I move as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

I move the following amendment—

The purpose of this amendment is to try to limit the scope of the definition of the word “terrorist”, because as the definition reads now it includes not only anybody who has actually committed an act of terrorism but actually anybody who is “likely to” commit an act of terrorism. Sir, I do not know how anybody is going to decide whether or not anybody is likely to commit an act of terrorism. If this definition is read in conjunction with clause 2, which provides, amongst other things, that any person who possesses any explosives, ammunition, firearm, or weapon and who fails to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did not intend using such explosives, etc., to com-mit any acts likely to have any of the results referred to in subsection (2), then it becomes very wide indeed, because if a person who happens to be carrying a firearm purely for example for purposes of self defence, is picked up, he has the difficult task, since the onus is placed on him, of proving beyond any reason-able doubt that it was not his intention to commit any act of terrorism. For example, somebody may be walking in the direction or in the vicinity of one of the restricted areas, carrying a firearm of some kind. It may be very difficult indeed for him to prove be-yond any reasonable doubt that he did not intend to commit an act of terrorism. The purpose of this amendment therefore is to try to limit the definition of “terrorist” to a per-son who has actually committed an offence under section 2.

Order! I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment; it is destructive of the principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Sir, may I ask if one is not allowed to limit the scope of a defini-tion?

The hon. member’s amendment does not seek to limit the scope of the definition. If her amendment is accepted it will destroy the whole principle of the Bill because it refers to what another clause provides shall be included in the term “terrorist”.

But, Sir, the words are …

Order! I have given my ruling.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, we propose to move an amendment to this clause to deal with the proviso alone. That proviso deals with the penalty provided for in the clause. I want to say at the outset that we on this side of the House do agree that it is right that these offences should exact the penalties which are appropriate for treason. The type of situation, the type of offender that is envisaged here in the main is a person who is a South African citizen, living here, who goes out of the country for training in sabotage and other activities and who, after receiving such training, returns to the Republic. These people—and there have been many of them—have left our country in order to go to various communist-inclined countries to receive training and then they come here and try to overthrow the Government and cause all other manner of mischief. We feel that the possibility of the supreme penalty being imposed upon such persons is not an excessive punishment in such cases. We feel that acts of that kind do indeed approach treason. It could be said to be so without doubt. We on this side feel it is most essential to combat this danger of terrorism very firmly. We have seen these activities not only in the north of South West Africa. We have seen in Rhodesia that people are being slipped across the borders to do untold harm. We have seen that the situation in the north of Mozambique, not to mention Angola, is even more serious, as it has gone further there. While we therefore agree it is right that the clause provides, as it does (before we reach the proviso) that persons guilty of these offences, including those to which I have alluded, “shall be guilty of the offence of participation in terroristic activities and liable on conviction to the penalties provided for by law for the offence of treason …” While we on this side agree with that, we do not feel it is right that there should in addition be a minimum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. Indeed, I believe there are cogent reasons why we should not accept a minimum penalty of five years’ imprisonment in all cases.

Where treason itself is concerned, which as it stands to-day is a common law offence, there is the possibility of the death sentence being imposed; but there is no other fetter whatsoever upon the courts’ imposition of punishment. No minimum penalty is provided in our law for the offence of treason as it stands today. There is no fetter whatsoever upon the jurisdiction of the Judges and their discretion as far as punishment is concerned. We, therefore, trust our courts to give an appropriate punishment should a conviction be secured.

It may sometimes be argued that it is necessary for the legislature to insert a minimum penalty in order to bring the seriousness of the charge home to the court, to indicate that the legislature wanted this offence regarded most seriously. But we are already achieving that by legislating that the supreme penalty can be exacted. Because the death penalty is possible, it already shows that the legislature regards this crime in a most serious light. Where that is already achieved, I believe it would be a mistake to tie the discretion of the courts in this way.

I think the example which the hon. member for Transkei gave during his Second Reading speech yesterday indicates how unwise it would be for the court’s hands to be tied. He gave one example which I shall refer to, but there obviously could be many others. Many other examples can be envisaged where a person would have to be convicted of this particular crime but where the offence might not be as serious as we originally thought. It may be said that only in serious crimes, where there is an intention to be terroristic in attitude, will the Attorney-General prosecute. Yes, it is indeed the intention that the Attorney-General will only prosecute in such cases. But it might happen that the Attorney-General might feel that that element was present; yet after all the evidence had been heard the court might find that that is not so. Nevertheless the accused will have to be convicted because his offence falls within the provisions of the section. The example given was the possession of an arm and the use of that arm to achieve one of the results set out in clause 2 (2). It may well be that the Attorney-General could imagine that there was this intention and that one of these results could be achieved, and that he could therefore charge the man. But the evidence could show that the Attorney-General was wrong and that the element of terrorism was not in fact present. Yet, as I say, a conviction might have to follow since all the elements of the crime were proved.

So I believe the intention of the legislature and the seriousness with which it regards this matter can be adequately conveyed by the possibility of the supreme penalty. I feel that nothing further is needed and that we should not fetter the courts, as this clause at present does. I therefore wish to move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, we find this penalty of five years’ imprisonment in two places in this Bill. The first is in this clause, which the hon. member for Pinelands has just mentioned, and the other is in clause 3, where it is provided that any person who harbours a terrorist shall also be subject to this penalty. I think I may just as well deal with this minimum penalty of five years right now.

Hon. members on the opposite side agree with us that if a person is convicted of an offence as contained in clause 1 he may exact the same penalties as those imposed in the case of treason, which also include the death sentence. In other words, the United Party is also of the opinion that if a person is convicted, he could be punished by death. I therefore find it strange that the United Party wants us to omit from this measure the provision that a person could receive a minimum of five years’ imprisonment. We should never act on the premise that we are going to convict innocent people. We should act on the premise that we are going to convict guilty people. That being so, this minimum penalty of five years is nevertheless fully in accordance even with the policy of the United Party.

We are not saying he should be hanged in all cases.

No, that is not provided by the measure. The Judge receives a discretion, but we say he should impose a minimum sentence of five years. This minimum penalty was included in the Bill on purpose. The purpose is the following: There are not only terrorists who enter our country from outside. There are also terrorists inside our country. They are potential terrorists. There are even people who are so mixed up —I think the word “giddy” was used yesterday in this connection—that they may innocently help that type of person merely because they are opposed to the National Party Government. The penalty of five years should serve as a deterrent to those altruists who think that if they harbour a person who is a terrorist, they are not committing a crime by doing so, whereas they are indeed guilty of treason. This Bill now provides that a person who engages in that kind of game is taking the calculated risk of exacting five years’ imprisonment. That is the reason why a minimum term of five years is included in the Bill. Take the case of Mr. Braam Fischer. How could he possibly remain at liberty so long after he had escaped? Simply because there are people who think that it is not such a terrible crime to give a man a plate of food or to harbour him if he arrives in a motor car! They imagine—and in many respects they are confirmed in this notion by outside opinions—that the court will have regard to something like extenuating circumstances and send them to gaol for only a month or, in any event, for a short term. They tell themselves that they are not committing a major crime by doing so, and for that reason they may just as well do it; their humane feelings tell them that they should give some assistance to a person who is down at heel and should harbour him. The reason for this provision of five years is that people in South Africa should realize, and should finally realize, that we are in a state of war against terrorists. We expect no mercy from a terrorist, and we are not going to mete out any mercy. We have to safe-guard our country. We must create conditions to enable our people to sleep safely at night—this also applies to the hon. member for Houghton. Yesterday she acted as an advocate for many illegal elements. I was actually surprised at her speech, because she spoke in extenuation for people such as those led by Sobukwe in Paarl. She asked: What else could these people do under the oppressive laws of the Government? She said they could not do anything but erupt. But that is not the case, Mr. Chairman. In South Africa it is a struggle against Communism in all its forms, Communism which is now assuming the form of terrorism. They are waging a war of destruction against South Africa. That is the reason for this provision of five years—because we have no intention of allowing those people to dictate to us how this war should be waged. By means of these Bills we make it known to everybody who reads them that if there is any collaboration with a terrorist and if terroristic activities take place, a minimum penalty of five years may be imposed. I want to make it quite clear that this contains no reflection on our administration of justice; it is no reflection on the discretion of our courts. It is merely an indication to our courts that Parliament views terrorism in the most serious light, and a Judge should know that when he convicts a person on terrorist activities Parliament is of the opinion that five years should be the minimum penalty to be imposed on such a person. In addition, it is handy for a court to know how the legislature felt on certain legislation. For this reason I cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands. I think the Bill should remain as it stands.

I have a number of amendments on the Order Paper. Included amongst them is one similar to that moved by the hon. member for Pinelands. But since this amendment also stands in my name, I wish to move accordingly.

It has already been moved. The hon. member need not do so again.

In any event, I support it then. There were other amendments which I put forward but you, Mr. Chairman, indicated that you were not prepared to accept them because they were not in order. I proposed them in an attempt to limit the clause and not to change the principle of it because I realize the principle cannot be changed. As a matter of fact, that is one of the reasons why I voted against the Second Reading of this Bill—because I regarded it as impossible to change things in Committee Stage as far as the principles of the Bill are concerned. But let me say that I am going to vote against this clause. I shall do that for many reasons. As has been pointed out, this clause takes over much of the ground previously covered by the law relating to high treason. The last speaker indicated as much—that it takes over much of the existing provisions of our law relating to high treason. In addition, it also takes over many of the provisions of the Sabotage Act of 1962. This Bill, however, goes further particularly in two respects, respects which I find objectionable. In the first place it brings in this extraordinary little phrase “Is likely to have or was likely to have” as far as harbouring is concerned. I fail to see how anybody can anticipate in advance what people are likely to do. This is not a case of pleading for traitors, saboteurs, or for terrorists as hon. members like to make out—it is an attempt to try to keep South Africa within the framework of what is normally accepted as being the law of democratic countries. That is all: Not to have enabling legislation being placed on the Statute Book thereby permitting the Government legally to do things which go far beyond the ken of legal practice in ordinary countries where basic law and the basic concepts of law are being adhered to.

The way you are carrying on you will achieve just the opposite—do away with law and order.

I do not know what the hon. the Deputy Minister means by “carrying on”. All I can say is that all his efforts and the efforts of his Government over all these years have apparently not enabled them to deal with situations without taking the most Draconian powers.

We have kept you safe.

I would have felt a lot safer if there were a common system of social justice in this country. I would have felt a lot safer then. And let me tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that his children too would be a lot safer if that was so.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

I have been diverted by the hon. the Deputy Minister, Sir, and his stupid remarks. But, as I was saying, I am going to vote against this clause not only because it excludes the discretion of the courts but also because it takes over many of the existing provisions relating to high treason— except that as far as high treason is concerned a person accused of high treason enjoys certain benefits. I suppose the hon. member there is, therefore, in favour of traitors because he has not been able to exclude these benefits from the law as yet! In a charge of high treason there is still the rule that the Government must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt —and not the other way round, i.e. the onus of proof being placed on the accused. Furthermore, our criminal code will operate in so far as such a person cannot be convicted except on the evidence of two witnesses where one overt act is alleged to have been committed or where two or more overt acts are charged, upon the evidence of one witness to each such overt acts. Let me ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Police why he has not changed that law? Does it mean that he is in favour of traitors? Because here they have the normal protection of the law—the State has to prove guilt and certain other provisions of the law have to be complied with before a person can be found guilty of high treason and before he can be subjected to the death penalty. I want the same sort of provision here. I do not think a terrorist is any worse than a person who commits high treason. As far as I am concerned this is an equally bad crime and my way of dealing with it is to put the two on an equal level, and not the other way round as hon. members propose to do. I also want to point out that the scope of this clause goes much further than just being an anti-terrorist measure. If one looks at subsection (2) one will see that all these provisions go very much further than terrorism. There are all sorts of vague and broad definitions, a feature which could be found also in the Sabotage Act of 1962—as a matter of fact, in some places the wording of subsection (2) is almost the same as that of the wording of the 1962 Act, an Act which the United Party fought tooth and nail when it was read a Second Time.

Order! The hon. member is now arguing about the principles of this Bill. What is to be regarded as terrorism is a principle of this Bill.

I am arguing that already our law contains this provision—the Sabotage Act is almost identical.

Yes, but that deals with sabotage and not terrorism.

Well, if sabotage is not terrorism then I do not know the meaning of these words. Personally I am terrified at the thought of sabotage, just as terrified as I am at the thought of terrorism. All I am trying to convey is that this particular clause takes over the actual words of the relevant provision of the Sabotage Act. As far as I am concerned, the hon. the Minister has all the necessary powers. This clause goes much too far. It brings in these likelihoods and other provisions which go much further than the common law as applied to persons who are charged with high treason. Consequently, I intend voting against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to follow the hon. member for Houghton in her argument on and her opposition to this clause, except for saying that it appears to me as though her main concern is the fact that people who commit treason will be in a much more favourable position. I think her concern is justified! I wonder whether she would not like to move an amendment—perhaps to the General Law Amendment Bill—and ask that people who are charged with treason should be subject to the same provision! Then she would perhaps be making a very useful contribution!

As regards the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands, I want to point out that this matter of a minimum penalty is by no means alien to our entire legal system and our law of procedure. It is common in our criminal law. It has not appeared only in recent years. These are principles which have been established for many years, long before there was any mention of saboteurs and terrorists. We find such a principle in the Stock Theft Act, in respect of an ordinary, everyday crime which surely does not affect the security of the State. We find it in traffic legislation. Now this proviso is also introduced in this legislation, which relates to terrorists. The proviso is exactly the same as the one found in the Sabotage Act of 1962. We find it under section 21 of the General Law Amendment Act—

We therefore have a clear precedent here to show why it should be done. We are also bringing this legislation into line with the penal provisions of the Sabotage Act, to which the hon. member for Houghton also referred—and of which she rightly said that many of the provisions of this legislation are patterned on that Act—an Act which has done good work. I therefore cannot see what objections the hon. member for Pinelands and the United Party have to this provision, and in fact for the following reason: There are precedents for it, not only as regards this kind of crime but also as regards crime in general under our criminal law.

Like the hon. member for Prinshof, I also want to underline the following: We are dealing a serious crime, and we want to bring it home to everyone who may be contemplating committing it that it is a serious crime. I want to put it this way. If a man is convicted of terrorism under this section, we should realize that he is indeed guilty of a serious offence, otherwise the Attorney-General, having regard to the relevant circumstances and the evidence at his disposal, would not have prosecuted. But if the hon. member says: “Supposing the Attorney-General does prosecute and it is found that the offence was not so serious”, I want to make two points. Firstly, the Attorney-General will not lightly prosecute under this Act. He will therefore satisfy himself that the circumstances and the evidence are adequate to prefer such a charge. But supposing it is found that the man should not have been charged, then surely the public prosecutor is free to withdraw the charge and to charge the man with some other crime. Supposing also that that safety valve, which is present throughout our legal procedure, were to fail, then I refer hon. members to section 69 of the Prisons Act, where it is provided that the State President may release a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment. The Minister could act even before it has been approved by the State President, if he is satisfied that the person should be released. Under all these circumstances safety measures have therefore been taken to protect people who may be dragged into court by accident in this connection. They may even be released. But while we are concerned about the exception, for whom provision has been made, we should be more concerned about the dozens who may perhaps want to commit sabotage and terrorism and who reason to themselves: “Perhaps I shall get only a year. Perhaps the court will be lenient if my advocate pleads extenuating circumstances. Perhaps I could get away with it.” They should know that they could not get away with it. I therefore plead, together with my hon. colleagues, that as we already have the precedent in our criminal law, we should follow it in this section as well, as we are dealing with one of the most important and dangerous crimes that could be committed against this State. Let us therefore retain this proviso as it appears in the Sabotage Act and as we have provisos for the minimum penalty in connection with ordinary, everyday crimes which do not affect the security of the State.

I wish to point out that we do have this provision on minimum penalties in certain other laws. I do not dispute that. The hon. member mentioned the sabotage measure. We opposed the minimum penalty when it was applied there. I want to point out to him that in no other law is the penalty as stiff as is provided for in this case. We asked that this particular accused be judged on a different basis, for a very particular reason. All the other offences which the member mentioned are definite. There is no argument as to whether the intention was there, or about what type of offence was committed, but in this particular offence the Minister himself has admitted, and the hon. member for Odendaalsrus has confirmed it again, that this definition is so wide that the intention to commit a terrorist act may actually not be there. That is why the Attorney-General is the only one who can institute a prosecution. He must take particular pains to see that the offence of terrorism actually was intended. That is because of the results set out in subsection (2). As the hon. member for Pinelands has reminded the House, yesterday we pointed out that a person in possession of a firearm, for instance, who brings about one of these results, may have done so without any intention. He may have for instance damaged property. This is one of the results that could be brought about. He may have done it without out any idea of participating in terrorism. The Attorney-General, on the other hand, may have assessed the offence wrongly. The Attorney-General may in his own mind be of the impression that the person intended to commit an act of terrorism. He brings him before the Supreme Court. The Judge may disagree with the Attorney-General altogether. He might say that this person had no intention of an act of terrorism. But the fact remains that he has …

[Inaudible.]

I am sorry, that is not so. If the hon. members look, they will see that it is not so. That is the whole point. The Minister confirmed that yesterday when he said that there could be a lot of ridiculous cases. He said he could tell us many more than we could tell him.

The Minister has obviously given the matter a lot of thought. He thinks that the protection is there in allowing the Attorney-General to decide whether to prosecute or not, but we say that the matter is then taken out of the hands of the court altogether and the Attorney-General is the man who will decide whether a person will get a sentence of five years or not. If the hon. member refers to (c), it says that “if any person possesses any weapon or explosive …” Let us say for the sake of argument that he possesses a firearm, or he possesses an explosive. He may be quite entitled to possess it; he is not possessing it unlawfully. He may have a permit to posess it. He may be in lawful possession of it, but he damages a property or injures a person. He had no intention of committing an act of terrorism, but there has been suspicion against him. He injures a person and the Attorney-General then says he no doubt intended to commit an act of terrorism, and he charges him. The Attorney-General does not have to prove that he wished to endanger the maintenance of law and order, as is provided for in clause 2 (2), because the qualification in clause 2 (2) is only “in any prosecution for an offence contemplated in subsection (1) (a) (which relates to the maintenance of law and order) if it is proved that the accused has committed or attempted to commit” an act which has any one of these results, that qualification in regard to the maintenance of law and order does not apply, in considering the results, in respect of para. (c). I think the Minister will agree with me that it does not apply. So the accused may not have intended to commit an act of terrorism, and the court may find that he did not intend to commit an act of terrorism, but he has in fact used an explosive to damage property or to injure a person. Therefore the court has to find him guilty, and having found him guilty it has to sentence him to a minimum term of five years’ imprisonment. I am sure the Minister does not intend that. Nobody intends to do that and therefore I say we should leave this discretion to the court. After all, the crime of treason is punish able by death and that penalty has been in effect since time immemorial and nobody has suggested that we should put a minimum penalty on treason, and yet treason is probably the worst of all offences. There is no offence in law worse than treason and yet there is no minimum penalty for treason; it is left to the Judges. Have the Judges in any case not given a proper sentence when treason has been proved? Is it because they do not trust the Judges? Surely, we are always talking about our faith in the courts and we should trust our Judges and have faith in them that they will apply the proper penalty.

You do not trust them in cases of stock theft.

Cases of stock theft do not go to a Judge but to an inferior court. Cases of stock theft very seldom come before a superior court. After all, it is the highest court in our land which will try these offences and not a minor court. We are not giving instructions here to a special justice of the peace court or to a magistrate’s court. We are giving instructions here to Judges and I submit that is different. On page 8, in clause 5 (g), we exclude the operation of certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act from trials for terrorism in terms of this Bill. One such provision is section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Act. That section gives the Supreme Court or any court the power to suspend portion of a sentence. I submit that if section 352 is deleted from clause 5 (g), the necessity for deleting the proviso would not be as strong because the court could then, at any rate, suspend portion of the sentence. I wish the Minister would give his attention to that in his reply and tell us if that is so, viz. that if section 352 is allowed to remain in operation in a trial of this nature the Judges will be allowed to suspend portion of a sentence. That would meet a lot of our complaints in regard to this clause. Section 352 must be included here for some reason, and possibly the Judges are permitted to suspend portion of a sentence. I do not want hon. members to think that we are treating this matter lightly. We have supported this wide definition in the clause, as I said yesterday, because we realize the difficulty the Minister has in giving a clear definition of the offence. The Minister himself has admitted that, and therefore we say that, bearing this in mind, and also that the Attorney-General and not the Judge is the man who will decide whether or not a man should be guilty of the offence, we should give the Judge the power at any rate to suspend part or all of the sentence.

Clause 2 (1) and (2) does not lose sight of that condition for a crime, namely intent. In both those subsections the accused is enabled to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had no intent, firstly, to commit terrorism …

Where do you see that?

Clause 2 (1) (c) provides—

That is only one of the results, not terrorism.

