its conclusiveness—even less so its reasonableness.

There is also a principle involved in subsection (4) of clause 2 and hon. members will note that provision is also being made for us to try those who have conspired against us outside the Republic. Nevertheless we are making very clear provision to ensure that the citizens of other States are not affected, because after all they owe no loyalty to the Republic. They will only be affected if they were previously resident in the Republic or if they entered our country illegally after having committed terroristic activities against us abroad. Indeed, we are not involved in an international state of war with other countries so that we can detain their citizens who attack us here as prisoners of war. If a citizen of another state crosses our country’s borders illegally during peace time after having been involved outside in a conspiracy against us, then surely he cannot expect us to regard his actions as an innocent visit and dismiss it with a pat on the shoulder. No-one can expect greater fairness.

In clause 3 we are making provision for penalties for any person who harbours, conceals or directly or indirectly renders any assistance to terrorists, but in this case as well only for those persons who had reason to believe that the person in question was a terrorist. I referred earlier on to liaison between local organizations and terrorists, and between individuals and terrorists. The need to make any association between them liable to punishment is obvious.

Mr. Speaker, I said previously that we must not stare ourselves blind at the territorial juris-dication of our courts or of our attorney-generals or of our judicial process when it comes to an onslaught against the Republic and South West Africa as a whole. To bring together what ought to be brought together, the Bill is providing that the Minister of Justice may issue certain instructions in regard to the venue and detention, and so on. It is essential in order to eliminate any uncertainty in regard to which attorney-general should be entrusted with the steps subsequent to detention. That provision is being made in clause 4, whereas clause 5 on the other hand prescribes the procedure at the trial. Clause 7 makes provision for the legal force, service and execution of process in the Republic and South West Africa. I think that it will be possible to discuss clauses 4, 5 and 7 to greater benefit in committee although I doubt whether there can really be any fundamental objections to them.

I come now to clause 6 and with this we are once again entering a zone where feelings are apt to run high, but I want to assure hon. members that the new powers which we are now requesting can be explained and I want to express the hope that once we have reflected soberly and calmly on our problem it will not be the terrible thing which some people might want to blow it up to be. The essence of the matter is simply that we cannot, within the short space of 14 days for which provision is made in section 22 of the General Laws Amendment Act 1966, and in terms of which we have up to now had to act, acquire sufficient details in regard to terrorist activities. After all, one cannot go to a judge to request the continued detention of a terrorist if one does not have sufficient information at one’s disposal to at least make out a prima facie case for his detention. However, hon. members must not misunderstand me. The aforementioned provisions, as they stand to-day, have already been applied successfully in numerous cases, nor have we up to now had a case where a judge has refused to grant an order. But we nevertheless have a responsibility towards the judge and cannot expect him to grant a request for the detention of a terrorist merely because the Commissioner of Police requests it. We want at all times to be able to say honestly and sincerely that the further detention of a terrorist is essential for certain reasons which are based on facts, and it takes time to acquire those facts.

Now, Sir, one does not want to mention things here which it is not in the public interest to make universally known. Nor do I want to allow myself to be tempted by newspaper reports into commenting on certain speculations. But I do want to tell you, without creating panic, that there is every reason to believe that we have not seen the last of the terrorists and that I honestly and sincerely believe that this is the appropriate time now to prepare ourselves to deal with any situation which may arise; otherwise it can happen that we are going to be left saddled with a problem which we will not be able to deal with. I have already provided you with a sketch of what the terrorists are envisaging and I do not want to repeat that unnecessarily except to say that they do in fact regard themselves as soldiers who are fighting a war and do not deem themselves to be bound by any law. If you think that I am exaggerating I should like to quote to you from no less a source than a United Nations document on what the terrorists’ claims in regard to events in South West Africa were. It reads—

From their claims therefore you can clearly see that they are not playing the fool with us and if they can hold a machine gun to our head, why must there by objections on our part to merely detaining them for an unspecified time for questioning? Surely our deed does not bear comparison with theirs. Must they then be able to do what they want, and must we merely take it all in good faith?

Those of us who are better acquainted with our borders, know that it is an extensive and difficult territory which has to be guarded and that dense forests, sand dunes and swamps stretching over several thousand square miles bar one’s way and make the tracking down of terrorists an almost impossible task. However, you apparently do not know how extremely difficult it is to acquire the necessary evidence in regard to the activities of a terrorist. It is only after thorough questioning and intensive checking of the details which have been obtained from various terrorists, or which have come into your possession in some other way that one can form any kind of a picture of what is really going on or how a suspect fits into the picture. In addition documents which are found in their possession are usually drawn up in foreign languages and must first be translated and studied before the contents can be evaluated. When one is dealing with a large group of terrorists, one’s problems are accordingly greater. Hon. members will also understand that one cannot wait until one first has a wealth of information at one’s disposal before clamping down on a terrorist. If we were to have done that we would have been in trouble a long time ago and would apparently not have been able to discuss our problems so amicably here. To do what has to be done takes time and patience. It is also in the interests of the accused himself that the police should have sufficient time to trace his movements and if he is innocent the inquiry will reveal that, and it will be to his benefit.

Now, as I have already said, the time at our disposal is far too short. However sincere our intentions originally were when we did not as yet realize the full implications of terrorism, when we thought that we could within the period of 14 days acquire the necessary information to go to a Judge, it has appeared in the light of the experience which we have gained that we miscalculated. We are now trying to do the impossible and are taxing our Police to breaking point. And since we are now already experiencing problems it is going to be far more difficult when a large group of terrorists falls into our hands. Experience has indeed taught us that it is nothing unusual to be in a position where one can more or less determine how a particular terrorist fits into the jig-saw puzzle of terrorism after a long drawn-out and intensive inquiry. We cannot afford to be continually overtaxing the powers of those who guard our outposts. If we continue in this way we will ultimately have to pay the price. In the circumstances I can do nothing else than to alleviate the burden which threatens to become too heavy and relax to a slight extent the tremendous pressure under which the Police are having to work.

Now, Mr. Speaker, all that remains are the principles of clause 9. Hon. members cannot be unaware of the overwhelming evidence which has already been adduced before bur courts of so-called freedom fighters who have left our country and South West Africa to go elsewhere to equip themselves for the struggle against us. The exodus began from approximately the date mentioned here, and they are now returning. The deed directed against us has therefore been an uninterrupted one on their part and it is only fair that we should take stock of their actions over the full period when forming our judgment in regard to their position. But suppose, Sir, that we were, for the sake of a mere show of so-called fairness, to allow this legislation to take effect on the date of its promulgation only, what would the result be? It will mean that if we caught any person in regard to whom we could prove that he had been receiving training since 1962 already we would be restricted to proof which could be adduced after the date of commencement of the Act and we will not be able to prove our case and he will be able to depart unpunished. Surely that cannot be allowed to happen. No, Sir, fairness and justice are fine concepts and we have great appreciation for them, but they only have significance if they are in proportion. If terrorists began an offensive on their party in 1962 which is only now coming into full effect, why should our counter-offensive not also be valid from that date? Should a terrorist who is still active at present be able to lay just claim to the fact that if he, when he began with his activities in 1962, had known that we would be waiting for him in 1967 upon his return with this legislation, he would never have taken the steps which he did in fact take? No, Sir, such an argument does not hold water—it is the argument of a man who has murdered his parents and then pleads mitigating circumstances because he is now an orphan. A terrorist who began in 1962 with his evil intention of disrupting the rule of law here, knew at that time already and is still aware now that he is committing an offence against his fellow citizens. I am making no excuse for the principle in clause 9, and if the terrorist reproaches us for wanting to take into consideration the full picture of his activities, then he is laying the blame at the wrong door. Just think back to what happened the other day when two of our Police officers carried out a routine inspection on a boat. Both of them are to-day lying in hospital with serious bullet wounds. Must we allow their attackers to go scot free because this Act will only come into operation in future? No, Sir, they began this thing, not us.

Mr. Speaker, with this I think that I have given enough of the background for the need for this legislation, and that I have adequately illustrated the principles underlying the clauses.

