I would like to raise a matter in regard to the load lines certificate and particularly in regard to the matter of exemptions. I did not quite understand the purport of the Minister’s remark yesterday in the Second Reading when he said that the matter of load lines was better dealt with by way of regulation. I wish to bring to his notice a particular case for clarification, and that is the question of varying the load line in our waters as regards tankers. I understand the decision has been taken that the summer load line in Cape waters will be allowed in winter time at the request of the Load Line Convention, presumably. Up to now we have been particularly careful and cautious about variations of the load line, so much so that when a ship loads at Durban and conforms with the load line in winter time and it enters Cape waters and the Cape Town port, and it does not conform with the winter load line in Cape Town, the captain is prosecuted. Such cases have occurred. But in this case we are permitting tankers—and one knows the size of tankers to-day—to observe the summer load line in winter time in the Cape waters. To my mind this seems to be inviting trouble. I go further. It is inviting disaster. We have these tankers, and members of this House have been particularly conscious of the question of oil pollution. Over and above the variation of the load line, I believe, subject to correction, that these tankers are allowed in shipping lanes within 10 miles of our coast. There is a mile wide lane going north-east and another one coming south, with a mile in between. That in itself appears to me, as a layman, to be a difficult operation with the weather that is experienced in Cape waters. In addition I would like to ask whether in granting this exemption, any marine authorities were consulted in this country? Was it a decision of somebody sitting in Pretoria, taking this decision in good faith? We have marine authorities in this country. We have shipping lines, registered under our own flag, and there is the South African Navy. It seems to me that we are inviting disaster in the future if this is the position. When I say there is a 10-mile limit, it means that such a ship is travelling 10 miles off Cape Agulhas and the ships, while they are new and in perfect order, may be quite safe and nothing may happen, but like everything else they age. Luckily up to now we have not had any major disaster in this respect, but it can happen and it can cause great consternation and economic ruin to industries on our coast. It would seem to me that not sufficient care has been taken over this matter, and I ask the Deputy Minister to clarify the matter.

I agree with the hon. member that we have to be very, very careful, especially with these tankers passing our shores now. I also want to mention to the hon. member that the International Load Line Convention agreed to make the whole of South Africa a summer area. So it was not only decided in Durban; we went to the International Convention to get their consent to make the whole of the area a summer area. But I will make a special note of what the hon. member has said and we will take the necessary precautions. I will ask my Department again to investigate this danger that he mentioned.

I gather from the Deputy Minister that we actually asked for this. That is what I do not understand, that we ourselves actually asked for it.

This was discussed at the International Convention and it was then agreed that the whole of the South African area would be a summer area.

That is not quite the point. Who asked for it? Who made the suggestion in the first place? And when our approval was sought and granted, as the hon. member for Von Brandis asked, were our own maritime authorities consulted in the matter? Whence came the advice to the Government to accept this proposal? Was this adopted by the Department without reference to any of our maritime authorities? I would also like to ask the Minister in connection with this matter whether it is correct that in respect of the ships that are now using our coasts the Mediterranean load line is now allowed in our Indian Ocean waters?

Yes, that is a summer area.

Firstly, who asked for it? How was the request made to our authorities in South Africa? On my road home I travel along the coastline for about 85 miles and it is quite a common experience to-day in that stretch of 85 miles to see no less than five tankers, loaded. We have had disaster after disaster which we narrowly escaped turning into an absolute catastrophe, as the hon. member for Von Brandis has said. Are we never to learn a lesson? What is the object here? The object is greater profits for certain of the oil companies. This is a profit-making concern and nothing else. But who helps us in South Africa? The reply I got to my question only this morning from the Minister of Economic Affairs underlines the danger on the cost not only to individuals and to groups in South Africa but to the Government. A national disaster can take place. We would like the fullest information as to who asked for the application of the summer load line in our waters. If we agreed to it, on what advice did the Government act? Did they get the opinion of our maritime authorities before they accepted this decision?

I want to tell the Committee that the recommendation was actually made by the I.M.C.O., the International Marine Countries Organization. They made the recommendation. That means that the request was put by this international organization at the conference. Their recommendation was also that these tankers should travel in certain lanes, not too near the coast. Then it was adopted at the International Load Line Convention that the South African waters would be a summer load line area.

With our agreement?

Yes, it was adopted with our agreement.

That is the point. It was adopted with our agreement. The lane, as I understand it, is only 10 miles off our coast. Our prevailing winds are north-east and south-east, and an accident 10 miles from our coast may have the result that within a matter of hours we have the oil on our beaches. I have myself been out by plane following the oil slick when it was over 60 miles long along our coast, coming from the World Glory. We went up to look at it from the air, to see exactly what was threatening our coast. All that saved us was that we had a southwesterly wind blowing, a most unusual occurrence at that time. It blew for four or five days. That is all that saved us because it kept the oil from moving towards our coast. Otherwise we would have had a catastrophe of the greatest magnitude on the south coast of Natal. But it can happen anywhere on our coast. We also had the case of a tanker coming to grief on the west coast. Ten miles is much too close to our coast. I myself saw a vessel the other day, a loaded oil tanker, heading straight for the rocks on which the Aimee Lykes came to grief five or six years ago. At the last minute, in the broad light of day and with hundreds of holiday-makers on the beaches, we watched her suddenly pur her helm over and slide past without coming to grief. And as I say, there are five tankers at any one time in a matter of 85 miles.

In that case the load line would not have made any difference.

It is not only the load line; it is the arrangements dealing with the lanes in which they are allowed to travel. The lane is too close; it is only 10 miles from our coast. In regard to the load line, we had a ship the other day which struck a submerged object near Danger Point, an object that nobody knew anything about; it had never yet been charted. With a deeply laden ship, those dangers are always present. All that we should be concerned with, I suggest, is the complete and absolute safety of our own coastline, and to save it from the dangers of a catastrophe such as the British people had with the Torrey Canyon disaster a couple of years ago. I hope that the Minister will go into this matter and see whether even at this late stage it cannot be reviewed and something done about it.

I want to support the hon. members for Von Brandis and South Coast. There is another factor which we have to take into consideration, namely that our surveys of our coasts, with modern shipping and these deep draught tankers, are out of date. Where a ship might have been quite safe drawing 35 to 40 feet of water close in, these big ships drawing up to 55 and 60 feet are in grave danger. Recently a ship off Agulhas struck a submerged object which lifted up its plating, and when it came to Cape Town there was a certain amount of pollution here. But they were never able to find that object. According to the charts there was ample water there. That shows how out of date our surveys are. Until our Navy, which is working very hard on it at present, completes the re-survey of our coast, it is necessary for these tankers to stay our much further than they are doing at present. Certain companies with very big tankers make them stay out 20 to 25 miles. They do not take any risks. They know that the surveys are out of date and that it is possible to strike an under-water obstruction. Ten miles is little enough and there is a danger element in having these ships coming in so close.

I would like to get back to clause I (e), which changes the definition of load line ship to mean any ship of 45 feet or more in length instead of a ship of 25 or more gross tons. Now there is going to be a load line restriction on ships of 45 feet or more in length. I want to ask whether the Minister has given consideration to the question of our fishing craft which exceed this length. Some of them are big boats to-day and there is a danger element there. There has been loss of life and I think it is a matter that the Minister should give consideration to. They have gone from tonnage to length, and these big boats exceed that length, which constitutes another danger element. I should like to hear the Minister’s views on this.

I think we should bear in mind in considering this Bill the original reason for the introduction of a load line. The introduction of a load line was to safeguard the lives of seamen and not necessarily the life of the ship, but that position has changed now. In the early days when ships sailed the coast and across the sea it was known that greedy merchants overloaded their ships and thus endangered the lives of the men on the ships. So a load line was originally introduced to safeguard the lives of the men. Since then the idea of a load line has gone much further because we have ships of such great value sailing the seas—the modern ship costs a lot of money—that the underwriters will not insure a ship at Lloyds if that ship is going to be used in any manner whatsoever which will increase the normal risk of that ship sailing the sea. So we have to get back to the facts contained in this Bill. We have allowed for an increase or an adjustment of the load line. No international convention down over the years, in my opinion, would accede to such a request if it in any way believed that it would endanger the lives of the men sailing that ship. And if they ensure the lives of the men sailing that ship then they must automatically be ensuring the safety of the ship. We have been discussing here instead, the problems of navigational errors and matters of that nature. This is what has happened. The hon. member for Salt River mentioned the example of a ship which ran into an uncharted submerged object. There was a case not many years ago on the East Coast of Africa where a ship hit an uncharted object, but afterwards it was found that the ship was 25 miles off course. The load line cannot account for errors in navigation of this degree. I believe that under the circumstances it is quite justifiable to increase the load line of a tanker which, after all, is a ship which is designed in many cases to be submerged to such an extent that it keeps the cargo cool. A tanker is designed not to float above the water so much, but within the sea to a larger extent. This stops the evaporation of a highly volatile cargo, this is a feature of the design of a tanker. After all, what will be the difference in the load line of a tanker? How many inches is it going to raise or lower the ship in the sea? To what extent is it going to contribute to the dangers which we have had presented here this morning? I believe the increase in draught is infinitesimal. The object of this change is to iron out the passage of that ship so that it can pass from its loading point to the point of discharge without having to make allowances for variations in load line along the way. I believe the whole matter is as simple as this.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to provide hon. members with this information, and especially the hon. member for South Coast. If we did not agree and this decision was not taken tankers would have been entitled to come even closer to the coast. This limit of ten miles is a safeguard and if we did not decide upon that tankers would have been able to come even closer to the coast. The whole matter is, however, receiving further consideration. I also want to mention to the hon. member for Salt River that load line provisions are not applicable to fishing boats. Even the International Load Line Convention is not applicable to fishing boats. This is the position at present.

*The Department is nonetheless watching this problem very carefully. The Department is fully aware of the problem, and efforts are made to cope with the situation. Warnings are also issued from time to time to owners, shipmasters and canning factories to draw their attention to this danger.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this clause makes provision for compensation to any local authority in respect of fruitless expenditure where areas have been proclaimed and then de-proclaimed. The local authorities are placed in a difficult position, not vis-à-vis the Department of Community Development or the Community Development Board, but in reaching finality, so far as the Department of Planning is concerned in the proclamation of group areas. The Minister has, in the course of the discussion during the Second Reading, referred to delays which took place within municipalities in areas which should be developed after proclamation. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that I think the blame is put at the wrong door. In this connection he is now in fact making provision for fruitless expenditure under clause I. According to the reply given to me by the hon. the Minister of Planning, it is hazardous for a municipality to start developing as soon as a group area is declared. It is a most hazardous and a risky matter because there is no question of finality. From the replies given to me this morning it is clear that up to the 11th of April, 1969, no less than 21 areas in the Cape Province were proclaimed and then de-proclaimed and thereafter re-proclaimed for a different use. In Natal there was no less than four areas and in the Transvaal no less than 16. The question of fruitless expenditure is a difficult one, because by insisting that the local authorities incur expenditure, the Minister is hastily building up for himself terrific claims under this particular clause which is now before us. I want to give the hon. the Minister an example. At Aliwal North an area of 50 morgen was proclaimed a Coloured area on the 20th September, 1957. One would have expected that area to be developed and that any expenditure would not have been fruitless if it had been undertaken within a year or two of proclamation. Four years later, however, the Group Areas Board changed its mind. Anything spent in respect of this large area of 50 morgen, could run into a large amount of money. If one goes through this list of these 41 changes of mind, which in every case could have led to fruitless expenditure, in terms of this clause, one finds in respect of Elliot that an area was re-proclamated for another use eight years after the original proclamation. In the Peninsula itself the periods have been two years, three years and four years, in cases where there have been changes in the original proclamations. In Knysna, for instance, seven years after the proclamation in 1959 of a white area in which the Knysna Municipality would have been expected to go ahead and provide services for development, one finds, that is in 1966, the position was changed and the area was de-proclaimed for Coloured use. In some instances, as long as ten years elapsed after the original proclamation, before the areas were de-proclaimed or re-proclaimed. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister in assuming these powers—we shall support this clause—that if the Community Development Board is hasty in requiring local authorities to develop areas immediately after proclamation, whether he will not be getting a rather heavy bill if the present conduct of the Department of Planning continues. The delay in developing these areas and the reluctance of local authorities to do so immediately after proclamation, should not cause them to be blamed but the Department of Planning because of its vacillations in coming to finality.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Green Point. He has mentioned many of the fears and aspects I raised during the Second Reading debate. There are however other difficulties I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I want to ask him to move an appropriate amendment in the Other Place to accommodate them. For example, after proclamation, of a group area where there has been de-proclamation, in terms of the provisions of this Bill, the local authority will have the power to claim compensation. But it is not only local authorities that have incurred expenditure after proclamation and before de-proclamation.

Why do you ask me to move an amendment in the Other Place? Why do you not move an amendment now?

By doing that I will expand the scope of this Bill and I am not entitled to do so.

Neither can I. I have to have a special instruction to do so.

I think this is a matter for the hon. the Minister to sort out. I am entitled to make suggestions, and the suggestion I would like to make is that this clause concrening compensation should be widened not only to include expenditure of local autho-ities before de-proclamation, but also expenditure incurred by, for example, institutions and individuals.

Order! That has nothing to do with this clause.

Mr. Chairman, am I not entitled to discuss the question of compensation?

This clause only provides for compensation for local authorities. The hon. member may not discuss an extension of the clause.

I have brought the matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister and I am sure he will put it right.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday during the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister told us that he would furnish details to us as to why it was necessary to insert a new paragraph (c) (ii) in subsection (2) of the principal Act. The argument of the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate was that that was necessitated by the removal of large numbers of Coloureds from the eastern side of the Fish River/Kat River line to an area to the west of that line. During that debate the hon. the Minister promised to inform us of the extent of the proposed removal and of the reasons why it was necessary to pay this compensation to local authorities, those that had planned for their Coloured areas which would no longer be used in view of the fact that the Minister was going to remove those people. I think the hon. the Minister should avail himself of this opportunity to supply this information to us.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the request of the hon. member for Simonstown, I want to say that local authorities or private bodies and persons who suffer losses as a result of the removal of group areas, may make representations to us. The Department will either meet these representations or if it does not see its way clear to do so, these bodies and persons still have the opportunity of taking the matter to court. In court they may testify that they suffered losses because of the deproclamation by the Department and the court can decide the matter. As far as private bodies and persons are concerned, we cannot go any further than this. If they can prove to us that we have caused them to suffer losses, we shall adopt a reasonable attitude. If, however, we were unable to do anything and they were of the opinion that we were unreasonable, they could take the matter to court.

I want to tell the hon. member for Newton Park that this clause not only makes provision for the removal of Coloureds to the east of the Fish River/Kat River/Aliwal North line, but also flows from the Government’s policy in the Transvaal and other places to concentrate the Coloureds in certain areas. Now hon. members maintain that we will be held responsible for millions and millions of rand, but it is not as bad as that. The following claims have been put in up to now—Bethal, R2,459; Dordrecht, R2,852; and Wepener approximately, this is not the final amount, R10,000. At the moment we have the right to make ex-gratia payments of this nature up to an amount of R1,000. Most of these claims actually exceed R1,000, and what we are now asking for is that we do not have to come to Parliament as a matter of necessity for each claim to be sanctioned. We want to pay these claims as the people need the money, and within 14 days after payment has been made by us, we shall table a statement of such payments, or if Parliament is not in session, within 14 days after the commencement of its next ensuing session. Consequently there is no question of any new principle being involved in this matter. We only want to be allowed to make payments exceeding R1,000.

Two accounts of R1,000 may be submitted; then it would still be in order.