Intent still remains a condition for the offence of terrorism, and in subsection (2), in line 57, it is stated again “unless it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not intend any of the results aforesaid”. That includes everything. That is the whole tenor of this clause, that if a person intends committing terrorism the State may act. Now hon. members on the opposite side ask why there should be a distinction and why a minimum penalty should not be laid down in respect of a crime such as treason. Treason, which was originally a common law offence, related mainly to the homogeneous citizenry of a country. It referred to ordinary people who committed treason in some way or other. In this case we are dealing with terrorism; not with ordinary criminals or with ordinary traitors, but with terrorists who are fanatic soldiers and who are specially trained and who intend destroying this country and overthrowing the Government by terrorist means, for example a man such as Harris, who exploded a bomb on the station. What is wrong with laying down a minimum penalty for such a person? [Interjections.] The hon. members say that they appreciate the Minister’s problem of finding a proper definition for the offence, but why did they not suggest something better? They leave it at that, and we must therefore assume that they could not solve the problem in a better way.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL. The hon. member for Waterkloof, if I may say so, somewhat misses the point. I do not think that he followed the argument of the hon. member for Transkei. He referred to clause 2 (1) (c) and said that to him the most important part of it was the words “did not intend”. But if he would look at this clause he would appreciate that the offence is committed if any person possesses a firearm—and I would say that everyone in this House legally possesses a firearm—and fails to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did not intend using such firearm to commit any act likely to have any of the results referred to in subsection (2). It is only paragraphs (a) to (1) of clause 2 (2) which are applicable here. In other words, if the Attorney-General thinks that you possess a firearm in order to achieve one of the results set out in the Bill and which constitute the offence of terrorism, then all he has to do is to charge you. Once you are charged then, of course, you may show that you did not intend to commit an act likely to have any of the results referred to in paragraphs (a) to (1), but then you have to go into the witness box to do so. Once you are charged you have to plead and, as the hon. member knows, once you have pleaded in court the court must give a verdict. The circumstances may be that the Attorney-General was mistaken in thinking that I possessed a licensed revolver, for the purpose of committing an act likely to have any of the results mentioned here. I may possess a revolver; I may want to shoot my wife’s lover in the toe, just to give an example, but I might manifest my intention or I might do something towards putting this intention into effect in a place and in circumstances which the police think involve me in some other activity of which I might be unaware. The fact that what I did intend to do was to cause serious bodily injury to or endanger the safety of that person. Sir, this is just an example. I go into the witness box, having been charged and I say “Yes, in fact I did intend to cause serious bodily injury to someone”, and I explain the circumstances.

You are free.

Sir, this is interesting. The hon. the Minister says “you are free”, but I am not, of course. If the Attorney-General in fact was mistaken as to my motivation, as to why in fact I possessed this revolver, then far from being free the court must find me guilty if I have been charged under clause 2 (1) (c); it has no option, and once the court has found me guilty in those circumstances—this is the whole point—it must sentence me to five years’ imprisonment. This is the crux of the whole matter. One appreciates, as the hon. member for Transkei said, that if in fact you can show that you acted without intent, then you can go free. The fact that you can go into the witness box and indicate that you had no desire to achieve one of the results described here, may excuse the wide framing of the definition but, as the hon. the Minister is aware, if the Attorney-General did make a mistake—and it is quite possible that the information on which he acted was not quite correct—then you leave the Judge no option but to sentence the man to five years’ imprisonment in circumstances which do not always warrant such a severe sentence.

But he can discharge the onus.

In this example I have given he goes into the witness box and tells the truth; he says that he did in fact intend to inflict bodily injury upon a person.

But not for the purpose of achieving one of the results mentioned here.

No, not for the purpose of achieving any of these results; that is right, in the case of any of the results set out here. But in the example that I gave under clause 2 (1) (c), it is not for a purpose because clause 2 (1) (c) says that any person who possesses any firearm and who fails to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did not intend using such firearm to commit any act likely to have any of the results referred to in subsection (2) shall be guilty of the offence of participation in terroristic activities. He must prove that he did not intend to achieve any of these results. You see, Sir, the first part of subsection (2) is not operative in relation to clause 2 (1) (c). You do not look at the first part of the provisions of clause 2 (2) which provides—

You immediately look at para, (g) and you find that that is what he intended to do, namely, to cause someone serious bodily injury. Sir, in that example there is no question of an underlying purpose relating to terrorism so far as the commission of the offence is concerned. I hope the hon. the Minister will give his attention to this, because in those circumstances the minimum penalty becomes very offensive. It is not a question of saying that if a man is guilty of any act of terrorism, as the hon. members for Prinshof and Oden-daalsrus did, then he must be sentenced to five years because it is a terrible crime—we know it is a terrible crime—but the definition is cast so wide that it includes a crime which, while it may be statutory terrorism, is not in fact the sort of terrorism that we have in mind in passing this legislation.

Surely we are all agreed that you give a discretion to our Judges in the matter of sentence because the circumstances under which crimes are committed are different in every case. The circumstances in which the offence was committed may well be such that if we were sitting here in judgment we would agree that the sentence should be something less than five years’ imprisonment or that the sentence should be two years’ imprisonment with a further three years suspended. But later on in this Bill we have a provision to the effect that a Judge may not suspend the sentence. It seems to be quite unnecessary to restrict the discretion of the court. As the hon. member for Transkei has said, our Judges have not shown themselves to be unaware of the dangers to the safety of the State. One is aware of some of the judgments which the Appellate Division has delivered in respect, for example, of the administration of the old 90-day clause. The Judges made it very clear that they were aware that there was a state akin to that of an emergency and that the safety of the State was being threatened and that in construing the law they had to have regard to those circumstances. Presumably the Judges read their newspapers, just as we do, and they are aware that a ghastly state of affairs has developed on our borders so far as terrorism is concerned. I do not think that anyone is entitled to assume that the Judges are not going to deal very severely with anyone who is found guilty of terrorism or of associating with or harbouring terrorists. Sir, I hope the hon. the Minister will reconsider this matter and restore completely the discretion which our courts have and I hope he will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands.

Mr. Chairman, I can quite appreciate that the hon. the Opposition are concerned about the minimum penalty which has to be imposed, and the arguments advanced by them are sound arguments. It is true that the net is spread very widely and one may fear that an innocent person may perhaps be caught in it. There may also be a case such as that mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (North), although I disagree with him as regards the legal position of his example. I can therefore appreciate that that side of the House would rather have this minimum penalty of five years removed.

In all respect for the sound discretion of the courts, I find myself in a somewhat difficult position in this regard. We already have a whole series of minimum penalties on the Statute Book which may be imposed for certain offences. In the case of sabotage there is a minimum penalty of five years. In the case of conspiracy against the Republic there is also a minimum penalty. In the case of training which is received, a minimum penalty is also imposed. Now that we come to the most serious of all offences, now that the position is at its most difficult, I am expected to deviate and not lay down a minimum penalty. This is one reason why I cannot accept the amendment of the Opposition. It is a pattern we have followed, and should we now that we have reached the climax deviate from the pattern all of a sudden? The other reason why I cannot accept it, and this is in fact my main reason, is the following: We want to do something to people who are convicted of these offences. In respect of quite a few offences we have certain compulsory penalties. There is the sentence of being declared a habitual criminal—this is imprisonment for more than nine years. There is the penalty of imprisonment to prevent crime, which ranges from five to eight years, and there is the sentence of corrective training, which is imprisonment for between two and four years. In all these cases it is compulsory for the courts to impose minimum penalties. Why are these compulsory sentences laid down? We do this because we want to do something with these people; we want to achieve something with them. We want to try to reform them. In the cases contemplated in this Bill we lay down a minimum penalty because we want to render these people harmless for a period of at least five years. That is our intention. No matter how slight the offence may be, we want to remove him from society for at least five years, to prevent him from committing the same act again.

The hon. member says that it would all have been very well if it had not been for section 352. That is correct. That section is included in paragraph (g) of clause 5 for the very reason that we have the minimum penalty of five years in this measure. If it had not been for the minimum penalty of five years, section 352 would not have been necessary.

I now want to give this assurance. If in the opinion of the Opposition a Judge is compelled to convict a man and that Judge is of the opinion that the person is only technically guilty of the offence he is charged with, he addresses a letter to the Minister of Justice and asks him to recommend a reprieve to the State President. That is what happens. That is the safety valve which exists.

Although, as I said at the beginning, I can appreciate the fears of the Opposition, I cannot see my way clear, in the light of the factors I have now mentioned, to accept their amendment. We want to render these people harmless for five years. We want to keep them out of society. We do not want to leave them here and have to try to watch them again. They will have to sit where we will know that we can forget about them for five years as far as terrorist activities are concerned. For that reason I regret to say that I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has admitted that we on this side have reason, can justifiably have disquiet about this particular clause. He says he can understand our objection to it. He also went on to say it is possible with the wide definition contained in this measure that an innocent man might be brought before the court and he might have to be convicted and sentenced to the minimum period of five years.

I mentioned that just to meet your argument.

The Minister went on to say that if the Judge felt the man was only technically guilty he could write to the Minister of Justice and ask him to put the case before the State President and have the sentence commuted. But there is a long delay before that can happen. That is not done overnight or within a week. There is a long delay to have a sentence commuted. I say that an accused should not be placed in a position where, and we should not pass legislation in terms of which, an injustice may occur as described by the Minister. It is apparent that the Minister is not going to accept our amendment because he says certain compulsory and minimum sentences apply in other cases in terms of provisions in other laws. He says if he accepted our amendment and deleted this minimum penalty in this Bill, it may be construed as viewing the crime of terrorism in a lesser light. Well, I submit—with all due respect to the Minister—that that is no argument. The mere fact that the death penalty is also competent for this crime, which places it on the same basis as treason, is an indication of the seriousness with which we view the crime. The Minister says that the inclusion of the five years minimum sentence will be an indication to the judges that Parliament intended a minimum sentence of five years to be imposed. If the Minister agreed to my suggestion to delete reference to section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in other words if he allowed it to remain in operation as far as this crime is concerned, the Judges will then, in the case of an error on the part of the Attorney-General, be able to suspend portion of the sentence. The Minister’s case will then have been met. The Judge will then say that Parliament views this crime so seriously that a minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment is laid down, but by virtue of section 352 of the Code he can suspend portion of the sentence because he feels the man is only technically guilty. Therefore I appeal to the Minister to consider, before we get to that clause, leaving in operation section 352, instead of making it inoperative.

Question put: That the proviso to subsection (1) stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

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

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

Question affirmed and amendment negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 3:

I move the following amendment to this clause—

The proviso deals with the minimum penalty. We have already voiced our objection to a minimum penalty. While I agree that the case here is not as strong as in respect of clause 2, nevertheless we are opposed to the principle of minimum sentences.

I too have a proposal to omit this proviso on the Order Paper and therefore it stands to reason that I clearly will vote in favour of its omission. I do not think there is any purpose in advancing further arguments. The arguments have already been advanced on a previous clause and for exactly the same reason I believe that the imposition of a sentence should be left to the discretion of the court.

As far as this clause is concerned, it is my submission that this portion may in fact be retained, the reason being that in actual fact the person who harbours such a terrorist is almost a greater offender than the terrorist himself, because such a person affords that terrorist the opportunity to continue his activities, while the person himself. under the guise of innocence, continues undisturbed as a member of the community. I now want to refer to the clause itself. This is one of the clauses where the State has a full onus to discharge. What the State has to prove is, firstly, that there were facts present which would have given a person reason to believe that some other person was a terrorist, in other words, that that person had committed an act which was calculated to endanger law and order in the Republic. In addition the State has to prove that the person had reason to believe that he was indeed harbouring a terrorist, and the State has to go still further and prove that he was harbouring a terrorist. This brings one back to clause 1, in which a definition of “terrorist” is given. The State has to prove those three essentials in respect of this offence fully and beyond any reasonable doubt, and I submit respectfully that if the State can prove these, a minimum period of five years is, in fact, too short.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman. I move as an amendment—

Subparagraph (g) as it stands means that juveniles shall not be given the protection which they enjoy under the Criminal Procedure Act. It means that they will not, in the case of a child or a person under the age of 19 who might be considered by the court to be in need of care, be referred to the children’s court. It means of course that the normal protection which is afforded to juveniles is now missing with the inclusion of paragraph (g). It means too that children who normally would have, if they were sentenced to any form of corporal punishment, a certain protection and a certain type of corporal punishment. would in fact not enjoy similar protection here. Now the normal type of whipping administered to an adult will also be given to a juvenile. I do not believe that this should be accepted by this committee. I think it should go against the grain that juveniles should be subjected to the same penalty as adults. Always in our law we have given a certain protection to juveniles acting on the very natural assumption that juveniles are open to persuasion, even to compulsion in many cases, and very often perhaps unwittingly and unwillingly have committed crimes which they have been persuaded or forced to commit by virtue of adult people having the power over them. For all these reasons I move that paragraph (g) should be omitted in order to bring this law in conformity with the ordinary laws and procedure as they apply to juveniles in our country for other very serious crimes as well.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

I have already addressed this House on the reason why I want this provision omitted. As I pointed out under clause 2 (c), the Judge would then be able to suspend a portion of the sentence. In view of the nature of the offence, of the wide determination and the Minister’s own remarks, where he more or less supported us in our objection to a minimum sentence, I should like to appeal to him again to omit the reference to section 352. The mere fact that we have a minimum sentence will indicate to the courts how serious the offence is regarded and because there is a minimum sentence of five years the courts can suspend a portion of a sentence if there are special circumstances in a particular case.

Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment, relating to paragraph (d) of this clause, and I move—

This is the clause laying down that any person accused of having committed an offence under this Act should be tried summarily, i.e. without a preparatory examination having been instituted. With my amendment I intend bringing this clause into line with the Sabotage Act. In the 1962 Act provision is made for summary trials only if so directed by the Attorney-General. Under this Bill I think the accused should have the same benefit.

I now proceed to put the amendments.

Before you do that, Sir, I wonder whether we could have the benefit of the attitude of the hon. the Minister to these amendments.

As regards the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton, namely to omit paragraph (g), I am afraid I cannot accede to that. Her arguments are sound, but if children play around with terrorism they must expect to be treated like adults in this case because it is such a serious offence. They are waging war against us. A child can carry a machine gun the same as an adult can. For that reason I cannot differentiate between a child and an adult here. They are not babies, but young people who have been trained. They are in fact worse enemies than an adult can be. Therefore I am sorry, but I really cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

As far as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Transkei is concerned, I want to ask him to allow this clause to go through in its present form and I shall then undertake to give attention to the matter, particularly in the light of the discussion which took place on clause 2. Thereafter I shall deal with the matter as I deem fit. I am not rejecting the hon. member’s amendment outright, although I cannot accept it at this stage either.

As far as the second amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, I want to tell her that I have no objection to the Attorney-General having to certify in that way. I have no objection to this particular amendment, and I therefore accept it.

I thank the hon. the Minister for accepting one of my amendments but, as he probably knows, I shall vote against the clause in any case. I am sure the hon. the Minister did not want to make any bargains with me, because I know he realized that by accepting this one amendment he removed only one of many objections I have against this clause. For instance, my objections to the provision about juveniles are stronger than those to paragraph (d). However, I should like to thank him all the same for having accepted this one amendment. Surely, juveniles commit other serious crimes, as serious as terrorism and sabotage. Juveniles can commit murder, rape. Here let me quote from what the hon. member for Durban (North) had to say when the relevant provision in the Sabotage Act was under discussion. He then talked about juveniles of tender years who may have been pushed into doing something for which they could be whipped. He thereupon described the sort of whipping people got. [Interjections.] Compulsory whipping is abolished but there is absolutely nothing in the law which lays down that a Judge cannot have a whipping administered. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Transkei must not continue this little facile argument of his. I am in no mood for any jocularity. But what about these children of tender age? Is not the hon. member for Durban (North) worried about them any more? Is he not going to support my plea? He was much more eloquent than I was. I did not talk about children of tender years. All I say is that for very serious crimes such as murder and rape, juveniles are given a certain protection in our courts of law and I see no reason why the same protection should not be extended to them under this law. It is also a serious crime but in my opinion it is no more serious than murder or rape.

Now the other part of this particular clause which worries me is paragraph (f). Nothing has yet been said about (f). Under paragraph (f) no person detained in custody on a charge of having committed an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or otherwise before sentence has been passed or he has been discharged, unless the Attorney-General consents to his release. Am I not right in saying that at the present stage this detention is limited to 90 days and after that he has either to be charged or released? I am not talking now about the old 90-days detention clause; this is something quite different. In terms of our existing law—I think it is under the Sabotage Act, as amended, or the Criminal Procedure Act, as amended—as far as I know if persons are being held they may not be held for longer than 90 days without being released or charged. Is that not the case?

I am reversing it.

I think the original provision was quite sufficient and I cannot see why the police need more than 90 days in which to obtain the evidence they require. We have an efficient Police Force, backed up by an efficient Army, on which we spend a great deal of money every year, and it seems to me that between the two of them they ought to be able to cope with these activities. I therefore move—

With the consent of the Committee, I withdraw my amendment in view of the Minister’s promise to go into the matter.

With leave, amendment proposed by Mr.T. G. Hughes withdrawn.

Amendment in paragraph (d) put and agreed to.

Omission of paragraph (f) put and negatived (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Question put: That paragraph (g) stand part of the clause, and a division demanded.

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

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 6:

As we indicated at the Second Reading, this is a clause to which we have strong objections. As we indicated at the time, under the procedure which was introduced last year in the General Law Amendment Act, detention for 14 days under conditions laid down by the Commissioner was permissible, but thereafter the court’s permission had to be sought for any further detention, and the conditions of the detention were to be determined by the court. We considered last year that the provision was a great improvement upon the 90-days detention provision, simply because the court came into the picture. If the police had a case for wanting a person’s detention for interrogation, they had to make out their case to a Judge, who then laid down certain conditions. One accordingly did not have the position that the liberty of the individual was determined for an indefinite number of days by a policeman, by the executive. This is fundamental when one talks about the rule of law. The odd thing, of course, was that when this provision came before us last year, this great improvement, we also had a fight with the hon. member for Houghton. She even objected to that, so one does not quite know where one stands with her. [Interjections.] I will move an amendment of which I think the hon. the Minister has a copy, the effect of which is to omit this clause and to substitute for it another clause which) will read exactly as does …

Order! I am afraid the hon. member cannot move the substitution of the clause. The procedure is that the Committee must first negative this clause. Then the hon. member can move the substitution of a new clause.

On a point of information, Sir, if the clause is negatived, will the opportunity be given to move this amendment?

On a point of order,. I take it that the hon. member will be able to address you on the proposed substitution and to say why he wants this clause to be omitted. Otherwise the Committee will not know why the hon. member wants the substitution to take place.

The hon. member may argue against the clause, but he cannot move the substitution now.

The hon. the Minister has a copy of the amendment, the effect of which is that if the clause were negatived it will read as follows. [Interjections.] I am trying to persuade the Minister and the Committee that clause 6 should be negatived and another clause substituted.

Order! The hon. member may not use the word “substituted”.

What I am saying is that in preference to this clause, because we are going to vote against this clause …

I am afraid the hon. member must only use arguments against the clause. That is all I can allow.

Very well. Sir. We do not like this clause. We prefer the clause we had in 1966. In 1966 the court came into the picture. Why cannot the Minister, rather than have this position, have last year’s provision, in which he inserts the offences and the interrogation which he now wishes to have? In other words, why not provide firstly that, in the circumstances set out in last year’s provision, namely “If anyone above the rank of lieutenant-colonel has reason to believe that any person who happens to be at any place is a terrorist or has committed offences under the Suppression of Communism Act or under section 2 (1) of the General Laws Amendment Act, 1962, he may arrest and detain such a person for interrogation.” Why not then add the words which one finds in clause 6 namely, “if he has reason to believe that any person is a terrorist or is withholding from the South African Police any information relating to terrorists or to offences under this Act”. Add those words and then you will have the provision of last year, together with provision for the interrogation which he requires in terms of this law. I do not have to indicate to anyone who has read this Bill that this is a terribly far-reaching clause. The powers contained here are powers for indefinite detention, in the discretion of an officer of the Police Force of and above the rank of lieutenant-colonel. At least under the 90-day provision, which can be repromulgated at any time, the officer who arrests and detains anyone has to have reasonable grounds for believing that the person has committed or might commit an offence. That is not in here. It is true that in this provision the Minister comes into the picture and reports have to be made to the Minister. One is, frankly, convinced that this Minister will, when these matters come before him, apply his mind to them, but this Minister may not be the Minister much longer. He may be replaced by someone else. We have had examples in this House. Last year we had the example of a Minister of Justice who had apparently applied his mind to the papers before him with the most startling results, considering that he had taken the papers home for the week-end and had studied them thoroughly. I refer to the Robertson case. What we find here is very disquieting.

But what I want to ask the Minister very sincerely is why in the first place did he introduce the measure of last year, and why does he now feel that he must move away from it? As I see it, this provision operates parallel with the provision of last year. It is entirely in the discretion of the policeman concerned as to whether he proceeds under this provision or under the provision of last year. Having regard to the offences contained in this Act, which the Minister has indicated are very wide indeed, one may more easily under the provisions of this law have reason to believe that someone might have committed an offence or might be about to commit an offence under this Act, because some of the offences are considered to have been committed unless the accused indicates in the witness-box what his state of mind was. So it becomes very much wider than any other provision inasmuch as the officer concerned is in no position to determine what the attitude of mind of the person he wishes to interrogate is until of course he has been interrogated. And then he may have in mind something else and the explanation of the person interrogated may not satisfy him. The whole thing is very much wider. It seems to us that there is no reason why, after a reasonable time, one should not go before a judge and ask for an order for further detention.

The hon. the Minister indicated that the judges want a prima facie case to be made out. I should think that that is the very minimum that should be required, whether it is a judge or whether it is an officer. One hopes that the Minister is not indicating that the police have been, in fact, arresting people for interrogation where there was not some sort of case. [Time expired.]

The clause at present under discussion is one which greatly affects the police, and for that reason I find it necessary also to participate in this discussion. When looking at the clause itself, we find that a person may be detained when there is reason to believe that he is a terrorist or that he is withholding from the South African Police information relating to terrorists or to offences under this Act. In other words, the detention may take place only under limited circumstances and not in respect of offences that we encounter in the normal course of events. I think this Committee must decide from the outset whether the hands of the police should be strengthened to cope with activities of this kind and to safeguard South Africa and its population, irrespective of race or colour, against criminal attacks of this nature by terrorists. If the Committee is of the opinion that South Africa should be safeguarded against these dangerous attacks then I am afraid it is necessary that powers be given to the police, even though they may be regarded as powers which are abnormally wide. I think that in the first instance it is necessary for us to consider the type of person with whom we are dealing here and the nature of the problems we have to contend with.