Sir, it is almost with monotonous regularity that we receive bills dealing with the security and the safety of the State from this Government. Two years after they came into power, in 1950, they introduced the first measure, the Suppression of Communism Act. One would have thought that by now they would have taken all the powers required by them. Successive Ministers of Justice have excused the taking of extraordinary powers by the executive or the giving of arbitrary powers of arrest to peace officers. Sir, all these measures have interfered in one way or another, to a lesser or a greater degree, with the freedom of the citizen. Some of these measures we have opposed—the power of house arrest, for example—and others we have supported where we have been satisfied that there is a necessity for the powers sought and that there is a check against the exercise of arbitrary powers. Sir, so many of the measures seem to be so similar that one wonders why they have been necessary, but there is always some subtle difference. The hon. the Minister himself has indicated that the Bill which is before us at the moment is very similar to other measures and that crimes covered by this Bill could possibly be covered to a certain degree by other measures passed in the past. Sir, this Government certainly believes in taking many bites at the cherry, and it chooses terms that chill the marrow of the ordinary law-abiding citizen. We hear of communists, of saboteurs and now of terrorists. I suppose it has been necessary to change the terminology in describing the crime because the Government always claims that through its energy it has dealt with the threat which it has set out to meet. At first we were told that the back of Communism in this country had been broken by the Government; then we were told about the activities of saboteurs. The Government claim to have dealt with the saboteurs and now we get a Bill to deal with terrorists. Sir, why was the offence of terrorism not dealt with when the General Law Amendment Bill was presented to the House last year? The hon. the Minister has dealt in his speech with the General Law Amendment Act. The word “terrorist” is used there; it is defined as one who favours terroristic activities. It must have been known then what was meant by terroristic activities, and if the existing laws covered those activities, then the Minister has no right to take powers to deal with terrorists. He referred to the Bashee murder and other incidents, but I submit that they all took place before the General Law Amendment Bill was introduced last year. However, in this Bill we are now given another definition of another crime. Clause 2 (1) (a) makes it an offence to do any act with intent to endanger the maintenance of law and order in the Republic. Sir, there are many laws dealing with the maintenance of law and order which could be applied but, of course, the penalties provided under those other laws are not as severe as the penalties provided for in this case. Clause 2 (1) (b) deals with people who undergo, or attempt, consent or take any steps to undergo training which could be of use to any person intending to endanger the maintenance of law and order. I have no sympathy with anybody who undergoes special training for the purpose of committing acts of terrorism and we do not object to the severe penalty for which this clause provides. Paragraph (c) of clause 2 (1) makes it an offence to “possess any explosives, ammunition, firearm or weapon” for anyone who fails to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did not intend using such explosives, ammunition, firearm or weapon to achieve any of the 12 results set out in subsection (2) of clause 2. The hon. the Minister himself has admitted that the definition is very wide; he has said that we can give him many ridiculous examples as to what could happen under the definition as it reads now. But, Sir, I wish to point out to him that this wide definition does have the effect that a person could find himself charged before a Judge and liable to terrible penalties if he is found guilty not necessarily of seeking to carry out acts of terrorism. Under clause 2 (1) (c), if a person in possession of a weapon stopped a police officer from carrying out his duty in the maintenance of law and order, or some other person from assisting a police officer, and if the Attorney-General thought that he did it for some purpose connected with terrorism, then the Attorney-General could bring him before a Judge and even although the Judge found that his act had no connection with terrorism, the mere fact that he possessed a weapon and that he did deter any person from assisting a police officer would render him liable to conviction under para. (c).

May I ask whether or not you are supporting the Second Reading?

Yes. I am dealing now with the penalty. Sir, that is why I say that this wide definition relates to a penalty which is provided for in clause 2 (1). The hon. the Minister wants to know whether we are going to support this measure at its Second Reading. We are going to support it except for the proviso to clause 2 (1), which says—

In other words, this clause provides for a minimum penalty of five years. We intend opposing that proviso in the Committee Stage, and I am giving the hon. the Minister our reasons at this stage for opposing this minimum penalty. The Minister has said quite rightly, as I have pointed out too, that the definition is very wide. If, however, there are terrorists, who by intimidation and terroristic means seek to bring about such a state of fear that people become afraid to help the authorities to maintain law and order or proper government, for fear that they might be singled out for special retaliatory measures, or who by other means endeavour to bring about chaos and anarchy, then we have to consider very carefully whether we must stick to our traditional rules and procedures. As clause 2 reads at the moment, a citizen can be placed in jeopardy and subjected to severe penalties. He may not have intended his action, in respect of which he is charged, to have the terroristic effect which the Attorney-General might think it is likely to have. Sir, although this legislation is framed in wide terms, it is necessary because, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, he has difficulty in defining any action which a terrorist might take to bring about his purpose. I myself have tried to think out a better definition. I think we all know what crime the hon. the Minister wishes to get at but I myself have not been able to think of a better definition. The matter would be much more simple if we could couple the offence with some over-riding intention such as intent to overthrow the Government or to bring about anarchy. However, there are two safeguards for persons who may fall within the scope of the definition without having intended to commit any act of terrorism. That is that only an Attorney-General can give written authority for a prosecution, and that a trial must be before a superior court, that is before a Judge. The mere fact that the Attorney-General himself must consider the matter will ensure that prosecutions are not lightly embarked upon, especially as he knows that the case will be tried by a Judge who is trained in a court with a high reputation for impartiality and where justice is not only done but is also seen to be done. It has been stated here that the rule of law means a person is accused in open court; he is given an opportunity of denying the charge; he is given an opportunity of defending himself, and he is given the choice of legal counsel. An accused will have all these rights. As a conviction also carries with it the death penalty, he will be provided with free counsel to assist him in his defence and to see that he does in fact have a fair trial. If the accused is in fact found guilty, he will have had a trial which he himself would probably not have given to those who are opposed to him. Of course, our worries are not about the guilty, but about the innocent. We want to be sure that an innocent man is not punished. Unfortunately, in any system, no matter how much it is weighted in favour of the accused, there are still miscarriages of justice. That naturally is no reason why we should not take every possible precaution to see that miscarriages of justice are not likely to happen.

The principle of shifting the onus, as is done in this measure, is not a new one. In some offences where revenge or gain is not the reason for the commission of the offence, it is often impossible to prove the intention. So, while the definition is wide, we must bear in mind what the intention of the offence is, although the definition is, as I say, so wide. Therefore, as I said earlier on, we on this side will support this clause with the reservation relating to the question of the minimum penalty.

It may well be asked why, if we agree that terrorism is a serious offence, we are not prepared to approve of a minimum sentence in the measure. I feel the hon. the Minister can quite rightly ask that question. Again my reply will be to refer him to the example which I gave him where the Attorney-General, no matter how bona fide he may act, may be mistaken in laying the charge under that particular clause.

Also the court

No, not the courts, because the courts, I submit, should have the option. However, I think this is a matter which we can argue better during the Committee Stage when dealing with the legal position. We will deal with it more fully in the Committee Stage.

Every case has different facets to it. Whilst talking about this minimum sentence I heard some talk on my left from the Government benches about that aspect. I agree that every case that comes before court has some different facet to it. Although we make this offence, as far as the maximum sentence is concerned, the same as treason—which is the most heinous of all crimes—yet there is no minimum penalty for treason. If one is found guilty of treason there is no minimum penalty prescribed. Treason is, as I say, the worst of all offences. Murder also carries the death penalty, but if there are extenuating circumstances present then the Judge is at liberty to give even a suspended sentence, if he so decides. So much for clause 2.

Clause 3 we on this side will support. Again there is a minimum penalty involved. We will reserve our rights to discuss that in the Committee Stage too. I agree with the Minister that if anybody knowingly harbours a terrorist he should be severely dealt with, and therefore the offence is made similar to treason as far as the penalties are concerned.