Well, I do not really know; the law advisers are not so sure about this point.

The hon. member for Green Point raised the question of deproclamation. He said we might be confronted with large accounts, and said we tried to lay the blame at the door of local authorities whereas it actually ought to be laid at the door of the Department of Planning. We are not laying any blame at the door of local authorities. Let me tell the hon. member this. Many of these deproclamations take place at the request of local authorities. We have just had a case like this in Ladysmith, Natal. The local authority wanted changes to be made to certain proclamations which had been made by the Minister of Planning in respect of an Indian group area. The Minister of Planning and I undertook a personal visit of observation to that area. The Secretary for Planning undertook a similar visit to that area. The deproclamaiion was not initiated by us; we did not say that that area should be deproclaimed; we were quite satisfied. The local authority of Ladysmith approached us with the request that the Indian group area on this side of the river had to be deproclaimed and transferred to the opposite side of the river. This was done at the request of the local authority. I am not laying the blame at the door of the local authorities. This question of proclaiming group areas is something new. One does make many mistakes. Let me tell the hon. member this. I agree with him when he says that it is a very serious matter to deproclaim a proclaimed area. If one were to continue proclaiming and subsequently deproclaiming areas, one would be creating a condition of uncertainty and people would not know whether or not to develop such areas. This, however, is not something which is on the increase, it is on the decrease. I am really out of order now, Mr. Chairman, because I am discussing a matter which falls exclusively under the Minister of Planning. But as these two matters are so interrelated—since we have to go ahead with planning as soon as the area has been proclaimed, we are, of course, intimately concerned in the matter. I want to give the hon. member for Green Point this assurance. We have had quite a number of cases in the Cape Province, Natal, the Transvaal and even in the Orange Free State where we proclaimed areas and subsequently saw that a mistake had been made. At the request of the local authorities we subsequently deproclaimed such areas. This is something which is occurring less and less frequently. I agree with him that to deproclaim an area is a serious matter. One is handicapping development, etc. This, however, is a phenomenon which is occurring less and less frequently.

This clause in point of fact seeks to achieve one object only, i.e. to remove the restriction on our right to make ex-gratia payments exceeding R1,000 so as to allow us to pay out larger amounts when we are requested to do so and after there has been consultation, etc. We subsequently have to report to Parliament on the ex-gratia payments made.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for what he has said. I want to suggest to him that the incurring of this fruitless expenditure might be further restricted if there were more say by the Group Areas Development Board in the original proclamations.

Order! I do not think the hon. the Minister has anything to do with that, as far as this clause is concerned.

It is a suggestion which I merely make to see that this power we are giving the Minister is kept within reasonable limits.

Order! I have allowed a very broad discussion on this clause but I am not going to allow it any further.

Mr. Chairman, there is something else in regard to this clause and the compensation powers the hon. the Minister intends to take to which I should like to refer. Let me say to him that we understand the position he has been in up to now. He has only been able to make an ex-gratia payment, not a compensatory payment, of up to R1,000. We agree wholeheartedly with what is contained in this clause. What we are doing is that we are making suggestions to the Minister with regard to the application of this power which he is asking for and the manner in which he should use it. He has suggestions from the hon. members for Simonstown and Green Point, and I want to make another suggestion. Or perhaps I can put it in the form of a question. Will the Minister tell us what his interpretation of this clause is?

Order! I think the hon. member should make the suggestions under the hon. the Minister’s Vote when that is before the House.

With respect, Sir, we are being asked now to grant certain powers to the Minister. I want to know from him what exactly this clause entails. What is the meaning of this clause? May I put my question to him, Sir? Is he empowered in terms of this clause to compensate for expenditure incurred before proclamation took place, or is this only for expenditure after proclamation? [Interjections.] These parrot cries from my left should stop; the hon. member must keep silent if he has nothing sensible to contribute to the debate. I am putting a serious question to the Minister and there is no need for this nonsense from the hon. member for Parow and his colleagues.

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

But I am on the clause, Sir, with respect.

He cannot pay before.

If I understand him correctly, the hon. member for Parow says the Minister can pay before proclamation. This is my dilemma when I read this clause. The clause says “(c) (ii)—to pay compensation to any local authority in respect of fruitless expenditure incurred by such local authority in connection with the development of any group area proclaimed for any race group …” That is a question of interpretation. The paragraph goes on to say, “… but which for any reason is thereafter deproclaimed”.

Only after the proclamation.

Yes, but there is expenditure incurred both before proclamation and after proclamation.

Order! The hon. member has repeated that many times.

Mr. Chairman, the position is simply this. We have nothing to do with the proclamation of group areas. That is done by the Group Areas Board which falls under the Minister of Planning. We only come into the picture after proclamation and then we have to develop the area. Normally we develop it through the local authority concerned. Let us assume a Coloured group area had been proclaimed under a certain local authority and then the local authority starts developing the area. After some time the Minister of Planning in his wisdom says the area must be deproclaimed. As I said, it is unfortunate but that does happen at times, although it is occurring less and less frequently. After discussions with me and all the interested bodies the Minister of Planning decides it must be deproclaimed, as has been decided in respect of that area I referred to in Ladysmith, Natal. Then the local authority comes to us and says, “You have proclaimed this area a Coloured area and you have requested us to start developing that area. We did that and we have spent so much money on it.” They can show me so many rands have been spent, to the last cent. They know exactly how much they spent. We must then pay back that money. That is all I envisage.

That is only the money spent after proclamation?

Yes. There is no need for them to spend money before proclamation. It is their affair if they spend money before proclamation, I have nothing to do with that. I only come into the picture after proclamation. I do not care what they do before proclamation. That is the local authority’s decision. The Department of Community Development only comes into the picture after proclamation. We then start to develop. We either develop the area ourselves or we ask the local authority to develop. Where we have asked a local authority to develop the area and it has spent a certain sum of money, and the Minister of Planning then comes along, after consultation with all the persons concerned, and deproclaims, the local authority says, “You said we must develop, we have spent Rx; you must please pay us that money.” Up to now we had power only to pay up to R1,000 and we now ask for authority to pay the entire amount claimed by the local authority. I cannot see anything that is not clear in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has told us his department only has to pay compensation money spent after proclamation if there is a subsequent deproclamation. He has not dealt with the question posed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), and it is a very real problem, one which many local authorities have experienced. They wish to proceed with housing schemes for a local community. There may be, for an example, an investigation under the Group Areas Act which takes a number of years. In the meantime, with the Government’s authority, they erect buildings and flats for the use of the local community and spend money doing so. Then a group area for another group is proclaimed. Is that local authority not entitled to any compensation … ?

Order! That has been explained very clearly already.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, when clause 2 was discussed during the Second Reading debate …

Are you moving your amendment now?

I will come to it. Why?

I shall explain. I do not know whether the hon. member is going to discuss his amendment now, but I want to put it to you, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is out of order.

The hon. member first has to move his amendment before the hon. the Minister can make his point.

When this clause was discussed during the Second Reading debate, the point was made by the hon. the Minister, and first of all by the hon. member for Parow, that the powers asked for in this Bill were equal to and could be equated with the powers contained in Act 25 of 1945 in regard to the establishment of Native residential areas within municipalities.

Only clause 2.

Yes, only clause 2. The hon. member was quite correct when he came to the proposed new paragraphs (aa), (bb) and (cc). But what precedes that right to recover is vastly different, and I think for the hon. member to suggest there is a precedent for this provision contained in this clause, as he did in this House by way of argument which the hon. the Minister grabbed as an argument to say we on this side were opposing a policy which had been adopted by this side in the past regarding powers which were given to the Minister over local authorities, is rather far-fetched. There are vast differences regarding the circumstances under which the proposed new powers can be exercised.

The powers that are provided for in this clause can be exercised in terms of the clause itself by overriding every authority and every law in incurring that liability. The points at issue are these. When the 1945 Act gave the Minister that power there was to be. first of all, a public inquiry authorized through the Administrator to investigate whether there was a need for action to be taken by the local authority. Notice was then given to the local authority of the Minister’s decision about what it was required to do. That was given by the Administrator. Then it was only after default on the part of the local authority, after these levels of government had been recognized, that the hon. Minister could step in. To give the hon. member for Parow the opportunity of including in this legislation that which he wants, and in accordance with the attitude of this party in 1945, I propose moving that the prerequisites before these liabilities can be placed upon the municipality, the amounts recovered by way of action in a court or by declaring revenue to be payable to an appointed receiver or by levying a special rate, shall only be exercised if the municipality is in default and is given notice through the Administrator. In the circumstances, I move as an amendment—

The Minister earlier on gave us an indication that his attitude to this amendment will probably be that it is out of order in that it goes outside the scope of the principle of this Bill. May I deal with that for a moment in anticipation. Section 17 (1) of the principal Act at present gives the board power within a defined area. That is clear—it can function and operate within a defined area but not outside. My amendment is intended to cover those powers so as they enable the board to function outside a defined area. It is for that reason that I consider these further safeguards to be necessary. Section 17 (1) gives the board the power “within the defined area in question as if it were such a local authority, except in so far as the proclamation of this section otherwise provides”.

And if the services are required outside that area?

Under the Act as it is now you can make a request to the municipality.

I can force them to provide the services.

That is correct. But that provision is now to be washed out. Now the Minister wants to provide that his board shall have authority within the defined area and that it may erect works outside the defined area. He need not, therefore, call upon the local authority to do that, but may do so itself. The board may set up quarries, a power station or sewerage disposal works—outside the defined area.

If I request a local authority to provide certain services and they refuse to do iit, what must I then do? Must I just then leave it at that or should I have the power to say that in that case I shall supply the services myself?

I am not for a moment pleading that the Minister should be totally without any remedy. The meaning of my amendment is that before the Minister enters upon the incurring of any liabilities in the name of the municipality concerned, these procedures, procedures which have been accepted by the House and are still the law, should also be observed in this connection. I know the Minister, when he gets a little bit frustrated, takes up an attitude of “if they will not listen to me I will show them”. However, I do not think that is necessary. He has seen the statement issued by the member of the Executive Committee that it is quite possible to achieve this objective in terms of the present law. It is for these reasons that I have moved my amendment.

Does the hon. the Minister want to raise a point of order now?

I do not want to make a fuss about this. The position is, however, that the present Act lays down, in section 17, a certain procedure I have to follow. As I interpret the amendment of the hon. member, it seems to me that it does not seek to amend section 17 but to substitute a completely new section for section 17. If this is so, his amendment is out of order as it goes beyond the scope of the Bill as read a Second Time. This Bill does not substitute a new section for section 17; it merely amends section 17. The amendment of the hon. member on the other hand substitutes a completely new section for section 17. This is how I see it.

Order! Section 17 (1) is not at all affected by this amendment. The amendment merely substitutes other words for certain words in subsection (2). The rest of the subsection, as well as subsection (1), is not affected. Consequently it is difficult to say that the amendment is out of order.

Apparently I have to do the Opposition’s work for them. Not only do I have to give the hon. member for Durban (Point) a speech, but I also have to give the hon. member for Green Point an amendment! The argument we advance in this respect is that section 17 (1) lays down the procedure the Minister has to follow when he wants to issue a proclamation. For example, he has to consult the local authority and he has to refer the matter to the administrator as well. In addition to this, after he has acted as prescribed in section 17 (1), i.e. after he has first consulted the local authority and has referred the matter to the Administrator, the hon. member for Green Point now wants him to follow another procedure which the hon. member for Green Point wants to write into an additional clause. Sir, the hon. member referred to what I had said in the Second Reading debate. We on this side are adamant that this clause which we are amending contains a principle which has already been accepted, and we say that this clause merely defines what procedure the Minister has to follow. In this connection we are taking powers similar to those contained in subsection (4) of the 1945 Act of the United Party. Sir, the Minister never comes down out of the blue on any municipality in connection with a matter like this. The Minister has to comply with certain provisions laid down in subsection (1). There must be consultation—and there is consultation—and there must be a reference to the Administrator. Does the hon. member now want, in spite of all these things, that there should be certain additional procedures which have to be followed, as he now suggests in his amendment?

Yes.

This is where we differ. As regards the powers which may be exercised within such an area, we want to make use of powers similar to those the United Party had in terms of the 1945 Act, but we do not want to do what the United Party now wants to do. Sir, it is an accepted fact that the United Party always made a mess of everything before it eventually did the right thing, and in this case they now want us to do the same thing. Do you know, Sir, what they are asking for? They want a public inquiry. Before anything happens they want a public inquiry to be held and they want the dirty linen of the different municipalities to be washed in public. I want to ask the hon. member who had such a great deal to say about the costs which had to be recovered from the municipalities, who will have to bear the costs of these public inquiries they want? Sir, we only want to take what is good from the 1945 Act, and not, as the United Party wants to do, do the wrong things.

I want to ask the hon. member this question: At what stage should the Minister hold an inquiry such as he proposes in his amendment? As I have said, the Minister has to do certain things before he may issue proclamations, and he does in fact do these things. Here it is a question of consultation and negotiation, and usually the Department has endless patience and conducts proper negotiations as happened in the case of Stellenbosch in connection with Cloetesdal and as recently happened in the case of Cape Town in connection with Rylands. There are endless negotiations before the Minister takes such a step. But in addition to this, the hon. member now wants a public inquiry to be held. At what stage should the public inquiry be held and who should pay for such a public inquiry? Sir, what will happen at such a public inquiry? Suppose negotiations have been conducted with a local authority for months and years —as happened in the case of Cape Town in connection with Rylands—and the local authority refuses to take the necessary steps. Should a public inquiry then be held and should all these matters which formed the subject of negotiations be washed in public before the Minister may issue a proclamation? Sir, the proposal of the hon. member is most unpractical, and I just want to tell him once again what I said a short while ago: As a rule the United Party first made a mess of matters before arriving at the right solution. We are not prepared to accept part of the provisions of section 3 of the old Act, because that would cause so much friction between these levels of government that one would never obtain the co-operation of the local authorities and the administrations.

The hon. member also advanced the argument that the hon. the Minister might go outside such a defined area to provide certain services. But surely this is obvious. If a new area has to be developed for the Coloureds or any other race group, certain services have to be taken to that area, services such as water, power and sewerage, which probably will have to come from outside as that area is an undeveloped one. Those services do not exist in that area and they have to be provided. If the mother municipality that has to provide services such as water, power and sewerage, in the adjacent area refuses to provide those services when the Minister asks it to do so, the Minister finds himself in a hopeless, helpless position. If the Minister does not take these powers, it will mean that the Minister himself will have to have these services such as power, water and sewerage, provided by the Development Board and the Development Board will not be able to pay for those services; it derives no benefit from those services. In the end the mother municipality is in any case going to get this newly developed area with all those services.

If the Development Board has to lay on these services from scratch, it will be vastly more expensive and eventually this will place a heavier burden on the shoulders of the mother municipality. Apart from the helpless position in which the hon. member wants to place the Minister and the Development Board, his proposal is completely unpractical and will entail infinitely more expenditure which will eventually have to be shouldered by the local authority. The whole object of the amendment of the hon. member is to land the Minister in a powerless and frustrating position so that the hon. member may eventually make more political capital out of it, and consequently we shall not be prepared to accept such an amendment.

Sir, I must really protect and defend the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration from this attack on him by the hon. member for Parow. I think it is most unseemly that the hon. member for Parow should tell this House that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration is powerless, that he is acting in terms of utterly ridiculous and nonsensical powers which will not work, powers which he describes as hopeless and futile and which, in the hon. member’s own words, make the Minister “magteloos”.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to this clause. I do not want him to deal with sections in other laws.