What we have to take into account in the first place is that the terrorists we are concerned with here are engaged in guerrilla warfare, in which barbarism forms the basis of their actions. That is all it amounts to. The people against whom we have to protect ourselves in this respect are people who have no regard for civilized and peacetime laws; they are people who have no regard whatsoever for any law or order in South Africa or where-ever they may be. During the revolutions in Indo-China, in Algeria, in Cuba and elsewhere in the world we came to know what methods these people apply and what ruthless undertakings they are engaged in. Before the terrorist comes to South Africa it is drummed into him that his weapon is ruthless violence and nothing less. In other words, the terrorist infiltrates the country realizing that his weapon is ruthless violence and that anybody who comes in his way, irrespective of his colour or race, must be destroyed. This is the type of people the police have to deal with as far as these attacks by terrorists are concerned. As I said just now. the terrorist has no respect for the laws of the State. Moreover, these terrorists who enter South Africa and in respect of whom we have to give the police adequate powers in order to be able to combat them have the backing of 38 African states, of Russia and of Communist China. In other words, these people enter the country with a high morale to commit ruthless acts of murder and violence here. They feel they have moral support because they have the backing of not only those 38 African states, but also of countries such as Russia and Communist China.

We must realize that it is no child’s play we are concerned with here. These people have no respect for any laws of a civilized state; these are people who come here with the intention to commit murder and to enable the communists to take over control of the state. Sam Nujoma, who was a common labourer in Windhoek, is at present the commander-in chief of the so-called freedom armies between Lusaka and Dar-es-Salaam. The terrorists who have already been arrested or who are still active in South West Africa are, in fact, the vanguard of a much larger freedom army which we know is moving in the direction of South Africa. While suppressing terrorist activities the South African Police got hold of a copy of Sam Nujoma’s exposition of his plan to liberate South West Africa and of his proposals to the “Liberation Army, Dar-es-Salaam”. Dated as recently as 10th May, 1966, this document contains detailed proposals regarding plans of attack, the disruption of communications, the taking over and firing of police and state buildings, as well as the attack on law-abiding inhabitants of South West Africa. It was headed “Dear Comrade” in typical communist fashion. He drew up the document shortly before, when he had made a fruitless attempt to enter South West Africa to take over the leadership. Mr. Chairman, it one considers the night attack on the Bantu Affairs building at Oshikango on 27th September, 1966, and the attack on 14th December, 1966, on Mr. Breedt. a white farmer near Grootfontein, it is quite clear that the directions issued by Nujoma are being duly adhered to. What happened at Oshikango was that the buildings were set on fire by terrorists at the instructions of their so-called leaders. When the persons who were inside the building came running out they were fired upon. If you can picture that scene to yourself, you will get some idea of the sort of people we are up against here. We are up against people who want to commit ruthless acts of murder and violence in South Africa, and particularly in South West Africa, at the present time. We are up against people who are entitled to nothing more than a prisoner of war is entitled to in time of war.

Shoot them.

It is perfectly clear that these people who are moving towards South Africa and who are armed to the teeth with Russian weapons, with Russian automatic rifles, with automatic pistols and plenty of ammunition, are coming here simply to commit murder in order to achieve their ultimate aims. Is there any reason why they should be treated differently from an ordinary prisoner of war in time of war? Sir, I do not want to go into the circumstances of the movement of these people any further; I merely want to mention to you a few of the practical problems the Police are faced with at the present moment. [Time expired.]

We on this side view the activities of these terrorists in South West Africa in a very serious light and for that reason we are quite prepared to do everything in our power to strengthen the hands of the Police. I want to go further and say that we are prepared to go further in the case of these terrorists than one may do in the case of prisoners of war. As far as a prisoner of war is concerned I think the position is that he may only be asked for his name and his number. I do not believe that he may be questioned beyond that. My hon. friend, the member for North Rand, who is particularly well informed about the Hague Treaty in this connection, confirms that that is correct. Where the hon. the Deputy Minister of Police has asked for these terrorists to be treated on the same basis as prisoners of war, we are prepared to go much further than that. It is perfectly true that the circumstances prevailing at present are exceptional, but I think that similar circumstances prevailed last year when the Government asked us to pass the 1966 Act. Even at that time it was known that terrorists were infiltrating into South West Africa and possibly elsewhere. The Government decided at that time to take strong action and to grant more powers to the Police and we were prepared to strengthen the hands of the Police. In other words, the danger was known to have existed last year already. The Government’s approach last year, and quite rightly so, was that the hands of the Police had to be strengthened but the Government felt that we as a State should maintain a proper balance in dealing with these people. The Government decided to empower the Police to detain and interrogate these people but the Government nevertheless felt that these people had to be given the right to have their cases heard by a Judge. I think that that was a very wise step and that that maintained the proper balance. The Government realized that although the actions of these people were utterly reprehensible they had entered the country as individuals and possibly as members of gangs. I know that more terrorists will enter the country but we nevertheless decided that we would go no further than having them arrested. and detained under the supervision of a Judge. I think it redounded to the honour of the Government that it was prepared to drop the old detention provision and to insert that new provision into the Act. We subscribed to the Government’s attitude and we are merely asking that we should not allow these people to compel us to abandon lightly the provision that was inserted into the Act last year.

If I am not mistaken the 1966 Act was passed only during the second session last year; it has not been in operation for very long and the objections to and the disadvantages of that provision, as outlined by the Minister, are not of such a nature in our opinion that we should drop it at this stage already. If there are special difficulties we should like to consider them in conjunction with the Minister. Since it is difficult, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, to make out a prima facie case before a Judge after a detention period of 14 days, we may be able to meet that difficulty in some way, as the hon. member for Transkei has already indicated. Here we are dealing with people who Commit atrocious deeds and who cross over our borders to commit murder and wreak havoc. In that case we ought to be able to make out a reasonably strong prima facie case against them in particular, because they are often armed with firearms and documents may perhaps be found in their possession. I cannot see how we shall not be able to make out a prima facie case fairly easily against those people to the satisfaction of a Judge. It may perhaps be a different matter when it comes to other people who will be affected by this measure. When it comes to people who may not have crossed our borders, it may be a different matter. I do not know. The Deputy Minister spoke of people coming here under exceptional circumstances and he naturally paid attention particularly to people crossing over our borders. However, these provisions may affect people who may have committed an ordinary crime only. I do not know whether it is the intention to use these provisions against people who, for example, are guilty of serious misconduct in the locations. I should like to learn this. Clause 2 may possibly be used against such people and in this regard I am referring particularly to paragraphs (a), (g) and (h) of clause 2 (2). These provisions may for example be used against people who commit reprehensible deeds in locations. I do not want to suggest that they should be handled with velvet gloves but, on the other hand, these provisions go much further than the hon. the Deputy Minister has just said. I want to draw the attention of this House to the fact that people may be detained who may be absolutely innocent, people who may presumably be able to furnish certain information. If they are able to furnish such information their detention is of course quite regular. On the other hand there may be people whom the Police believe to be able to furnish information but who are nevertheless unable to do so. After all, they may also be detained. I hope that the Police will maintain the highest standards in these cases and I hope that they will never lose sight of the fact that people, many people even, may be detained whereas they are in point of fact innocent. Therefore I hope that they will always be ready to reconsider such cases. I know that in terms of the relevant provision the Minister has to be informed each month of whom is being detained and of the reasons for their detention.

Nevertheless, one knows how great the pressure of work often is and how quickly time passes while innocent people remain locked up. Where we as a nation naturally want to take strong action against someone who is guilty, we at the same time want to uphold our honour by being concerned about people who are in fact not guilty. I concede that in this regard we are dealing with a serious problem but at the same time I want to suggest that we shall be serving the best interests of our country by keeping both sides of the matter in mind. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister once again whether he will not agree to giving this 1966 provision a longer trial period. As I say, if he has any objection to the short period of 14 days, we on this side of the House are quite prepared to try to meet his difficulties in that respect. I think that in that way we shall be able to give our Police quite a strong hand and at the same time we shall not allow our balance to be disturbed by these people, people we all feel, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, “We can finish off before breakfast”.

Mr. Chairman, I said a short while ago that I should like to mention a few of our practical problems. First I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member has just said in regard to section 22 which was placed on the Statute Book last year. When this section was placed on the Statute Book last year we initially thought that it would provide adequate provision for combating terroristic activities. To-day I want to say in unambiguous language that section 22 has in fact helped us a great deal. Various applications have been made under which some of the terrorists are being detained. But in due course, and particularly after the first skirmish on 26th August last year and subsequent events, it became clear to us that section 22 was inadequate. There are certain practical problems in regard to the combating of terrorism in South West Africa which make it impossible for us to take proper action in terms of the provisions of section 22 alone.

Is it not possible to amend those unsatisfactory aspects of section 22?

I shall come to that. I should now like to reply to the point raised by the hon. member. The position is the following. Here we are dealing with a problem, the extent of which we do not realize at the present moment. We do know that large numbers of terrorists are holding themselves in readiness to come to South Africa. But we do not know what the extent of their attacks in the future is going to be. Nor do we know to what extent they are going to keep us occupied. Therefore I feel that it is imperative for this House, and South Africa, to trust the Police in connection with this very important matter. We do not want to discover between the present time and the next session of Parliament that, as far as this evil is concerned, there are certain shortcomings in our legislation. On the other hand, we are not asking to be given unrestricted powers to detain just anybody. We merely want to apprehend those people whom we believe to be terrorists or, as the clause reads further on, people who may have information in regard to the combating of terrorism, information required by the Police.

The practical problems which we are experiencing are, inter alia, the following. Apart from those who were killed and taken prisoner during the skirmishes last year a number of trained and armed terrorists escaped. That is what happens every time. There is a skirmish, a small war is fought in the wilds, and the Police simply is not in the position to arrest all of them. Some of them escape. As a matter of fact, in all skirmishes up to now the Police has been unable to arrest all of them and a few of them have usually escaped. They have to be traced and rendered harmless. In the meantime reports are being received of others who are advancing from across the borders of South Africa and of others who are ready to receive their battle orders. These are all matters to which the Police has to give attention. Those who have been taken prisoner have to be interrogated; they have to be identified; they have to show where certain places are; they have to be used to trace others who have escaped from the skirmish. Information supplied by them has to be followed up. The information supplied by them is usually not adequate. We are not merely dealing with Bantu but with people who have been indoctrinated to perform the task for which they have come to South Africa. They supply the names of people who have been trained locally. They have to be traced. All persons who have received so-called training in South Africa have to be identified. They have to be traced. The most important aspect of combating the terrorists in the northern areas of South West Africa—and this I want to emphasize— is that the terrain is so inaccessible. Hon. members may not realize this, but I have been informed that an area of thousands of square miles is so thickly overgrown and that conditions are so difficult that one may pass within two yards of an elephant without knowing that it was standing there! How much the more difficult is it not to patrol that area and to trace people in that area, particularly in view of the fact that we are dealing with people who can simply hide themselves under a bush where one may virtually pass right over them without seeing them? These people have thousands of square miles in which they can move about. After some of them have been arrested in a skirmish they are used for weeks and even months to assist the Police in tracing those who have escaped in that virtually inaccessible terrain where there are thousands of miles of sand dunes, swamps and dense forests. Those who have been taken prisoner are used by the Police to trace those who have escaped. These circumstances make it impossible for the Police to go to a supreme court first to make a formal application. Moreover, all the information regarding the person whose services the Police wants to employ, is not yet available then. I think that it is humanly impossible to submit all the information to the Judge within 14 days or even within six weeks. And in the meantime it will not be possible to make use of their services to trace the others who have escaped. This is the practical problem with which we are faced. I want hon. members to have regard to the fact that the Police has a duty to South Africa and on behalf of the Police I want to give all of you, and the nation, the assurance that the Police wants to execute that task—whatever physical and spiritual demands it may make on them. But I want to make an appeal that we should not make unnecessary spiritual and physical demands on them other than those which are absolutely essential. In addition there is another factor. The terrorists who return usually have contacts amongst the local population. These contacts have to be traced and for that purpose there have to be interrogations. The prisoner has to be used for such investigations. The Police also has to deal with contacts amongst the local population— in a struggle such as this, that is imperative. To do all these things is a time-consuming process. Every piece of information has to be put together in order to catch those people who have escaped under circumstances which are extremely favourable to them. Another factor which makes the work of the Police more difficult is that the documents which may be found on terrorists may be in a foreign language. Then some may be in code. In such case they have to be decoded first.

There are several other practical problems which I can still mention, but I prefer to conclude now by asking this House in deadly earnest to trust the Police in this diabolic thing we have to combat. Only a lieutenant colonel may attend to arrests. There is the requirement that details have to be submitted to the Minister from month to month. I say here to-day that we must combat this thing and the South African nation expects us and the Police to do so. If the Almighty spares me I shall come back to this House next year and report on what the Police has done. I hope that I shall not have to be ashamed of what the Police has done but that we will all be proud of that. South Africa must be saved from this diabolic thing which is threatening it.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has outlined the difficulties of the Police in the steps they have to take in this matter. But, Sir, the thing that interests me is, what on earth do we have an army for? Cannot we use the army to patrol our borders? I do not understand why additional powers should be given to the Police for this purpose. We are told that the Police want this power to get at the terrorists only. But every single time this House has had to deal with a measure such as this, the Minister in charge told us that the new powers required were necessary only to deal with certain specific people—people like communists, saboteurs and, now, terrorists. There is, of course, no guarantee that that is so—as a matter of fact, we have had instances right throughout the years where these wide powers were used by the Police in cases unrelated with the original intention. Consequently, one can be extremely wary of granting further extensions of these powers. And I must say that the hon. the Deputy Minister seems to have some extraordinary ideas about how prisoners of war should be treated. A prisoner of war is certainly not held indefinitely and interrogated in solitary confinement while nobody is informed where he is. That does not apply to prisoners of war. They are governed by a definite convention. The question is, are we or are we not at war? We are not treating these people like prisoners of war at all. There are certain definite conventions governing the treatment even of a person who enters a country with the object of overthrowing the State. As far as this case is concerned, the Police, as far as I can see, already have the necessary powers. I do not believe for one moment that a Judge of a Supreme Court will not give his written authority for detaining these people.

We have not had difficulty with that yet …

Well, if the hon. the Deputy Minister hasn’t had trouble with this yet, I fail to see …

But that is not my trouble.

Then I fail to see any reason for extending this even further. I did not like the original extension. But I was told it was so much better than 90 days. Of course it is better than 90 days. But the fact of the matter is that I do not like any of these provisions. But now the Government is even going further than last year—back again to something very much worse than 90 days. This is 90 days all over again—only ten times worse. Later on I will give chapter and verse why I think this is very much worse than the 90-days detention clause. But before doing that I have certain amendments I should like to move. I could not get them onto the Order Paper last night but I have given them to the hon. the Minister as well as to you. Mr. Chairman. These amendments, which I now move, are as follows—

to insert the following subsection to follow subsection (1):

1. (2) The conditions determined by the Minister shall be published in the Gazette and shall be subject to review by Parliament at its first ensuing session.;

in line 28, to omit “as soon as possible” and to substitute “immediately”; in line 30, to omit “Minister” and to substitute “judge concerned”; in line 31, to omit “month” and to substitute “fortnight”; in line 34, after “Minister” to insert “or a judge of the Supreme Court having jurisdiction in the area in which the detainee is being held”; in line 35, after “Minister” to insert “and any judge of the Supreme Court having jurisdiction in the area in which such detainee is held”; to omit subsection (5); to add the following provisos at the end of subsection (6):

in line 45, to omit “if circumstances so permit”; and in line 46, to omit “fortnight” and to substitute “week”.

Perhaps I should deal with the last one first. I have moved the last one because subsection (6) of clause 6 lays down that—

I may be reading this incorrectly, and if I am, perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell me right away. It seems to me that one is precluded from any information whatsoever about these people. Under the 90 days measure one could table questions in Parliament and find out how many people were being held. Under the 180 day measure one could table questions in Parliament and find out how many people were being held in terms of section 215bis of the Criminal Procedure Act. Under every other one of these Acts one could at least obtain some information from the hon. the Minister in order to ascertain to what extent the powers given under this Act were being used. The narrowest interpretation of subsection (6) of clause 6 is, of course, that nobody would have access to any information at all relating to detainees. That, as I read it, would include a member of Parliament wanting to know how many persons were being so detained. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether I am reading that correctly. In any case, however, I am going to move a proviso that this should not apply to Parliament. I think Parliament is entitled to certain information, especially when these very wide powers have been given.

The purpose of the other amendments are, seriatim, the following.

I have moved the first amendment, namely to omit the words after “the”, where it occurs for the first time in line 22 onwards, and to omit “from time to time …” and to substitute “may”, simply because this means that there is absolutely no time limit at all. This is the reason why I want this provision omitted and I want instead the insertion of the provision which we had in the Act before, namely that nobody shall be detained for more than 14 days without the written authority of a Judge of the Supreme Court. That I think is fairly simple and I think it is equally simple, of course, for the hon. the Minister to reject it, which I have no doubt he will do.

In the second amendment I want a new subsection (1), whereby the conditions determined by the Minister shall be published in the Gazette and shall be subject to review by Parliament at its first ensuing session. I do this because under the 90 days measure, nobody had any idea at all how persons were held during the 90 days measure, and it came as a severe shock to people to realize that in fact there had been solitary confinement, interrogation under all sorts of circumstances and that the relatives had not been allowed access to these people. They did not know what their rights were at all. if any. I want to know therefore whether the hon. the Minister is going to determine the conditions under which these people shall be held. Even prisoners of war, where war has actually been declared on the country, are entitled to certain conditions and they know their rights as prisoners of war. So I think that those rights should be inscribed into this Bill.

The purpose of my next amendment is that the Commissioner should immediately inform the Minister of the name of the person he has arrested. I cannot see any difficulty in these davs of modern communications why the Commissioner should not at once inform the Minister about the arrest of the detainee and where he has been detained and at least furnish the Minister or the Judge concerned, who is to be responsible for the fortnightly added detention of such person, with the reasons why any detainee should not be released. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not think we should pay very much attention to the hon. member for Houghton. If ever this Government agreed with the hon. member for Houghton on the question of the security of the State, there would be something seriously amiss with the Government.

I want to emphasize most strongly that combating terrorism in South Africa would be impossible without this clause. Hon. members on that side of the House who know that country—I think the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) will bear out every word I am saying—know that it is a tremendously extensive area with vegetation which is so dense in places that one cannot even move on foot. I am not even speaking of a police vehicle or anything of that kind. In part it is so sandy that no vehicle of any kind could get through. I am not even speaking of swamps and other natural obstacles. It is indeed true that for distances of hundreds of miles there is no communication whatsoever. It may easily happen that a police vehicle which enters the area to trace terrorists will not be heard of for six months, if heavy rains set in over that region. Even a helicopter will not be able to land, unless it could alight in a tree like a crow. It is country in which one simply cannot combat this kind of crime by normal means, unless one does everything which is humanly possible to pin them down. That is why I take this view of this particular clause. This clause relates to the question of indefinite detention of terrorists or people suspected of supporting those criminals. Apart from the terrain and the particularly difficult conditions obtaining there, we also have to cope with the specific temperament of the inhabitants of that region. Those of us who know the Bantu very well know that if one asks them a question and they realize that there is trouble the first reply one could expect of them is: “I do not know”. That is their first reaction. It is only long afterwards that they start thinking about the information they will in fact give. But their very first response is to say that, they do not know. Unless the police have the power of immediate detention, and in fact for an indefinite period. of a person whom they think will be able to furnish information, or is a terrorist, terrorism will have a field day in that region.

We are not objecting to that.

Hon. members object and say that what they want is that when we have arrested a man on the suspicion that he is a terrorist, and after we have gone to all the trouble of laying hands on him, we should take him to a Judge in Windhoek. 500 miles from there, because we may not detain him longer than a certain period.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Before the adjournment I was demonstrating that without this clause it would simply be impossible for the police in the northern areas of South-West Africa to combat terrorism, for the reasons I mentioned. The hon. member for Pinelands made the point that the accused need not necessarily be taken to Windhoek before the Supreme Court could order the detention, but it nevertheless means that a case could occur where the police are hunting a terrorist, and because of the tremendous distances the man who is hard on the tracks will simply first have to turn back to Windhoek to report, at least to the Commissioner of Police, in order that he may submit the necessary application to the court.

What about extending the period?

One could not extend the period specifically to a certain date, because as a result of circumstances it could take up to six months before such a person could be brought before the court. It could also take years. That is in fact why it is so difficult, and that is why I think that we should not further hamper the police in their thankless task by trying to handicap them in any way.

I just want to reply to another question raised by hon. members on the opposite side. It appears to me as though they are trying to compare this specific matter of terrorism with crimes such as treason, sedition and crimen laesae majestatis, and other crimes committed against the authority of the State. I want the hon. member for Pinelands, in particular, to note that treason, as defined by Voet and Grotius, differs altogether from what we have to cope with in modern times. Treason is directed against the authority of the State. It is directed against the State per se and against none else. But terrorism, in the process of overthrowing the authority of the State, encompasses a whole series of crimes such as sabotage, explosions, murder, etc. It is something much worse: it is a crime which even extends over years. We cannot compare it with the cases mentioned by hon. members on the opposite side. It is simply a new crime that we shall have to combat in all its different facets.

‘

But it is a crime we dealt with in the 1966 Act.

Yes, but I am not concerned with that now; I am dealing with this particular Bill. It so happens that terrorism is a crime which originated in Algeria and other states only in recent years. This relates to crimes which have never been defined in international law or common law. It is something one will have to bring back to Parliament from time to time to enable it to take proper steps to combat it in all its various facets and to eliminate it. For these reasons I want to say that in this case the hon. members of the Opposition should not make it unnecessarily difficult for the police to combat this crime, which is directed not only against the Government but against everyone, and against any government which may come into power in South Africa, even a United. Party Government. [Time expired.]