The Minister also dealt with clause 6. Last year in October, about eight months ago, we on this side gave our support to a measure— and commended the Minister for introducing it—which, so he said, gave him lesser powers than his predecessors had asked for in their annual sortie for powers to deal with the maintenance of law and order in the country. The law that was passed last year allows the Minister to detain “any person who happens to be at any place as a terrorist or who has committed an offence under section 11 (b)ter of the Suppression of Communism Act …” It specifically mentions a terrorist. When introducing that measure on the 18th October, 1966, the Minister said the following (Hansard, volume 18, column 4641)—

That Bill then under discussion provided that a suspected terrorist could be detained for more than 14 days if the supreme court granted such an order, which had to be applied for by the Commissioner of Police. The Minister continued and said in column 4642—

When the Minister introduced that measure last year he warned us of the seriousness of the position. He said the position was very serious and that we could not sit with our hands folded but had to face up to the threat. In asking us to give him the powers which he sought then, he went further and said the person would only be detained for more than 14 days if a Judge so ordered. He said, according to column 4642 of Hansard—

We on this side had no difficulty in supporting that measure at the time, because of the protection which was given to an innocent detainee. The Minister has now told us that he has found a fortnight is not long enough. Now, I submit when this Bill was prepared last year, the people concerned had the experience, they knew what they intended to deal with, the police knew what they had to deal with. I thought perhaps the Minister has had some trouble with the judges, but the Minister says he has had no trouble with the judges. He says the judges will want a prima facie case to be put up. When we passed the law last year the Minister pointed out that a reasonable case had to be made. I submit that, until the Minister has trouble with the judges, he should proceed under the measure as we passed it last year. Was the Minister wrong when he said that the Commissioner had to put up a reasonable case, which is all that is required, and the Commissioner must then state why he wishes to detain a man for a longer period than 14 days? Now, Sir, I submit that a reasonable case must be put up to the judge. After all, the Commissioner must have some reasonable excuse for detaining the man. He does not just pick up anybody in the street and detain him. He must have some reasonable suspicion which he can state to the judge because those documents are not made public. Only the judge sees them and the Commissioner could say to the judge what his case is about, namely that he cannot at that particular stage allow the man to be released as he is required for some other purpose. I should like to appeal to the Minister to reconsider this particular clause. Maybe the hon. the Minister could extend the period within which a case must be brought before a judge. After all I wish to point out that the detainee does not go before the judge. There is no inconvenience in producing the detainee because the only thing that happens is that the Commissioner himself has to put up his case to the judge in writing. It is only when the judge wishes to hear the detainee that he would indicate that he wishes to hear what the detainee has to say. The detainee then has to apply in writing. Even then he does not come before the judge. The hon. the Minister in stating his case dealt mainly with terrorists who are caught in South-West Africa and who may be armed. The provision of this clause now goes further than just terrorists. It mentions terrorists or anybody else who may have any information on any offence under this Bill. It mentions specially terrorists …

There are only two of them.

Yes, but it could be a terrorist or anybody who can give any information on terrorists or any offence under this Bill. And I submit that you may get somebody who really does know nothing and who cannot give any information. He could be detained and there is no way of that person being brought before the court. He is held incommunicado and nobody is allowed to visit him. And I therefore do think that the previous safeguard which the Minister himself introduced last year—not by way of an amendment moved by this side of the House—which provided that the matter should be placed before a judge, should be retained. In accepting that amendment last year, we indicated that we have a realistic approach to these matters. The United Party has never been afraid to face up to the facts. We have governed and we have had to take drastic action ourselves to safeguard the interests of the country and to maintain law and order. Not only did we have to do so in time of peace but also in time of war when we should have been able to rely on the loyalty of all the citizens. But unfortunately that was not so. So I say we know the problems because we have faced these problems ourselves. We have had statements from the Deputy Minister of Police last year and again this year on the activities of the terrorists in South-West Africa which indicated that they were organized, trained and well-armed. I agree that it would be foolish of the Government to sit by idly while preparations for further raids are planned or internal plotting continues. Because of the nature of our country it is not easy to seal off our boundaries or to keep all suspects under continued surveillance and if the Government is in possession of facts or information which they think necessitates wider powers to deal with a new type of crime endangering the security of the State, then we are prepared to assist, on the understanding of course that if the powers are abused—and the Minister appreciates it —he will be held responsible. If the Minister says he is responsible for maintaining law and order and for the security of the State, but that he is unable to do his duty, unable to guarantee security, unless he is given additional powers, we will have to give him those powers, even if we do not like them. Because, unfortunately, we ourselves are not in a position to undertake the task of assuring the safety of the State. If this Bill is absolutely necessary for our security and if there is a prospect of anarchy without it, then no one can object to its passage. Maybe the measure is too wide in its scope and some other Government could handle the situation differently but, as I have said, unfortunately the Government in power is the only authority which has the power to deal with the position and therefore we are largely in its hands. That there is a threat there can be no doubt. It may be because of the Government’s policies that the threat is there. It may be that with a different Government that the threats would vanish. [Interjections.]

Order!

The fact is, however, that this is the legal government chosen in terms of our Constitution and it is therefore entitled, perhaps even bound, to carry out its policies. We can warn of the dangers but disagreement with the general policies does not justify our objecting to the Government taking the necessary steps to protect the safety of the State. Our duty is not only to help protect the State, but in fact to see that the Government is effective in assuring our safety. It knows very well if it fails in its duty it will certainly have to account to us and the country. It might be said that the terrorists are compelled to take this line because they have no way of changing government policy. That is no answer. Either there is constitutional reform or revolution. We have to see that there is no revolution. We certainly cannot countenance it and in view of what is happening on the African continent to-day where you have revolution after revolution and with the world in a turmoil, it would be the utmost folly if we did not assure that our boundaries are safe and that our people are free from intimidation and fear. Hitler got into power because his scum were allowed to terrify the ordinary citizen. Had steps been taken to control his ruffians, Germany would possibly have been saved the misery brought on her. But, Mr. Speaker, we must be careful too that we do not give authority without redress too widely, that we do not follow the Hitler technique either by giving arbitrary powers to policemen and others who can wield them unchecked, as did Hitler’s police and the S.S. We feel that the people at whom this Bill is intended to hit would not observe the niceties of our traditional systems, that they themselves are bent on anarchy to obtain their ends and so we have to change our rules to meet theirs in order to preserve our system, which may not be democratic in the true sense but does give fair trial and protection to all its law-abiding citizens. We will support the Second Reading of this Bill and in the Committee Stage raise objections to the two matters which I have mentioned, namely the minimum penalty and clause 6.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit right away that I am rather dizzy having listened to the hon. member for Transkei arguing first in favour of the Bill, then against the Bill, then in favour of the Bill and then against the Bill. I must say I am really feeling very dizzy. The only one thing that I am sure of are his last words where he told us that the United Party is going to support this Bill at Second Reading, in other words it is going to support the principle of the Bill and that it is going to vote against certain clauses at the Committee Stage or that it will attempt to move amendments during the Committee Stage. It is interesting to note that the particular clauses singled out for strong criticism by the hon. member for Transkei on behalf of the official Opposition are of course the clauses containing the principle of the Bill, namely clauses 2 and 6. Those are the two main clauses in the Bill and those are the two clauses that came in for his really strong criticism. But despite this fact …

And the penalty clause too.

No, not only the penalty. He complained about this Bill being very wide and about people having to prove that they are not in possession of certain things, about the onus of proof and people having to prove that they were in possession of ammunition and arms for reasons other than terrorism, etc. That is not in the penalty provision. [Interjection.] Perhaps the hon. member will explain the point to me. I certainly did not get it from the hon. member for Transkei. I would be the first to admit that I did not get the point he was trying to make at all. The only thing I understood was that the United Party was going to approve of the principle of this Bill but will oppose in Committee the clauses that contain the principle of the Bill. That is all I could understand of his speech. As far as I am concerned, this Bill is just part of a series of measures that have found their way onto the Statute Book since this Government came into power. It is part of what I call a self-generating series of statutes, a never ending sequence of events. When opposition is shown to Government Acts, tough measures are introduced. Then, of course, tough opposition is shown. I do not mean the official Opposition, of course, but from outside. With that I mean that I am not talking about myself either. I am talking about people who act in opposition to the laws that have been put on the Statute Book. Then, of course, there are repercussions again, and the Government in turn introduces tougher measures to put down these repercussions, and so on. Each time the same explanation is given. “The country is in imminent danger of well poisoners, of saboteurs and of terrorists.” These are some of the reasons given. The only thing that changes, are the people who perpetrate the deeds. But the actions are the same and the Government’s counteractions are exactly the same. We have the same to-day.

They always have had the same friends in South Africa.

Oh yes, I have no doubt. And they have always had the same people who caused them to act the way they do, who take no notice whatsoever of the basic causes of opposition. They do not realize that no constitutional means are ever made available to such people to put forward constitutional changes in South Africa and to object to the laws which have been passed. [Interjections.]