Sir, I am speaking on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Green Point, the wording of which is identical to the wording of section 3 of Act 25 of 1945 under which, although passed in 1945, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is functioning today. I am using this as an argument to show that the proposed amendment is a reasonable and a practical one.

It was amended in 1964.

The 1945 Act was amended in 1964 and in 1968. It has been amended twice, and what was the amendment? The amendment was to introduce an additional body with which consultation had to take place …

On quite different lines.

Not to reduce the consultation but to introduce as an additional body the Native Housing Board. In other words, the hon. member’s own Government not only accepts the need for consultation when dealing with Native housing, but it has extended the consultation for which the United Party made provision in the original measure. To suggest therefore that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Green Point is going to tie the hands of the Minister, is going to make the Minister powerless to act and is going to waste money, is a reflection on his own Government, but it is also utter nonsense because that is the procedure that is being followed to-day by the Minister of Bantu Administration.

Order! The hon. member must come back to this clause. We are not dealing with Bantu Administration laws now.

I want to know why the hon. the Minister of Community Development cannot operate in the same way as other Ministers. Am I not entitled to ask that, Sir?

The situation is different.

Why is his problem different? Why should he not be prepared to consult where other Ministers are prepared to do so?

Order! The hon. member must come back to this Bill.

I am dealing with the amendment that we wish to introduce.

The Minister must consult.

We want further consultation; we want a wider consultation than that envisaged by the hon. the Minister, because we believe that there are other parties that may be interested. If the Minister intends to levy a rate on the ratepayers of the City of Cape Town, for instance, then surely they should be entitled to be heard. If the hon. the Minister wants to impose a rate on all the ratepayers of Durban, then surely they should be entitled to be heard.

There is nothing that prevents them from being heard.

We are asking that there should be machinery for them to state their case; that is all we are asking. The Minister himself admitted that he regards consultation as writing a letter to the Administrator and saying, “This is what I intend to do.” We believe that consultation should be broader than that and we believe that all interested parties should be entitled to express their views.

Sir, the hon. member for Parow in this debate has back-pedalled from the views that he expressed in the Second Reading debate. Today he says that in this amending Bill they have taken over the good parts of the United Party’s previous legislation. That is not what he said in the Second Reading debate. In the Second Reading debate he held the United Party up as a shining example of what was good and he explained why the Government was simply taking over what the United Party had done itself. To-day, however, he runs away from that. Sir, we are sticking to the view that he expressed yesterday. We are sticking to his opinion that the procedure which the United Party introduced in regard to Bantu housing will also work in regard to housing which is provided under the Department of Community Development. Sir, we want to know from the hon. the Minister why he is not prepared to accept this simple machinery for entitling any affected body, person or authority to state their views publicly. Why this hole-in-the-corner stuff? Sir, our proposal provides for a public inquiry. The Minister says, “But we do consult.”

At what stage?

Why must it all be behind closed doors; why cannot we have a public inquiry before the Minister takes powers …

What do you mean by a public inquiry?

An inquiry by departmental officials appointed by the Minister who will then meet the affected bodies, the ratepayers’ associations, if necessary, the representatives of the race group which is affected, the representatives of the City Council if they are opposed to it and wish to make representations. Let them then thrash the matter out in the light of day. Why must the hon. member for Parow suggest that it is going to be dirty washing that is going to be washed?

What in this clause prevents the ratepayers, the city councils or anybody else from making the necessary requests and stating their point of view, either at a public meeting or privately?

Sir, nothing prevents them from making representations, but nothing obliges the Minister to receive or to accept those representations or to heed them.

I must consult them according to the Bill.

The Minister must consult with the Administrator.

No, with the local authority. Read section 17.

Yes, the hon. the Minister must advise them what he intends to do. We want to provide proper machinery. The hon. the Minister himself said, “If I write them a letter I regard that as consultation.”

Of course.

We want something more effective than the mere writing of a letter. We do not regard the advice that the Minister intends to do something as being proper consultation, and therefore the hon. member for Green Point has moved an amendment providing the proper machinery for proper consultation, and not big-stick consultation or hole-in-the-corner consultation.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Green Point has allowed himself to be misled by the provisions of section 3 of Act No. 25 of 1945. The hon. member who has just sat down, said the procedure embodied in that section, was simply being taken over verbatim in the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point, but this is not completely true. There is a considerable difference, but I do not think the Chairman will allow me to point this out now. The old Act refers to persons in employment and the amendment refers to people within an area. But the 1945 Act does not give the full picture. This principle contained in the Act of 1945, and which has now been embodied in part in the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point, dates back to the year 1923. Do you know, Sir, when this procedure was created? It was created at the time of the first Union legislation on Native housing in South Africa.

It has withstood the test of time.

Do you know, Sir, what happened on that occasion? At that time hon. Senators debated for many days on the desirability of housing for non-Whites. They asked whether that was the right thing and at that time it came to light for the first time that between 5,000 and 6,000 Bantu were living in the white areas in Cape Town. The then Minister of Native Affairs said—

And it was a United Party Minister who said that.

You are now following the action we took.

The hon. members may make their speeches in a short while. I am pleased that the Minister is rejecting this amendment. From a historic point of view I think these hon. members are basing their facts on wrong circumstances. But from a practical point of view, would we ever have been able to show the people of Sophiatown a better world if we would have had to have a public inquiry, a quasi-judicial institution, and would have had to say, “Come, all you agitators, and submit your evidence; do you want to perish in the miserable conditions in which you are living or should new civilized structures be erected for you?”

Then there is a second matter. This procedure is as it has been standing on the Statute Book since 1923, and I now ask those hon. members to mention me a single opportunity on which this procedure has been employed. This is the important reason why it is still standing on the Statute Book, because it is unnecessary to repeal this procedure. [Interjection.]

The hon. member for Parow referred to hon. members on this side of the House as “a bunch of agitators” and we take exception to that.

The hon. member may proceed.

I now ask in all modesty: Should this Minister with his brilliant band of officers, and with the National Party Government and its members of the House of Assembly, now set up a quasi-judicial inquiry and invite all these people so as to determine that the Indians in Cape Town do not have proper housing? Should the entire population of South Africa be invited now to come and tell us whether they think the Indians in Cape Town do have proper housing? Sir, a Government that has the courage to govern, with a Minister who knows the position and with officials who have withstood the test of time, rejects this procedure.

Yesterday when the hon. the Minister was replying to the debate it was emite remarkable that he never made any attempt to reply to the points I raised, but I leave that there. But when he was questioned about this matter of consultation with the Administrator, the Minister by way of interjection waved his hand and said: “I sent him a notice”.

I sent him a very polite letter.

What is the difference between a notice and a letter? We do not call that consultation in the proper sense of the word. But what I do not understand at all is this. The Minister has a perfect example of how his own Government can function in co-operation with the Administrator over difficult problems of this kind. The hon. member for Green Point has referred to this briefly and I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the details of this particular case again. When I was a member of the Cape Provincial Council, the Administrator appointed a commission under a gentleman by the name of Rossouw, who is one of the Nationalist Senators to-day, to investigate the allocation of beaches in the Western Cape. This commission was appointed by the Administrator, who is an appointee of the Nationalist Government. That commission took the trouble to travel all over the Western Cape measuring out beaches and working for days on end to come to their conclusions and a fair division. Then what happened?

Order! What has this to do with the clause?

It is relevant to show the way the consultation was carried out. Then a deputation of Government supporters from Mossel Bay came to see the Administrator and said that they objected to the way the beaches were being allocated. They were ratepayers and Government ratepayers, so attention was presumably paid to what they said. However, the Administrator was not prepared to alter the recommendations of the Rossouw Commission, the deputation from Mossel Bay notwithstanding, but they did have a hearing. Then while he was in the process of deciding how he was to carry this out, the hon. member for Klip River was appointed to head a Government Commission right over the head of the Cape Administrator, and he went into the subject at great length again.

But what has that to do with this Bill?

I want to show what the consequences of this action were. The Government had a draft Bill before this House to amend the Separate Amenities Act but the Minister, as the result of representations that were made to him from the province, did not go forward with that Bill, and to this day he has not done so. The Minister then decided that the wiser course to adopt was to continue consulting with the Cape Administrator, and now the irony of it is that the Cape provincial authorities, with all the necessary powers they already have in their ordinances and have in this case in regard to the clearing up of townships, as the result of pressure from the Administrator, got round the table with the local authority and thrashed the matter out. As a result the provincial authorities ultimately took the matter out of the hands of the local authority, put up the boards on the different beaches and charged the City Council for doing so. The Government has not been involved and that draft Bill has never been seen again in this House. It is precisely our contention here that there is nothing to prevent the Minister having similar consultations with the province in regard to this question of either clearing up slums or any other aspect of housing over which he has difficulties with the local authority. I think the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point is an extremely reasonable one and I would like the Minister to tell us why he cannot act in the same way and on the same basis of consultation as the other Minister did.

In all fairness to the United Party I have been trying all morning long to understand their argument, but the powers they want to be taken through this amendment moved by them, are powers which do appear in section 17 (1). What is involved here is the matter of consultation, but section 17 (1) already makes provision for consultation. If such consultation does not succeed, the powers laid down in the new section 17 (2) will be taken.

Will the hon. member indicate in section 17 (1) where power is given to the Board to operate outside a defined area?

But these are the powers we are now taking under the new section 17 (2).

These are new powers.

Yes. We must have them. [Interjections.] In the Second Reading debate we went into all the reasons for wanting these powers, i.e. if local authorities fail to carry out the Minister’s instruction. This is something completely different to what was laid down in the 1945 Act. That concerned housing for Bantu. But I am satisfied that the provision which hon. members opposite want to introduce by means of this amendment, is already to be found in section 17 (1), and for that reason we cannot accept this amendment.

The hon. member for Benoni is a man who came here with a considerable reputation and I respect it but I cannot follow his argument.

You came here without any reputation and that is how you will leave.

The hon. member says that the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point gives the Minister certain powers. It does not give him any powers at all. The term he should have used was “pligte”. What we are trying to introduce by this amendment is certain obligations or duties which the Minister will have to undertake before he can exercise the power he is asking for under this clause. We are asking for certain safeguards. Then the hon. member goes on to talk about these powers they must have and in an interjection the hon. member for Parow said that they must have them. Why must they have them? So that this Nationalist Party can enforce its policy on the people of South Africa.

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

Is terms of the clause the Government is taking the power to force on the people of South Africa, on the local authorities, this policy of a political party.

That is hardly a Committee Stage argument. The hon. member must come back to the clause.

The hon. member for Wynberg referred to the Commission headed by the hon. member for Klip River and pointed out that it is better to let those people with local knowledge handle matters of this nature. And I find support for that argument from the hon. the Minister in his reply to the debate on clause 1. He said that at the moment an area in Ladysmith is being reproclaimed at the request of the local authority. This has been the crux of our arguments, namely that the local authority knows best. The local people know the local conditions and they should be left to do it. They should not be forced to comply with a policy of a political party. Then the hon. the Minister told us that he did consult and that he always will consult. I want to quote a report which appeared in the Natal Mercury on the 4th April under the heading “Usurp ng powers—Bill serious threat to local authorities”. The M.E.C. in charge of local government in Natal said the following:

Order! The hon. member is now making a Second Reading speech. These remarks have been quoted over and over again in the Second Reading debate.

With respect, Sir, this has not been quoted.

That member of the Executive Council of Natal has already been quoted. I listened to the quotation myself.

I made reference to this article, but I did not quote a single word from it.

The hon. member must come back to the clause now, or I will ask him to resume his seat.

What is the crux of the powers the hon. the Minister is taking by this amendment in section 17 of the Act?

Do not tell him.

If the hon. members on the other side are finished with the rude remarks, I want to say that the crux of the matter is contained in the proposed subsection (2) (b).

Order! What did the hon. member say about the remarks?

I said the rude remarks from the other side of the House, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Will hon. members withdraw their rude remarks?

The hon. member must withdraw what he said or he must withdraw from the Chamber.

I withdraw the word “rude”. As I said, the crux of this Bill, which is typified by what is happening in the House at the moment, is contained in the proposed new subsection (2) (b) which reads that the board shall not be required to comply with any requirement, whether as regards approval of any proposed action or otherwise, including the entering into of financial obligations, with which a local authority is required to comply in connection with the exercise by it of any such power, etc. The hon. the Minister is here taking the power for the board to supersede any town or regional planning decision, any ordinance of any province and, as has been said, he is taking this power without consulting the local authorities.

Order! That point has been made over and over again.

The Bill lays down that I must consult with local authorities. Where does the hon. member get the idea from that I do not consult with local authorities?

But did the hon. the Minister consult them on this matter?

Of course.

In what manner?

By telephone.

Order! The hon. member is repeating arguments that have been raised already.

The hon. member says “by telephone”. It is typical of the attitude of the Government. It is typical of the autocratic attitude of this Government and it is for this reason that we are opposing this Bill.

The hon. member must resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, for the peace of mind of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), who is talking away in his bench at the moment, I may tell him that he need only read section 17 (1) of the principal Act.

I have done so.

I shall now read it out again to the hon. member as it is clear that he does not understand it. Section 17 (1) reads as follows—

Yes, but what kind of consultation?

Order!

Does the hon. member now want to tell me in what way I am to have consulatations? Does the hon. member want to dictate to me how I am to go about the matter of consultation? Do I have to walk, go by car, or by bicycle, or do I have to telephone? The hon. member is speaking nonsense now. The hon. member must not come to me with such nonsense and ask me in what way I have consultations I have consultations with local authorities by writing to them, and if they want to have discussions with me, I have discussions with them. We have discussions and we advance arguments, and I send my officers to have discussions with them.

But have you done all these things?

Of course I have done all these things. I just want to say that the nonsense of the hon. members opposite is completely without bounds. The principal Act lays down that I have to consult the local authorities. The Act lays down that I have to consult the Administrator. Therefore I cannot do anything without having had consultations. In what way are consultations conducted? I write to the person or persons concerned and inform him or them of our plans.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Are you obliged to consult other bodies and persons as well?

What other bodies and persons? The United Party? No, definitely not, and nor shall I do so. What other bodies and persons are there except the local authorities and the Administrator?

The race groups, for example.

These people may make suggestions to me and nothing is enforced on them out of the blue. Notices of the Department’s intention appear in the newspapers and are discussed by city councils.

Negotiations are conducted with the race groups prior to the publication of the proclamation in the Gazette.

Exactly. Prior to the proclamation of the group area, the Group Areas Board has already conducted the necessary investigation.

They are stupid.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. I take exception to the fact that the hon. member for Wynberg constantly reproaches me with acting like a dictator. I am anything but a dictator. There is no more approachable Minister than I am. [Interjections.] I have even given the hon. member for Transkei a hearing. To do that one must really be very approachable! Hon. members opposite want public inquiries. I should like to hear from them what a public inquiry is. Let us take the case of Stellenbosch as an example. As from 1962 the Department conducted negotiations with the town council of Stellenbosch. The State President’s proclamation was not issued on the spur of the moment, or because I had a sudden whim overnight. It was done because of the fact that negotiations conducted for seven years had not succeeded. This question was discussed at dozens of public meetings of the town council of Stellenbosch. If the ratepayers of Stellenbosch had any objection, they would certainly have said so. Why do hon. members opposite now know so well what is happening in Stellenbosch? Surely they do not know better than the ratepayers of Stellenbosch? Surely they do not know better than the town council of Stellenbosch? The town council of Stellenbosch has been aware for many months of this proclamation and has still not addressed any representations to me. What am I to do now? Do I now have to hold a public meeting at Stellenbosch? Do I now have to go from street to street and from house to house to ask the people whether or not they agree with this?