I wanted to explain to the Committee why I thought this was so much worse a clause than the original 90-day clause which has now been suspended. This clause 6, which is the very essence of the Bill, goes much further than that 90-day clause, for several reasons. Firstly, there is no pretension to a limit. I know that the 90-day clause in fact, as it was implemented, could be used over and over again in regard to the same detainee, but nevertheless it did have some pretensions to limitation, and there is no such pretension here. It is detention for an indefinite period. That is the first point. Secondly, there is no pretension here of this being anything other than solitary confinement. If the police officer in charge wishes to keep this person completely in solitary confinement indefinitely, he can do so. We had long debates in this House when the 90-day clause was under discussion in regard to the dangers of that clause not only in regard to the sanity of the people concerned but also as to the veracity of the information they give. That is the important thing. One never knows how trustworthy any information is which is given under duress of that nature, and in fact considerable doubts have been expressed as to what reliance one can attach to such evidence, by psychologists and people who have made a close study of the effects of solitary confinement. There are no safeguards whatsoever against any abuse of this clause. Innocent people may very well be taken. I am not saying that the police will do so wittingly, but there are no safeguards. People can simply be held in these circumstances without any recourse whatever to the courts of law. No court of law can order the release of a detainee, and that is why I ask that subsection (5) be deleted from this clause. I think a court of law ought to be allowed to pronounce on the extended detention of a person under this clause. The type of interrogation is not mentioned. Nobody knows how these interrogations are to take place and what form they will take. There has been sufficient evidence, in my opinion anyway, adduced to the effect that these interrogations are done very much under duress, and in one case a Judge also believed that evidence. What also worries me is that persons might be brought to trial on the strength of their own confessions or evidence given by accomplices under interrogation and under conditions of solitary confinement for an indefinite period. I do not know what reliance can be placed on any information obtained in that way.

Then of course there is the fact that the detainees are inaccessible to anybody, including anybody who might subsequently want to defend them, and that makes their defence so much more difficult. I fully agree that nobody can be sent to gaol for the minimum period of five years laid down by this Bill, or can be sentenced to death, which is the maximum punishment under this Bill, without being tried by a court of law, in which case the accused would of course be defended. But the whole of the conditions preceding the trial make the defence so much more difficult, and certainly while the person is being held, there is absolutely no recourse to the courts of law and the normal rule of law falls away entirely. For all these reasons, I believe this is very much worse than the original 90-day provision.

There is another point here. This has become a permanent part of our legislation. The 90-day provision had to be re-enacted every year according to the prevailing circumstances. Now we are told that these are emergency measures which are taken to deal with an emergency which has occurred in South-West Africa. In practice, of course, this Bill applies to the whole of South Africa as well as South-West Africa. But the hon. the Minister did try to give the impression that we are coping with an emergency here. I say that if there is an emergency, a state of emergency should be declared in the areas where that obtains. But failing that, surely the least that should happen is that the very wide powers which are being taken by the Minister under that Act should be re-enacted each year, when one will have the opportunity of studying the conditions as they obtain. Therefore I want to move a further amendment, so that this should not become a permanent part of our legislation. The amendment I want to move is as follows—

1. (8) Subject to the provisions of subsection (9) the provisions of subsections (1) to (7) inclusive shall lapse on the 30th day of June. 1968.
2. (9) The operation of the provisions of subsections (1) to (7) inclusive may from time to time by resolution of the Senate and the House of Assembly be extended for a period not exceeding 12 months at a time.

The only effect this will have will be that the Minister will have to reconsider the whole matter year by year. I do not think that this is going to help a great deal. We do this year after year in the case of Sobukwe. It simply depends on what the hon. the Minister wants and Parliament then has to agree, but it does give an opportunity for this measure to be debated and it does mean that this particular feature of our law does not simply get accepted without people being constantly reminded of its presence on the Statute Book. We know that there was a time when the 12 day no-bail clause had to be renewed year after year; it then became part of the ordinary law of the land and to-day people have forgotten all about it. If the Sobukwe clause were written permanently into our law and did not have to be renewed every year, people will forget that Sobukwe was still being held in prison, four or five years after his term of imprisonment had elapsed. I believe that the very fact that the 90-day law had to be revived year after year, kept it in the public consciousness. Similarly I believe that if this clause is not made a permanent part of our statutory law but something which has to be reconsidered year after year, then the hon. the Minister will at least have to bring his mind to bear on it every year, and that might possibly do something to alleviate the mischief of the clause.

In the first place I should like to clarify the position in this House. We have here a request by the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Police for drastic powers to be granted to the police to enable them to take action against terroristic threats in the north. This is a special request to this House and I should like the public to know that the Opposition is opposing the granting of those powers. The next point which I just want to make, because I do not have the time to argue the case, is that the hon. member for Transkei gave a veiled hint here that had they been in power the position which existed at present would not have developed. In this regard I should just like to refer, by way of example, to a letter from New York addressed to one of the agitators in South-West Africa—

Therefore the policy of that side would have been of no avail whatsoever.

In support of the attitude the Opposition adopted during the Second Reading, the hon. member for Transkei once more made the point that they too had interned people during the war. I want to ask the hon. member whether they brought internees before a Judge to be tried prior to their detention during the war? Then I want to ask the hon. member who are more dangerous to the safety of the Republic of South Africa, the people who were interned during the war or these black, trained terrorists with machine guns? I shall concede that this is drastic legislation which can only be justified under certain circumstances. For the information of the hon. member for Houghton I should like to repeat a statement here which I have already quoted in this House, one made by the hon. Justice Broome in connection with the rule of law. Unfortunately the hon. member was not present when I quoted that statement last year. I quote what the Judge President of Natal said—

Even the hon. member for Houghton will have to concede that the statement I have just read is accepted by all civilized nations where the rule of law applies. The only question we have to ask ourselves is whether the circumstances justify this drastic legislation. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Police has already outlined for us the gravity of the situation and I do not want to repeat what he said. The hon. member for Houghton and hon. members of the Opposition made veiled hints here that the present situation arose as a result of the actions of the Government. I want to make it clear that the situation arose as a result of the actions of agitators, not agitators inside South Africa, but outside South Africa and as a result of the training of terrorists by certain African states and by communistic countries. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Police has already said that these agitators mostly come from African states but unfortunately the matter does not end there. There are certain prominent Americans who also assist in inciting these agitators. After the verdict by the World Court last year one Advocate Lowenstein, who was introduced by the announcer as a “lawyer from New York City, a special expert on South-West Africa”, gave a radio talk and I just want to quote the following in order to illustrate in what way people were being incited by this man. He said—

It is as a result of incitement by all these people and these prominent Americans that this dangerous situation has now developed on our borders. Mr. Chairman, here we are dealing with trained people who use machineguns and who will not hesitate for a single moment to take the lives of innocent people. Examples have already been mentioned here and I do not want to go into the matter again. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether those people pay any heed or are aware of the rule of law. No, they are coldblooded murderers. If the position were to get out of hand, whom would the hon. member and the Opposition blame? They would blame this Government. We know that when the Paarl riots took place a few years ago, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition attacked this Government and asked why the Government had not taken timeous action.

My constituency extends from Windhoek up to the Kunene. Innocent pioneer farmers on remote farms who have tamed those wild regions are entitled to protection by this Government. The same applies to the peaceful Bantu tribes who live there. They have achieved a high standard of living thanks to the successful guardianship of this Government. They are also entitled to the protection of this Government. As representative of those voters I just want to say that I welcome this legislation because it gives the police the necessary powers to protect their safety there. This legislation, as I have already said, was brought before us by the hon. the Minister of Justice who is now asking us for these wide powers for the maintenance of order there. As someone who is also responsible for the safety of those voters, I welcome this legislation and I say that it is the duty of this Committee to give its full support to the hon. the Minister however drastic this legislation may be.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down emphasized, I think, the case that has been made by Government members in regard to this clause. Let me say very frankly that I was very impressed by the reasons that the hon. the Deputy Minister gave as to why the provisions of the 1962 Act could not be applied in South-West Africa. The reason he gave was the practical difficulties of the consequences of what he called “die oorloggies” that went on there. The picture which the hon. the Minister mentioned in detail as to the tracking, shadowing and the chasing of these people in the extraordinary terrain in which they have to work, was a picture for which I am sure the Committee was very grateful. The case that has been made and which has been accentuated by other hon. members who come from South-West Africa, has been a case relating to South-West Africa. In these circumstances one wonders whether the hon. the Minister would not confine the application of this provision to South-West Africa.

Or the Transvaal.

No, not the Transvaal, because the circumstances which are arising in South-West Africa and the particular difficulties which they have there in getting to a Judge within two weeks and the difficulty of preparing a case to present to the Judge within two weeks, not to mention even getting to him, a case which might take six weeks to prepare if you have to go off tracking someone in the desert on the borders of South-West Africa, do not exist in the Transvaal. At least, we have not been informed that they do exist in the Transvaal. The whole case that has been made out has been made out in regard to South-West Africa. The case that is made in regard to South-West Africa by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Police was a good one as regards his not being able to apply the provision of the 1966 Act, namely that you must go to a Judge within two weeks. In those circumstances I want to ask the Minister whether he will consider confining this, on the case which has been made, to South-West Africa, or alternatively providing that the 1966 Act should apply with the condition that in relation to South-West Africa a longer period than two weeks will be allowed. Whatever is reasonably required should be provided for. I say this on the grounds of the argument that has been put forward. The argument that in respect of South-West Africa a period longer than two weeks should apply, is one which I think merits consideration. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to consider either of these two alternatives which I believe would meet our objections.

Mr. Chairman, the seconds of the hon. member for Durban (North) have already thrown in the towel and now he is hitting out with a few last wild punches in the form of his request that this measure should be restricted to South-West Africa. I do not think that he can be serious, because what is happening in South-West Africa to-day may be happening elsewhere in the Republic to-morrow. We do not know where these people will strike and the authorities and the police must be given the necessary powers to combat terrorism if the need arises.

I listened to the hon. member for Houghton and I should like to know on whose behalf she was speaking. She was really not speaking on behalf of the Whites of this country nor on behalf of the non-Whites, because Swapo wrote to her earlier this year—

If she was not speaking on behalf of those people, I leave it to hon. members to decide on whose behalf she was speaking. The famous American jurist, Wigmore, once said: “Why this sudden concern for criminals.” After having listened to the hon. member for Houghton I want to ask to-day: “Why this sudden concern for terrorists in South Africa?” Not only did she fight certain clauses of this Bill, she opposed the entire Bill in toto. She made a big fuss about the so-called rule of law. One is getting sick and tired of this constant nagging of the hon. member for Houghton about the rule of law. As soon as the Government takes drastic action to combat an evil which is threatening the safety of the State, the clarion call of the rule of law echos from the hon. member. We on this side of the House are proud of our administration of justice, its achievements and its record. Not one of us would like to have any departure from and weakening of our law of procedure of jurisprudence. But these rules were formulated in the good old days under circumstances which differed essentially from conditions today. These rules were framed at that time to protect the ordinary law-abiding citizen against the actions of the State. To-day South Africa has to be protected against underground and undermining activities aimed at the structure of the State itself. The modus operandi of the terrorists is that they themselves do not want to be bound to any law but they and their friends want to insist that we keep to our existing law of procedure and jurisprudence which is not at all equal to combating the activities of these terrorists. They appeal to the rule of law because they realize that their chances are very good indeed to circumvent the rule of law. The hon. the Deputy Minister gave us a very clear picture of the real position in South Africa. Any right-minded South African who oppose this legislation is doing his country a disfavour and does not have the interests and the safety of the various population groups of this country at heart.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down has said that the rules under which we operate now were prepared many years ago and that conditions have changed and therefore we must have new rules. We admit at once that conditions have changed, but what we have asked the Minister to do is to accept amendments on the lines of those he introduced only eight months ago. The hon. member said that the outbreak is now in South-West Africa but that it may spread to other parts of the country. The conditions as set out by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Police applied purely to South-West Africa. The difficult conditions of the terrain there and the difficulties under which they have to work applied to South-West Africa in the main. This may also be the case in other parts but I submit that that does not justify this amendment to the law being applicable to the whole of the country. We have not suggested that the police should have to act in the short time provided for in the 1966 Act.

The hon. member for Durban (North) has suggested that the period be extended, if the Minister is prepared to listen to our suggestion. Unfortunately, because of the rules of the House we are not in a position now to move our substitution. All we can indicate is our criticism of the clause as proposed by the Minister. Our criticism is that it departs from the provision that he himself introduced in 1966. We would be prepared to accept that clause amended to fit the situation as described by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Police. We submit that it can be done.

The hon. member for Houghton has moved a number of amendments. We know that the Second Reading was only discussed yesterday and we appreciate that, but she has now moved a string of amendments. It is impossible to say exactly how those amendments will affect the issue. We do not know which amendments will be accepted and which will not be accepted by the House. We do not know how the clause will eventually read. Therefore we on this side feel that the whole clause should be deleted. Once it is deleted, we shall move our substitution clause. The House then knows in fact what the substance of that clause will be. We can then discuss the amendments to suit the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Minister of Police. They can then put their arguments to us, for instance in regard to where the period should be extended. I ask the Minister to consider this proposal on those lines, namely that we first delete this clause and then have a substitution on the lines of the provision introduced by him in 1966. We can then give him the necessary extension of the period if it is necessary.

Mr. Chairman, while the hon. member for Houghton was speaking, I asked myself how much encouragement the terrorists were not finding in her speeches. She intimated in her speech that the South African Government was the cause of the terrorism. Those were her words. It must be very encouraging for them to know that they have someone in this House who takes their part and tries to protect them here.

As regards clause 6, I want to point out that people will not be detained for an indefinite period. They will be detained for interrogation, i.e. for a definite period. The idea which some members of the Opposition have that an injustice may be done, is not justified. There are various measures of control which may be exercised in this connection. These measures are embodied in this clause. In terms of those measures people may not be detained arbitrarily for an indefinite period.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to address a word of congratulation and thanks to the Department of Police and the Department of Justice and particularly to the police. They are in the front line. They combat terrorism at the risk of their lives. As the hon. the Deputy Minister of Police has already said, this is a diabolic thing. That is an apt description. Terrorists are figures from the darkest corners of hell. That is what they are. They cannot be combated with ordinary measures. There must be special measures for combating them. They go under the name of freedom fighters, but in Angola where some of them were caught they were asked what they understood the word “freedom” to mean. This is what they said. They did not speak English but here their reply is given in English—

Then we take over their women.

The hon. member for Houghton is in danger. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that he is not to make a Second Reading speech now. He must confine himself to the clause. I have already allowed a very wide discussion.

With due respect, Mr. Chairman, my speech deals with the reasons why these special measures, embodied in clause 6, have to be taken.

The principle has already been adopted at the Second Reading. I want to point that out to the hon. member. He must now confine himself to the clause.

In any event, I have already read the most important things in this connection. By means of these measures of control clause 6 makes special provision for the detention of terrorists. They are people who assassinate others. That is the cruelest form of barbarism. Therefore clause 6 is necessary. If this clause is not accepted we cannot expect terrorism to be stamped out.

Mr. Chairman, we have received various amendments and suggestions for the alteration of this clause. As regards the suggestion made by the hon. member for Durban (North), that the application of this clause be restricted to the territory of South-West Africa and that the rest of the Republic as such be excluded, I want to point out that that is hopelessly impracticable. A terrorist has no regard for national borders. That is precisely the problem. Supposing this clause is applicable to South-West Africa only and a a terrorist slips over the border at Gemsbok Park the law, or at least this particular clause, will not be applicable to him. Therefore it is impracticable. If hon. members of the Opposition want to go as far as accepting that this clause in fact ought to be applicable to South-West Africa, it is obvious that they also accept the principle that it ought to be applicable to the entire Republic, because these people act on a wide front, know no borders and are united in their activities.

The hon. member for Houghton moved a whole series of amendments. The hon. member for Transkei quite rightly said that we did not know what all the implications of these amendments were. However, one implication is as clear as daylight. That is that her amendments seek to cause as much information as possible about these terrorists to leak out. They are to have all the facilities which are normally granted to the criminal. If we are to accept those amendments we will not be combating the terrorists. We will become their allies because we will be creating facilities for them. I agree with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet who pointed out that we constantly heard about the rule of law. I want to follow that up. The essence of this legislation is clause 6. It is of little avail to us to accept the principle of the legislation as a whole, which creates a crime, if we do not accept the instrument of combating that crime, i.e. clause 6. If we want to judge clause 6 we have to do so in the light of the type of person for whom it has been created. It has not been created for the common criminal. He commits a crime for personal reasons, from certain personal motives, for profit, etc. These people commit crimes against a part of mankind as such. We are not dealing with the combating of crime as such. We are dealing with the combating of a politico-military action. There is a big difference between the commission of a crime, even murder, by a common criminal and the organized communistically-inspired politico-military action. That is the heart of the matter. If we view it in this perspective we must realize that we must create counter-measures. We can conduct very interesting discussions on the general legal principles of criminal law and procedure, as hon. members opposite did. We would have been quite right in doing so if we were dealing with normal circumstances. However, we are not considering legislation for normal circumstances nor for normal people. That is the difference. These terrorists on whose behalf the hon. member called in the rule of law have no regard even for the legal rules of warfare. They have no regard even for international conventions in respect of warfare. We must remember that here we are dealing with gangs, with organized gangs. We are not dealing with ordinary crime, with ordinary individual criminals as we know them. We are dealing with organized gangs and we cannot take action against them as we do against ordinary criminals.

This measure also seeks the safety of, inter alia, the witness who is being detained. The terrorist may not know where he is being detained, when he will be there and for how long he will be detained. That is for the protection of that witness himself.

Now I want to say this to hon. members of the Opposition. If we examine this measure we find no less than five safety valves in this clause. They are five safety valves for assisting the detainee. In the first place we find that a person is detained by order of the Commissioner of Police but subject to the directives of the Minister. In the second place reports have to be made to the Minister indicating what persons are being detained as well as the reasons for their detention. In the third place we find that there is every opportunity for making representations to the Minister. In the fourth place the detainee will be visited by a magistrate who may forward the representations made by the detainee. In addition the Minister may, in terms of section 6 (4), order the release of a detainee at any time. That is the fifth safety valve. Now, since we have these five safety valves the Opposition cannot oppose this clause after having conceded that this clause is the right thing for the conditions which are prevailing and may prevail in South-West Africa. Then all their opposition to the principle of this clause, also as regards its application to the Republic of South Africa, falls away. Therefore I think the Opposition ought to support the Government unconditionally when it comes to a division on this clause.

We realize what the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton is. We have come to realize that long ago. But her attitude, our attitude and the Opposition’s attitude are quite divergent ones. If she is to get her own way, as expressed in her amendments, she will create the very facilities by means of which the arrested terrorist may possibly keep his cohorts informed. To tell the truth, we will create headquarters for them from where they will be able to control their organization so much the easier.

Mr. Chairman, first I want to deal with the hon. member for Houghton. I am afraid that I cannot accept any one of her amendments. It is my opinion that she did not believe that I would accept any of them. Her final amendment seeks this legislation to be debated annually in this House. I am afraid that I do not want to create the opportunity for us to hear year after year the same things we heard here this year. The hon. member would like to have the opportunity every year of repeating the kind of thing she has already said here. For that reason, in the first place, I cannot accept the amendment but for another reason in particular I do not see my way clear to accept her amendment. I believe this legislation to be of a virtually temporary/permanent nature, because the onslaught by the terrorists has only just begun. Why should we have an annual debate on these matters in the middle of such an onslaught?

The hon. member questioned me in regard to clause 6 (6), which reads as follows—

She wanted to know whether that excluded Members of Parliament and whether questions in this connection could in fact be asked in Parliament. Now, any Member of Parliament has the right at all times to put any question to any Minister in respect of any measure administered by him. But I want to tell the hon. member even now that when it comes to questions dealing with particulars in regard to the detention of terrorists I shall say each time that the reply is not in the public interest, because nothing will suit other terrorists better than knowing exactly how many people are being detained, how many have stood trial, how many have been released and similar information which the hon. member annually and daily seeks in this House in respect of all other detainees. In other words, I shall not allow Members of Parliament to obtain information from me which may be useful to the cause of terrorism as a whole.

The hon. member also asked me whether I would prescribe by regulation the conditions under which they might be detained. It is impossible to do so. That will have to be done administratively for the following simple reason. How am I going to prescribe to the Commissioner of Police or to the Commanding Officer in South-West Africa, or wherever, in what way he is to detain a particular person while he is engaged in his investigation? I cannot do so. It is quite unpractical. Consequently the conditions cannot be prescribed by regulation.

If I now come back to the official Opposition the position is as I described it in my Second Reading speech. Last year when we introduced the 1966 measure it was my honest opinion that it would in fact be adequate for combating the danger. I openly admitted during the Second Reading Debate that that legislation was unequal to the task. Now hon. members opposite ask why, if the period is inadequate, it is not extended? If three months were to be a sufficiently long period and I were to extend the period accordingly, it would mean that I would be keeping the judiciary in the background and would therefore be making a mere mockery of our judiciary. I would be making a mere mockery of the judiciary. The judiciary will not put up with that. How can we detain a person for a long period and subsequently ask the judiciary to give that their approval? The judiciary will not put up with that.

One approaches the judiciary when one wishes to detain a person for a longer period.

Yes. As I have said, the judiciary will not put up with that, and I for one will not ask the judiciary to be allowed to detain a person for a reasonably long period first and then approach the judiciary for authority for his further detention. That simply does not go down. A suggestion of that nature does not go down. The Opposition then came forward with another proposal. They said that they now realized how difficult the position was in South West Africa. They suggested that we made this measure applicable to South West Africa and made other provision for the Republic. Now, hon. members may know that the terrorists do not simply intend to attack through South West Africa—the onslaught is intended to be made in groups of 10 from various directions. It is intended to be made from the north. It is intended to be made via Mozambique. It is intended to be made along the east coast. If we may suddenly be attacked at other places, how can we make this measure applicable to South West Africa alone because circumstances there are difficult? The only effective way of detaining a terrorist and of obtaining information from him is for him to know that he may be detained for an indefinite period. As long as he knows that he will be detained for three months, or even for six months or longer, he will be indoctrinated and be prepared in advance to endure until such time as he has to be released. Consequently, for these various reasons mentioned by me, I do not see my way clear to meet hon. members of the Opposition in this connection and I want to content myself with the clause in its present form.

Amendments put and negatived (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

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

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 9:

This clause contains a very important principle. I do not believe that laws should be passed with retrospective effect to make crimes of acts which were not crimes when they were committed. Indeed in some countries such a law would not be permitted on the ground that it is unconstitutional, and I myself am going to vote against this clause.

Clause put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Remaining clause and title of the Bill put and agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment.