Let me trace the history of this self-generating series of measures that I was talking about. In 1950 we had the Suppression of Communism Act. That was to protect us against the well-poisoners. That Act has had no less than 84 amendments since it was originally passed, and each single amendment introduced tougher and tougher steps against people, for example banning, house arrest and restrictions of all kinds. In 1953 there was a passive resistance movement in this country. That was put down by the Whipping Bills, the so-called “counter to the defiance campaign”. In 1960 the P.A.C. launched its pass burning campaign. Sharpeville followed, as we all know. Then we had a state of emergency. At least in those days the Government went to the length of declaring a state of emergency before they took the sort of measures they have taken to-day without a declared state of emergency. Then, of course, the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. were banned. In 1961 there was sabotage in South Africa. Then we had the 1962 Sabotage Act, which defined sabotage as a definitive crime for the first time and extended the death penalty for this crime. It laid down a minimum term of imprisonment of 15 years. In 1963 one would have thought that sabotage would have been put down, but not at all. In that year Poqo was operating. Then we had the introduction of a further tough measure, namely the 90-day detention law. Then that should have been finished. Our imminent danger should have passed, because the Government had taken the necessary steps, but not at all. Then we had “Spear of the Nation” and the Rivonia trial. In 1964 a provision was introduced whereby a recalcitrant witness could be held for up to a year, when not giving the necessary information. In 1965 the 180-day law was passed. The following year, namely last year, we were told that guerrilla bands were operating in South-West Africa, although we were also reassured then that there was peace and quiet in the territory. Then the little brother to this Act, the Terrorist Act, was passed and the 14 days’ detention without trial was brought in. A person could be held for 14 days over and over again, without being charged, providing a Judge allowed this. The provisions of the 1962 Act were made applicable to South-West Africa. Well, here we are in 1967. What has been solved by all this? Are we not safe yet? At which stage is this country going to consider itself safe? Every single year the Government introduces tougher measures again. One can naturally expect tougher repercussions following.

This particular Bill is now before us. In it the Government is asking for the most far-reaching powers that it has ever asked for. Certainly, they are much more far-reaching than powers that have been asked for before. It is giving powers to the hon. the Minister and to the police to take emergency powers without declaring a state of emergency to a greater extent than ever before. It is a combination of the Sabotage Acts of 1962 and 1963, of the 90-day measure, which has been suspended—it really would not have mattered if it had not been suspended—and the 180-day measure. Only it is worse than all these far-reaching measures. In the words of a Government supporting newspaper. Die Beeld, “the police will now have a free hand to act without legal restraints”. This they certainly will be able to do, as the jurisdiction of the court is completely excluded, as it was in the 90-day and the 180-day measures. However, unlike the 180-day law there is no doubt that people will be detained for purposes of interrogation. The Minister who introduced the 180-day law, was always rather coy in admitting that that particular law was going to be used for purposes of interrogation. There is no coyness in this Bill. It is made quite clear, in clause 6, I think, that interrogation is the main reason for the introduction of this clause. The hon. the Minister agrees with me. Unlike the 90-day law, there is no pretence at all of limiting the period during which a person who is suspected of terrorism, or knowing anything about terrorism. can be held. When the then Minister of Justice introduced the 90-day law, he did give us the original impression that the words “90 days” had been put there for a purpose, to have some limiting effects on the detention of a person. That was the impression one got. In fact, in the event, people were held over and over again under the 90-day measure. But here there is not any attempt at dissimulation. It is quite clear that the period of detention is an indefinite period. What is more, it is also quite clear, since nobody will have any access to this person, that detention can be in solitary confinement. There is no doubt about that either. Nobody can obtain any information about a detainee under this measure. Will the Minister, for instance, tell us that he is going to give the next of kin any information about the whereabouts of these people? At least we got that undertaking from the hon. the Minister’s predecessor when the 90-day law was introduced. That was not in the Bill, but he gave us that undertaking, and by and large, that undertaking was honoured. There is nothing like that in this Bill. Under the 90-day law the then hon. Minister of Justice said that he would, in fact, inform the next of kin. Under the 90-day law, it was Parliament who was entitled to get some information. And indeed, one did get a good deal of information, by way of questions, of the number of people who had been held under the 90-day clause and the periods for which they had been held, and so on. But under this Bill, as I interpret clause 6, even Parliament may be denied in formation about the number of people so held and the conditions under which they are held. There is no necessity for the hon. the Minister to publish, to gazette, any of the conditions under which people are going to be held under this Bill.

Furthermore, the 90-day law had to be re-proclaimed every year. Under this particular Bill, this indefinite period of detention is to be in fact a permanent part of the legislation. Weekly visits by magistrates had to be carried out under the 90-day law. Here there is no such obligation laid on the hon. the Minister. “If circumstances so permit,” says subsection (7) of clause 6, “a detainee shall be visited in private by a magistrate at least once a fortnight.”

There are other features of this Bill which I think are quite familiar to everybody who has been in Parliament over the past 10, 12 or 15 years. Also, of course, there is the retrospectivity of this Bill and the onus of proof being again placed on the accused, to prove “beyond all reasonable doubt”. This is an old and familiar part of the legislation which has been introduced by the Government. It is just a further extension of the almost annual process of altering the law of evidence and procedure to fit the Government’s legal precept that an accused is guilty unless he can prove himself innocent beyond all reasonable doubt. There are a few extensions, I might add, even to the Sabotage Act in this Bill. At least under the 1962 Sabotage Act a person had actually to commit a wrong and Willful act and no person could be convicted of sabotage if he proved that the commission of that act, objectively regarded, was not calculated and that such offence was not committed with the intention of committing certain listed offences. Here, of course, the position is quite different. If one looks at clause 1 (6), one sees that it is quite different. There is no necessity for a person to commit an act at all. It is not essential for a person to commit a Willful deed, and also clause 2 (2) makes this pretty clear as well. It simply says that the act is likely to have had certain results. That is very different from having actually committed a Willful deed, and the same words apply in the earlier section, the definition of “terrorist” in clause 1, which says that “terrorist” means any person who has committed an offence under section 2 or an act which had or was likely to have had any of the results referred to in section 2 (2). In other words, the act need not be committed Willfully and the effects in fact did not have to be felt for a person to be found guilty under this particular law. I do not know what sort of impression hon. members think an Act like this will create. We spend a great deal of money putting out favourable documents in regard to South-West Africa and then we introduce a measure like this and make it specifically applicable to South-West Africa. I rather thought that the police got all the powers they needed last year in order to cope with the terrorists operating in South-West Africa, but now, less than a year later, the House is asked to give these additional powers to the police. One would have thought that those powers were enough to enable the police to cope with the position. Indeed, not long ago we had a report that everything was in order and that the police could cope adequately with any of the difficulties they had encountered there; Now, I have said before in this House; and I dare say I will say it again ad nauseam, that laws like these do go counter to the rule of law, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Transkei has said. He talks about the trial in the ultimate when the person has been finally charged, but as long as you have people detained at the Minister’s pleasure in a police cell or prison, the rule of law has gone by the board because such a person, who may be detained indefinitely, is not told what offence he is alleged to have committed and he is not given an opportunity to defend himself and he does not appear before the court of law before he has been so indefinitely detained. So as far as I am concerned there are none of the safeguards which normally apply under the rule of law, and this is a Bill which I for one will certainly oppose. I say that such laws can be abused, and I say that quite categorically. Whether or not one can trot out instances under the Sabotage Act of abuses is quite irrelevant as far as I am concerned. Such laws lend themselves to abuse, because they are not laws where justice is seen to be done and which are under public scrutiny. These things happen behind closed doors and the proceedings are never revealed. Certainly other laws have been abused. People have been taken into detention under the 90-days’ provision who were never charged subsequently, and people who were charged have been found not guilty. There have been all sorts of abuses. People have been subjected to all the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act and the provisions of that Act have been abused although they were not communists or saboteurs or terrorists. I say that laws like these just lend themselves to that sort of abuse. I maintain that the 180-day detention provision has been abused. People have been detained under that law for things far exceeding the things laid down in section 215bis. I still do not understand why the accused in the passport cases were held under that law. There was never any subsequent trial for anything having to do with Communism. They were charged with fraud, and that is not listed under this Schedule. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would take this opportunity of explaining to me why a man who shot a racehorse was held as a witness under the 180 days’ clause. Can he tell me under what part of the Schedule the man who Shot Sea Cottage was held? Why was he held under section 215bis? Perhaps the hon. the Minister would care to tell me. Was it robbery or sabotage? I have not yet heard from the hon. the Minister any reasonable explanation of that. Now. as I said originally, the fons et origo of all this type of self-generating legislation was the Suppression of Communism Act of 1950, which has been amended over and over again. The Criminal Procedure Act and the Public Safety Act have also been extended over and over again, and every time that happened we have been told by the Government that it was necessary to have these new and vast powers. And of course this Bill is not going to be the last of the Mohicans, because nothing is ever done to counter the causes of disorder. Instead, always the screws are tightened as apartheid is implemented. Of course Government members and the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration will tell me that I am giving only one side of the picture and that I do not say anything about the fine opportunities the Government is giving the non-Whites to enjoy their national culture and community spirit, but I say that no choice is given to these people. Whether they want a national identity, or whether they want to enjoy a community spirit, or whether they would rather be free of the pass laws and the Group Areas Act and job reservation and separate amenities and everything else, they are unable to say. That is why I have no doubt that this is not going to be the last measure ol this kind. It is not I who wants bloodshed, but the fact of the matter is that the hon. the Deputy Minister is blind to all the genuine grievances that there are in this country. It was once said that those who do not heed the lesson of history are destined to repeat that lesson, and that is what is going to happen here. [Interjections.] Talking about history, I want to say that I think when historians come to write up the history of this era in this country, they are going to have a very fascinating time following up the vacillations of the official Opposition at this time. I have said all I want to say about the Government and I do not think anyone can have any doubt about what I want to do, and in case my time runs out I want to say that I wish to move an amendment—