That would not be a bad idea.

That is how they would govern this country. The hon. member sells petrol very well, but he cannot govern the country.

That is personal.

What is personal about telling the hon. member that he sells petrol? I myself buy petrol from him. At the moment my daughter’s car is in his garage and it is being seen to very well. What is personal about that? The hon. member is a very good garage owner. He is as good a garage owner as the hon. member for Transkei is an attorney.

Order! The hon. the Minister must come back to the Bill.

Yes, but hon. members are making all kinds of remarks and are distracting my attention. Hon. members say there should be negotiations. My officers conducted negotiations with the town council of Stellenbosch for many weeks. The same procedure will be followed before we exercise any powers.

But the proclamation has already been issued without any consultation.

The hon. member must not make me angry now. The proclamation was issued after seven years of negotiations. No agreement could be reached with the town council of Stellenbosch. After all, matters must come to a point. After seven years of negotiations, when we could not agree with the town council of Stellenbosch and after matters had been discussed in public, had been discussed in the Press and had been discussed practically everywhere, the proclamation was issued as the Act provides we may do, and as is being defined more closely now. What other investigations could I possibly have instituted? Hon. members opposite say that I do not want to negotiate with the local authorities, but the Act compels me to negotiate. The Act compels me to negotiate with the Administrator.

You only send him a letter.

But what am I to do otherwise?

Why do you not send him a copy of the Bill?

I write him a letter in which I set out in detail exactly what we intend doing. They write back to me and make proposals. I write back to these authorities and tell them that I can accept certain proposals and cannot accept others.

And town councils?

Of course! Why is the hon. member shaking his head? I can hear it from here.

There is nothing inside it.

If these bodies and persons want to have discussions with me, they may do so. I shall also go and see them if they ask me to do so. The hon. member for Green Point made a big point of this and said the Act as it stood allowed the Department to act within a defined area only. This is not true. The State President may issue a proclamation and may lay down any condition in that proclamaron. He may tell us to act within the defined area as well as outside the defined area.

He did not.

But of course. It is contained in the proclamation in connection with Stellenbosch. I now want to put a question to the hon. member for Green Point. If the reservoir is situated outside the defined area, how am I to get water for a group area?

You do not have any right.

I am going to fetch that water. The clause provides that the State President may lay down any conditions for the development of such an area. The State President may, for example, lay down that I may force local authorities to provide services. If the local authority does not want to provide the services, as, for example, supplying water, even if its reservoir is situated outside the defined area, it nevertheless has to supply the water. If the local authority does not want to supply the water, I can see to it that it will be done. I really think hon. members opposite do not have a point. They say they are in favour of separate residential areas, and group areas, but they do not want to apply the principle in practice. We, however, are going to apply it in practice, and in this connection I do not want to say anything more.

Question put: That the words after “subsection” in line 35, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

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

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I might briefly mention that the Bill before the House imposes certain additional obligations on tenants in that they will now be required to pay deposits up to one month’s rent to provide cover for damage which may be caused to the premises. It seems appropriate that the Committee might consider whether the rights of statutory tenants might not be reviewed, and hence I move the following instruction which appears on the Order Paper—

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point not to insist on the acceptance of this instruction. I want to tell him that I am quite sympathetically disposed towards this matter. As his amendment reads at present, however, it contains certain implications which may place the lessor in a very difficult position. We have to see to it that protection is given not only to the lessee, but also to the lessor. This amendment does not contain the necessary protection for the lessor. I am having the matter investigated at present and I give the hon. member the assurance that if we can find a solution—and I think we shall find one—I shall rectify the matter in the Other Place. If it takes a little longer for us to reach a decision, I shall ask the Minister of Justice to make provision for it in the General Law Amendment Bill. In principle I am in full agreement with the hon. member. It is merely a question of devising a formula which will do justice to both the lessee and the lessor. I hope the hon. member will accept my assurance in this connection and not insist upon this instruction.

Mr. Speaker, I readily accept the hon. the Minister’s statement that this legislation must see to it that there is a balance between the rights of the lessor and those of the lessee. With the assurance he has given and with the permission of the House I will not proceed with this instruction.

With leave, motion withdrawn.

(Committee Stage)

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I drew the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that in certain premises on the Rand gas or fuel is, like electricity, supplied through meters. In this clause the Minister is making provision as far as electricity is concerned. In order to cover gas as well, I move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I have made inquiries, but we were unable to find any cases where gas is provided in the same manner. However, I take it there may be cases such as these, and I therefore have no objection to this amendment being accepted.

Mr. Chairman, paragraph (d) refers to the definition of “value”. In terms of the proposed new definition, when in future a rent board determines the reasonable rent value of premises “any one or more or all of the following” factors may be taken into account. We are aware that there were discussions by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor regarding some sort of preference which should be given to sworn valuations or building society valuations which were likely to be more accurate than the other factors listed which must be taken into account.

The point I wish to make is this. If this provision becomes law it would be possible for a rent board hostile to the lessor to take into account for instance only item (b), namely “any municipal or divisional council valuation of such premises or land”. It would technically be permissive in terms of the amendment contained in this clause. Previously a rent board had to consider all the factors and establish a value on balance.

The object of this was to enable a realistic valuation to be made for instance by preventing valuations from taking preference over other factors, but equally it forbids the opposite being done. It forbids a completely unrealistic value being established. Let us take a building built 20 or 40 years ago at R40,000. It might be worth R¼ million to-day. The actual cost of erection could have been R20,000 or R40,000. In terms of the proposed amendment a rent board would be entitled to say, “We establish the value of this building at R40,000 because that was the actual cost”, despite the fact that to-day the building in question is worth R¼ million or even R½ million. I want to ask the Minister whether he has any intention administratively of ensuring that such an eventuality cannot occur. A rent board may be having a fight with a particular landlord and it might say, “Right, we are going to revalue, and use only one of the factors for this purpose to the exclusion of the others in order to create an artificial value”. On the other hand, tenants may be creating some difficulty and the rent board decides, “Right, we will fix those tenants”, and uses one of these factors to create an artificially high valuation. There is yet another aspect. It is possible—I do not say it will happen—that influence could be brought to bear in an endeavour to ensure a higher valuation for a building and hence a higher rental. What steps can the hon. the Minister take to ensure that by allowing any one or more of these factors to be used as a basis for valuation no injustice shall be done, either to an owner or a tenant?

I do not think there is much merit in the contention of the hon. member. First of all, I cannot accept when he talks about “a hostile rent board”. After all, these rent boards are in the nature of a court of law. We go out of our way to obtain the services of either a retired magistrate or of another retired legal man with at least ten years experience to act as chairman. The other members are appointed after due consultation. May I add here that I have had representations from chambers of commerce and sakekamers that businessmen should also be on these boards. I have asked them to submit to me a panel of five names out of which I will then choose one. These rent boards are full-time bodies. The salary being paid to its members is not too large. The result is that it is difficult to get anybody else than a retired person to serve on these boards. In any event, should a rent board be hostile, as the hon. member puts it, there is a remedy available to the owner. He can appeal to the Rent Control Board, which is a body of high standing. As a matter of fact, I would say that this body has about the same status as one of our superior courts. So, when a person considers that he has been done an injustice he can appeal to the Rent Control Board, whose decision will then be final. I do not think we should limit the Rent Control Board by prescribing too tightly what it should take into consideration and what not. I am satisfied that the present machinery protects the landlord as much as it protects the tenant.

Let me eliminate any misunderstanding which could arise by my using the expression “a hostile board”. By that I do not mean that a board may be prejudiced, but merely that there may be an argument, as there often is, which may create an attitude of, shall we say, conflict between the owner and the board. Where there is a dispute such dispute may often lead to harsh words. In any event, I did not mean that the board will be unfair or prejudiced. I do not want to have any misunderstanding about this.

As I have said, the owner has as remedy the Rent Control Board to appeal to.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 5:

I must say that I am very unhappy about this proposed amendment. It entitles owners of unfurnished flats, who previously could only ask for deposits in respect of gas, light, water or sewerage, now to demand deposits in respect of damage as well. But let me make sure first that I am correct in my interpretation of this, so that I shall not waste the time of the House. The position as I see it, is that under the present law the owner of an unfurnished dwelling is entitled to demand a deposit not exceeding one month’s rent for gas, water, sewerage and other services. In terms of this amendment, however, he can now demand a deposit in respect of damages as well. Is that the position?

As far as furnished flats are concerned—I am coming to unfurnished flats in a moment—I want to tell the hon. member why this provision is being made. As far as furnished flats are concerned, the owner could up to now demand any deposit. This legislation provides that he may now demand a deposit equal to one month’s rent only. This places furnished flats on exactly the same basis as unfurnished flats. In the past the owner of an unfurnished flat could only demand a deposit in respect of electricity, water and so on. Now damages are being added. Tenants can, of course, damage the flat itself. I should like to hear what the hon. member’s objections are to this. As far as I am concerned, I cannot see grounds for any objection.

I am sorry but what the hon. Minister has just said confirms my fears. The position in future will be that throughout the length and breadth of South Africa, in every city, the owner of an unfurnished flat may demand a deposit equivalent to one month’s rent. Up to the present the owner of unfurnished flats could demand such a deposit only in respect of lights, water and gas. In cases where the tenants paid the electricity themselves and water is free no deposit could be demanded. In other words, the owner could only demand a deposit for expenses he had to meet. In future, however, he will be entitled to demand a deposit in respect of any damage to his flats. This means that people who in the past paid no deposit, because they paid there own electricity and water was free, now have to meet a deposit in respect of damages.

Let us look at the result of this from both sides, i.e. from the side of the tenant and from the side of the landlord. Let us, for argument’s sake, take a block of 200 flats with an average rental of R100 per month per flat. This means that the landlord can demand R20,000 as deposit. On this he is going to pay the tenants 2½ per cent, or whatever the interest is on Post Office savings. He, on the other hand, invests that sum at 8 or per cent, which means that he will be making about 7 per cent profit. Over that there is no control. So, he sits with this R20,000 which the tenants had to deposit against the possibility that some tenant may break a wash basin, a toilet, a window or a door. This deposit will run into many millions of rand if taken throughout the country. This goes into the pockets of the landlords and he is making a profit on it.

But let us, on the other hand, look at the position of the tenant. It is the position of the tenant that concerns me really, and I wonder whether we should not have another look at this. The tenant may be a low-salaried worker. Let us take for example a widow bringing up children and earning R100 per month, that is to say if she is lucky, because she may only be earning R80. She is paying R30 or R40 per month rent, and having to feed and clothe children on the remaining R30 or R40. Suddenly she is asked to pay not R40 but R80 rent. Assume it is somebody who has an income of R80. She has to pay half of her income in rent, which many do. If she has to pay double that amount in one month, she will have nothing to live on for a whole month. Even if she earns R100, and has to pay R40 rent plus R40 deposit, she will have R20 on which to live, feed and clothe herself and her children.

Yes, but with an income of R100 she should not be paying more than R25.

They have no option; they have no choice. This is a lovely theory that you should not pay more than one-fifth of your income in rent. However, in practice, what does a person do when he cannot find a flat? These people have to live somewhere, they have to have a roof over their heads. I know of people who are paying between 30 and 45 per cent of their income in rent. They come to see us as M.P.’s and to the hon. Minister’s department. They ask us whether we cannot find them a cheaper flat. Where will one find a modern flat to-day with two bedrooms which one can rent under R60 or R65 per month? What is the rent of the hon. the Minister’s own flats? In Durban they vary from R84 for the bigger flats down to R45 for bachelor flats. One has to pay R65 for the smallest flat that a family can occupy. These are the flats of the Department of Community Development. What does a man earning, say R150 or R120 per month do? He has to have somewhere to live and pays the R60 and has to live on the other R60. If people are to pay a month’s deposit, it will put thousands and thousands of them into an impossible position. I would like to plead that we have another look at this. I accept that the owner must be given some protection, but I do not believe that he needs to be protected to the extent of a complete month’s rent for the possible damage. What can be damaged in a flat? The bath, the basin, the toilet, the paintwork and windows. The repair of windows is in any case usually the responsibility of the tenant, but one can include that in the list too. In any block of flats, think of the amount of money which that landlord will hold against the possibility of a maximum of a few hundred rands worth of damage.

Do you include the fridges and stoves?

No, the flats in Durban have no fridges and stoves. They are unfurnished. In the Transvaal the fridges and stoves are included. Then the picture is different, but then it starts to be a furnished flat. In the case of a furnished flat, the landlord was allowed in the past to demand a deposit. If stoves and refrigerators are included, it will be a furnished flat, because those are items of furniture. It is no longer an unfurnished flat. As soon as there is furniture in the flat, surely the landlords can demand protection. I accept that there must be some protection, but I am worried that this can put people in an impossible position. If nothing else, there must be a limit and a progressive payment of the deposit by people already in a flat, so that the man who has been in a flat for 30 years, will not suddenly be asked to pay double rent. I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s view before going further.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the hon. member is not quite right when he says that the Department of Community Development is charging such a high rent for its flats. In Port Elizabeth the Department is letting flats for as little as R20 a month.

And in Durban.

I will have the matter investigated. The Department also, for example, has the houses which they are now having built at Springs at present. I visited Springs recently and the interest and redemption on a three-bedroomed house there amounts to as little as R34. Nevertheless. I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) has a point. He has brought something to my notice which I shall investigate. I can quite appreciate that what he suggested may happen. He only has to accept that I shall discuss this matter with my officials. I shall also be very glad if he will discuss this matter with me after I have discussed it with my officials. Then we can see whether we cannot rectify this matter in the Other Place. I am quite willing to do so.

During the Second Reading the hon. member for Parktown suggested that those deposits be invested with a building society. To my mind this is an excellent suggestion, and I therefore move as an amendment—

I hope this will produce the large amount of money the hon. member for Parktown anticipates. Although we say that deposits may be levied, there are, of course, many people who do not require a deposit. On the other hand, notwithstanding the fact that certain people are not entitled to require deposits, they nevertheless do so. However. I am quite prepared to incorporate this provision in the legislation, because it may be very useful to building societies if large amounts of money are received.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the indication that he would reconsider the matter I have raised. I would certainly like to discuss the matter with the hon. the Minister and I hope we can find a solution. The amendment which the hon. the Minister has moved creates an anomaly. He has moved that the money should be invested in a building society, but the rate of interest remains the same as that of the Post Office Savings Bank.

To the tenant.

Should the same rate of interest as is being paid on that money not be payable to the tenant?

Then you will bring in the question of administrative costs and all those kinds of difficulties. However, I shall go into that as well.

The money is there as a deposit but the owner is going to get the profit on it. Surely, the tenant should get the profit on the deposit?

Yes, but he has to pay the income-tax on all those payments.

No, this is a deposit. No tax has to be paid on it. This is a free …

I would like to ask the hon. member a question.

But, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is interrupting my last chance to speak.

No, I am not interrupting the hon. member’s last chance. The hon. member said just now that this man could earn a terrific amount of interest by depositing that money somewhere. Surely, he has to pay income-tax on that.

But he only pays income-tax on the interest received.

If he has to pay the same interest he receives, he is losing money.

Let us take a building with, for example, 200 flats at an average rental of R100 per month. The Minister will have to acknowledge that there are dozens and dozens of such buildings. The deposit on all the flats in that building will amount to R20,000. The owner will be receiving interest on that R20,000.

What is the rate of interest he can receive at a building society?

He can get up to per cent.

What interest can he receive at the Post Office?