Yesterday evening, when the House adjourned, I was emphasizing the fact that it was essential for us to have been allowed sufficient time to study this important legislation with all its implications properly and for us to have had proper opportunities for a consultation. This Bill was already being envisaged three years ago and had already been published a year ago, and now this Bill, which contains 62 clauses, is being introduced in the closing stages of the session. In spite of the fact that we have not been allowed the necessary time I nevertheless want to tell the Minister that we support this Bill because the objectives contained therein are exceptionally good ones.

In his speech the hon. the Minister mentioned the explanatory memorandum which gave a historical survey of the background events leading up to the introduction of this Bill. I notice in paragraph 6 of the explanatory memorandum that this subject was being investigated as far back as the forties. It was then found that there ought to be centralization, that uncoordinated slaughtering facilities were undesirable and that a permanent controlling body ought to be established. In 1950 the Government saw fit to decide that the Meat Board should take the task of abattoir development upon its shoulders. This Bill is the product of the commission of inquiry which brought out its report in 1964.

Sir, let us first glance at the favourable objectives contained in this legislation before coming to the provisions to which this side of the House has certain objections. In the first instance we agree that there must be a rationalization of slaughter facilities; we agree that there should be central control, and we agree with that particularly because our slaughter stock industry is becoming more and more important in South Africa. If one glances at the figures mentioned by the commission one finds that as far as cattle are concerned there has been an increase of more than 300 per cent in the number of slaughter animals slaughtered at abattoirs during the period 1939 to 1962. In the case of calves the increase was almost the same. In the case of sheep there was an increase of almost 200 per cent, and in the case of pigs there was also an increase of almost 200 per cent. If one glances at the projections made by this commission in this report then one finds that the commission has predicted that, as far as the Witwatersrand is concerned—there will again be an increase, this time from 585,000 to 1,662,349, in the number of cattle slaughtered over the 30-year period from 1960 to 1990. That is the projection made by the Commission in respect of the Witwatersrand, based on the supposition that normal expansion will take place. If normal expansion also takes place in cities such as Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, etc., without the Minister of Planning intervening and putting a stop to normal development, then one can expect that the normal population increase will make an increase in number of slaughters necessary and that adequate facilities will therefore have to be established. When a commission of this nature, consisting of people who know their subject, who have been trained, who have specialized knowledge, make projections of this nature in regard to abattoir requirements in the future, then we must see to it that we are not caught napping. In other words, we must see to it that our planning takes into account the normal population increase and the important role which the slaughter animal industry will play in our country.

We also agree that the investigations and research which the Commission will be able to institute, the knowledge which they will be able to convey, the money which they will make available for bursaries and loans for the purpose of training people in the abattoir industry, will all be in the interests of the slaughter animal industry. We also think that it is a particularly good objective of this Bill to render assistance to bodies which are concerned with abattoirs, bodies such as local authorities private companies and even individuals. The Abattoir Commission will also, in terms of this legislation, be able to establish a utility company, and we also regard that as an outstanding objective of this legislation. We believe that we will in this way be able to bring about standardization, that it will be possible to establish sound standards for every abattoir and that there will be opportunities for thorough investigation in order to determine whether an area should have more than one abattoir, whether there should be centralization or whether there should be regional abattoirs for specific areas. As I have already said, the objectives which I have just mentioned are the good objectives of this Bill, objectives which we can support. In his speech the hon. the Minister told us that the members of the Commission would consist of people who had a sound knowledge of their subject. The official who will be specifically responsible for the way in which this Commission performed its task would be a permanent official who would be able to travel about and who would be able to plan the activities of the Commission.

Over and above these good objectives of the measure, there are also certain provisions with which we cannot agree. I think that some of these points which we do not feel happy about can be cleared up in the Committee Stage, particularly those concerning the constitution of this body. Sir, this legislation will not be in the interests of the farmer only, but also in the interests of the consumer and the local authorities. In his speech the hon. the Minister held out the prospect that it would be the meat producer who would be the man responsible for the costs of this body. If that is the hon. the Minister’s attitude then we want to ask the Minister to consider whether provision should not be made in clause 5 for one person to serve on this Commission who would represent the interests of the Meat Commodity Committee of the S.A. Agricultural Union. If it is the hon. the Minister’s attitude that the meat producers should be solely responsible for the funds of this body, then we think that it is no more than right that the S.A. Agricultural Union should have representation on the Commission through the agency of somebody serving on their Meat Commodity Committee.

Then I come to my next point of criticism, and this is my principal criticism of this Bill. I refer to clause 33. In this clause provision is being made for the funds of this body to be derived from a levy which will be imposed on the meat producers. The hon. the Minister has predicted that this will not be more than 6 cents per large stock unit, 3 cents per goat and 1.5 cents per sheep. A rapid and superficial glance at this figure will seem to indicate that the amount which these people will have to pay is not a large one. But we must always bear in mind that this is not the only levy which the meat producer has to pay when he takes his sheep, cattle or goats to the abattoirs. He is already paying a levy to the Meat Board. It is quite correct that that levy should be imposed because it is intended for the stabilization of his product. It is in the interests of the farmer that he should pay that levy so that the right kind of propaganda is made for the consumption of his product. We have no fault to find with that. We think it is a sound principle. In this way there are many other agricultural products on which levies such as those have to be paid in terms of the Marketing Act. It is normally aimed at, in the first place, stabilizing the price and in the second place making publicity and propaganda for the consumption of the product. Once again, the farmer does not mind doing that. But this legislation is not exclusively in the interests of the farmer. It is in the interests of local authorities. It can be applied in future in the interests of private companies, as well as in the interests of private individuals who want to establish their own abattoirs. This legislation will ensure much better hygienic conditions at abattoirs. It would be in the interests of the tax payer, of everybody if this legislation were to be placed on the Statute Book. But who is responsible for the payment? One man only is responsible for that, namely the producer. We think that it is altogether unfair at this stage to expect this additional burden upon the meat producers of South Africa. There is no farmer, there is in particular no large stock or small stock farmer who is not burdened by high marketing costs. They also carry the burden of high production costs. This is once more an additional burden. Although some people may argue that it is not much, a burden like this will once more be placed on those people’s shoulders. This is a statutory body which the hon. the Minister is going to create. We on this side of the House cannot understand why he cannot provide in this legislation that the funds for this body should be derived from the funds which Parliament votes every year. The hon. Minister knows that it is impossible for us to suggest anything like that in the Committee Stage. I do not at this stage believe that clause 33 will be welcomed by the meat producers, in spite of the good objectives of the legislation. I can quite understand that, and I believe that the tax payer of South Africa would be prepared to take this burden upon his shoulders because it would be to his advantage and benefit if this Commission in question were appointed and carried out its activities in terms of the legislation before the House. The hon. the Minister ought to give serious consideration to the question whether he cannot take steps to accommodate the meat producer of South Africa. I know that it is being implied here that it would also result in the stabilization of the meat industry and that it would consequently be to the benefit of the farmer. But local authorities are not going to decrease their municipal and slaughter fees. The hon. the Minister cannot give us that assurance. If he were able to do so one could perhaps amend one’s opinion in regard to clause 33. But, because these people will have to expand they will in future be compelled to increase those fees even further, although the Minister wants to freeze them at the moment the legislation is placed on the Statute Book. That is a good idea, a good principle. But I am certain that they will in future come to him again and ask him whether it is not possible for them to increase the fees in order to make all those facilities available to the people. I also know —and the Commission stated this very clearly —that one cannot make a tremendous profit out of an abattoir. There are some municipalities which are in fact making good profits, but on the other hand there are municipalities which made new facilities available after having made those profits. The Municipality of Cape Town, for example, recently built a brand new abattoir. The Municipality of Port Elizabeth did the same thing. But if one glances at paragraph 675 of the Commission’s report one notices that it is stated very clearly there that (translation)—

But that is the point I wanted to make. There cannot be a tremendous profit for the Commission in this. It is not the case that they will derive great benefit if they were to establish their own abattoirs. That is my entire argument. But in the meantime the only person who will have to bear the expenses attaching thereto will be the farmer of South Africa, whereas the consumer will derive as much benefit owing to the fact that these facilities are being established for him. Here and there there may be private undertakings which would make a tremendous profit out of its abattoirs. That is not impossible. There is usually more than one way of doing a thing. Surely the hon. member for Pietersburg knows that. But if a general assessment were to be made of this matter I cannot see how this Commission would be able to make tremendous profits, even if it were to have its own abattoirs. But in the meantime one person and one person only will be expected to bear the expenses, namely the farmer himself. We on this side of the House regard that provision in question, namely clause 33, as a quite unsuitable and a very unfortunate one. Here we now have legislation with which we all agree, the objectives of which are being welcomed by all. Only one thing is being asked for, i.e., if a burden has to be borne, the burden must be distributed as widely as possible for if the burden is distributed as widely as possible then one is allowing it to rest on the back of the tax payer of South Africa and not only on one man, the man who produces the product. I hope that in his reply the hon. the Minister will give us that assurance. I am sorry that the specific levy which he mentioned cannot be stipulated in the legislation as well. Perhaps it is even yet possible. If changes can be made, if it is possible to make changes the hon. the Minister must come to Parliament in order to do so, as is the case with the levy which the wool farmers are paying for the wool stabilization of the Wool Board. But we think that it is not altogether possible to make comparison between these two bodies. There is a difference. But if there has to be a levy then I think it should be essential that Parliament should be fully informed in regard to this matter by means of an amendment to the Act each year so that members may be afforded the opportunity of discussing the matter again. In general therefore we welcome this Bill and regret that there is a provision of this nature, i.e. that which I have just mentioned, which to a large extent could be prejudicial to the reception of this legislation outside.

Mr. Speaker, of course we on this side of the House also welcome this legislation and the fact that the Opposition, as the hon. member for Newton Park maintains, supports this legislation. The only pity is that along with the positive approach displayed by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat he also wanted to make his five cents’ worth of propaganda out of it. [Interjections.] I hear hon. members making remarks about this five cent propaganda. The argument which was put forward by the hon. member for Newton Park however knocked the feet from under his own argument. In the first instance the hon. member accused the hon. the Minister of having introduced this very important legislation, as he put it, these “far-reaching measures in the closing stages of the Parliamentary session”. But I just want to point out that hon. members on the opposite side had more than enough time to familiarize themselves with abattoir matters. This commission was appointed as long ago as 1961 and reported in 1964.

At the beginning of last year draft legislation was distributed with a view to any possible changes which may have been introduced. It was distributed to all interested bodies and it was also available for perusal by this hon. member. Now one feels that hon. members were afforded more than enough time to familiarize themselves with this matter. If one were acquainted with this matter it would be possible for one to make a study of it in a week’s time and reply to it. I am saying this by way of introduction merely. Then the hon. member came along and objected to clause 33, to the provision in respect of the five cent levy. But this member also emphasized the importance of the abattoir as a link in the stock and meat industry as a whole and referred to other levies which are being imposed to-day. He therefore objected to this five cent levy, but he accepted that a commission or a small controlling body was essential. [Interjections.] As long as this Government is in power that levy will be a realistic one. But I just want to prove to you how negligible the argument really is. The hon. member is objecting to the five cent levy which will make it possible for this commission to exercise proper co-ordination and control over abattoirs and incidental facilities. Do you perhaps know what the total commission is that one is paying to-day? To-day you are paying 70 cents per head in respect of slaughter fees. That is an abattoir matter. You are paying municipal fees of 92 cents per head. That is also a municipal matter. As you know, costs are steadily increasing. With greater efficiency there is the possibility that fees can be reduced. Are you not even prepared to spend five cents …?

Six cents.

Or six cents, since a cent makes such a great difference. But at the same time 70 cents and 92 cents, i.e. a total of R1.62, does not make any difference to you. It is what one could call penny-wise, pound-foolish, i.e. if one were concerned about the cent and did not consider the R1.62. Is it not good business to invest six cents and by so doing ensure that that R1.62 is being spent well and that the producer can derive benefit from it. That is the argument which is being put forward here. This commission will see to it that these slaughter fees, i.e. these levies in respect of abattoir matters, will be proper levies, and they will also see to it that there is co-ordination in the abattoir industry. I also think that every producer will be willing to pay five cents in order to see whether there cannot be a saving on the other aspects as well. But for the hon. member for Newton Park to say that the producer would have to pay this five cents throughout was another misrepresentation. Surely not all our animals are marketed in the controlled markets where there is an auction system and where this five cents will be deducted. Sixty per cent of our animals are being marketed in the controlled markets. But who slaughters the animals in the uncontrolled areas?

The agents bringing them in.

The agents bring them in. But I am asking who slaughters the animals in the uncontrolled areas, i.e. that remaining 40 per cent? It is the butcher who purchases the animals on the farms and slaughters them in the small abattoirs. The result is that he will be responsible for the levy of five cents per beast and 1.5 cents per sheep. This argument, i.e. that everything is being paid by the producer is not a consistent one. But even if all the producers did pay five cents it would still be a good investment to have this control body there in order to effect proper co-ordination. Then there is another statement which the hon. member for Newton Park made in respect of the Abattoir Commission when they came to erect their own abattoirs. But it is not the primary aim of this commission to establish its own abattoirs. The primary aim of this commission is co-ordination and to ensure efficiency in our abattoir industry. But when there is a need for an abattoir at a certain place and nobody is prepared to establish an abattoir there then it is essential for the stock and meat industry that such an abattoir be erected there. In such a case this commission is going to take action and establish an abattoir there. But this commission is not going to compete with other bodies in establishing abattoirs. It is only going to erect an abattoir when there is a need for it and nobody else wants to supply that need. I want to furnish the following particulars in order to give an indication of the position. In 20 years’ time the slaughters at the abattoirs have almost doubled. In 1946 848,000 animals were slaughtered and in 1966 1,700,000 were slaughtered. That is only one piece of evidence to show how our abattoirs have developed with the time. In South Africa to-day there are more than 400 slaughter houses or abattoirs. These abattoirs, as the Minister already mentioned, vary from two poles with a cross member to the most modern facilities available to-day. The function of an abattoir of course—or it was until recently— mainly that of a slaughter house where animals can be slaughtered hygienically and distributed from thence to the consumer. However, these requirements have changed, and in this regard I just want to read to you the recommendation which was made in the report of the commission of inquiry into abattoirs and related facilities. While I have this report in my hand now I would just like to say that it is one of the best reports which has ever been brought out in respect of our stock and meat industry as a whole. A person unacquainted with this industry can, by reading this report, familiarize himself with the entire matter. He will then be able to realize what problems exist in the abattoir industry as a whole, as well as how certain marketing systems have in the past affected our stock and meat industry. The following is stated in the report (translation)—

I can only concur with that and say that this measure has to-day become an essential matter. It is a logical result that a small control body such as this should be appointed to be able to co-ordinate all these aspects and see to it that our abattoir industry develops, to see to it that abattoirs continue to adhere to this important aspect in the stock and meat industry because it forms, in reality, the link between the place where the animal is slaughtered and from where it is distributed to the consumer. It is as important as production in the slaughter stock industry. Abattoirs are as important. That is why it is essential for such a controlling body to be appointed now. This body will be of a technical nature and will acquaint itself with matters regarding the requirements of the producer as well as those of the consumer. It will also acquaint itself with the latest developments. It will also be able to see to it that proper efficiency is maintained within these abattoirs.

In regard to what the hon. member for Newton Park has said about the constitution of this Commission, I just want to make the following comment. It is essential that this Commission should not consist of representatives of various pressure groups, but that it should be independent and should consist of members who have been appointed on the basis of their knowledge of the abattoir industry and related aspects. From the nature of the case it is nevertheless true that when I represent somebody on a board or a commission or anywhere for that matter I am there in the first instance to regard a matter objectively, but in the second instance, to go and state what my approach to the aspect is. When this Commission is constituted it will consist of people who know the industry. That is why I do not think that it should be insisted that people with various interests should serve on that Commission. That could lead to the objectivity of the approach of members of the commission being affected. I think we should insist that this Commission ought not to consist of people who represent certain groups and interests. It should not be constituted in the same way as the Meat Board is constituted to-day. That board has an entirely different function to the function which is being envisaged in respect of this Commission.

In conclusion just this: We on this side of the House welcome this legislation. We also welcome the fact that it is possible to appoint such a Commission with these powers. Without the statutory powers and the powers which are being set out in this measure this Commission cannot function efficiently. Every provision in this Bill is essential in order to allow that Commission to function properly. That is why I find it a privilege to be able to say that we on this side wish to accept this measure exactly as it has been printed here.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park has already intimated that this side of the House supports this legislation, with the reservation which he mentioned. I want to say that the South African Agricultural Union and the stock-breeding industry have for many years been agitating and insisting that there should be legislation to co-ordinate abattoirs as such and bring them under central control.

The hon. member for Karas astonished me. He was the first one on that side of the House to discuss this measure. He represents a South-West Africa constituency …

We have a lot of meat there and we are part of the Republic.

Is he not a member of this House?

But nowhere in this Bill do I see that it will apply to South-West Africa … [Interjections.]

Order!

A pertinent question which I want to put to the hon. the Minister is whether it is not possible to make this legislation applicable to South-West Africa as well. The hon. member for Karas went further and he accused the hon. member for Newton Park of having made propaganda because, even though he supported the legislation, hon. members had, according to him, been allowed insufficient time to study this measure properly. The hon. member for Karas maintained that the draft Bill had been available to interested organizations for more than a year. I agree with that. But, Sir, this is new legislation and not an amendment to existing legislation, in respect of which we have already erred over the years and have had the benefit of experimentation. This is a brand-new piece of legislation which deals with control over abattoirs. The legislation contains approximately 62 clauses, but hon. members had a very short time at their disposal to consult with those interested parties with whom they might have wanted to consult. I regard it as a very important principle to be able to consult when it comes to legislation of such a drastic nature. The reason being that this is totally new legislation; it reveals a totally new approach; it has a multitude of clauses on which we would like to dwell at length, one after the other, in the Committee Stage. That is what is so important in this regard.

I was further astounded because the hon. member for Karas, who is a farmer and a producer, has renounced this principle which the South African Agricultural Union as such and the farmers have always clung to. I am referring to the principle of, “If we must pay, we want representation”. I want to deal with the arguments raised by the hon. member for Karas, i.e. that these people concerned in this matter should all be technical people. The hon. the Minister also mentioned this fact. I want to begin by saying that normally, when a board or a commission is being constituted, the normal provision in any legislation is that that board or commission shall consist of at least so many members with a maximum of so many, but in this legislation we find the extraordinary phenomenon that the commission is indicated as consisting of three, four or five members—not a minimum of three and a maximum of five, but three, four or five members. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would explain that.

Then, in all legislation dealing with control of this nature, apart from the membership of the Commission, it is stated on what basis they should retire and for what term they are being appointed. But here we find the anomaly that it is stated that they shall be appointed for a maximum period of five years, that it is not stated how they will retire in rotation, almost as if they will merely be nominated again by the hon. the Minister every five years. I then come to the constitution of the Commission as such and I want to state emphatically that, apart from the statement made by the hon. the Minister to the effect that there should be representation on this Commission for various bodies and that the interests of each section should be protected, I regard it as not only essential but as extremely desirable that organized agriculture should have representation on this Commission in the person of a member of its Meat Industry Committee or its Council. To my mind it makes no difference whether the commission consisting of five members is expanded to six or more, but I think the Minister will agree that since the farmer is the man who has to pay he ought to have a say in regard to the control over the machinery which will make his slaughter stock available to the consumer.

Secondly, I want to talk about the levies themselves, a matter which has already been dealt with by the hon. member for Newton Park. The hon. member for Karas spoke about the meagre five or six cents per animal and said that that was too little to pay because it would bring the slaughter fees down. One would almost say that slaughter fees had something to do with this Commission as such, or that the Commission could determine what the slaughter fees would be. [Interjection.] I readily concede that if the Commission can bring about a saving by insisting that slaughter fees be reduced in certain municipalities then they may be entitled to do so. But as far as this small amount of six cents per animal is concerned. I want to say that if one calculates it in terms of the number of animals slaughtered in both the controlled as well as the uncontrolled areas jointly, then the total is merely the small amount of approximately R250,000 which has to be recovered from the producer. It is not mentioned in the Bill that this will be the levy. As the hon. member said, it is merely a levy which is being imposed by the Commission on slaughters. The Minister indicated in passing that he thought it would be six cents, three cents and 1½ cents respectively for the slaughtering of animals, but we must look a little further than the hon. member for Karas has done. When the Wool Board was taken over by a statutory board, the levy was 10 cents a bale—at that time still one shilling per bale. But now it is R2.50 per bale. It has increased 45 times since 1946.

What do they do with the money?

The hon. the Minister knows just as well as I do what they do with the money. The objectives are research and bursaries, etc., the same kind of objectives as in this instance, but that is the story the hon. member comes to Parliament with every time. He must obtain the approval of Parliament in order to increase that levy. On the basis of 1.5 cents per lb. on a 300 lb. bale, it is to-day R2.50 and I predict that it will not stop there, it will increase even further, and quite soon. Where one has legislation which states that a commission or a board is empowered to impose a levy and the Act does not state what the maximum levy will be, and one does not provide that this House will from time to time determine what that levy will be, what control do we have over such a commission apart from control through the Minister himself?

But the entire Marketing Act works in this way.

What control do we have over a levy imposed by a commission, and what powers are there to prevent it doing what it likes? [Interjection.] I suggest that it is an unsound principle to allow a commission to impose levies without determining what the maximum levy is which it may impose. It is sound financial policy to stipulate that it should be this House which decides. But as far as the levy itself is concerned. I want to associate myself very strongly with what the hon. member for Newton Park said. This levy will not only be used in regard to loans for the establishment of abattoirs, or to lend money to municipalities and other bodies in order to establish abattoirs, or to pay compensation if it should issue instructions for the demolition of abattoirs. A great deal of money may be involved in the matter, but the principle is wrong, i.e. the principle that there should be two similar levies, whereas many of the functions of the two boards are the same. The one deals with various aspects of marketing. The producer have to pay a levy to the Meat Board, which has always increased in the past. The other board also imposes a levy on the same producer, and the objective of the Commission, apart from the control over abattoirs as such, is more promotion, research and the making available of bursaries. In part the two boards have the same functions. We have two boards which are entitled to impose levies, the one under the Marketing Act and the other under a separate act, but in the same instance the Board must request the Minister’s permission to increase the levy and in the other instance the levy can be imposed on the same products and on the same farmers, in part for the same function. In this respect this legislation is inconsistent. The service which has to be performed by this Commission is not only the co-ordination of abattoirs, the next act with which we will be concerned, deals with matters of hygiene at abattoirs.