But, as I say, historians will have great difficulty in following the vacillations of the official Opposition in regard to legislation like this. The United Party voted against the Suppression of Communism Act in 1950. It voted for the Whipping Bill in 1953. It voted for the banning of the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. in 1960. It voted against the Sabotage Act in 1962, and I must say they used some very good phrases in those days. They moved an amendment which could very well have been moved in this particular Bill. They were against it “because it deprived private citizens of the protection of the courts and put them at the mercy of arbitrary ministerial decisions in such a way as to threaten the freedom of law-abiding people, and it created the new crime of sabotage and defined it so widely that the lives and liberty of people who were innocent of any intention of subverting the State could be endangered; it granted further extensive powers to the Government and ignored the fact that laws already existed which were adequate to deal with any crisis that might arise, and finally that it would damage the Republic by creating the false impression that a permanent state of emergency existed.” The hon. member behind me, the hon. member for Durban (North), had a lot to say in those days. He said it was a most serious matter that anybody could be deprived of his liberty when he had not been convicted of any offence, and that he could be kept in a police cell for 12 days at a time. Well, here a person can be kept in a police cell indefinitely, and not just for 12 days at a time. As I say, it will be difficult to follow the vacillations of the Opposition.

The United Party voted against the Sabotage Act in 1962 and for the 90-day Act in 1963 and against the 180-day Act in 1965, for the Terrorist Act in 1966 and now I gather from the hon. member for Transkei that they are going to vote for the principle of this Bill. As I say, when they voted against those Bills they had lots to say about the rule of law and about the unnecessary powers that were being taken by the Government, and when they vote for these laws then, of course, they turn on somebody like me, who is at least consistent if nothing else, and accuse me of being in favour of terrorism and sabotage and incitement. The words they used could have been exactly the sort of words used by Government members when accusing the official Opposition for its actions when in fact they had the courage to oppose these Bills. It is exactly the same sort of thing, and that is why I am unperturbed by that sort of accusation; it is a lot of nonsense. I believe that this whole thing is being tackled in the wrong way. I believe that if we had a really searching inquiry into the real causes of disorder in this country and did something about that, then we might get somewhere and we might ensure the safety of our own children and our grandchildren. I do not think this is going to help. I do not think that bringing tougher and tougher measures every year is going to help us, and I am quite sure that next year or the year thereafter the hon. the Minister will come back to this House and say, “We did not take enough power last time; these wicked people are finding other means to defy us and to threaten us.” Perhaps the hon. the Minister really thinks that this time he is really taking all-encompassing powers. I say that this measure is not going to stop disorder. The only way in which you can stop disorder is by making a genuine, objective appraisal … [Interjections.] No, I want you to arrest people who commit acts of terrorism; I want you to charge them in the law courts and if they are found guilty I want them to be punished for their acts, but I do not want this sort of measure which gives the police vast powers of interrogation under conditions that no democratic country would tolerate for one moment. I do not want the Government to sit tight and to think that as long as it gets tough, that is all it needs to do. From my point of view it needs to do a great deal more. [Interjections.] You will never have peace and quiet as long as there are unjust laws, and the sooner the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education realizes that, the sooner will we have lasting security in South Africa. Anybody who thinks we are going to solve the problem by taking more drastic powers is living in a fool’s paradise. I believe that the whole history of these self-generating measures which have been put on the Statute Book bears out every word I have said here to-day. Every time we say that we are in imminent danger, we try to cure the trouble by introducing measures of this kind, and then we find that after two or three years the hon. the Minister comes back to this House to ask for further powers because the trouble has not been cured and the problem is still there.

The hon. member for Houghton knows, as so many hon. members of this House know, what happens at a Second Reading. One votes for or against the principle of the Bill. Sir, reasonable men may differ as to what the principle of a Bill is, if it has many clauses. I deliberately do not say “reasonable men and women”, because the hon. member for Houghton has been very unreasonable this afternoon, and the sneering remarks which she saw fit to direct at the United Party …

Well deserved.

… were completely misinformed. But the hon. member actually suggested some things which were not true, as I shall demonstrate.

Such as?

I shall come to them. In the first place, the hon. member, so far as the principle of this Bill is concerned, says that the hon. member for Transkei singled out for the most criticism, those two clauses which contain the principle of the Bill. That is not true. Sir. The hon. member for Transkei indicated that all that he found wrong with clause 2 was the minimum penalty. We agreed that the clause was wide, and the hon. the Minister correctly pointed out that it was widely cast. But then the hon. member for Transkei went on to indicate how the minimum penalty, in relation to clause 2 (1) (c), which deals with the possession of explosives, ammunition, firearms, etc., read with clause 2 (2), affected the question of the minimum sentence. That is a question to which I hope the hon. the Minister will give his attention. Apart from that the hon. member indicated that we were opposed to clause 6 and he indicated why. Apart from that we are not opposed to any other provision of this Bill, barring clause 6.

That is a very important clause.

Yes, it is an important clause, but what we have to decide is what is the principle of the Bill. The hon. member says that the United Party will support the principle of the Bill and then in the Committee Stage we will oppose the clauses containing the principle. I can assure the hon. member that that is not going to happen. Sir, let us examine what this Bill does. Here is a Bill to deal with terrorism. I am very unimpressed with the hon. member’s argument that if you pass tough laws you get tougher repercussions. If the repercussions are in the form of terrorism, in the form of sabotage or in the form of any sort of unlawful behaviour such as we are having at present, then as far as we are concerned we must take the necessary steps to stamp this out root and branch. It makes no difference what the causes are. The fact remains that you have that situation to-day. One might agree that some of the causes and some of the troubles at which some of the laws that we have passed over the years are aimed, could be removed, but that is not what we are dealing with here. We are dealing here with a measure to stamp out a condition which has arisen on our borders, and as far as we are concerned it must be stamped out root and branch and it must be stamped out right now. It is as simple as that. Sir, a lot of things are said about the rule of law. What is the rule of law? I suppose if one were to define the rule of law one would define it as the absence of arbitrary power. The hon. member for Transkei is quite right. The absence of arbitrary power means that people are tried in a court room; that you do not have the executive exercising arbitrary power over the individual. You have the court intervening and the court has a complete discretion as to whether or not, on facts and on the evidence and on the law, the individual shall go free or not. That is why we object to the minimum sentence. Sir. that is what the rule of law means, and that is why, so far as the principle of this Bill is concerned, so far as it is aimed at getting at terrorists, bringing them before the court and having them tried and sentenced by the court, it is not against the rule of law. But there is one clause which does offend against the rule of law, if the definition of absence of arbitrary power is the correct one, and that is clause 6, and we are going to deal with clause 6 as we have indicated. It is no good saying, as the hon. member for Houghton did. that she was watching the vacillations of the United Party …

It makes me giddy.

She says it makes her giddy. Sir, one gets giddy when one gets light-headed perhaps, and one becomes a little irresponsible. This may perhaps explain the hon. members’ attitude. Sir, the hon. member said something here which was untrue; she said that in terms of the United Party’s vacillations in these matters, the United Party voted for the 90-day Act in 1962, by which she meant to convey, as she has done and as her followers have done on all the platforms on which they have appeared in the country, that we voted in favour of the 90-day clause.

So you did.