Three per cent. Therefore he can make 3 per cent on it. Why should the tenant not get the benefit of his money? I think that this must be looked at as well.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister said that he will go into the aspect of the deposits. I just want to draw his attention to another matter which I think also needs attention and that is the words in subsection (2), in lines 46 and 47. The words which are being used are “in respect of any damage to such dwelling”. It seems to me that the words “or furniture or fittings or contents” should be inserted after “dwelling” in order to cover the landlord’s right to recoup damages to electrical equipment or something of that nature. I think the hon. the Minister could go into that matter as well when he deals with the other matter.

In regard to the deposits at the building societies, I should like to add a word. The position irrespective of the amendment which the Minister has moved, will be that the landlord will receive income from the interest on the deposit. He will then be taxable on that income, but he will be able to deduct from his income the amount of the interest which he has to pay back to the tenant when he pays back the deposit. In other words, the landlord will be taxed merely on the difference between the Post Office interest and the interest he receives on the money. I think the hon. the Minister should look further into the matter in order to ensure that the landlord cannot profit by holding a deposit. In other words, the deposit is merely for security and should not enable him to make profit out of it. If that is done, I think the danger of this provision being applied generally by landlords will fall away. Where a tenant has been in residence for a long time, the landlord will not bother to ask him for a deposit, if he cannot make any money out of the deposit. If the hon. the Minister goes into this matter further, it is important that he should see that the tenant gets back the interest which is earned on the deposit, so that there will be no profit in the deposit for the landlord.

I support what has been said by the hon. member for Green Point because once the landlord can make a profit on it, you have to consider the position of an agent who is acting as trustee for an absent landlord. He would be guilty of negligence if he did not demand a deposit in every case. The owner of the building would be entitled to say, “Why did you not ask for a deposit and deposit the money at such and such a rate of interest and make a profit on my money?” He should not be put in that position. It could be regarded as a dereliction of duty. Therefore I think it is absolutely essential that there should be no profit made on any deposits taken. I realize that this matter will receive the Minister’s further consideration and I appreciate that he is sympathetic towards this matter, but I think it is only right to point out that there are many cases of absentee landlords or oversea organizations which have money invested in this country and have asked their representatives here to invest their money in property. I know of cases like that in the city from which I come. I would therefore ask the hon. the Minister to consider the proposition that there should be no profit on these deposits and that the deposits should be regarded as trust funds.

I agree with the hon. member. I am quite sure that we will find a formula which is acceptable to all of us in this connection. As far as the inclusion of furniture is concerned, I will go into the matter, but there is only one danger and that is that ordinary depreciation of furniture will be looked upon as damage. I think we must protect the tenant in this regard. I have a fair amount of knowledge of subletting. You sublet your house and when you return after six months you think that your furniture has been neglected but in fact there has been nothing more than ordinary wear and tear on the furniture. However, I will look into that matter as well.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

Sir, this is an important clause. It endeavours to obviate what has been happening throughout South Africa with regard to accommodation, and that is that invariably people with children who apply for accommodation find that they cannot get it. The amendment in this clause quite rightly aims at preventing persons who advertise accommodation for letting from saying in the advertisement that preference will be given to people without children or to people with children in a certain age category. There are certain landlords who invariably seem to be able to find ways and means of circumventing certain provisions of the Rents Act, and I would like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that this clause will prevent such landlords from circumventing the provisions of the Act? What often happens is that where a person applies for accommodation, the agent or the landlord requires him to sign a lease in terms of which the occupancy of the flat or dwelling is restricted to certain adult persons. They indicate that where two persons occupy a flat, they shall be adults, and they also incorporate in such a lease that should a third person occupy the flat the lease will then become null and void and they can then invoke other sections of the lease to evict the persons concerned.

But then they break the law. The law says they cannot do it. If they cannot advertise it, they can obviously not put it in the contract.

The position is that they do not specify that it is a child who is involved: it merely specifies a third person living in the flat, and thereby they manage to get around the position as regards a child. As it is here, it mentions that preference will be given to people without children, or children within a certain age category. My difficulty is that this has actually happened to me personally in Cape Town, where a person was able to invoke a clause in the lease and a child was the cause of the lease being cancelled. My difficulty is that although children are mentioned in the clause, there is a possibility of certain landlords obviating the provisions of this Bill, which are very good provisions, by merely saying that it is a third person, without indicating that that third person might be a child. I would be grateful if the Minister could give some indication that the amendment he proposes in this clause will meet that situation.

I have no objection to what was said by the hon. member for Umbilo. I just want to say that notwithstanding the provisions prohibiting the owners of dwellings and flats from discriminating against families with children, this is general practice to-day. We are all glad that the Minister is making a further attempt in this legislation to curtail those malpractices because all of us want parents to have children. But I want to say that this matter should be given a great deal more publicity, namely that people have the right to complain if they are refused as tenants. The people are not aware of this. Many people approach me and say that they cannot get a dwelling because they have children and because the owner does not want to let the dwelling to them. We have to tell our people publicly that they should lodge a complaint if a case of this nature arises so that steps can be taken against those lessors. I am sorry this legislation applies only to houses under rent control. It should be the general practice that nobody should have the right to refuse a prospective tenant by reason of the fact that he has children.

The case mentioned by the hon. member for Umbilo is, of course, a contravention of the law and he can. obtain redress by going either to the Rent Board or to the police. It is a contravention of the law. If the lessor wants to include this condition in the contract of lease and impose it on the hon. member for Umbilo, the hon. member may go to the police, because it is a contravention of the law. I do not know whether there is any other way of preventing this. I think this is the only possible way in which to do so.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Umbilo what I have done in an attempt to prevent these practices. In terms of the law as it reads at present one is not allowed, in the case of buildings under rent control, to refuse a person because he has children. This provision only deals with cases where an attempt is made to circumvent this by advertising in the Press. All we are doing here, is to lay down that it is a contravention of the law to place an advertisement in the Press indicating that children are not allowed. I take it that both the person who places such an advertisement and the newspaper which publishes the advertisement, will be guilty of contravening the law. I may just add that I have already negotiated with the National Press Union to ask them to ask their newspapers to refuse such advertisements.

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

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umbilo raised and dealt with this question of children. But we are concerned about the question whether the hon. the Minister’s amendment goes far enough, so far as protection as regards children is concerned.

The hon. member for Umbilo also raised the question of where a person signed a lease for two adults to occupy a flat. Subsequently, when the wife has a child, the lease is terminated. So, the landlord uses that opportunity to cancel the lease on the grounds that the conditions of the lease have been broken. Therefore the tenant has to leave. While the Minister is protecting the tenants as far as the children and the parents are concerned, I wonder if it gives all the protection which the hon. member for Umbilo requires. If it does not give that protection, I think it is a matter to which the Minister should give further consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I think I explained this morning that all possible protection is given in terms of the present Act. As regards buildings under control, they may not exclude children. But this clause does not deal with children in those flats. It deals only with advertisements, or notifications to the public.

They circumvent the law by prescribing the number of persons.

Yes, exactly. They circumvent the law by saying “preferably a business couple without children”. Therefore they only want to allow two. That is circumventing the law. This measure is to prevent them from doing it. As I said, I have made the arrangement with the National Press Union that no newspaper in future will accept advertisements like that. That is only an additional safeguard.

There is nothing illegal about it.

Yes, but this now makes it an offence. In the past it was no offence to accept advertisements like that, but this makes it an offence to accept and place such an advertisement, trying to circumvent the law. I really cannot think of anything more I can do about it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has indicated that this merely refers to the question of advertisements. But if we look at the clause, it does state “by way of advertisement or otherwise”. I presume that that section, read together with the new provision here, namely “or that preference will be given to persons without children or to persons with children in certain age categories”, does to a certain extent go beyond the question of merely the advertisements. It reads “by advertisement or otherwise”. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could give some indication as to what steps will be taken in cases such as those mentioned by the hon. member for Pinetown, whereby the person will accept tenants and will require from them to sign a lease, restricting the occupancy to two particular persons. When a child is born and introduced into that flat or dwelling, the definition of a child is circumvented by the landlord then stating that this is, in fact, a third person. Thereby the protection we have here in regard to the child is circumvented by the landlord and the agent. To illustrate this point, I should just like to refer to a typical type of letter received in a case such as this, where occupancy was granted to two adults, and then on the birth of a child a letter was received, saying:

The question therefore is whether the protection the Minister aims to achieve in terms of this clause, will in fact be achieved to meet situations apart from the question of advertisement; because when one reads the clause as a whole, it states “by way of advertisement or otherwise”. I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could give some assurance that this particular circumvention which is taking place, can be met in terms of this clause and the powers he asks for.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Umbilo is reading this clause in vacuo. He is reading this clause as separate from the original Act. I just want to read to him section 26 of the Rents Act (Act 43 of 1950)—

1. (1) No lessor who has in any manner whatever made known that he has a dwelling to let shall—
   1. (a) refuse to let such dwelling to any other person merely on the ground that such other person intends to permit a child to reside therein;

That is very clear. Thus the lessor may not enter into such a contract. I would even go so far as to say that by signing that contract, even the lessee is committing an offence. But the lessor is definitely committing an offence by including in the provisions of his lease a stipulation that the lessee may occupy the flat, but if he brings in another person, a child, the contract lapses. I think that is completely illegal. I do not think the remedy lies with me. The remedy lies with the Police. It is quite clear that under the original Act of 1950 no landlord may prevent a person from living in a building under rent control if he has children.

If the hon. member for Umbilo signed a contract like that and if he is held to that, it is an offence. Then he must go to the Police.

A child was not mentioned anywhere in the lease.

I do not care whether a child was mentioned anywhere, because here the law states very clearly that no person may let a flat and stipulate that one can occupy that flat on the condition that there are no children in that flat. That is what the law states.

But he does not do that.

What does he say?

He says that only two persons may occupy the flat.

No, but he cannot say that. That is illegal. He cannot say that only two people can occupy the flat, because then he excludes children. That is illegal. But I will go into this matter. I will see whether there is something in what the hon. member for Umbilo says; but as far as I can see, the law is very clear on this point. If there is any other loophole, I would be very pleased if the hon. member for Umbilo will come and discuss that with me. If there is a loophole, I will definitely plug it. But this clause really only deals with the question of circumventing the law by advertising in the way in which they are doing.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday in the Second Reading debate we questioned the Minister about the implication of this clause. He indicated that we should direct our questions to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I see he is here. I am not going to do so. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development can come in to assist this Minister by making an ordinary speech in the course of the debate. We are now dealing with the Housing Bill and this is the Minister responsible for the Bill. I want to know what he intends doing. He is always very definite. Usually he knows what he is going to do, and he is going to do it.

In terms of this clause, “with the consent of the Commission, given with the approval of the Minister”, i.e. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and the approval of the local authority, the Commission can take over the interest and liabilities of the local authority in respect of a housing scheme. I raised a question yesterday as to what would happen if the Commission handed over the scheme to the Bantu Trust. I pointed out that it is not only taking over financial interest, like loans and that sort of thing; they can also take over the land. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development seems to confirm that. I want to know whether, if the Bantu Trust takes over housing schemes, say at Cape Town or Soweto …

They cannot.

Why not? At any rate, the point is that the Minister can take over any housing scheme.

Yes, but you must also read the Trust Act.

Yes, I have read the Trust Act. That is the point I made yesterday. In terms of the Trust Act, the Bantu Trust can only take over land which is a scheduled or a released area, or abuts to a scheduled or released area.

Or is contiguous.

Exactly. That is right.

But you must first declare …

The Minister can get up and make a speech.

Then I am leaving. [Interjections.]

But he can make a speech. This is a terrible thing which has happened now, because the Minister of Community Development is being left alone.

Adjourn the debate, Blaar.

Order! Will the hon. member please proceed with his speech.

I hope this Minister will understand the point I was trying to make and which I made yesterday as well.

I think you do not understand.

Order!

In terms of the Bantu Trust Act there are certain limitations on land which the Bantu Trust can take over. We are now passing a separate Bill. This Bill gives this Minister the power to hand over to the Bantu Trust any interest in this scheme. Yesterday the present Minister of Community Development referred to Bills which are still to be introduced, namely the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill. That Bill provides for the taking over of these properties. But the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill has not been passed yet and we may not discuss it. But I want to know from the Minister of Community Development, who is handling this Bill, what restrictions there are in this Bill against the Bantu Trust taking over land involved in a housing scheme, and if the Bantu Trust does take it over, what powers the Bantu Trust will have in dealing with that land. I would be glad if the Minister answers this question before we get on with the discussion.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is discussing matters about which I do not know very much. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development referred to a separate Act dealing with this. All I have had to do with it, is that we lend the money to, say, the Municipality of Durban to establish a housing scheme at Kwa Mashu and other places. Kwa Mashu is now becoming part of the Bantu homeland, and all that we are saying in this legislation is that the Bantu Trust may now take over all the assets, liabilities, obligations, etc., of the local authority. Surely this is clear enough. What the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is going to do, I do not know.

Nobody knows.

The hon. member does not know anything! I am really not going to get myself involved in a legal argument with the hon. member for Transkei. I simply refuse to do it. The matter is simple enough to me. The Durban City Council borrowed money from the Housing Commission for Bantu housing. They established a housing scheme in Kwa Mashu. Everything has not been paid off yet. In fact, it will probably take another 30 years before this happens. Now the Bantu Trust is taking over and it is becoming a part of the homeland. Sir, I am also a businessman, and to me it is really simple enough. I cannot think of any other argument. If the hon. member for Transkei would like to get involved in a legal argument, he should rather choose a lawyer like Mike Mitchell for that purpose and not me!

Mr. Chairman, one thing which I, and I think the whole House, appreciates is the honesty of the hon. the Minister. He has admitted he does not know much about this; indeed he knew nothing about it. I remember a previous dialogue I had with him concerning the interpretation of laws when he wanted a Bill passed here and he ended the discussion by saying he did not like taking part in a discussion which he was going to lose. That is all very funny and is a source of laughter especially for hon. members on that side of the House who do not know much about it either. But it does not help this House and this Committee. We have to pass his law and surely we are entitled to know what is involved. The Minister has been quite frank with us and he has told us that in terms of this clause the Bantu Trust can acquire the land. That is quite right. Then he said what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was going to do with the land he does not know.

Of course I do not know.

The Minister says this legislation will entitle the Bantu Trust to take over this land, but he does not know what is going to happen to it after it is taken over. He has to rely on the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and he can do what he likes with it.

Normally we would oppose and vote against a clause of this nature because of uncertainty on the part of the Minister, but we will support the clause on this occasion because it is quite apparent to us that what this Government is going to do is this. It is accepting United Party policy. The Bantu Trust is going to acquire this land and next we will find the Trust selling land to the Bantu living in that area and then we will have home ownership which we on this side have pleaded for so long. This is the start and I would not be surprised if this Minister knew something about that. That is why he was wanting the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to take responsibility.

I can assure the Minister and the Government we are aware of what is happening, we are aware they are trying to avoid the consequences of their policy, but we shall watch what happens. We shall approve of this because it is not contrary to our policy. While we are giving our approval here we are looking forward to the Government accepting more and more of our policies regarding the Bantu.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Transkei very sincerely for his compliments. However, I just want to say this to him. This is not United Party policy. If it is United Party policy, then they accept the idea of independent Bantu states. [Interjections.] Yes, yes. We say this. In a Bantu residential area a Bantu may get rights of ownership, but not in a white residential area. That is what we say. Kwa Mashu is going to become a Bantu residential area now, a part of the Bantu homeland. Therefore they can get rights of ownership there. This is not so strange. This is the same as that part at East London. While we are still engaged on the consolidation work, the presiding officer will rule me out of order if I go into this matter any further. However, I just want to say that I am very glad that the United Party is supporting this clause. But it is not a case of our having accented United Party policy; on the contrary, it is quite evident that the hon. member for Transkei has now accepted National Party policy. I want to congratulate him on that and say to him that it is the most sensible thing he has ever done in his life!