Surely this has a bearing on the entire population as such. It is in the interests of all that butcher shops and abattoirs should be controlled and should be under centralized management so that the fees which are imposed for the slaughter and for the services can be of a similar nature. It is probably in the interests of all that slaughtering should take place on a hygienic basis and that there should be humane methods of slaughtering and that everything should be properly controlled. It is as much in the interests of the consumer as the producer, and in this respect I think it is essential that the funds of this Commission, if they do not derive entirely from the Treasury, should at least derive partially from the Treasury. Why should we impose levies twice on the same product and on the same group of farmers, while the service which has to be rendered here by the abattoirs as such is as much to the benefit of the consumer as it is to the farmer. Actually it is more beneficial to the consumer. Coordination of abattoirs and central control are things for which we have been pleading for a long time, but the double levy which is being imposed on the farmer in this regard is to my mind a monstrosity. Can the hon. the Minister mention to me one example of any other product which is subject to a double levy for research, promotion, bursaries, ete? To my mind it does not appear to be right and I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would give his very careful attention to this matter. We are not able at this stage to move an amendment in this regard; we want to support the principle of the Bill but we would be grateful if the hon. the Minister himself would, if necessary, move an amendment in the Committee Stage in regard to this question of levies.

Mr. Speaker, there are other provisions of the Bill which we would prefer to deal with in the Committee Stage because they do not relate strictly to the principle. But I want to refer at this stage already to clause 61 which relates to slaughters which can take place not only on the farmer’s homestead but also in the backyards of city dwellers. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister and his advisors gave proper attention to the implications of the statement which he made here to the effect that, in terms of the Commission’s regulations, it will not only be possible for slaughters to be undertaken by the farmer on the farm who supplies his employees with free meat, but that town and city dwellers, away from the control of the Commission, will also be able to slaughter animals in their backyards. I would imagine that that would be one of the best methods of sabotaging the proper functioning of the abattoir commission and its regulations, i.e. if everybody in a town were to be allowed to slaughter in their backyards and in so doing avoid payment of slaughter fees and the levies which have been laid down by the Commission. I repeat that I would be glad if the hon. the Minister, in his reply to the debate would react to the points which we have raised here in regard to the levy funds and in regard to clause 61 which relates to where and how people may slaughter, away from the control of the Commission.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat really astonished me with the preamble to his speech. Apparently he felt a little irritated at the fact that the hon. member for Karas was the first speaker in this debate. It astonishes me to learn that there are hon. members here who are not full members of the House and that they are expected not to participate in certain debates. I cannot understand how the hon. member came to entertain an idea such as that. The hon. member is the representative of a number of towns people, people who are not interested in this Bill in the sense that they are producers and that they alone will be responsible for the levy. The hon. member, and his colleague who spoke before he did, advocated here that Parliament should vote a certain amount to cover the costs. If that were to be done then it would be the hon. member’s voters who would have to help carry the costs. But that he does not take into account; he is more concerned about the fact that the hon. member for Karas participated in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the arguments put forward by hon. members of the Opposition were rather poor. They said in the first instance that they welcomed this Bill.

You want the farmers of De Aar to carry all the costs.

Sir, a moment ago the hon. member claimed that courtesy should be displayed towards him while he was speaking. Hon. members of the Opposition intimate that they welcome this Bill, but that they regard it as wrong that in terms of clause 33 a levy should be imposed upon the slaughter of animals. I should like to know how the hon. members argue. How can one render a service without having money with which to render that service? The arguments raised by hon. members on that side in regard to the constitution of the Commission were really so poor that they reminded me of a man who went to church one morning. His wife remained at home and upon his return she asked him where he had been. He replied that he had been to church. She then asked him what the minister had preached about. “Onsin” he replied. “And what did he say about it”, she asked. His reply was: “No, he is against it.” That is about all one can say of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make the statement here that I believe that the general unanimity in regard to the Bill is attributable to the meritoriousness of the general principles contained in the Bill. I think that this measure is going to supply a need which we have been feeling for some time now. I think that the passing of this measure will usher in a new dispensation in this industry. However, there is one point which I should like to bring to the specific attention of the hon. the Minister, and that is in regard to the title of the Bill. Specifically I object to the word “abattoir”. In the first instance it is a word of foreign origin. The word “abattoir” is being used here in the same form as we find it in the French. There are other examples which I could mention where words of French origin are used in the same form in Afrikaans. Yesterday I asked one of the hon. members next to me here whether there was another word for “abattoir” in English and I was informed that there was not.

“Slaughter house”.

There is nothing strange about adopting a word from another language; it is customary, but we only do so to fill a gap, i.e. when we have no equivalent in our own language. Here it is surely not the case because we do have the Afrikaans word “slagplaas”. I want to say at the outset that I am not in favour of the Afrikaans word “slagpaal” because it has quite a different derivation. Why cannot we use the Afrikaans word “slagplaas”? The Railways have the Afrikaans word “werkplase”. Why cannot we use the word “slagplase”? Sir, you have heard the numerous different ways in which the word “abattoir” is pronounced. I do not want to instruct hon. members in their language, but the word “abattoir” has been pronounced here as “abatoor”, “abataar”, and goodness knows what else. I really think the word is beginning to feel ashamed of itself. Why do we use the word when we have a particularly fine Afrikaans equivalent, i.e. “slagplaas”? I have already noticed that over the radio and even in newspapers some people have made use of the word “slagplaas”. I therefore want to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister and ask him please to reconsider this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to follow the hon. member for De Aar in discussing what particular name we should give to various institutions under this Bill. I think that this is a most important Bill. It affects everybody in this country and I think that we should spend our time to more advantage than splitting hairs over words. The hon. members for De Aar and Karas tried to take hon. members on this side of the House to task because, although we support the main principle of the Bill, we object to some of the details. May I just reiterate that the main principle of this Bill is that there shall be central co-ordination and control of the abattoir industry in this country and that that shall go hand in hand with the rationalization of the industry. What is more there shall be a central controlling body, namely the Abattoir Commission, an independent body to exercise that control. We agree with those two main principles. There are however certain other proposals of the Minister to which I will refer again with which we are not in agreement. I think that if the hon. member for Karas reflects just a little, he will find that there is merit in what has been said by hon. members on this side of the House.

We know that the abattoir industry in this country has grown up—I will not say in a haphazard way—but until the advent of meat control, in a somewhat unplanned way. Particularly when the meat control scheme was brought into being, the abattoir itself changed its character to some extent from being merely a slaughter house, because it also became a market. This alone made forward planning necessary. It is still the position that our principal abattoirs are not merely slaughter houses but also marketing places. It is vitally necessary that there should be proper organization and control of the industry. The hon. member for Karas said that we have had lots of time to study the abattoir industry and indeed to study the Bill which was published for information in the Government Gazette by the hon. the Minister last year. He is perfectly correct. I think I am correct in saying that the hon. member for Karas was one of the gentlemen who gave evidence before the Abattoir Commission. I too gave evidence before the commission. Hon. members on this side of the House have studied the abattoir industry as well as the Bill which was published initially for information. That does not get us away from the fact that we have not had very much time to study the Bill as it appears before us to-day. I do not want to pursue this because the hon. the Minister has been helpful in giving us a detailed explanation of the Bill. Having decided on the principle that it is necessary to have rationalization of the industry, may I just say that the experience of the past has made it very necessary to have that rationalization and to have forward planning because there have been occasions when the implementation of the policy of the Meat Board has been made difficult, particularly in controlled areas where the abattoir was the marketing centre as well, by the refusal of the local authority to provide modern abattoir facilities. In some instances local authorities for various reasons, perhaps because of lack of finance, have dragged their heels over the provision of modern abattoir facilities. They have preferred to continue with somewhat outdated abattoirs as long as a profit was shown on the operation of the abattoir, a profit which could be applied to the general relief of rates within that municipality. This has had very detrimental effects on the profitability of livestock farming in so far as it affected the returns that producers have received for their stock sent to those abattoirs.

Having decided that it is necessary to have an entirely independent commission, and we on this side of the House support the idea of an independent commission, I think it is necessary to look at the composition of that commission. Before we do so, may I return to what the hon. the Minister said yesterday. As far as I can remember these were his words: “’n Liggaam was verteenwoordigend is van verskillende instansies, mag sekere voordele in hou”. He was referring to the Abattoir Commission as such. Mr. Speaker, you know that when evidence was being taken by the Commission of Inquiry into Abattoir and Allied Facilities, the South African Agricultural Union proposed that the Meat Board should be the co-ordinating body. I think it is correct to say that the board itself at that time was somewhat divided on this subject, but that the majority of the members of the board probably favoured the idea that the board should be the co-ordinating body. There would obviously be difficulties in this regard. Even if it operated through a committee there would be difficulties because that board is of course composed of no less than 23 members of whom nine may be classed as non-producer members. Other objections were raised, amongst others by the National Marketing Council who made this objection, and I quote from page 78 of the report of the Commission of Inquiry:

I am not entirely impressed with the argument of the Marketing Council in this regard because I do not see it as a function of the Abattoir Commission that it will engage in actual trading practices or in the trade as such, unless it reaches a position where it feels that a new abattoir is necessary or that certain facilities are necessary and that it cannot persuade either a municipality or a private institution to erect those facilities. One presumes that, in such a case, under the Bill they will be able to erect the facilities and engage in the abattoir trade as such, but they would normally not do so.

Despite that, it is the feeling of this side of the House that an independent commission is in fact the best possible controlling authority. It is worth giving the idea of an independent controlling commission a thorough trial, before suggesting that some other body such as the Meat Board should carry out these functions. When we come to the constitution of that commission itself, we arrive at the question raised by the hon. member for Newton Park, namely whether the producers should have representation on the commission since they pay a very large part of the levy indeed. I do not know what kind of people the hon. the Minister wishes to appoint to that commission but I feel that we could get an idea by looking at the members he appointed to his interim committee which advised him on the framing of this Bill.

Who did the hon. the Minister appoint at that time? He appointed an employee of the Meat Board, a man of very wide experience and ability in the trade. He also appointed a man who had been a civil servant and the head of his Department. He had had much to do with marketing over a number of years. Then lastly he appointed a member of the Meat Board who had had a great deal of experience both from a producer’s point of view, and also from the marketing point of view, as a member of that Meat Board. He could well be regarded as a producer’s representative. I am not afraid that the Minister may not appoint a similar type of person to this Abattoir Commission. The Minister may well appoint people who could be regarded as producers’ representatives. What I am concerned about is the position in two or five or ten years’ time when the present Minister may no longer hold this portfolio. There may be another Minister who has no idea of what is in the present Minister’s mind with the introduction of this Bill. He may well appoint three people, not one of whom would be representative of the views of the producer. He would be doing this and at the same time he would be imposing a levy on the producers themselves, with the limitations mentioned by the hon. member for Karas about non-controlled areas. I agree with that. He would be imposing a levy on these people, a levy on which there is no limit, and these people would not be given representation on the commission itself.

I want to revert for a moment to the figures mentioned by the hon. member for Karas. He said that it was not only the producers, the farmers, who would have to pay this levy. He is quite correct. There will be butchers outside the controlled areas, who will have to pay. He mentioned the percentage of cattle slaughtered in the controlled areas. He mentioned the figure of 64 per cent. I notice, however, that he omitted to mention, and I quote from the latest available official report of the board on which he himself serves, that in the case of sheep, the percentage is very much higher indeed. It is some 78 per cent. The Minister is proposing to levy—this is another word for tax—people who are mainly the producers, and yet to give them no representation at all on this commission. He is going right away from the principle of no taxation without representation. What is more we have no guarantee at all from the hon. the Minister that these levies will not be raised. In this Bill no ceiling is imposed on the rate of levy which he can impose. I think we would be optimistic to a foolhardy extent to think that it may not be necessary to raise these levies in future. It is characteristic of control bodies like this that they tend to grow. In fact, if they do carry out the functions for which they are intended, namely functions such as research, in addition to control, it is inevitable that they and their staff should grow. I predict that it may well be necessary for these levies to be raised in the future. Hon. members opposite must not just shrug their shoulders and say that this is a small amount of 6 cents. The hon. member for Karas himself mentioned what is paid in addition to the 6 cents by a producer who has to send his cattle to a controlled market. There are slaughter fees of 50 cents per beast, and municipal fees of 92 cents per beast. Those are the figures he quoted. Now there is this new levy of 6 cents per beast. But over and above that the hon. member did not mention the Meat Board levy, which amounts to .171 cent per pound. On a 600-pound carcass this amounts to something like R1.02. Adding all these charges together, we get a round figure of R2.50 per beast. This is excluding the marketing charges such as feeding charges, commission to the agent, railage, all of which come off the producer’s cheque. Here we have a figure of R2.50 per beast. If the beast is worth about R100, this is no less than 2½ per cent of the gross value of that beast. This has to be deducted from the producer’s cheque.

We have a good case for saying that this is something which should not be borne by the supplier. I use the word “supplier” if hon. members on the other side do not like the word “producer”. We have a good case for saying that this should not be borne by the supplier of animals which go to be slaughtered in an abattoir either inside or outside a controlled area. As hon. members on this side have said, there are various classes of people who will benefit by improved abattoirs, better control over abattoirs, and rationalization. The first is undoubtedly the producer. Hon. members opposite need not give us examples of this. We know of the benefits which are derived from a modern abattoir. We know that at the local Maitland abattoir the recovery of by-products has risen from something like 7 pounds per beast to 12 pounds per beast, since they have had the new abattoir. We know all that. But secondly there is also the wholesale and the retail trade which will benefit from an improved abattoir industry. If we have chilling facilities, for example, at a modern abattoir, it is not only the producer who benefits, because the carcass then has a better bloom and is in better condition. The wholesaler and the retailer who have to handle that carcass, also benefit. Lastly the consumer benefits. Every single individual in this country who is not a vegetarian and who is no longer on the bottle—I am referring here to the milk bottle—is a consumer of meat. In other words, virtually every taxpayer in the country is a consumer of meat. Every one of those people will benefit. It is the taxpayer who should be footing the bill for this commission which is a Government commission. It will be appointed by the hon. the Minister. It is responsible to no one but the hon. the Minister. The bill should not be palmed off in this discriminatory manner on to one section of the community.

I want to deal further with an important principle which is also contained in the Bill, but which is not being mentioned here. That is the principle stated specifically in the explanatory memorandum that private enterprise shall be admitted to the industry. This is no new principle. Those of us who know the history of the development of the abattoir trade in this country know that abattoirs and their allied trade, the cold storage trade, were to a large extent operated by private enterprise at one time, in addition to municipalities and other bodies of that nature. The point I wish to make is that the report of the Commission on Abattoir and Allied Facilities talks about introducing an element of competition into the industry. This is mentioned in the report. This is given as one reason why it was necessary to allow private enterprise into the industry. The abattoir trade must by definition to-day be to a great extent a trade in which monopoly must play a large part. I am not for one moment suggesting that we should oppose the introduction of private enterprise into the industry, but I think that we should do so with our eyes open. We must realize it is a monopoly trade. For example, when the local Maitland abattoir here was rebuilt it was necessary for them to come to an arrangement with other municipalities in the vicinity whereby those other municipalities would not erect abattoirs for a period of some 20 years. This is typical of the industry as such, because the efficiency of the industry depends to a very great extent on the throughput. I cannot foresee a situation arising where the commission would license and register two abattoirs within the same areas where only one abattoir of a certain size would be necessary.

It is obvious therefore that we could well have monopolistic conditions in the abattoir trade and it is in fact an industry which lends itself to monopolistic conditions. I say that if private industry operating in that trade then we must guard against the position where the ownership of butcher-shops, the ownership of wholesale butcheries, the abattoir itself, and perhaps even tracts of ground producing meat as farming units would all belong to the same business enterprise. I think we must take warning from what has happened in America where the meat trade is built up on a private enterprise basis—I would go further and say on a private profit enterprise basis. There we have some ten chain-store groups retailing some 70 per cent of all the meat that comes from 3,000 packing houses—privately-owned packing houses—who in turn get their supplies from 200,000 feedlots and two million producers. That is a most unhappy position where there are ten chain-store groups controlling the supplies from two million producers. I hope that the Minister and the commission are going to bear this trend in mind when they regulate and rationalize the trade, because there are definite dangers here for the primary producer in this country that the ultimate fate of his meat may get into the hands of interests which may, or may not, be well-disposed towards him as a producer.

I just want to refer further to the point raised by the hon. member for East London (City) relating to clause 61 which, as it reads, allows slaughtering in certain areas on one’s own premises, not only in rural areas but also in urban areas within the jurisdiction of a municipality or a village management board. I find it difficult to understand why the Minister has continued to allow slaughtering in backyards in urban areas when one of the main objects of this Bill must surely be to ensure the efficient operation of abattoirs. I think the Minister mentioned that one of the prerequisites for the efficient operation of abattoirs is, as he put it, “die mate van benutting”, in other words, throughput, but with this clause the Minister, as far as it concerns small abattoirs in country areas, is quite definitely negativing his own intentions. Because the operation of the clause—and I am not talking of farmers and so on but of people within municipal areas—will definitely mean that less will be slaughtered at abattoirs within those municipalities than would otherwise have been the case if people had been obliged to do their slaughtering at a registered abattoir. I think the Minister should reconsider this clause and give us his reasons for having it in its present form.

There is one further matter to which I wish to refer and it also has to deal with this question. I want to ask the Minister whether the provisions of this Bill, as I presume they do, refer and are applicable also to the areas which are known nowadays in some quarters as the Bantu homelands. I particularly put this point because the hon. gentleman will know there is a big urban area which is inside a Bantu homeland, the Ciskei, namely the area Mdantsane, near East London. My information may be incorrect but I am under the impression that that is outside the East London controlled area—it is a decontrolled area. It also has a bearing on this question of slaughterings in backyards under clause 61 of this Bill, because if slaughtering is allowed in that area then what happens is the following. Permits are issued by the Meat Board (supposing it were a controlled area), for a certain limited amount of slaughtering. A Native may have a permit to slaughter one goat, for example. Very often that permit is used as a cloak—and I am not talking now only about Mdantsane—for the illegal slaughtering of a great number of other stock which may or may not have been stolen. I hope the Minister will give us clarity on this question of whether there are adequate slaughtering facilities at Mdantsane, whether they are within a controlled area, and if not, what his intentions are and what is the likely policy of the commission on this point. Large-scale stock theft and illegal stock slaughtering is going on in that area. The Minister knows this has also been the case in the vicinity of various other towns in the past. I feel this to be an important point. I feel we should know whether it is the intention to apply the provisions of this Bill to the Bantu homelands as well.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Albany gave some interesting particulars on private initiative in America, and he gave us a warning on what could happen in South Africa. Apart from the questions he asked the Minister, he raised three complaints, like other hon. members on the opposite side. He complained because, he said, the United Party had not had enough time to study the measure, because the levies should not have been imposed on the farming community, but that as this has been done, they should have representation on the commission. It is very interesting that hon. members on that side admit that some concerns to which they referred gave evidence before the commission. They also admit that this measure was published as early as 1966. And yet they alleged that they did not have enough time to study and consider it. If they had had a week longer to study the measure, they would surely have supported it completely, apart from a few points, as now. I cannot follow that argument. Nor do I think the contention of the Opposition that the farmers should not pay levies is quite correct.

In the first place, I believe that the S.A.A.U. has accepted the principles of this measure. I want to say that it is in actual fact the producers who are more concerned with this legislation. The benefits that will flow from this measure will accrue mainly to them. It has also been suggested that local governments, which are interested parties, should also contribute. But this is very difficult. The original function of the local authority as regards the erection of abattoirs was not to promote marketing for the farmer but to render a service to their own communities, that is essentially and purely for health reasons, to keep health within its own area on a high level. That was the primary duty of the local authority. In course of time and as a result of modern developments abattoirs began to perform other functions. We can therefore be grateful that the hon. the Minister has introduced this measure and that the commission will be able to control the situation. The commission can now take charge of the marketing section of the function of an abattoir, in which the local authority is not interested, and that solely for the benefit of the farmer. The other important reason why I do not believe it is correct that farmers should serve on it, is that this is an absolutely technical commission. Nowadays an abattoir is virtually a factory. That is how it has developed. It promotes the marketing of meat inside and outside the country, and therefore the requirements are very high.

The Minister also said that this commission would control an industry, and the levies are solely for the benefit of the commission. In my view the most important function of this legislation is the fact that this commission will get the power to erect abattoirs itself, even if only temporary abattoirs. I am now thinking of the difficulties the farmers have experienced in the Northern Transvaal, where they have been afflicted by foot and mouth disease for many years. They prepare the animals for the market, but then they are placed under quarantine and cannot dispatch them. Under those circumstances this commission may now erect temporary abattoirs and may slaughter there, and the carcases may be transported, where previously this was not possible. It is an absolute advantage to the producer; it does not affect the consumer so much. This is a brand new principle; it is something which will develop and in course of time we shall learn what is the correct thing to do. The Bill confers on the Minister the right to change anything done by the commission, and he may also be held fully responsible for that in Parliament. That is the basic reason why I believe that at this stage the producer should pay the levy, because I believe that the benefit that with accrue to him under this legislation is larger than that in respect of any other section of the population.

I want to thank hon. members for the general agreement on and support for this legislation, on both sides of the House, and I just want to reply to some points raised by hon. members with regard to possible objections. The hon. member for East London (City) made some observations on the constitution of the commission and the period of office for which members of the commission are appointed. He said the period for retirement was not laid down. But surely the hon. member noticed that the members are appointed for a maximum period of five years. The Minister appoints them and he may appoint them for two years or for three years or for four or for five years. In other words, he may appoint them in such a way that they retire annually in rotation. He may appoint one for three years and one for four years and another for five years, so that the one appointed for the shortest period must retire first, etc. That has therefore been provided for. although perhaps not in the way envisaged by the hon. member. There is therefore no difficulty about setting different dates for retirement.