No, we did not. Surely the hon. member must be very giddy; she must be terribly giddy if she cannot remember that we voted against the 90-day clause. It is true that we voted for the Second Reading of that Bill, and I will tell you why we did so, and I will tell the hon. member for Houghton why we did. Here was a Bill introduced as a result of an interim urgent report by a Judge of the Supreme Court who had investigated the riots at Paarl. The commission had been asked for by us. He told the Government in his urgent interim report that we should have legislation to deal with this organization known as Poqo, which he had found to be rife amongst the Bantu people. That we found was the principle of the Bill. When we dealt with the matter in the Committee Stage, what happened? We voted against the 90-day clause, we argued about it, we fought it—we fought it tooth and nail right through. We fought much harder than the hon. member for Houghton fought it. The debate would not have lasted that long had we not fought it. We also fought it thereafter. It was eventually not repromulgated. The hon. member omitted to say that the United Party in fact voted against the clause when we got to the Committee Stage.

We stand behind nobody when it comes to the protection of the individual’s liberties in this country. We on this side have a very proud record in that regard. But at the same time we have a very proud record so far as our responsibility to our country is concerned, and as far as our attitude towards law and order is concerned. We cannot talk about the rule of law, or anything else, if we do not have law and order. The point on which we will differ at the Committee Stage is not whether terrorism must be made an offence and the harbouring of terrorists an offence. The only question on which we will differ will be on the means one uses to achieve that end. That we will debate.

Why didn’t you oppose the 1962 legislation.

There are other things the hon. member must try and remember in respect of the Sabotage Bill of 1962. One of the things that was contained in that Bill, the hon. member for Houghton might recall—I know she is feeling giddy—was the provision relating to house arrest as well, which we opposed. That may well have been regarded as the principle of that Bill. The hon. member may well go back and see. But I think the hon. member must not try any more, to give the impression that she and she alone, bears the defence of the liberty of the individual on her shoulders. She is quite wrong. She does not bear that defence alone. We know that she fights for them. But the hon. member gave the impression, in one of her snide asides, that you get tougher opposition; she did not mean the official Opposition, she said, she did not even mean herself …

No, I didn’t

Well, the hon. member must have a very good opinion of herself. [Interjections.] I say the hon. member must not make these remarks about the official Opposition and expect that she can just get away with it.

Let us have some decent repartee.

No, this is not a matter of repartee. If the hon. member does not like what I am saying, then I am sorry, but the hon. member must not say the things which she said, because there is a reply to what the hon. member has said.

As far as the principle of this Bill is concerned, we on this side are opposed to one clause of all the clauses in this Bill, and to the minimum sentence in clause 2. Let me make it quite clear that our support for the Second Reading of this Bill cannot be construed and must not be construed as being support for clause 6 of this Bill. Clause 6, as the hon. member for Transkei has indicated, we will fight in the Committee Stage. We should like the provision of last year relating to interrogation to remain. Somehow we seemed last year to have arrived, in our long fight against the 90-days clause and similar clauses, at the beginning of a solution. We seemed to have broken through the absolute arbitrary power of the Executive and the police to the position where the courts came into the picture, and that after a certain period the detention was only at the behest of a judge and on conditions laid down by him. It does seem a great pity that we might move off that path on which we were placed last year. I do hope we will in the Committee Stage be able to settle this matter once and for all in the direction which the hon. the Minister took last year, because this provision relates not only to South West Africa but to the whole country. Also, this provision has no time limit, and it has no requirement at all as to what a court could do.

So, Sir, there is no problem about our support for this Bill. We support the principle that we must stamp out terrorism, that offences must be created which make it easier to stamp out terrorism. We agree that procedures must be adopted which differ from those adopted in respect of other crimes because of the special nature of terrorism, and also that the sentence provided should be the same as that for treason. For that is what this crime is, if it is not worse than treason.

Mr.Speaker, I want to thank the official Opposition for their support of this measure. It speaks volumes that the two sides of the House are in agreement on a measure such as this which is aimed at maintaining law and order, and can give their support to it.

I just want to reply to a few matters. I want to point out that there are in fact only two principles contained in this measure. The first principle is that any act, including the undergoing of any training and the possession of any explosives, ammunition and so forth, which endangers law and order shall be regarded as terrorism. That is the one principle. The second possible principle is that any person who renders any assistance to a terrorist, or who harbours any person whom he has reason to believe to be a terrorist, commits an offence. That is the second principle. For the rest the measure is made up of details only. I fully agree with the hon. members for Transkei and Durban (North) in this respect.

They gave their support to this measure, with certain reservations. They are fully entitled to do that. We can discuss the question of the minimum penalty, as well as that of the indefinite detention of a person, in the Committee Stage to-morrow. At this stage I want to say that as far as the indefinite detention is concerned, I made it clear that the provision which we made last year and which we honestly thought would work well, has not worked properly. I told the House that frankly. It appears that the time is not long enough. Although it is a fact that we have had no difficulties with the courts, I also want to tell hon. members that we have reason to believe that there are persons who were aware of communistic activities and whom we had to release because we could not build up a strong enough case to bring before a judge, or to submit an application to a judge. In other words, we are certain that some persons slipped through the net, persons whom we actually should have been able to bring to book. We do not want to endanger our bench and our judges by coming before them with half-baked cases. In respect of the applications which we brought before them, we obtained detention orders in every case. That is what it means. The reason why we are now resorting to indefinite detention is that we are up against trained, indoctrinated persons here who, as long as they know that a certain period has been laid down, will be taught and indoctrinated to keep their mouths shut and not talk and to wait for that period to expire. We must remember that we are in a state of semi war. These persons attack us with machine guns and we tackle them with the “rule of law”. At any rate, that is what the hon. member for Houghton wants. One simply cannot do that. It is simply out of the question and there is no such thing as that one can do that. We can discuss the matter further in the Commitee Stage, but I am now telling the hon. Opposition exactly what the reason for that is. The hon. member for Houghton’s attack was aimed mainly at the official Opposition, and I think the hon. member for Durban (North) replied adequately to her. I just want to say to her that as far as she is concerned and as far as I am concerned it is a question of “East is East and West is West and ne’er the twain shall meet”. We simply do not see matters in the same light. She has always interceded for elements that seek to bring about the downfall of the white man in this country. She has done that all along. I did not think she would go so far as to intercede even for terrorists. It is no use our arguing and it is no use our giving replies to that. We will never convince her.

You said the same thing to the Opposition when they opposed the Sabotage Bill.

Yes, that is why I expressed my thanks to the official Opposition at the outset that in a case such as this, where one has to do with terrorists, people who attack you with machine guns, I was able to get the support of the Opposition. But I still cannot get the support of the hon. member for Houghton.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion, and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division. Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr.Speaker, I move—

In the memorandum that was published along with this Bill, a brief historical survey of the development of the abattoir industry was outlined, and it also furnishes the contributory causes for legislation having become necessary in this regard. You will notice from the memorandum that owing to a variety of factors, inter alia, the lack of the necessary co-ordinated incentive, the abattoir trade has so far been very tardy in following a progressive and modern pattern of development.

Sound economic functioning of the abattoir trade and rationalized unfurlment of further development are not only of particular significance to the abattoir trade as such, but also hold far-reaching benefits for the slaughter animal industry as a whole. The desirability or otherwise of central legislation to counteract the impeding factors with which the abattoir trade has to cope with at present and to bring about the rationalization of the trade on a national basis, should consequently be judged against the background of the adverse effect the present abattoir set-up has on the slaughter animal industry in particular and agriculture in general.

The abattoir trade is regarded as sufficiently extensive and important to merit particular attention. However, to achieve the desired objects, such attention will require thorough and specialized study and action on the basis of objective considerations. As regards the approach to problems, objectivity in particular is considered to be of vital importance. Consequently it was assumed that a separate and expert body, capable of pursuing a consistent and uninterrupted policy and of concentrating purely on abattoir matters, would be best equipped to realize for the trade the objects of co-ordination and rationalization.

The Abattoir Commission Bill seeks to establish a commission to deal with and exercise control over all matters in connection with the sitting, erection, registration, use, alteration, closing, management and conduct of abattoirs, and to bring about the co-ordination and rationalization of matters relating to abattoirs.

The Abattoir Commission will consist of a minimum of three and a maximum of five members. For the above-mentioned reasons it is the intention that the members of the Commission will be appointed by the State President by virtue of their experience in and knowledge of the abattoir trade and the particular problems in that regard. A body which is constituted on the basis of representation of the various bodies concerned with the trade, may hold certain benefits, but in such a case the divided loyalties of the respective members may hamper in particular the required objectivity in the approach to problems.

The proposed control covers the activities of all abattoirs where cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, horses, mules and donkeys are slaughtered for the purpose of making the meat and other products available for human or animal consumption.