Mr. Chairman, this is my last chance. The hon. the Minister mentions Kwa Mashu, but Kwa Mashu could be acquired because the Government is presently buying up all the land within the native area and the scheduled area. They could acquire the land at Kwa Mashu without passing this Bill. They could acquire the land for Bantu occupation and they said they were going to do so. They said they are going to give them home ownership which is part of our policy. But I am not talking about Kwa Mashu, I am talking about Soweto, Langa and all these other places; that is what I am talking about. The Minister has let the cat out of the bag. He said we on this side were accepting Nationalist Party policy because the Bantu would live in Bantu homelands and on Bantu land. In terms of this Bill the Government can take over Soweto, Langa, Guguletu: they can take over all these urban areas and they will then have the Bantu living on Bantu land. That is what the Government is getting at here, because it belongs to the Bantu Trust. This is an excuse for the failure of their policy. They will say the Bantu are not living in white areas, not living in white South Africa, not living on white-owned land; they will say the Bantu are living on Bantu Trust land. This is an admission of their failure to carry out their policy.

It is quite obvious, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. the Minister’s political past is now beginning to have a good effect upon him. He was a member of the United Party once, and this is obviously filtering through. The one thing the Minister is obsessed with is Kwa Mashu. It is a good example of the Government’s attitude towards their dilemma in Natal. In Natal it is very easy. You have in Durban two huge new complexes of housing for Bantu. The one is Umlazi. Umlazi was always Crown land, it was always land owned by the Trust. Therefore in Umlazi, which borders on the boundary of the municipality, the Bantu could live, they could own their homes, they could live the sort of life which we believe they should live in the urban areas simply because they are permanent dwellers in those areas. Then you have Kwa Mashu which was not Crown land, it was not land owned by the Trust, and Kwa Mashu can in fact be owned under existing legislation simply by buying a small corridor of land from the reserve which exists and Kwa Mashu. I am referring to the Inanda reserve. When they have that small corridor then suddenly everyone in Kwa Mashu has been “removed” from a white area and they are suddenly part of the homelands. Then they do not exist in the urban area any more, they do not exist at all. That is so, despite the fact that Kwa Mashu bounds my constituency and that of the hon. member for Pinetown. Despite the fact that it is part of that complex suddenly it becomes a homeland because they buy the land. This is a wonderful solution. You then have the ideologies of the Nationalist Party and the practicality of the United Party. This is a practical world we live in and this Government has to face up to it, just as the hon. the Minister of Transport is facing up to it. Despite the Government’s ideology the Minister of Transport has to face up to it. He says, “I do not care what your laws are, I have to run a business and I am going to do what I want to do”. Now we find the Government doing exactly the same thing in this respect.

What is fascinating about the Committee State so far is the fact that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, when he saw what was happening, suddenly walked out in a fit of pique. I do not know why it was. He said, if my note is correct, “Dan loop ek …” So he did; he just walked out of the House, he “looped”.

Order! The hon. member should come back to this clause.

Yes, I will, Sir. I just wanted to observe that this was a demonstration of the outward-going policy, no doubt. What was also very interesting was that the hon. the Minister said in answer to my hon. friend from Transkei that we have now accepted that Kwa Mashu would become “’n deel van die tuisland” like Umlazi in Durban. How it is part of which “tuisland” is not clear.

You have just told us.

Order! Will the hon. member proceed and not reply to interjections. [Interjections.]

I bow to your wisdom.

The hon. the Minister also said that it was not a case of the Nationalist Party accepting the United Party policy, but the United Party was accepting the Nationalist Party policy of “onafhanklike Bantoestate”. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us how Kwa Mashu or Umlazi or Guguletu or some of the other places are going to become part of a Bantu state under this clause.

The hon. member is talking nonsense.

One of the things with which the Government are not busy, as the hon. the Minister suggests they are, is consolidation.

Of course we are busy with it.

Will the hon. the Minister then tell us how they are going to consolidate it in Natal?

I will, but I will be out of order.

Order! I cannot allow that discussion under this clause.

Then I shall go on to another aspect. Here we have a Bill which will become an Act of Parliament, if it is passed in its present form, which provides that the Bantu Trust may take over the ownership of the land of a township which has been or is being developed by a local authority. At this stage we do not know anything about the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill. As my hon. friend said, we may not anticipate it or discuss it. If this is passed into law like this and Parliament has adjourned after the State President has signed it, what will the position be? We will have an Act of Parliament which gives the Bantu Trust the right to buy the land in a township. It will be an Act subsequent to the 1936 Bantu Trust Act, so that is quite irrelevant. That Act says that the Trust may only buy land which abuts on to an existing scheduled or released area, or which is in fact in a scheduled or released area. The Bantu Trust may buy it. If they buy it, are they not then entitled to give home ownership to the Bantu? Are the Bantu not entitled to own land which the Bantu Trust has bought?

I will put your mind at ease. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, I promise you, will go through with his Bill before the end of the Session.

I do not want to hear this hon. Minister talking on behalf of anyone else.

Order! I must point out that that has nothing to do with this clause whatsoever. The hon. member must come back to the clause.

But this is the essence of the clause.

This is not a Second Reading debate.

No, of course not. The rubric of this clause reads as follows—

South African Bantu Trust may take over interest and liabilities of local authorities in respect of schemes.

Quite so, It is the machinery for taking over the interests of a local authority.

No, not the machinery. The right is now being given for the first time to the Bantu Trust to take over the interest of the local authority in a housing scheme. The interest of a local authority in a housing scheme is ownership of the land in which the houses of that scheme are being erected.

But that has nothing to do with this clause. The hon. member is making a Second Reading speech.

With great respect, this has everything to do with it. That is what this clause is all about. The Bantu Trust may now take over that ownership of the local authority, which entitles them to charge a rent for the houses built on that land. But for the fact that they are owners, they could not claim rent, but they do. Now the Bantu Trust is going to take over ownership of this area. This is very fascinating. It is no good the hon. the Minister talking only about Kwa Mashu, because as far as I am aware they have not bought that strip. [Time expired.]

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday when I started with a few observations I wanted to make in connection with this Bill, I pointed out that we on this side of the House would not oppose this Bill. We considered it a good principle that the Post Office be granted this greater measure of independence in regard to its staff matters and that this be done as soon as possible. I should like to quote from Hansard what the hon. the Minister said in his speech—

We have no objection to that. We agree with that wholeheartedly. It would be a good thing if, as far as this principle of the Bill is concerned, we could just obtain clarity as to what is involved and precisely what powers are being repealed and what powers are now being granted to the Post Office Staff Board by clause 3 of this Bill in terms of which section 12 of the principal Act is now being repealed. Section 12 reads as follows—

In order to grasp the implications of this we should look at those particular sections of the Public Service Act which are mentioned in section 12. Section 6 (2) (g) reads as follows—

The powers the Public Service Commission had in the past and has also up to now been able to exercise partly in connection with the salaries, wages and allowances of all these various classes and grades of officers and employees, are now being removed and granted to this new Post Office Staff Board. At the same time this new Post Office Staff Board is also being granted the right to exercise the powers of the Public Service Commission in that they can make recommendations concerning the determination of the regulations that are issued; in other words, concerning regulations in general. The hon. the Minister quite rightly devoted the major part of his speech to that important repeal of section 12 of the previous principal Act.

An interesting part of the hon. the Minister’s speech was when he outlines how these steps were taken and how year after year progress was made along these lines until this point was reached. I do not wish to outline the historical survey in as detailed a manner as the hon. the Minister did, but I do want to say that I do not agree with the impression he created in that survey. He created the impression that positive steps had been taken by force of circumstances and virtually as a result of inherent daring and enterprise on the part of the Government. I think the facts are quite different, even if we accepted the hon. the Minister’s figures and dates and if we looked at the delay there was before we eventually reached the present stage, the day on which we can adopt this sound measure. The Government was in power for 20 years and it took them ten years before they got the idea of detaching the Post Office as regards its staff; I do not wish to refer to the financial aspect of the matter, for it does not concern this Bill at all. It took ten years!

Then we still had to convince you first.

If the hon. the Minister were to consider, he would find that we had asked for this long before the time. Just to reply casually: there were, of course, misgivings in respect of the then hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and this is to be understood. These were misgivings we had and misgivings his Leader had when he no longer wanted him to stay on as Minister.

In other words, you do not have any misgivings about me.

I do not want to be unfriendly towards him. We have misgivings, but they are at any rate not the same as the misgivings we had about the hon. the Minister’s predecessor.

I think the hon. members should stop flattering each other.

Mr. Speaker, I shall gladly comply with what you said. We must bear in mind that it took from 1959 to 1963 before the Post Office Staff Board was established. Subsequent to that it took another three years, from 1963 to 1966, before the Wiehahn Commission, a good commission, was appointed. That Wiehahn Commission also took quite a while—I suppose they had to—before their recommendations were embodied partially or fully—we do not know to what extent, because we did not see that report—in the 1968 Bill. But the Government was in power for 20 years and delayed for ten years, and if we consider the distress this caused, we cannot pay tribute to the Government in this regard. If we consider how much money those commissions cost the Government, if we consider how much time they took, if we consider for what length of time the services of the Post Office were affected by the staff shortage and the dissatisfaction amongst the staff, because they could not make their own regulations, if we consider the deterioration this brought about, which was so bad that when the hon. the Minister took over the reins in 1958 he had to exclaim that the Post Office was in a critical position, then we must realize that these are the consequences of what the hon. the Minister kept from us.

The position was critical because you poked your nose into that matter.

I do not quite understand what that hon. verkrampte member means. Ten years after the present Government had come into power, the then Minister had to admit that the position was critical. But last year, when this clause which is now being repealed was agreed to, we warned the hon. the Minister that he was taking a wrong step. We told him that he would come back to this House in order to get that clause repealed or amended. His reply was that he was a new Minister and that he wanted to test this clause. For years and years there was evidence before him and before the Cabinet to the effect that this section which we are repealing to-day, would never be any good in the form in which it was cast originally. This was proved by the events of the past year. I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister a few things which we said to him and which he is putting into practice to-day. I quote from the Hansard report of 2nd May, 1968. We told him—

The section which is now being repealed.

Who said that?

I did. I went on to say—

We warned him last year. I told him that I was sure that in this regard the members of his staff and most of the staff associations would be most disappointed. And they were disappointed because they had expected more. But I approve of this step which is being taken to-day, for it is at least quite a major step in the direction of what we asked for last year. I told the hon. the Minister that I was prepared to leave it to the future to show who was right. The fact that he wants to repeal section 12 to-day, proves that we were right. But, Mr. Speaker, last year we had some support from that side in this regard. I see that my hon. friend the hon. member for Harrismith is present. As far back as last year he felt deep down that this section 12 should be repealed.

What did I say?

I said what he had said. Must I repeat it?

You know you are talking nonsense.

I said that he had said that he was a new Minister, that he did not know much and that he wanted to see how this provision would work.

Order! The hon. member is merely repeating from old Hansard reports, which is quite unnecessary. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

This Bill was introduced because of matters for which we on this side of the House had asked.

That is not true and you know it.

Order! The hon. the Minister may not say that the hon. member knows that what he is saying is not true.

I withdraw it.

At the Committee Stage last year in this very same House the hon. member for Simonstown introduced an amendment which would have had similar consequences to those of clause 3 of this Bill. We wanted to amend that section 12 in such a way that everything which the hon. the Minister envisages with this Bill, would have been possible, and then he says that it is not true. The Hansard report bears witness to the fact that he voted against it and that all the members on the other side voted against section 12 being amended, and to-day this section is being amended by the hon. the Minister. I am praising him again. I hope you will not take this amiss of me, Mr. Speaker; I am, after all, praising the hon. the Minister. I am also praising the hon. member for Harrismith, The hon. member for Harrismith said last year that it was painful for him to have to agree with me; he said that the United Party was right in its attitude in regard to this matter, and a few days later he said that allowance should at least be made for a trial period, a trial period of up to five years. But to-day, after 12 months —not after three, four or five years—the Minister introduces this Bill and admits that we were right.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill now. He can leave the history to the historians of the future.

I have finished with that part of the history. I do not wish to go into the history any further, but you will note, Sir, that in his speech yesterday the hon. the Minister devoted approximately two pages to references to the history of this matter. Sir, we support this Bill.

At last.

But there was one aspect in the speech made by the hon. the Minister yesterday which I find rather disappointing. We must bear in mind that all of the more than 40,000 members of the Post Office staff and the Post Office Staff Association—which is a major, important association —said: “Just wait until 1st April, until this Bill will have been passed, then the great day will dawn for the Post Office; then we shall be able to work out our own Post Office system; then we shall be able to work out our own staff structure.” They thought that a great day would really dawn for them. I also hoped for that. But what does the hon. the Minister say? Here he comes along with cold water and this is what he says—

These were the words the hon. the Minister used yesterday. Is he already intimating in anticipation that the Post Office staff will not receive what they have been hoping for?

Order! On what clause is the hon. member speaking?

I am speaking about clause 3 which repeals section 12, clause 3 to which the hon. the Minister referred in the first sentence of the speech he made yesterday when he said—

This is the only principle we are discussing here to-day in regard to the Second Reading; we are not dealing with clauses I and 2 of this Bill. These are the hon. the Minister’s own words, and they appeared in yesterday’s Hansard, not in last year’s. In his speech yesterday the hon. the Minister said that such proposals always had to be considered first by the Cabinet and that the Cabinet had to bear joint responsibility for them.

What is wrong with that?

To me this sounds very much like throwing cold water. It is wrong because it did not accommodate the great expectations of the Post Office Staff sufficiently.

Order! I fail to see what these two matters have to do with each other. The one is a point of policy and the other is an administrative matter. The administrative matter is to repeal section 12 and the point of policy is how salaries will be determined in the Post Office, which has nothing to do with this Bill.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, the section which is being repealed now, provides that any recommendations under section 6 (2) (g) or (m) of the Public Service Act made by the Post Office Staff Board, shall have no force unless it has been approved by the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance. This is the original section 12; this is the section we are repealing now. Those parts of the Public Service Act refer specifically to the right of the Post Office and the Public Service to make regulations, to work out staff structures, to determine conditions of service and to determine salaries. On that basis this was subsequently accepted by the Staff Association. I shall not elaborate on that any further. I am merely mentioning that this is and will be a source of disappointment, i.e. that the Minister is apparently throwing cold water on the high hopes of the staff.

Sir, I conclude with a warning to the hon. the Minister. We in the United Party have cooperated in and agreed to this greater measure of independence in regard to Post Office staff matters having to be granted to the Post Office. Whereas in the past the Minister experienced problems and told us that he did not have the necessary powers, we are granting him those powers to-day. My warning is that now that he is going to receive these powers, he will in future have no excuse whatsoever for any dissension, for any dissatisfaction about postal services on the part of the staff of the Post Office or on the part of the public. We are now granting him the weapon and telling him that he should use that weapon, and his entire political reputation is going to depend on the extent to which he makes use of it. He no longer has any excuse whatsoever for saying that he does not have the necessary powers.