Another matter raised by the hon. member, and with regard to which I should just like to correct him for the sake of the record, is the following. The hon. member for East London (City) calculated, on the basis of the number of animals slaughtered at present, that the possible levies I mentioned in my Second Reading speech would mean an extra burden of R1.5 million on the producer, but the hon. member’s calculation was quite wrong. He said it would cost the producer R1.5 million more, but that is quite incorrect. In actual fact it will cost at the most R¼ million, and then I am including pigs, which the hon. member did not include.

Then I want to come to the two general objections raised by hon. members on the opposite side. This is the constitution of the commission. I said that such a commission could have its advantages if one drew it from various interest groups, but if every interested section had to have representation, it would mean that one would have to give all the various groups representation. In the first place there are the municipalities, which in most cases provide the abattoirs, and then one would have to give them representation through their body. One would have to give the Agricultural Union representation, and one would have to give many other people representation in order that their interests may be safeguarded. [Interjection.] The hon. member says they do not pay Then one would also have to give the consumers representation, and they do not pay. We have this meat scheme in the controlled areas. It is not important to the consumer that there should be stock standing in a pen for slaughter and to be hung us in the refrigeration rooms and to be auctioned. All he is interested in is that there should be meat in the butcher shop. The consumer is in no way concerned with these facilities for keeping stock there. It is not part of his expenses. Because the scheme is there, it becomes part of the costs. It is of no concern to the consumer that there should be large halls in which to hold auctions. It is of no interest to him. He merely wants to get the meat. But the commission’s management of the abattoirs and the erection of abattoirs has a great deal to do with the consumer. It is also of no importance to the consumer that abattoirs should necessarily be rationalized, and that large abattoirs should be concentrated at a few points. He could buy meat at any abattoir where slaughtering is done hygienically. This is done to give the producer the opportunity to have a large auctioning market and to concentrate buyers. But to the consumer it is of no interest where he gets the meat from, just as long as the meat is hygienic. But the hon. member says he is not interested, and yet he pays for a large part of these services.

Then why in it traditional in this country that the local authorities started abattoirs in most cases?

Because it is convenient for the consumer to get his meat in one central spot. If there is no control scheme, the consumer may just as well go and buy his sheep outside and slaughter it himself at the abattoirs. It does not matter to the consumer. But now he is prohibited from doing that. He now has to buy it on an auction after it has been slaughtered. I am merely mentioning this.

As for the constitution of the commission, if we were to give representation to all these different interest groups, what would be the object? To safeguard every man’s interest, his levy interest or whatever interest he may have. But then we necessarily have the position that one man’s interest is in conflict with that of another. It is not in the interest of the consumer that a scheme be established to make his meat more expensive, but it is in the interest of the farmer that this be done. There will therefore always be a conflict of interest groups. I therefore say that no interest groups should serve on this commission, which will be concerned with rationalizing and which will exercise control over the abattoirs. I am not suggesting that people who serve on the commission may not come from one of the interest groups; that they may not be farmers or butchers or wholesalers or people who have knowledge of municipal abattoirs, but on the commission they should not be representatives of the bodies to which they belong. They must have the necessary knowledge, of course, because one should like to see the scheme function well.

The second objection raised by hon. members of the Opposition is the fact that the levy which is imposed is imposed on animals slaughtered at the abattoirs. If it is worthwhile establishing this commission, if we introduce legislation here to establish the commission, it is also necessary that funds for the commission should be collected, and their contributions should be made to the funds of the commission. But now hon. members on the opposite side say that the funds contributed to the commission should come from the pocket of the taxpayer. Sir, what are the functions of the commission? The commission has to co-ordinate and in many cases it has to centralize and rationalize. Let us just take an example. Supposing there is an abattoir which meets the needs of the public quite well; it ensures that the consumers get meat and that the animals are slaughtered hygienically, but it is not conducive to rationalization that that abattoir should continue operating. It has to close. In whose interest should it be closed? In the interests of the consumers? No, it has to be closed in the interest of the producer, with a view to better rationalization, and if the commission closes it, the commission has to pay compensation, and it must have money to do so. It is therefore essential, if one imposes levies, that they should be levied on the animals which are slaughtered there; that also establishes a relationship between the revenue as such and the total operation of the abattoirs or the animals slaughtered in the country. I just want to tell hon. members that even if they proposed such an amendment, which would mean increased expenditure for the State—I know they cannot propose it—I could in any event not accept it because I think the cost of the commission should necessarily be borne by the persons who use the slaughtering facilities which are created. But that does not mean that the authorities will render no other assistance to the commission to help them to erect abattoirs or to enable people to erect abattoirs as recommended by the commission. That does not mean that loans could not perhaps be provided to them at rates of interest lower than the current rates. These are all things which could be done, but as far as slaughtering itself is concerned, the commission has to get its funds from the user of the slaughtering facilities at the abattoirs concerned.

Hon. members of the Opposition objected to the fact that no maximum is laid down in this Bill. Sir, this is not the only body which exercises control over certain commodities and which has to collect funds in respect of which no maximum is laid down in the Act. Maximums are laid down in respect of none of the marketing act schemes. The board may determine its levy with the approval of the Minister, and in this case the commission may also determine its levy with the approval of the Minister, and if the levy is disproportionately high, the Minister is responsible to the House of Assembly. He may be called to account every year when his Vote comes up for discussion. Hon. members will therefore have the fullest opportunity to object if the levies are too high. They will have the opportunity to object to the levy just as they have it when I introduce a motion here to increase the levy in respect of the Wool Board, for example.

One is a Statute, the other is not.

Yes, that is correct, but the fact remains that a government could put through any legislation by means of its majority if it wished to do so; it rests with the Government to decide whether or not it wants to do that, and it rests with the Government to decide whether or not it deems it in the interest of the country. In actual fact that objection therefore falls away.

The hon. member for Albany spoke about the exemptions referred to in the Bill. These exemptions are exemptions from registration. Those abattoirs need not be registered as abattoirs. They are exempt from the provision that they have to be registered as abattoirs. It is not the function of the commission to watch people to see where they slaughter cattle or sheep or to prevent people from bringing sheep into certain areas; that is the task of other bodies. If all these functions had to be performed by the commission, the commission would need a tremendous staff of inspectors and policemen to investigate and control those matters. For that reason we do not provide for that in this Bill, but there are other methods which may be used for that; there are health regulations which could be invoked, and in terms of which municipalities have the power to prohibit the admission of stock to their areas of jurisdiction. There are control measures which the Meat Industry Control Board could take to prevent and counter these things. It is not the function of this commission, in terms of its Act, to prohibit these things. All we are doing here is to provide that if such things take place or are allowed to take place, people who slaughter in that way need not register.

The hon. member also spoke of slaughtering in the Bantu areas. Of course the Bantu residential areas around our cities and elsewhere come under the provisions of this Act. If it is a controlled area where they slaughter and they are granted exemption, they are not granted exemption because this legislation is on the Statute Book; they are granted exemption to slaughter their sheep there for other reasons.

If it is not a controlled area?

Outside the controlled areas anybody may slaughter, except where the municipality prohibits him from slaughtering in any other place but the abattoir, but the municipality grants him permission to come and slaughter one sheep or one head of cattle a month or a week or a day, at the abattoirs. If he steals sheep from other people and slaughters them …

But if it is outside the municipal area, in a Bantu area?

Even if it is outside the municipal area in a Bantu area. If he is allowed to slaughter there, he slaughters there, and if he slaughters sheep illegally, it is not the task of this commission to watch him and see to it that he does not slaughter illegally. On the contrary, if this legislation applies to a person and he contravenes the Act, the commission is not going to bring him to court; he will be brought to court under the ordinary procedure. No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the few points of criticism raised by hon. members were well founded. They will probably come back to them at the Committee Stage, but I want to say right now that I shall accept no amendments on those two points, and in fact for the reasons I have just mentioned.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members will see that the provisions of this Bill run parallel with, and in many respects cover the same area as, the Bill which has just been considered by this House.

It gives me pleasure to-day to submit this Bill to this hon. House because it will now be possible to supply a long-felt want and to realize an ideal that was set several years ago.

I should like to take you back to the period before 1961, when it was realized everywhere that the standard of hygiene in the abattoir and meat industry of the Republic left much to be desired, and that not only our own consumers of meat and animal products should be afforded more and better protection, but also that, if we as a country also wanted to take part in exporting meat and animal products, we would have to effect adjustments and improvements which could compare with standards in other parts of the world.

As hon. members heard when the other Bill was discussed, a commission of inquiry into abattoir and allied facilities, under the chairmanship of Dr. F. J. de Villiers, was appointed in 1961, and after an exhaustive inquiry the report was submitted to the Government in 1965. In view of the fact that hon. members will perhaps object to the fact that we want to pilot through drastic laws in the closing stages of this Session. I want to remind them that shortly after this report was published, the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing also issued a Press statement in which he explained what steps would be considered further. Therefore it has already been brought to the notice of the public and the Opposition. The most significant recommendations made by this commission of inquiry-recommendations which are actually relevant here and which have been accepted by the Government—are, inter alia, that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services rather than the Department of Health should become the central controlling authority in regard to matters of hygiene in and around abattoirs, as was requested by the hon. member over there, and in regard to facilities that are to be provided by or at abattoirs. The supervision over hygiene in the distribution process—that is, in the retail trade—will still remain the responsibility of the Department of Health. We are not taking that away from them.

The recommendations made by the commission of inquiry were based mainly on the fact that my Department with its veterinary field services division in the rural areas, where the greatest want is to be found, would be equipped best for this task. The proposed legislation does not imply any real fundamental changes and does, therefore, not deviate from the existing legislation, as administered by the Department of Health at present, except that my Department is now being instructed specifically to lay down requirements and conditions for the registration of all abattoirs in the country and to see to it that there is compliance with uniform standards coupled with modern hygienic principles.

The application of hygiene and meat inspection in general will, as is still the case at present, be in the hands of the abattoir owners, but this will be done under the supervision and guidance of my Department. Abattoir owners need not fear that my Department will from the very outset make it impossible for them to make a living. We realize that there is much to be remedied and that this will possibly entail major capital costs. For that reason I am making an appeal to abattoir owners to avail themselves of the expert assistance and advice my Department is affording them in the proposed legislation, so that we may in the national interest realize this great ideal of a sound abattoir and meat industry.

Although this means that as far as the abbattoir industry is concerned, my Department is now taking over the functions of the Department of Health, the latter Department will, since none of its statutory powers are being repealed, still have the fullest right, for instance, to enter abattoirs in times of epidemics amongst people, should it become apparent that an abattoir may be a possible source of human diseases. Now I should like to deal in broad detail with the Bill before the hon. House.

Firstly, although the definition of an abattoir in the Bill is a wide one, which includes all places where animals are slaughtered for human and animal consumption or for commercial purposes, it is not the intention to control the slaughtering of animals as such with this legislation, but mainly those places where animals are being slaughtered on a reasonable scale. That is why it is the explicit intention with clause 42 to exempt certain groups of persons and certain classes of animals from the provisions of this legislation— for instance, animals that are being slaughtered on farms by farmers for their own use, and so forth. I must point out that the ultimate ideal will be that back-yard slaughterings, which are still being allowed to a large extent in our towns to-day, may no longer take place, but that we shall allow slaughter animals, with the exception of poultry, to be slaughtered at abattoirs only. Since it will remain the general approach that local authorities will continue to establish and manage abattoirs, it will be of great importance not only for hygienic control, but also for the development of a sound abattoir industry that they will see to it that members of the public are encouraged to slaughter their animals at local abattoirs.

Although the abattoir will in the first place be the sphere of application of the proposed legislation, it was felt that there was nevertheless a need for going a little further than merely the abattoir, because there are in addition so many other factors that have an effect on the slaughter animal and consequently on the hygienic condition of the final product. For this reason hygiene already comes into play at the stage where animals are conveyed. We know that the damage resulting from bruises sustained by animals in transit amounts to millions of rands every year. The way in which animals are kept at abattoirs before being slaughtered is an important aspect which may not be lost sight of either. The methods of slaughtering, inspecting carcasses, conveying meat and animal products under controlled conditions and disposing of condemned animals, meat and animal products, are all of them aspects that are very closely connected with abattoir hygiene in general. That is why we should also look at the abattoir in the broader sense. Viewed from the veterinary angle, the abattoir will also be regarded as the post mortem room of the stock-farming industry from now on, because livestock that are infected with diseases such as tuberculosis, measles or even foot-and-mouth disease, can easily be located and traced back to the place of origin. This will enable veterinarians to point out effectively and accurately states of disease in certain areas or on the farms concerned. This will in addition certainly help us to build up, at a faster rate, a healthy stock of animals in South Africa.

Secondly, provision is also being made for the appointment of a chief meat hygiene officer whose main task will be to place the standards of hygiene in the abattoir and meat industry on a uniform basis which will meet modern requirements. Since this task requires highly specialized knowledge, it was deemed fit to lay down by law that only a veterinarian will be able to hold this post. At the moment the veterinary field services division of my Department is already responsible for the prevention, control and eradication of animal diseases and parasites in live animals, and all of us are aware of the fine and valuable service this division is rendering. With the integration of the control over abattoir and allied facilities with this division, the further aspect of the transmission of diseases between animals and human beings is being brought under one roof, and now it also becomes an uninterrupted service, virtually from the birth of the animal until it is ready for human consumption.

To enable the chief meat hygiene officer to carry out his task, it will be necessary for him to keep a register of all abattoirs in the country and to issue certificates in respect of such abattoirs as comply with the specified standards. There will in fact be a period of transition in which abattoir owners will be afforded the opportunity to put their affairs in order, and for that reason provision is being made for various grades of abattoirs. I want hon. members to pay attention to these various grades. They relate to the hygiene of those slaughterings.

Are they also going to get stars now?

What stars? Since the vast majority of abattoirs are made up of the I smaller rural abattoirs which only provide in the local needs, only the minimum requirements will, for the time being, be imposed upon this class of abattoir, which will be operated on a “no profit, no loss” basis. Larger abattoirs which function on a regional basis will, from the nature of the case, have to comply with stricter requirements, whereas abattoirs which are geared for functioning on a country-wide or even an export level, will have to comply with national and international standards. As and when the standards of old abattoirs improve and new ones complying with modern requirements are established, the abattoir and meat industry will be placed on the desired basis. For this reason the chief meat hygiene officer will prepare and frame specifications and codes of hygienic practice for abattoirs and make them available as a free service along with other technical information in connection with design, construction, equipment, etc. In exceptional cases the chief meat hygiene officer will also have the right to close abattoirs or parts of them until their defects have been repaired or in cases where abattoirs have become infected as a result of stock diseases. Without these powers the implementation of the Act will not be possible. Powers will also be delegated on a regional basis to senior personnel such as veterinarians so as to cause the service to function more effectively and uniformly throughout the country. Field personnel of the veterinary field services division will be trained in meat inspection and abattoir hygiene, thus providing a network of trained personnel.

Where local authorities continue to manage abattoirs, they will also be allowed, with the approval of the chief meat hygiene officer, to appoint persons who have the necessary qualifications, as inspectors or authorized persons. This principle is the same as the one that exists at present in terms of the Public Health Act, and in this respect the State’s contribution of one-third of the salaries of these persons will apply, as is the case at present. What this amounts to, is simply that my Department will accept responsibility for that portion of the services which is performed exclusively at abattoirs.

Should it happen that these services are not performed efficiently or that abattoir owners are unable to perform them, the Minister will have the right to have such a service performed by officers of his own Department and to charge this service to the account of the bodies concerned. The Minister will have the right to appoint his own staff at abattoirs managed by private persons.

As a result of representations I have received, I just want to make it clear that the persons proposed to be appointed in terms of clauses 19 and 21, will consist of (a) the inspectorate, i.e. the meat inspector or meat examiner as we know him to-day—normally these are persons who have obtained the R.S.H. Diploma (The Certificate of the Royal Society of Health) or the diploma issued by the Department of Education, Arts and Science; (b) authorized persons who will be serving mainly on a part-time basis—these persons may be private veterinarians or medical practitioners; and (c) designated officers who will from the nature of the case be veterinarians from my Department.

The same principle that obtains to-day, will be upheld, namely that the meat inspector or meat examiner will only have inspection powers but no powers whatsoever to condemn meat, etc. When he comes across a carcass of an animal which is obviously diseased or appears to be unfit for human consumption, he will have to refer it to the authorized person or designated officer for a final decision. Since the latter two groups of persons, i.e. the veterinarians and the medical practitioners, have the highest possible professional training, it will ensure that the highest standards will be maintained at all times and that all interest groups will receive the necessary protection. The principle that the professional man and particularly the veterinarian must bear the responsibility if an animal or a carcass is for some reason or other unfit for human consumption and must therefore be condemned, obtains throughout the world.

I should like to come back to the duties of owners and operators of abattoirs. In terms of clauses 22 and 23 these persons will be expected to provide facilities for the hygienic keeping, slaughtering and dressing of animals and for the hygienic handling of meat and animal products, as well as to ensure that there is compliance with the required standards of hygiene, etc. They will also be expected to provide laboratory facilities in order that examinations may be carried out swiftly and effectively on their premises. I realize that heavy obligations are being imposed upon them, but in view of the fact that with the aid of the proposed Abattoir Commission their services will in addition be planned and performed scientifically from now on, I trust that the desired co-operation will exist. I can also assure them that the senior officers of my Department, such as the chief meat hygiene officer who is to be appointed, are practical and reasonable people who perform their task with the greatest measure of devotion, and in this sphere of work, too, I can rely on them.

In view of the fact that in some respects we are embarking upon new territory with this Bill and with the Abattoir Commission Bill which has already been submitted to this hon. House and read for a Second Time, and which covers similar fields to a large extent—it was extremely difficult to define the lines of policy of these two Bills. I nevertheless have the fullest confidence that there will be the closest collaboration with my Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. As problems present themselves in practice, solutions will be found, and where they cannot be surmounted, I shall feel absolutely free to request this hon. House to effect certain amendments since this is, as I have said, new territory on which we are going to embark and adjustments may be necessary.

Since ample provision has been made for powers relating to regulations, I want to give interested parties the assurance, as provided in clause 38 (6), that when draft regulations are published, they will be at liberty to comment on them and I shall personally make a point of seeing to it that such comment will receive proper attention. As a matter of fact, a few days ago I told an organized group of professional persons that I expected them to make comment because constructive criticism is very valuable to us, as this was one of the ways in which matters could be put right.

In drafting and promulgating regulations, consultation with other departments such as Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Health, the S.A. Railways and Harbours and others, will play a major role and the wishes of the Ministers concerned and their Departments will not be left out of account.

It was felt that the principles embodied in the Slaughter of Animals Act of 1934, which deals mainly with the way in which animals are slaughtered at abattoirs, would fit in better with the proposed legislation, and for that reason Act 26 of 1934 is now being repealed.

From now on provision for the various methods of slaughtering so as to eliminate unnecessary suffering and cruelty in slaughtering animals, will be made by regulation.

Finally, I just want to mention that this Bill was discussed in detail with the Departments of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Health, the Treasury, Commerce and Industry, the Meat Board and the S.A. Railways and Harbours. The Bill was also referred to the South African Agricultural Union, all the larger municipalities, the United Municipal Executive of South Africa, the S.A. Veterinary Medical Association and the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board. The said bodies are supporting the principles embodied in the Bill, which is already an indication to me that we are all agreed that the maintenance of proper standards of hygiene at abattoirs is essential, and that is why I also feel free to request this hon. House to lend its support to this measure.

In view of the fact that a few moments ago we discussed legislation for the establishment of an abattoir commission, it stands to reason that a Bill such as the one the hon. the Deputy Minister has now proposed, must follow. It is a Bill which is aimed at improving the standards of hygiene in the slaughtering of animals and the handling of meat, etc. Therefore we on this side of the House have no objection to this Bill being read a Second Time. However, there are a few questions I want to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister. The first question concerns the definition of “animal”, which includes poultry, ostriches, and so forth. Let us relate this to clause 17, in which it is provided that no person may slaughter any animal at any place other than an abattoir in respect of which there is in force a valid certificate of approval. On close inspection it seems to me, therefore, that one is not permitted to slaughter one’s own goose, turkey or chicken for Sunday or for Christmas, or not even a partridge, as the hon. member is suggesting here. Admittedly the hon. the Deputy Minister did say that there would be certain exemptions in terms of clause 42. But I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will make it very clear that any person who wishes to slaughter his turkey or whatever for some festive occasion or other, be it for Sunday or for Christmas, will technically speaking not be committing an offence in terms of this legislation.

Are you referring to the bird in the location about which the hon. member for Albany is so concerned?

I do not want to approach this matter lightheartedly, because I am of the opinion that certain people are going to misread these restrictions—unless, of course, the Minister makes the matter clear in clause 42 by excluding certain areas or certain animals. As for the rest, the Bill contains a number of very good provisions. For instance, I am glad to see that this Bill provides that the chief meat hygiene officer may lay down various gradings for various abattoirs. The Grade I abattoir, for instance, will be the abattoir where meat will be handled for export. We may therefore describe abattoirs of this type as five-star abattoirs. Then there will be lower gradings until we eventually have the one-star abattoir which will distribute meat for local consumption. However, I hope that as far as these abattoirs are concerned, the standards that will be laid down for them will be the same as the higher standards laid down for those abattoirs handling meat for export. We hone, therefore, that there will be very little difference as regards the standards to be maintained at all abattoirs. The importance of meat as an item in the diet of our people, cannot be over-emphasized. That is why it is essential for us to take precautionary measures to ensure that the meat that reaches our tables is in a good condition.

Will this Bill also be applicable to places such as the Ciskei?

That is a question to which I hone the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply. In conclusion I just want to repeat that, in view of the fact that this Bill is in the interests of the health of our people, we on this side are supporting it.