In order to achieve the objects of this Bill in practice, it is contemplated to confer certain powers on the Minister and the Commission. However, the exceptional set-up of the abattoir trade and its closed and protected nature necessitates, in certain respects, an extraordinary approach as regards control— in this respect I am thinking, for instance, of the extensive capital investment—and since some of the proposed measures may perhaps be of a reasonably drastic nature, they should be understood and approached in this sense. Furthermore, the general state of affairs in which the industry finds itself, and the firm and urgent action that will be necessary to put the industry on an economically sound basis and to develop it, should also be borne in mind.

Before I explain the nature and the effect of these measures, I should like to emphasize that the Commission’s policy will be determined with the approval of the Minister. In view of the fact that the Commission will be concerned mainly with matters relating to the abattoir trade as such, it must be possible for actions in this regard to be accommodated in the broader planning and development of agriculture as a whole, and in this respect ministerial guidance is considered to be essential.

The Commission will acquire its funds largely by the imposition and collection of levies on animals slaughtered at abattoirs. Although no maximum is laid down in the Bill, preliminary calculations indicate that levy rates are expected to be in the vicinity of 6c per head in the case of cattle, horses, mules and donkeys, 1.5c in the case of sheep and goats, and 3c in the case of calves and pigs.

One of the most important tasks of the Commission will be to take the lead in connection with matters relating to abattoirs, providing the industry with specialized knowledge and guidance and serving as the necessary incentive—financially as well as otherwise—for the promotion of research and study in this field.

For this purpose the Bill confers the necessary powers on the Commission to require, gain, collect, process and make available the statistical and other data it may need, to advance its funds in respect of research projects, and to grant bursaries and bursary loans to deserving persons in respect of pre-and postgraduate studies.

It is proposed to effect the provision of guidance and advice to the industry in two ways, namely by means of personal contact and by means of the code of instructions for which provision is made in this Bill. What is meant by personal contact, is not only cases where a person voluntarily approaches the Commission for assistance and advice, but also those cases where the initiative is taken by the Commission itself. You will notice that the Bill embodies, for instance, a proposed power authorizing the Commission to issue certain orders relating to the internal functioning of any specific abattoir. What is meant by the code of instructions, is the introduction of a practical document to serve as a guide in the fields of abattoir planning, lay-out and construction, internal functioning, operating methods and standards. The contents of this code will be based on expert considerations based on research, which will also be undertaken in this regard. However, its provisions will not be binding upon any person, except where the Commission specially directs them to be so in respect of a specific abattoir.

In order to enable the Commission to launch an effective rationalization programme and to bring about the co-ordination of abattoir facilities on the basis of an acceptable national pattern, it is necessary for slaughtering to be concentrated as far as possible at approved central points. Consequently it is proposed that as from a date fixed by the State President by proclamation, the slaughter of animals will be prohibited except at abattoirs registered by the Commission. Such a prohibition will at the same time result in increased use being made of registered abattoirs. The extent to which an abattoir is utilized has an important effect on its internal functioning, particularly in regard to productivity and the cost structure. It also determines whether or not capital for the improvement of facilities will be spent.

Sustained utilization at maximum capacity will, for instance, considerably enhance an abattoir’s chances of economic success and will have the result that mechanization and modernization will constantly receive the necessary attention.

On the other hand, it is realized that a total prohibition on the slaughter of animals except at registered abattoirs is, after all, a very drastic step, particularly as far as the farming community is concerned. Consequently all so-called “backyard slaughterings”—whether on farms, agricultural holdings or erven in towns —are exempted from the operation of this legislation, on condition that such slaughterings are intended for the personal household purposes of the occupier of the land on which those animals are slaughtered.

In addition exemption is granted in respect of slaughtering on behalf of the employees of a farmer, provided that such slaughterings do not become so many in number that control may be justified. However, where an occupier of land allows his land to be used for slaughterings for the purposes of third parties, he will contravene the prohibition unless his premises have been registered with the Commission as an “abattoir”. In the latter connection it should be noted that in the Bill “abattoir” is defined as “any place where animals are slaughtered for consumption by human beings or animals”. From the nature of the case the slaughter of karakul lambs for the purpose of obtaining their pelts, is also exempted.

Because at this stage the exact effect and the implications the prohibition will have in practice can hardly be foreseen, it is being provided in the Bill that the State President will have the power to exempt by proclamation certain classes of abattoirs, or certain classes of persons or certain classes or areas determined by him, from compliance with all or some of the provisions of this legislation.

I have already mentioned that slaughterings, except where exemptions are granted, will only be permitted at those abattoirs which have been registered with the Commission. The Bill places the Commission under an obligation to register all abattoirs which will be in use or in the process of being erected on the date of commencement of the proposed legislation. Similarly the Commission has to register all abattoirs, the erection of which it has previously approved. In the latter regard it is provided that a new abattoir may only be erected with the prior permission of the Commission.

Modern abattoirs in densely populated areas have to a large extent outgrown their character as purely local institutions, and it is necessary to adapt their further development to the broader national planning of the country as a whole. That is why it is of vital importance that the coming into being and establishment of new abattoirs should take place rationally, according to present and anticipated future circumstances. The existing pattern of abattoir establishment leaves much to be desired and in general it has not kept pace with these requirements. Although all existing abattoirs will initially be entitled to registration by the Commission, it does not necessarily mean that their right to survival will be prejudiced. If it were to be found that registered abattoirs would subsequently become redundant for the purposes of rationalization, such abattoirs may be closed and the registrations granted in respect thereof may be withdrawn in terms of the powers contained in this Bill. Owing to the drastic nature of such action, it is provided in the Bill that the power to exercise that right must vest in the Minister. In addition specific provision is made for the payment of compensation from the funds of the Commission in respect of the actual financial loss a person may suffer as a result of such withdrawal of registration.

In order to prevent abattoir development from continuing in its present inefficient and unco-ordinated way, it is necessary to peg the industry in its present form so that its further development may take place under the guidance and strict supervision of the Commission —not only as regards the establishment of new abattoirs, but also with reference to the present purposes and the use of existing abattoirs, the internal functioning of each abattoir and the extension or curtailment of existing abattoir and allied facilities. In rationalization, coordination and centralization (where necessary), the efficiency, suitability, capacity, extent, purpose and nature of each abattoir are important. After all, these factors determine rationalization in the broader sense, particularly if it is borne in mind that “abattoir” embraces all places where animals are slaughtered, from the most primitive to the most modern.

In this regard it is proposed, in the first place, to regulate the extent of the functions, the purposes of the use and the nature of each abattoir by way of a system of restrictive registration conditions. A slaughtering place at a zoo. for instance, may be registered as an abattoir provided that the animals slaughtered there may only be used for the purposes of feeding the animals in that particular zoo. This measure is of importance in order to prevent an abattoir that is being used, for instance, for private purposes, from being converted into a public abattoir, or vice versa. However, at the request of an abattoir owner, restrictive conditions will be removed or altered by the Commission, but, and I need hardly mention it, such a request will only be granted on merit and with due regard to the rights of interest groups.

Secondly, it is proposed that the envisaged Act should prohibit any substantial alteration to an abatoir as regards its out-lay or the buildings, structures and fixed equipment that forms part thereof, unless the Commission approves such alteration beforehand. The available facilities determine the capacity of an abattoir, and the extension or curtailment of the capacity of an abattoir, without the knowledge of the Commission, may complicate its task appreciably. Furthermore, as mentioned, it may become necessary to close certain redundant abattoirs (and, at the same time, specific redundant facilities at certain abattoirs), and considering the fact that in taking such action the Commission will be obliged to pay compensation out of its levy revenue, the uncontrolled acquisition of expensive buildings and equipment at such abattoirs will have the effect that financially the industry will be burdened unnecessarily.

Thirdly, it is the task of the Commission to see to the economically effective functioning of each abattoir, the facilities that are or ought to be available at abattoirs, the possible extension or curtailment of the capacity of an abattoir, the possibility of mechanization and the practical realization of the idea of single control by abattoir owners over all physical activities within abattoirs. Provision is therefore being made in the Bill for vesting the Commission with full powers to issue in this regard the orders it may deem necessary. In terms of this measure the Commission may require—

1. (a) specific procedures or methods to be for lowed within a specific abattoir, and the services performed there to be co-ordinated in a specific way (in order to effect enhanced productivity and greater economic utilization);
2. (b) mechanization to be proceeded to, and the necessary equipment for that purpose to be acquired (in order to fall into line with current operating and marketing requirements);
3. (c) certain facilities to be introduced or withdrawn, or certain services to be performed or discontinued (in order to bring about the rationalization and coordination of the industry); and
4. (d) specific persons to perform or not to be permitted to perform certain services (in order to render single control by abattoir owners a possibility).