The hon. member for Orange Grove made a long speech here about a small and insignificant matter. He tried to convince the House that this amending Bill was actually the fruit of the efforts of the Opposition. On the basis of quotations from Hansard I shall indicate that the present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs already expressed certain trends of thought here in 1968. The attempt by the hon. member for Orange Grove to create the impression here that the Opposition made a significant contribution to this progress in respect of the control and financing of the Post Office does not impress this House at all. The hon. member cannot point out to me one proposal or amendment moved by the Opposition which was accepted during the discussion of that legislation. However, I want to concede to the hon. member that the Opposition did move an amendment last year in connection with the particular section which is now being amended. The hon. member rightly said that in the Committee Stage I myself also pleaded for the complete detachment of the Post Office from the Public Service. The Staff Board is now to be exclusively composed of Post Office staff members. At that time there was still one member of the Public Service Commission on the Staff Board, and it was in that connection that I stated quite frankly in this House that I was not happy with it. But no amendment was accepted by this side for the implementation of an Opposition suggestion. Therefore, absolutely nothing that was done in the past years by the Opposition has made any contribution to this progress in the Post Office. The hon. member for Orange Grove said that he was glad that the Minister had now decided to take positive steps to comply with their proposals. Sir, before reading out quotations here on which to base my statement that the hon. the Minister already had that step in mind, I want to refer to the hon. member’s remark that over a period of 10 years this Government failed to take steps that were very necessary and to bring this legislation before the House. However, the situation in 1963 was as follows. Shortly before this the Union of South Africa became a Republic. We experienced disturbances in the country. Our Defence Force was not as powerful as it ought to have been. A start was made with the implementation of this tremendously great task, separate development. This all required gigantic sums of money and therefore attention could not be given at that stage even to the possibility of reserving the Post Office’s funds for itself. It still had to be paid into the Treasury. I am merely pointing to the reasons why it was not possible at that stage. The hon. member has also seen, in the recent Estimates, what tremendous amounts can no longer be used by the Treasury as a result of the Post Office gaining its independence. Therefore, you can see that at that stage it was altogether out of the question. But commissions of inquiry were appointed, the Wiehahn Commission, and subsequently the Du Plessis Commission, and such commissions take a tremendous amount of time before issuing their reports.

Order: The hon. member must come back to the Bill. He is a long way back in history now.

I shall come back immediately and merely refer to the fact that the recommendations of those commissions were to a large extent adopted and have already been entrenched in legislation. Another reason to which I just want to refer is that while we are now making the Post Office completely independent through the amendment of sect’on 12 by the new clause 3, the Postmaster-General and his staff controlled the finances the organization and related matters very efficiently and successfully before we had reached this stage. It therefore goes without saying that, as was referred to here, with criticism being exercised about the system of financing of the Post Office, because the Minister cannot act exclusively on the recommendations of the Staff Board, he must take the matter to the Cabinet. This is also the case with the Railways. When a board makes a recommendation, with reference to salary structures, opportunities for employment and employment benefits, it must subsequently be referred back. These statements which I am now making are all relative to section 12, which is now being amended, because by the amendment of section 12 the Post Office is now, as far as its staff matters and finances are concerned, being detached completely from and being made independent of the Public Service Commission. Therefore I have perhaps transgressed in your opinion by ranging too widely. The hon. member claimed to have pleaded for these matters, but I want to quote from column 4415 of the Hansard of 1968, where the hon. member for Orange Grove said—

Our main reservations about this Bill …

This is the Act which we are now amending—… centre round this Board. We wonder whether this Board is indeed going to be as effective as the Minister is trying to tell us.

Of course, because it was still attached to the Public Service Commission.

In other words, they were not even satisfied with that dispensation that had been in existence throughout the years, but in that specific instance they did not come forward with an amendment either.

We did. We wanted more.

You did not come forward with an amendment. It is very clear from what you said here. But I further want to point out that in the course of his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister said, inter alia, the following—

This is a result of that staff board, which will now consist of three members chosen exclusively from the officials of the Post Office and will no longer include a person from the Public Service Commission. I say that a result of that is the total independence of Post Office matters in the financial sphere as well. These are therefore the logical consequences as they have developed over the years. It is an indication of the development which there was, and because of that we have come to this stage of legislation; and quite to my own surprise I want to say that I have somewhat of an appreciation for the logic of the hon. member for Orange Grove as he has now displayed it here in not opposing all these clauses tooth and nail as well. With the acceptance of this legislation and the total independence of the Post Office, we now also envisage a period of more rapid growth and expansion for it.

I have seldom heard an hon. member on either side of the House taking so much trouble to discuss an amendment moved by the opposite side of the House a year previously as was the case with the hon. member for Harrismith to-day. He seemed more concerned with the amendment that I moved in this House last year than with the provisions of the Bill before the House, and to refresh his memory I should like to refer him to column 4821 of the Hansard of the debate on the Post Office Readjustment Bill last year, where we moved that all reference to the Minister of the Interior, and therefore to the Public Service Commission, should be deleted, for the very reasons which have prompted the Minister to come to this House to-day with the Bill which we have before us. We said then that the independence given to the Post Office had strings attached to it, and we pointed out that it would not be long before the Minister would have to come back to this House to ask for full independence to be given, meaning independence from the Public Service Commission. For that reason we moved the amendment that the Minister of the Interior should be excluded from the ambit of the Bill that was before the House last year.

Mr. Chairman, you will rule me out of order if I discuss the long history which precedes this matter, and therefore I do not propose to do so, but I think we are entitled to say that the arguments from this side of the Hmuse over the years have been in respect of salaries and the structure of posts in the Post Office. the power to make regulations and the conditions of service in the Post Office. Our arguments over the vears have been justified by the appearance before us of this Bill, because this Bill does in fact make the Post Office independent of the Public Service Commission. The Post Office from now on will be able to arrange for payment of its own salaries and for determining the scales and posts in the Post Office and to make regulations. That is in fact real independence and as such we on this side of the House welcome it.

The hon. member for Orange Grove stated here that they had converted me last year; I have now become a convert to the United Party’s standpoint in regard to this matter of principle which is involved in this legislation. I have already told him this afternoon that he knows that this is not true, and for the sake of the record I wish to state very explicitly …

On a point of order, may the hon. the Minister say that I know that it is not true?

I made the Minister withdraw it.

I withdrew what I had said, i.e. that you know it, but I can still make the statement that it is not true. In all probability the hon. member did not know it, and that is why I withdrew it. When I spoke in this House last year, it was the first occasion in the 16 years I had up to that stage been a member of the House of Assembly, on which I took part in a debate on Post Office matters. On that occasion I rose and in introducing the Post Office Readjustment Bill, I said the following in regard to the independence of the staff. That was before hon. members opposite could speak so as allegedly to convince me and make me a convert to their standpoint. This is what I said—

I continued and in the same speech, in introducing the Bill, I came back to this matter.

I said—

The hon. member for Orange Grove has obviously never taken any notice of it—

What attention have you given to it?

I attended to it at once. The Bill which is before the House at the moment is proof of this. Proof of this is the fact that in September already the Cabinet took a decision, in terms of which the Post Office staff will be detached from the Public Service, and which has been announced. I could hardly have attended to this matter sooner than I did. This is the position and it is no use the hon. member for Orange Grove trying to score points of political propaganda for his Party through the statement he made here. Nobody will accept it. Everybody knows what the position is. Everybody knows that at that time I had only just taken over as Minister and that when I took over, the Post Office Rearrangement Bill had already been drafted. I also said on that occasion that I did not want to delay the Bill any further as a result of my having become Minister of this Department shortly before, and that was why I wanted to introduce it. But I explicitly gave the undertaking here that the matter would be investigated and that as soon as I had found that in practice it did not work out to the best advantage of the Post Office staff—of which I was already convinced, and I expressed my conviction here—I would put it right. Since I did not want to follow the precipitate course which the United Party follows in everything they do, I preferred to try out the matter in practice first, and at the first opportunity that offered itself, within three months after Parliament had prorogued, this decision was taken by the Government. Now I do not know what the hon. member is trying to prove by saying that that side of the House made me a convert to their standpoint. The fact of the matter is that as far as this whole matter of the independence of the Post Office is concerned, it took the United Party many years to arrive at this standpoint, and now they are trying to pretend that they were responsible for the change. This is a matter for which the spadework had already been done by the previous Minister of Posts, but now they are trying to score points for those steps which he originally announced and which they originally opposed. The country knows this, and the hon. member for Orange Grove can talk until he is blue in the face, but the country will know that this Government granted the Post Office its independence, and that this Government is also the Government which detached the Posit Office staff from the Public Service.

Sir, I now come to the second point that was made by the hon. member. He said that I had immediately tried to throw cold water on the high expectations of the Post Office staff, because in introducing this Bill I had said that the salaries and conditions of service of the Post Office still remained matters for which the whole Cabinet was responsible. Is this really a valid argument to advance in respect of a Bill such as this? Is it a valid argument in respect of any other piece of legislation? The Government is here and it does, of course, bear joint responsibility for every decision taken by every Minister of every Department. To what precisely does the hon. member object? When the hon. member asked me yesterday whether the salaries and conditions of service of the Railways also had to be submitted to the Cabinet, my reply was: “Yes”. I told him that these matters were submitted to the Cabinet and that they were approved there.

Everybody listens to Ben. I hope they will also listen to you.

The hon. member says that not all of them will listen to me, but the hon. member does, at least, have no misgivings about me. He said so. In flattering me he carried on to such an extent that you, Sir, asked him to stop it.

Yes, but that applies to both sides.

Yes, but I definitely do not intend to flatter the hon. member, because he does not deserve it. Now I want to say something to the hon. member for Orange Grove, because we must understand each other very well. He need not give me warnings in respect of what my duties are towards the Post Office staff, nor in respect of my work as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. The hon. member really pretended that it was by his good grace that it was possible for me to obtain these powers, and that it was by the good grace of the United Party that it was possible for me to obtain these powers to place this legislation on the Statute Book. Sir, I am not dependent on the grace of that hon. member or of the United Party. I am in fact dependent on this side of the House, on the National Party, which was placed in power as a government by the nation. I do not need a friendly warning nor a serious warning from that hon. member. I know what my duty is towards my Department, of which I am the Minister. I know what my duty is towards the Post Office staff. The hon. member is welcome to find out from the Post Office staff what they think of me as a Minister, for in this short while I have done for them everything I could possibly do.

May I ask a question?

No. I am not prepared to reply to questions now. The hon. member has already had a chance to speak and he can again put questions at the Committee Stage. I am satisfied with what could be achieved in the course of the past years, i.e. so that this legislation could be placed on the Statute Book.

The hon. member for Simonstown did not say much. He obviously wanted to sing the same tune as was sung by the hon. member for Orange Grove. He also said, as the hon. member for Orange Grove did, that they had warned me last year that it would not take me long before I would come back to this House to ask for these powers. Sir, the idea the hon. member for Simonstown got, is not a very original one. I said it myself. Let me read out to the hon. member what I said—

I kept my word, but not necessarily to the Opposition. I kept my word because I had seen in practice what the position was, and because in terms of that the best arrangement could be effected in the legislation which is before the House at the moment.

This is a great occasion for the Post Office staff. They have aspired to this for years. As a Post Office staff they also aspired to becoming independent of the Public Service at a time when the United Party had been in power for many years, at a time when a select committee of this Parliament recommended to that former Government that the Post Office be granted independence—a recommendation to which that Government never responded and in regard to which it never took any steps. The Post Office staff will appreciate that it was a National Government, and a National Government alone, which had granted them independence of the Public Service.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The object of this measure is to adjust the Broadcasting Act, which was passed in 1936 to establish the South African Broadcasting Corporation, so as to grant the Corporation various additional powers, and also to bring the Act, where it has proved to be necessary, into line with practical considerations and modern circumstances. The most important of the additional powers for the Corporation envisaged by the measure is to allow the Corporation to acquire broadcasting stations outside the Republic and South-West Africa, to issue free listeners’ licences itself, and to expropriate land.

At the moment, Sir, the S.A.B.C. only has statutory authority to erect broadcasting stations within the Republic and South-West Africa. Especially after the introduction of the new overseas service of the S.A.B.C. on 1st May, 1966, it became evident that there was a need for the Corporation to have powers to acquire broadcasting stations outside the borders of the country as well. The overseas radio service is important to our country. By means of that service a strong and objective picture of South Africa is presented to the outside world, knowledge about our country is disseminated, and understanding of its problems is promoted. The S.A.B.C. is handling this service in an excellent way as far as the presentation and contents of its programmes are concerned. There is ample proof of the acceptance this service is finding in the outside world, the increasing interest in our country that is generated by it, the goodwill it creates, and the high regard that is shown for the objectivity of the broadcasts. But it is not enough that the service is handled efficiently. It must also be well-equipped technically if it is to be and to remain effective under the conditions of to-day, when there is stronger and stronger competition for the ear of the listener by the numerous countries that maintain overseas radio services. The four short-wave transmitters used by the S.A.B.C. for its External Service—at the H.F. Verwoerd transmitting station near Johannesburg—have an output of 250 kilowatt each. This compares very favourably with the transmitting power of the external services of America, Britain, Germany and other major countries. But just as the broadcasting services of other countries have found it necessary to erect relay broadcasting stations outside their borders in order to ensure better reception in the countries the programmes are meant for, it may become necessary for the S A.BC. to do so in order that the programmes of the external service may be broadcast further and more effectively. It may also become desirable for the Corporation to be able to erect broadcasting stations in neighbouring countries with a view to improving the efficiency of the internal services of the S.A.B.C. All stations that are erected or acquired outside the borders of the country will obviously be subject to the requirements of the countries in which they are erected, and it goes without saying that such stations can only be erected or acquired by way of negotiation and agreement.

Clause 6 (a) deals with the granting of the relevant power to the S.A.B.C. As hon. members will notice, the Corporation will be able to exercise this power only with the approval of the Minister, and it will therefore be necessary for the Corporation to satisfy the Minister as to the necessity and desirability of every proposal of this nature.

Sir, the second of the new powers for the S.A.B.C. which I have mentioned is the issue by the Corporation itself of free listeners’ licences. Clause 10 deals with this. As the Act reads at present, the issuing of free listeners’ licences to the parties entitled to them is undertaken by the Post Office, just as in the case of radio licences for which fees have to be collected. At present free listeners’ licences may, according to the Act, only be issued to educational and charitable institutions, and hospitals. Investigations were made by the Post Office in regard to the efficiency and cost of the arrangements in terms of which radio licences are administered at present, and in consultation with the S.A.B.C. it was found that from an administrative point of view it would be simpler and more efficient if the S.A.B.C. were to receive all applications for free licences, and to issue those licences and keep records thereof itself. With the present number of free licences that are issued annually the simplification will already be considerable, and the possibility exists that the number may increase substantially in the future. As hon. members will notice, clause 10 provides that free licences can by law also be issued to categories of persons that are prescribed by regulation. This will make it possible in future rather to grant free licences to some deserving category of persons than to lay down a nominal licence fee for them, as is done at present. The problem with a nominal licence fee of, say, 25c, is that the compensation the S.A.B.C. has to pay the Post Office for the work involved in the issuing and control of such a licence may be more than the actual licence fee. It will be advantageous to the S.A.B.C. if such nominal licence fees are discontinued and free licences are issued in lieu thereof, if the category of persons concerned justifies it.

To obviate any possible misunderstanding I should like to stress that the S.A.B.C. will not, under the Act as it is now being amended, be able to decide on its own who may receive free licences. The regulations in terms of which it may be provided that a certain category of persons may receive free licences, are not valid without the approval of the Minister. It goes without saying that the Government will have to give careful consideration to every case where a category of persons may make representations for free licences, and take into account not only the merit of the representations, but also the effect it will have on the revenue of the S.A.B.C. if the representations are granted. Sir, here I must warn that those who are paying nominal licence fees at the moment, must not deduce from what has been said here that when the Act is amended, they will be entitled to free licences. This amendment of the Act does no more than to create the authority to issue free licences to a category of persons as well, and not only to educational or charitable institutions and hospitals. Every type of case will have to be considered strictly on merit.