The hon. member for Newton Park said that they were supporting this Bill. At the same time he expressed doubts as to what the position would be when a person wanted to slaughter a turkey or a chicken for Christmas or for Sunday. I doubt whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will take such drastic action. If I could give the hon. member some advice, it is that if he added a small quantity of water to the customary Christmas spirit, he would definitely soon enough find a suitable place for slaughtering his turkey or chicken without interference by the hon. the Deputy Minister. In terms of clause 42 the Minister has the power to promulgate regulations which will make it more honourable for the hon. member to kill his turkey or chicken for Christmas.

But I want to point out the necessity for this legislation. In future officials of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, instead of officials of the Department of Health will supervise hygiene at abattoirs. It may be inferred from this that previously the Department of Health did not do enough as far as this is concerned. But it would be wrong to think so because, although there are defects as regards the maintenance of hygienic conditions at abattoirs, the Department of Health has nevertheless been doing its best. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services starts on the farms in order to prevent the spread of diseases. This is done by means of inspections by veterinarians inoculation, etc. For instance, during last year alone five million head of livestock were inoculated against anthrax. Research work in other fields was also carried out by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. If we look at the evidence given before the commission on abattoirs, we shall note that in countries such as Britain a change as regards abattoirs has been setting in for many years already. Here I have a report, and in paragraph 228 thereof one finds the evidence given by Dr. Maurice Thornton; amongst other things he says the following—

This legislation makes provision for the appointment of a meat hygiene officer for the specific purpose of supervising the abattoirs we discussed during the previous debate. That is why it is essential that, since one has to exercise control so as to protect human beings and animals and to prevent the spread of disease, we should follow the example of the more experienced countries, as I have just quoted here. To my mind this is a step forward, because the veterinarian is continuously concerned with these animal diseases that are communicable to human beings, because he is pre-eminently trained for performing this service. In view of the fact that such an official is now receiving a specific instruction from the Minister and by means of this legislation, it will be conducive to creating hygienic conditions at our abattoirs. Somebody may very well ask whether them is really such a great danger of diseases being transmitted to human beings by animals. I can just point out that in the report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, in their comments on tuberculosis, it was stated very clearly that tests had proved that 2.33 per cent of the total number of animals were infected and that 1.44 per cent of the total number of animals examined, were suspect cases. Then there is anthrax. I called attention to the great effort that was made by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to combat the spread of that disease. It is already being said that there is a slight increase, in spite of this great effort that was made by the Department. For instance, we see in the report that in the year under review there were 290 outbreaks of rabies, which is an increase, and it is known that cattle, too, can transmit rabies, a much feared disease. Measles, and so forth, are diseases that should be combated timeously. Since such diseases are easily spread by animal products, I say that the fact that we shall now have a veterinarian to exercise control over the hygiene at our abattoirs, is a major step in the right direction.

In short, therefore, I want to say that I am glad that the Opposition is supporting this legislation and that we are all very much agreed that this legislation is necessary for the sake of the welfare of human beings as the large-scale consumers of animal products—I can mention statistics, but I do not want to occupy too much of the time of the House. I want to conclude by saying that animal diseases hold a danger to human beings and animals alike, and as a civilization progresses, it is clear that people consume more and more animal products. I only hope that the hon. the Minister will see to it that when regulations are drafted, the slaughter and preparation of roasting and other chickens will be supervised very thoroughly in future. They are also among the feathered creatures that are slaughtered for Christmas; but at present they are being slaughtered on such a large scale that statistics show, for instance, that approximately 25 million roasting chickens are marketed every year. That is a possible source of the spread of diseases and, although the Department of Health has not been neglecting its duty so far, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to make special provision for that aspect.

The main feature of this Bill, as the hon. the Minister said, is that the supervision of abattoirs is to be removed from the Department of Health to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. It really will make very little difference in practice, because the majority of municipalities always had their meat inspected by veterinary surgeons. But the advantage that the Health Department had, was that it was also responsible for the environmental conditions at the abattoirs. The abattoir and its surroundings were regarded in the past as a whole and the medical officer of health was responsible for the veterinary officer, but supervision was also carried out by the M.O.H. While this advantage will not be lost, a great deal of co-operation will be required if the system is to work as smoothly as it did in the past. There will have to be very close co-operation. There is also the question of the transport of meat, which will still remain under the care of the Department of Health. Once the meat moves out of the abattoir, as far as I can see, it is no longer the responsibility of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. It is a question as to who could best provide that service. From the point of view of the meat inspection itself, the veterinarian is probably much better qualified and the medical officers of health have recognized this fact. On the other hand, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has not, as far as I can find out, changed the list of diseases. They have not added to nor have they subtracted from the list of diseases which was drawn up in 1933. Of course animal diseases and the knowledge of those diseases, and human diseases and the knowledge thereof, have progressed considerably in the last 34 years. May I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should look into this question of the diseases which are transmitted from animal to man, and vice versa? This list should be revised in the light of modern scientific knowledge. The hon. member who has just sat down referred to the question of rabies. I do not think this is a serious meat disease. It is not usually recognizable in the dead animal, except through very extensive examinations carried out in only one laboratory in the Republic, and it can only be conveyed by an open sore, or by the animal biting the individual. Few domestic animals other than dogs and cats bite people and they are usually not found or should not be found on the gallows of the slaughter house. True, it is carried by cows but that is really because the farmer sees a sick cow and proceeds to give it a dose and he scratches his arm on the rough tongue of the cow or animal and in that way, of course, the saliva of the cow is conveyed into the open wound created in the arm of the farmer. But that is not a usual procedure, and I do not think that rabies is necessarily one of the diseases that should be particularly guarded against. Sir, I feel that the hon. the Minister is going to have considerable difficulty in carrying out all his work because the veterinarians are spread very thinly over the country whereas in the case of doctors, although spread thinly over the country, there are many more of them. The training of meat inspectors will have to pass into the hands of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services except in so far as it can be done by the Department of Education. In general I feel that this is something which might be of value at a later date when there are more professional men in the country to carry it out, but at the moment it is a very doubtful proposition. We nevertheless welcome the Bill.

All of us appreciate the excellent knowledge of the hon. member for Durban (Central) with his medical background and his assessment of this matter. As the hon. the Deputy Minister said, this Bill supplements the Abattoir Commission Bill; it is parallel legislation. Essentially an abattoir remains a health institution, and it is extremely important that the health regulations at abattoirs should be maintained very strictly for the sake of the health of the general public. It is also extremely important to note that, according to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Abattoir Matters, the nature of the health services is veterinary, and we in agriculture welcome the fact that the responsibility for this aspect is now being transferred from the Department of Health to the Veterinary Services Division of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I want to point out, in particular, one important principle embodied in this measure, namely the provision which is being made in this Bill for the purpose of counteracting the waste of meat. The fact that a chief hygiene officer is being appointed to supervise the slaughter of animals and the care of animals before they are slaughtered, is of extremely great importance. The fact that he will have the power to classify abattoirs and to lay down standards, has the added advantage that he may keep an eye on the enclosures in which the animals must be kept before they are slaughtered. According to the report of the commission it was found that animals sustain a very large number of bruises and injuries when they are handled at abattoirs, and that this resulted in tremendous waste. But clause 22 also embodies another very important principle. Clause 22 refers specifically to the provision of laboratories, particularly at larger centres, in connection with the bacteriological examination of animals before they are slaughtered. According to its report, the commission consulted several technical people in this regard. I should like to read out to you the evidence Dr. Thornton gave before this commission in connection with suspect cases—

Sir, this is indeed most impressive and illuminating evidence. Our method of judging meat is merely to look at it. If we have these facilities at our disposal it will have the result that many of the suspect cases, which we are perhaps destroying or of which we have to dispose in another way, will not have to be destroyed. Then I just want to make this last point. In view of the fact that these protective measures for preventing meat from being wasted when slaughterings take place, are also being embodied in this legislation, the agricultural industry and the producers will have more confidence that they can safely send they animals to controlled and good abattoirs.

Sir, we on this side of the House welcome this legislation for various reasons and not least because the evidence given before the commission of inquiry into abattoir and allied facilities on this question of the transfer of control from the Department of Health to the Division of Veterinary Services of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, was unanimous on this point, unlike the evidence given on various other points connected with the abattoir industry. I think it is noteworthy that in that evidence the point was made that the productivity and the health of the country’s livestock population, make the State Veterinary Division very intimately concerned with meat inspection. Another important point was also made in evidence given before that commission, namely that veterinarians are equipped for this task because they specialize in stock diseases and, moreover, because meat hygiene forms part of the training course for veterinarians. Sir, I have said that the evidence on this point was unanimous and I would like to quote briefly from the report of the commission—

Sir, besides this we already have the position that as far as the export of meat is concerned, the meat first of all has to be approved by the veterinary authorities, because very strict veterinary requirements, which vary from country to country, are laid down by the importing countries. Sir, we also welcome the fact that the subsidization of local authorities as regards the salaries of the health or meat inspection officials, which has hitherto been the responsibility of the Department of Health, is also going to fall under the Minister’s Department. That subsidy, up to a third of the salary, is going to be continued; we welcome that. Sir, I feel that this is a most important point. When we look at page 16 of the commission’s report, we find that at the date of publication of the report—the report was published in 1964—there was a situation which could give rise to a certain amount of concern. And I quote—

There it is. Only 75 per cent of the total number have inspection services. That is a position which must have given rise to concern and I feel that if the new provisions in the Bill will help towards securing better inspection and better hygiene, it is all to the good. I should like to refer briefly to the fact that assistance may be given in regard to the establishment of laboratories at the abattoirs. This is a most important point to the livestock industry. They can indeed, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, become the post mortem centres for many of our livestock. And already the little research that has been done, has revealed very valuable results as regards the incidence, not merely of what we regard normally as diseases, namely a thing like measles, but also the incidence of certain other; what might be called; erosion diseases, as for example attacks by internal parasites. These results have shown that farmers in many instances are either dosing unnecessarily against a disease because their animals do not carry it when they come to the abattoirs from a wide area, or else they are not closing enough and that their animals are carrying parasites which they do not suspect that they have. Our only difficulty about this Bill is in clauses 17 and 42 and in the definition of “animals” as the hon. member for Newton Park has said. This Bill and the other Bill which has just passed the Second Reading Stage go very closely together. I would have thought that the hon. the Minister and his counterpart would have tried to correlate their definitions and the various clauses of the Bill. For instance, the one Bill which we have just finished discussing does not contain any reference in the definition of “animals” to poultry or ostriches, etc. This Bill on the other hand does contain such reference. And again, whereas the previous Bill specifically exempts every individual from the necessity to slaughter at a registered abattoir, this Bill does not specifically exempt certain classes of individuals. It is merely permissive. It merely allows the Minister by notice in the Gazette to exclude various people or various classes of people. This Bill which we are discussing now is permissive in this respect, whereas the other Bill specifically excludes various people, such as farmers. I do feel that the two Bills should have been in line on this particular point. This is a matter which we could perhaps again discuss with the hon. the Minister during the Committee Stage.

Mr.Speaker, I want to thank the hon. House very briefly for its unanimity in connection with the acceptance of this Bill. I should very much like to tell the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, as well as the hon. member for Newton Park, that in the definition of “animal”, we also included poultry and ostriches. If you had listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Harrismith, you would have heard about the enormous roasting chicken industry they have there. It is also the task of veterinary services to look after the health and hygiene of the human consumer in this regard. That is why provision had to be made for that in this Bill. It is true, as the hon. member for Albany said a moment ago, that I did not define the exemption in the Bill. It merely enables me to grant exemption by regulation. Such exemption will, for instance, be granted in respect of that Sunday turkey or goose which the hon. member for Newton Park wants to slaughter. But we cannot grant exemption in such a way that the entire roasting chicken industry will be excluded from our hygiene supervision. That is why it was defined in that way.

The exemption is not the same in the other Bill.

I accept that. The other Bill deals with the establishment of an abattoir, whereas this Bill deals with the maintenance of proper standards of hygiene at abattoirs. At the same time I want to tell the hon. member that during the Committee Stage we shall propose a minor alteration to the definition of “animal”. It has already been placed on the Order Paper.

May I ask you a question? The present definition of “animal” includes buck, for instance. In terms of the definition as it reads at present, the shooting of springbuck and other buck will also be prohibited, not so?

No. Shooting will be for the farmer on his farm. But if buck are sent to abattoirs to be sold there, as is often the case, then it is definitely under the supervision of this Department. But just as I may grant exemption to the farmer to slaughter on his farm animals for his own use—if it is not for commercial purposes—such exemption can also be granted in respect of buck.

Yes, but it is being done by way of an exception.

Yes, quite correct.

Therefore I am right; the Act prohibits it.

The hon. member for Newton Park asked another question as well. He was somewhat concerned about the grading of our abattoirs. He was afraid that in respect of local abattoirs or small abattoirs we would not maintain the same hygiene facilities and other requirements as in respect of the others. He need not be afraid of that. We are only introducing grading because, in respect of the export of meat, for instance, our veterinary services must issue certificates in regard to the origin, hygiene and the handling of meat. For that reason certain facilities have to be provided. We shall maintain very careful supervision to ensure that the highest standards of hygiene are maintained throughout. I have already replied to the matter of roasting chickens. I just want to refer briefly to what the hon. member for Durban (Central) said. The hon. member for Durban (Central) fears that, now that veterinary services—and no longer the Department of Health—will control the hygiene aspect, it will not be such a good service because, as he said, veterinarians are few in number. I think that the hon. member for Albany has given him half a reply in this regard by pointing out that under the old Department of Health only 75 per cent of the slaughterings were under hygiene control and that over 9 per cent of them there was no control whatever. We are not eliminating the health services. Nor are we eliminating the district surgeon. We still allow local authorities to choose those persons, but the supervision and the responsibility now comes under this Department in order that a uniform and uninterrupted standard may be introduced. In the past the one differed from the other. I do not want to reply to the rabies question at this stage. I know that it is a hobby of the hon. member. We shall see to it that cats and dogs are not slaughtered at these abattoirs. That assurance I can give him. I think that I have now replied to all the various matters that were raised here. I may just tell the hon. member for Albany that I do not think that I shall accept an amendment in regard to defining “animal” further, nor in regard to “exemption”. The necessary provision for that purpose is being made in the regulations.

Will this Bill apply to Bantu reserves?

This Bill applies in all respects where the Abattoir Commission establishes abattoirs for human consumption. This Bill applies to our Bantu townships and around our urban areas. But, surely, the hon. member knows that the Transkei will eventually have its own system of government.

I am not referring to the Transkei. I am referring to the Ciskei and the other reserves.

This Bill will apply wherever we are still in charge of legislation, and so forth.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Tine.

I move—

For quite obvious reasons hon. members will probably not expect me to make a long speech on this occasion.

When introducing this Bill before it was referred to a select committee, I gave a full exposition of what its objects were.

I now want to avail myself of this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to the members of the Select Committee for the work they have done. In this connection, of course, I am speaking of members of the Select Committee on both sides of the House; I also want to congratulate them on the results of their deliberations.

As is evident from the report, there was indeed a great measure of agreement on most of the clauses of the Bill; and we need not be too much concerned about the few matters on which the Select Committee did not reach agreement ultimately. It was more a matter of differences in degree than of major differences in principle.

I am glad, therefore, that this hon. House is able to approach a matter affecting the safety and a large section of the youth of our country, with such a large measure of unanimity.

The Select Committee had the opportunity to meet all the members of the Supreme Command of the South African Defence Force and to hear their views. I think they had ample opportunity to question them, and I think the members of the Committee were impressed by the knowledge and the efficiency displayed by those officers. I am glad that that opportunity could be arranged.

I now want to refer briefly to a few amendments which were effected by the Select Committee and which I too wish to accept. I shall, of course, deal with the more important ones only.

In clause 1 (b) a better definition is given of the concept “service”, and henceforth this will consequently form the corner-stone of the South African Defence Force. This concept is consistently applied throughout the amendments to the various clauses.

Clause 2 (c) deals with young immigrants and makes it possible for those who have been domiciled in the Republic for five years but who have not yet reached the age of 25 years, to be registered and called up for military service in peacetime in the same way as ordinary citizens of the country. However, those immigrants who indicate afterwards that they have no intention of becoming South African citizens will be exempted from service.

I have to add, however, that it is the intention of the Government not to give right of permanent residence in the Republic to those liable to render service who indicate clearly that they do not want to accept South African citizenship.

The proclamation provided for in this clause will be published in the Government Gazette in the near future.

I am convinced that this system is going to afford young prospective South African citizens the opportunity to become united with the rest of our youth through the South African Defence Force. I cannot imagine that there could be any better way of achieving a spirit of unity among young people than to have all of them wearing the uniform of the South African Defence Force.

Clause 8 provides for the permanent appointment of young citizens with commissioned rank on condition that a citizen who is rendering compulsory service shall not be released from service until he has completed his period of compulsory service. Under section 86 persons who volunteered in the past continue to have the right to resign which they have always had.

There was a difference of opinion among the members of the select committee in regard to clause 12. The committee eventually decided by a majority vote that no person shall, during his service in terms of section 21, be liable to render more than 16 months’ continuous service in the aggregate. In addition, there is an amendment in respect of non-continuous service not exceeding three days in any calendar year. Let me say that I cannot agree with those who suggest that our periods of training are too long. Compared with other countries our periods of training are not too long. I had the opportunity to discuss this matter with military leaders while I was in Europe. It appears that in most of the Western European countries the periods of training are much longer. And if we consider what expensive and complicated equipment and electronic apparatus and arms have to be handled we must realize that the safe handling thereof is essential.

But we also have an obligation towards the young men who are liable to render service. It is therefore a precautionary measure as far as their own safety is concerned that they be afforded adequate time to be trained thoroughly. Let us therefore display a sense of responsibility in considering the compulsory service periods.

The new section 35 lays down that any person allotted to commandos to render service shall be liable for service over a period of 16 years. The select committee effected an amendment in that respect. During this period of service members of commandos are liable to serve for 345 days in the aggregate, which is more or less equal to the total period of service which has to be rendered by members of the Citizen Force who do not belong to the leader group.

The select committee also effected amendments in respect of clauses 26, 29, 35, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44 and others. Most of these amendments are of minor importance or consequential upon earlier amendments. Some of these clauses improve the position as far as selection and applications for exemption are concerned.

In conclusion I want to say a few words in connection with the application and effect of the new proposed section 118, as contained in clause 57. The select committee could not reach agreement on this matter. Of course, I shall feel happy if this House could reach agreement on it. We are living in a time when it is no longer possible always to distinguish clearly between war and peace. We are living in a time when a full-scale war is often preceded by terrorism and guerilla warfare. I find it a pity that some people do not want to accept our best intentions with this proposal. I have gone out of my way to inform the Press Union why it is necessary that steps of this nature should be taken and I had a long discussion with them. The Press Union in turn informed their members of my attitude in writing, and I have had no objection from the Press Union in this connection up to this day. I am convinced that they appreciate my attitude, although they perhaps do not agree with everything.

I realize the value the Press has for the Defence Force and so does the Supreme Command. It is also our intention to create every possible opportunity to enable the Press to publish permissible reports on defence matters. As a matter of fact, after this Bill has been passed we intend making available to the Press as soon as possible a list of matters on which they may freely publish reports. We also intend to create the necessary means for the Press to consult me and my Department from time to time and to obtain permission to publish reports on matters which are not clear. I know it is an interesting and sometimes sensational game to publish reports on matters concerning defence. I do not deny the fact that it appeals to people. But if speculations on alleged movements of troops and on riots appear in the Press at a time when the World Court is about to give judgment on South-West Africa, it is no longer a game. If reports are published informing the world in detail where South Africa’s oil storage tanks are being built, while the newspaper itself indicates that the information is secret, one wonders what the object of that is. If reports are published to the effect that a recuit sustained serious head injuries at Walvis Bay, reports which upset his parents and involve the Defence Force, and such reports subsequently appear to be quite untrue, must the game be allowed to be continued?

This Parliament still remains the guarantee that a Minister will not abuse such a section in order to maintain unnecessary secrecy. I know it will not be accepted if I say that I give the assurance that, in spite of this clause, we shall provide the necessary means. Hon. members on that side of the House have often used the argument of saying, “Yes, you give the assurance, but what if your successor feels differently about the matter?” In reply to that I say that this Parliament still has the right to call a Minister to account.

However, it will also be unwise not to use the Press in every possible way in order to derive the best advantage for the Defence Force from their publicity, because the people and the Defence Force have to be brought closer together. They have to become one. The activities of the Defence Force must become the pride of the South African public. This is the basis which is laid down in this measure. Our Defence Force is in fact becoming representative of the whole nation. For that reason we shall go out of our way to obtain the co-operation of the Press. But those things which in the interests of the safety of South Africa may not be published, which in the interests of good order in the Defence Force may not be disseminated, must not be shouted from the rooftops. Seeing that we are a small country which succeeds under sometimes difficult circumstances to build up its Defence Force to be ready and to be prepared for battle, we have to have the power, in the interests of our relations with foreign countries, to prevent irresponsible and uninformed reports from doing harm.

I therefore give the assurance that we shall co-operate with the Press. However, I hope we shall be allowed to take the necessary control measures. After all, apart from the control which this House may exercise over the Minister, common sense remains the best guarantee that a large organization such as the Defence Force will not abuse this provision.

This is all I have to say at this stage. As regards the matters in connection with the rest of the Bill on which there was agreement, I gave a full explanation in this House on an earlier occasion.

Mr. Speaker, the measure which the hon. the Minister has just introduced is one of wide importance to every family and every citizen of South Africa, and I agree with him that it is a healthy symbol and a healthy sign for our country that in the Select Committee which preceded the introduction of this Bill here there was a wide measure of agreement. I should like to take the opportunity of expressing to the Chairman of the Select Committee, who is unfortunately not here at the moment, and to the Government members, our appreciation as Opposition members who served on that committee for the attitude and the spirit in which we considered this measure. The committee, I believe, gave it a thorough study. We met over 12 times and had over 20 hours of solid discussion. I believe a lot of good came out of that.

Because the measure is one which has a number of facets which I should like to deal with in some detail, I feel that at this hour it would be appropriate to break the debate and continue with it when we can deal with it without interruption. Therefore I move—

Agreed to.