It is emphasized that the Commission will be an expert body in the field of abattoir planning, out-lay and utilization and. as regards the performance of abattoir services, and it may therefore be assumed that it will exercise its powers in this regard in the best interests of everybody concerned with the industry. It is realized further that the exercise of this power may entail costs and capital obligations, particularly for the owner of an abattoir, but such exercise should be viewed against the background of prior consultation, negotiation and the possible rendering of financial aid by the Commission.

The classes of abattoirs that will be affected by this measure are those that must provide for the public needs of a specific community. Where an order of this nature, an order relating to the withdrawal of specific facilities or the discontinuation of a service, entails actual financial loss for a person, the Commission is obliged to compensate such a person out of its funds.

Furthermore, the Bill prohibits the closing of an abattoir by its owner, unless he has given to the Commission, at least 180 days prior to the date on which he closes such abattoir, a written notice to that effect. Since this provision has virtually no significance as far as the closing of an abattoir used exclusively for private purposes is concerned, provision is being made for granting the Commission the power to permit in specific cases the closing of an abattoir without the required notice being given. The closing of a public abattoir will result in alternative arrangements having to be made by the Commission in good time, so as to ensure continuity in the supply of meat to the community concerned. These “alternative arrangements” may even take the form of the abattoir in question being expropriated by the Commission or a person authorized by it to do so. Traditionally local authorities are the owners of public abattoir facilities, and it is hardly conceivable that this measure will ever be applied in regard to a local authority. However, it should be borne in mind that private undertakings will now also be permitted to become owners of such abattoirs. Justification for this measure is to be found in the fact that a person who, on the one hand, is permitted to have a virtual monopoly for a specific area, must, on the other hand, meet his responsibilities to the community of that specific area. The unproductive utilization of abattoirs has the effect that the slaughter animal industry has to labour under the burden of unrealistic abattoir costs. The simplest method of making an abattoir function economically is. of course, simply to increase tariffs to a level which renders the redemption of debts a possibility. From the nature of the case such an approach to the matter is undesirable. The starting-point should rather be to enhance productivity by reviewing the effectiveness of operating methods and the possibility of mechanizing and co-ordinating the various functions. In order to ensure that tariffs are not increased on the grounds of unjustified factors, it is proposed that current tariffs payable for the use of abattoirs, should be frozen at the rate which obtained at all abattoirs concerned immediately before the commencement of the envisaged Act, and that the Commission should be granted the power to determine tariffs as it may deem fit. Further increases in tariffs will then only be considered and permitted on merit. In the application of this measure the Commission may, of course, make such allowances for such profit margins as it may deem reasonable.

I have now dealt with the envisaged powers of the Commission. The Bill also embodies a number of other principles which are deserving of being explained more fully.

Apart from the consideration of applications for certain registrations and the erection of new abattoirs, in respect of which a system of automatic appeal to the Minister is being suggested, the Bill does not contain any provision for an appeal to the Minister by a person who considers himself to have been aggrieved by a decision taken by the Commission. It is being proposed instead to confer upon the Minister, where necessary, the power to overrule any decision of the Commission, whether of its own accord or at the request of an aggrieved person, without any cumbrous formalities. That does, of course, eliminate the process of appeals.

The exercise by the Commission of its proposed powers will, from the nature of the case, take place mainly with a view to economic factors affecting the abattoir trade as such, but it is realised that such exercise may sometimes have implications which may affect the interests of other bodies. In this respect we are thinking in particular of the Meat Board (which implements a marketing scheme at abattoirs in urban areas), the Department of Agricultural Technical Services (which, according to the. report, will be concerned with the implementation of hygiene control at abattoirs), the Department of Labour (which implements labour legislation at abattoirs) and the Administrators of the respective provinces (who have control over the capital spending of local authorities). Consequently the Bill arranges for consultation by the Commission with certain bodies. Furthermore, the Minister may also direct the Commission to consult with any specific body in a specific case.

The successful realization of the objects of this Bill depends to a large extent on the way the Commission will approach such persons as are concerned in the industry, and consequently it is regarded as essential for the measures of the envisaged Act to be applied in a spirit of mutual consultation, co-operation and the necessary co-ordination in the steps to be taken. What is particularly important here is the position of abattoir owners. It was therefore agreed with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services that the necessary consultation and co-ordination would take place continuously in view of the possibility that the exercise of the powers in terms of this Bill and the powers in terms of the envisaged Act relating to hygiene control at abattoirs, might overlap.

Divided control and the variety of independent interest groups which manage certain functions within certain public abattoirs, are factors which may sometimes have adverse effects on the orderly and economic utilization of an abattoir. This leads, inter alia, to unprofitable utilization of facilities, increased costs—particularly on account of injudicious utilization of labour—ineffective and uncoordinated action, and gives rise to a general feeling of frustration on the part of abattoir owners “who do not have all the say in their own businesses”. Over and above the attempts the Commission will make in regard to the practical realization of the ideal of single control by abattoir owners over all physical activities within abattoirs, the Bill also makes provision for the specific powers and responsibilities of such owners. The general starting-point is to integrate abattoir owners as closely as possible with the Commission in order to bring about effective single control.

However, at the same time the particular position of the Meat Board, which implements a marketing scheme at certain public urban abattoirs, will have to be taken into account. In order to prevent the implementation of the meat scheme from being complicated by the idea of single control, the Bill grants a measure of protection to those persons appointed or authorized by the Meat Board to assist in the implementation of its scheme.

Since certain provisions of the Bill are of virtually no significance as far as certain classes of abattoirs—the smaller private abattoirs, for instance—are concerned, provision is being made in this measure, firstly, for a system whereby the Commission may take different action in regard to different classes of abattoirs, and, secondly, for a power to be conferred upon the State President to exempt certain areas, persons or abattoirs, or classes thereof, from compliance with all or certain provisions of the envisaged legislation. This approach will ensure the necessary elasticity of action in the implementation of this legislation The Bill grants recognition to the principle that private enterprise may be admitted to the public abattoir industry. Traditionally abattoirs providing the public with the meat it requires have always been the property and under the control of the respective local authorities. However, it is not at all the intention now to take away these traditional rights of local authorities. The general approach that local authorities will continue to establish and manage abattoirs, will be maintained; as a matter of fact, the Bill emphatically provides that in introducing new public slaughtering facilities, local authorities must be given first option in respect of the erection and provision thereof. The motive for its being considered necessary to admit private enterprise to the industry, is to intensify, by means of the controlled admission of competitive bodies with financial autonomy the endeavour to effect increased efficiency.

After this Bill had been published early in 1966 for the information of the general public, comment thereon was received from various bodies. This comment was considered carefully and, where possible, the recommendations that resulted from it were embodied in the final draft. In addition the envisaged legislation was formulated in the closest collaboration possible with other Government Departments concerned in the matter, the provincial and local authorities, the Meat Board and other bodies.

In conclusion I must point out that the Bill was drafted with a view to economic considerations. Legislation making provision for the implementation of and control over hygiene at abattoirs, will be dealt with by my colleague the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. This legislation has already been submitted to this House.

In view of the fact that this legislation is considered to be in the general interests of our meat industry, and also of our abattoir industry, I trust that both sides of the House will lend me their support in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House shall not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. Nevertheless I find it necessary to say to the hon. the Minister that, although this measure was already published in draft form in 1966—a year ago— and although the Department consulted various concerns, I feel the time that we on this side have been given for studying this drastic legislation, and moreover, at this late stage of the session, was to a certain extent unfair to the agricultural group of the United Party. We should also like to do justice to legislation that comes before this House. Over and above the fact that the Minister has to hold consultations, I think it is in the interests of good government that the Opposition should also hold consultations with certain outside concerns that have an interest in this measure. Let me tell the Minister that the time available was unfortunately too short to allow adequate and proper consultation.

I want to add to that the Minister accommodated us to a certain extent by, for example, making available to us this very comprehensive explanatory memorandum. In addition to the usual documents which are made available to all hon. members the Minister gave us this memorandum in which each clause is explained individually. We want to thank him for it, because it facilitated the work considerably. Many undertakings are concerned in this legislation. If the Minister goes back to the report of the Abattoir Commission in 1964 he will see how many concerns were consulted and how many of them submitted evidence. But this piece of legislation has not again been submitted to those people and many of the concerns that gave evidence at that time.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.