The third of the more important new powers to which I referred is the power for the S.A.B.C. to expropriate land, which is embodied in clause 14. For the erection of the F.M. network, which has reached an advanced stage but is still continuing, it is necessary to place radio transmitters on mountain tops and to build access roads and take power lines there. The S.A.B.C. does not have a wide choice of localities when such a transmitter has to be erected, because it has to be in a specific position in order to function most effectively and to give the best possible reception throughout the area it has to serve. The Corporation often experiences great difficulty in acquiring the sites that are necessary and in obtaining wayleave rights for the access roads, because an owner may ask an excessive price for the small piece of mountain land and the wayleave in the knowledge that the Corporation is obliged to use that piece of land. Moreover, for the erection of an ordinary short-wave transmitter it is often necessary for technical reasons that only a specific piece of land be used, and where this is the case, the possibility immediately arises that the owner may exploit the position in order to ask an excessively high price.

An efficient, and economic broadcasting service is in the wider public interest. For this reason it is deemed justified also to grant the S.A.B.C. powers of expropriation such as those, for example, of the Electricity Supply Commission. However, I want to stress here. Sir, that these powers will apply exclusively to radio transmitters themselves and access to the sites of those radio transmitters, and to no other land or other buildings which the S.A.B.C. may require. Furthermore, in any particular case the powers may be exercised only with the approval of the Minister and only after the S.A.B.C. has satisfied the Minister that it is not possible to come to a reasonable agreement by negotiation, and that it is necessary to acquire specifically that land and that wayleave for the radio transmitter.

Mr. Speaker, the other additional powers for the S.A.B.C. envisaged by the Bill are of a more domestic nature. In clause 6 (f) and (g) the Corporation is authorized to establish a housing fund, a bursary fund and an aid fund. The Corporation already has the basic power to grant housing benefits to its employees and to assist in financing in the interests of the Corporation the training or further training of its staff or of persons who intend to work for the S.A.B.C. At present, however, these things must be done out of the General Fund of the S.A.B.C. For the orderliness of its finances it would be better for the S.A.B.C. to have statutory funds specifically for housing and bursaries.

As regards the proposed aid fund, a need exists for an arrangement according to which the Corporation can render assistance to an employee who may perhaps require temporary assistance as a result of special or unforeseen circumstances, by for example granting him a loan out of such a special fund. From the nature of the case this will be a smaller fund. It will be possible to prescribe by regulation what contributions the Corporation may pay over to it and how the fund should, inter alia, be controlled.

Two other smaller powers for the S.A.B.C. that are embodied in the measure are that the Corporation should be able not only to acquire, but also to deal with and dispose of copyrights and performing rights, and that the Corporation should be able to distribute not only literary matter, but also recordings. These things are common practice with broadcasting organizations. A further power that is granted by the measure is that the Corporation can obtain rights to broadcast programmes of foreign radio organizations here, without the prior approval of the Minister. These rebroadcasts, such as of overseas cricket matches, occur in the course of the Corporation’s daily broadcasts and it is neither necessary nor practical to approach the Minister in each case for his approval. The additional powers mentioned here are contained in clause 6. Another domestic power that is granted is contained in clause 11, which will enable the Corporation to raise short-term loans to meet any casual deficits that may arise in its general fund. In the course of the Corporation’s activities it inevitably happens that it has an overdrawn account for a day or two at some or other bank. This power is a normal one for an organization such as the S.A.B.C., and will simplify the management of its financial affairs.

Mr, Speaker, I have now dealt with all the additional powers embodied in this measure. The other provisions of the Bill are aimed mainly at simplifying the domestic activities of the Corporation and at clarifying the provisions of the Act or adapting them in minor respects to modern conditions. With the exception of one or two provisions I will briefly deal with, I think that these provisions can be discussed more profitably during the Committee Stage. I do not think hon. members expect me to go more closely into the details of the Bill on this occasion.

Perhaps I should just refer to the renaming of the controlling body of the S.A.B.C., which is dealt with by clause 1. The designation “control board” is now being introduced by law. As the Act reads at present, the name of this body is still “board of governors”, and a member of the board is referred to as a “governor”. These terms are outdated, and also confusing. The board is already generally known as the “control board” of the S.A.B.C.

Clause 8 deals with the adjustment of the Act as far as South-West Africa is concerned. As the Act reads at present, the conditions of the licence under which the S.A.B.C. broadcasts are determined by the Minister as regards broadcasting in the Republic, and by the Administrator of South-West Africa as regards that territory. For the sake of uniformity the same authority should determine the conditions of the licence for both the Republic and South-West Africa, and therefore this power is now being conferred upon the Minister. In any case, the licences are to all intents and purposes the same at present. In clause 17 the provisions of the Act are also made applicable to South-West Africa specifically so that the S.A.B.C. will, for example, also be able to issue free listeners’ licences to bodies and persons in South-West Africa and to exercise powers therein as regards the expropriation of land for transmitting stations.

I do not think it is necessary to say any more about the Bill at this stage. I trust that both sides of the House will support it.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the impression the hon. the Minister has tried to create, that this is such an innocent and a non-contentious Bill, is not quite the right impression. After all, we have before us now a Bill giving at least two vast new powers to the South African Broadcasting Corporation which it did not have before.

The first one is the right to expropriate property for its own purposes. I know it will be with the consent of the hon. the Minister, but it will be able to expropriate property wherever it wants to erect new stations or similar buildings. In that respect it will have the same power as the Minister or the Government has to-day.

The second vast power is this. The S.A.B.C. is now asking us in Parliament to give it the right to erect broadcasting stations in any other country. The Minister spoke about a relay station for our short-wave service. That is not all this Bill says; this Bill says much more than that. It gives the S.A.B.C. the right to build and erect broadcasting stations and installations in connection with broadcasting in any other country in the whole world. These two matters, as well as others with which I shall deal later, prompt me to say that this is a dangerous Bill. We object to the extension of these powers to the S.A.B.C., and in particular we object to the extension of these powers on account of the fact that, as I shall show later, the control of this sovereign Parliament of the Republic of South Africa over the S.A.B.C. is lessened by this Bill. Because of that I move the following amendment—

1. (a) further extends the powers of the Corporation without providing for any control by Parliament or scrutiny by the Auditor-General; and
2. (b) further limits the already inadequate information concerning the activities of the Corporation to which the Minister, the public and its representatives in Parliament are presently entitled.”.

You will see, therefore, Sir, that we are objecting first of all to the further extension of the powers of the Corporation. We are objecting to the fact that we as Parliament will not have the control over those further powers which we are entitled to have.

We must realize that the powers we have at the moment as a sovereign Parliament, which are now being limited, are very tenuous. Let me enumerate them shortly. Firstly there is the licence given by the Government to the S.A.B.C. to conduct a broadcasting service. The licence is a mysterious document, one that has never yet been tabled. I saw it once and I was allowed to make a copy of one or two of the clauses, but this document in itself gives no control whatsoever to Parliament over the S.A.B.C. as such. It is a document issued 30 or 40 years ago and there is very little in that really.

The second form of control is this. The S.A.B.C. is obliged to submit an annual report to Parliament of its activities. That is the one occasion, except when a Bill such as this is before the House, to discuss the actions of the S.A.B.C. in a particular instance. If one looks at clause 15 of this Bill one sees what I regard as a very ominous provision. One finds that in future the S.A.B.C. will not be forced, as it is at present, to give certain information to this House in regard to buildings and some of its funds. It is being given vast powers now to do these things without you, Sir, or the Minister or myself knowing what is going on with these funds which are moneys collected from the listeners by way of licence fees, from advertisers, and from funds voted by this sovereign Parliament.

The Minister is cutting down on the annual report, but a few weeks ago we pointed out to him in this House how, due to circumstances which might be acceptable, we were unable to discuss the report of the S.A.B.C. which is now being limited by this Bill. In fact anything the S.A B.C. might have done in January, 1968, this Parliament will not be able to discuss until March, 1970, unless there are reports in the newspapers or outside sources of information. In other words, the report itself is no form of control over the S.A.B.C. We have an opportunity during the no-confidence debate of raising it, as has been done.

We also have the annual Post Office Appropriation Bill on which we can discuss the powers of the S.A.B.C., an account can be given regarding the use of those powers. But nowhere in this Bill is there a provision which gives us further extended powers, which places the Corporation under greater parliamentary control, as should be done. After all, when you give a corporation such as this the same rights as the Government itself has, as the State has to expropriate land, then surely we in Parliament should have the right to discuss that matter to find out what land has been expropriated and what is being done with the money of the country.

What is more important is this. The S.A.B.C. now takes unto itself the power to erect broadcasting stations in other countries and we in Parliament are not to know about it. That is the important thing. We are not to know about it. This Bill is removing the compulsion on the S.A.B.C. to report on the erection of all these buildings in future. This is a secret move, this is a secret measure. It is a measure empowering the S.A.B.C. to conduct secret deals and other transactions, to give away stations, to sell stations, to assist a country like Malawi in a way I shall point out shortly.

I just wish to say in passing that my amendment mentions the fact that no powers are given, as we have always pleaded, to the Auditor-General to go into what is being done with the funds of the S.A.B.C. My amendment specifically asks for that scrutiny. We believe it to be essential, we believe it to be ten times more essential now that we are going to have a measure in terms of which the S.A.B.C. will be able to erect buildings, buy land, and to expropriate without us in Parliament getting a full account of what has happened in that case.

Now I want to come more specifically to this report itself which is being limited by clause 15 of the Bill. This clause lays down that certain paragraphs which set out certain of the matters on which the S.A.B.C. must report annually are now removed from the annual report. Clause 15 lays down that paragraphs (b), (e) and (f) “of the said subsection” are to be deleted. I hope the House realizes the implications of the deletion of these paragraphs.

In the past we were entitled at least to hear once a year in the annual report of the S.A.B.C. the amount of the security for the loans still outstanding and the interest thereon. Now the Minister is taking away our right to know this and I think Parliament requires an explanation of why this is being done. However inadequate the information was, the S.A.B.C. was compelled in its annual report to do the following, and I am reading from the Act—“to report on the erection and the construction, the repair, the improvement or alteration of any plant, equipment or building, and the cost thereof”. That information we were entitled to under the original Act, however tenuous the information might have been that we did get. Now that right of Parliament is being removed and we are entitled to ask why is this being done? Why may we not know about the erection of buildings by the S.A.B.C., about the construction or the alteration of any plant or of any building? Why may we not know more about the cost of these buildings? It is no small amount involved. Last year no less than R4,160,000 was spent on buildings and on erections under this section, and at least these matters were mentioned and very shortly explained in the report that we had, but now we are not to hear a thing about this. Why is this being done?

We read in our newspapers about a huge building being erected near Auckland Park costing R20 to R30 million. We should have liked to have read about that in the report which should be tabled on 30th April in this House. But now we are not going to get it. Why not? We should like to know about the land deal that went on between the R.A.U. and the S.A.B.C. in regard to that land and the site for the building. There must have been negotiations. The Chairman of the Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C., Dr. Meyer, must have conducted negotiations, and he conducted them with the Chairman of the committe responsible for the R.A.U.—also Dr. Piet Meyer. It is a very fine arrangement, but Parliament would like to know about these things. Yet they are no longer to be mentioned in the report that is tabled here every year. This will be a matter of R20 or R30 million a year, and even more in future. I will not go into details, but we heard in connection with another body, the Transvaal Provincial Council, where the Auditor-General could point out how money was actually wasted …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I want to object to the argument of the hon. member on the grounds that if there is any restriction on the powers of this Parliament then it is laid down in the principal Act. As far as this amendment is concerned, and in respect of that matter, no further restrictions are imposed on the powers of Parliament. The entire position remains unchanged in this regard. All the matters to which the hon. member referred are still subject to the approval of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that the amendment is a very wide one and that I shall allow a fairly wide discussion at the Second Reading. In the Committee Stage the discussion will be limited to the amendments only. The hon. member may proceed.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to you that the entire speech made by the hon. member is about the principal Act and not about the amendments that are being effected now.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is mistaken. What I am pointing out is that this is being deleted.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. The important thing that is being deleted is this, in the report mention must be made about the construction and repairs and improvements of any building or equipment, and I therefore do believe that in terms of this Bill some of the powers and control of Parliament are being taken away. After all, if we are not to have a report from the S.A.B.C. on these buildings then something must be wrong, and we are entitled to that. We grant the funds for buying these buildings. The listeners pay licence fees and that money is also used for these constructions. Are the public not to know what happens to their money? There are no shareholders in the S.A.B.C., as in other companies. I submit we are entitled to information on these lines.

The other important point which the hon. the Minister mentioned as being part of this Bill is that the S.A.B.C. will now have the right of expropriation. Sir, up to the present moment land has been expropriated for buildings used by the S.A.B.C. Can the hon. the Minister tell me whether that has been done by the Post Office in the past or by the Department of Lands or by the Department of Public Works? I am not quite sure how it was done in the past. I could not get this information from the report. It would help if the hon. the Minister at some stage or other could give us that information, if he cannot give it immediately. It is quite clear that there were powers of expropriation in the past, and that such powers were exercised by a State body which is responsible to Parliament. Now the S.A.B.C. is being given the right to expropriate any land anywhere for the purposes mentioned in the Bill without reference to Parliament. There is one small safeguard, namely that the hon. the Minister must in each case give his permission. But when and how and where is the hon. the Minister going to give his permission? We would like to know about that annually; we would like him to table that information in this House. We cannot put a question on the Order Paper every month or two to find out for which expropriation under this new clause the hon. the Minister has given permission. Sir, this particular provision is a very wide one. Clause 14 provides in the proposed section 23 (A)—

1. (a) any land required for the site of a radio transmitter and the buildings … connected therewith;
2. (b) any land required for an access road …

Then it says that the Expropriation Act shall apply but it goes on to say—

In other words, in regard to expropriation the S.A.B.C. is now taking over the power which in the Expropriation Act is allocated to a Minister, to the State. This is the creation of a State within a State; this is a highly undesirable state of affairs. I admit that the S.A.B.C. has the right to have land for its buildings and on occasion land has to be expropriated for such buildings, but why not let the expropriation be done by the appropriate Government Department, by the Post Office, or Public Works or Lands or whichever body up to now has had the power to expropriate land for the S.A.B.C.?

What about the proposed section 23A (2)?

I am not looking at this particular Bill at the present moment, so I do not know to which clause the hon. member is referring.

Clause 14.

I do not want to detain the House by going into the Bill and reading that clause itself. [Interjection.] Yes, I am talking about clause 14. Has the hon. member been asleep? Sec. 23A is a section in Act 22 of 1936, the original Act.

Read subsection (3).

I have just read it. It provides—

This is what I have been reading and this is my point—

The hon. the Minister mentioned another important point in this Bill, namely the power which the S.A.B.C. will have in future to issue licences, a power which has previously been exercised by the Post Office separately. He states that the S.A.B.C. will now have wider powers in deciding to whom licences shall be issued free.

I did not say that.

If I have in any way misinterpreted the hon. the Minister, I must say immediately that I would very much like to know what he did say. Is it correct that the S.A.B.C. will now have a wider power than it had in the past to grant licences at a lower fee or free to certain selected groups of persons, to certain persons, to certain bodies, to certain charitable institutions to hospitals and so forth? The hon. the Minister must correct me if I am wrong. The S.A.B.C. will now have the power to issue those licences and to do work done in the past by the Post Office. In other words, it will be an improvement in the general administration. I do not know why the hon. the Minister is so extremely upset about this, because I believe that basically this is not a bad provision.

It is not valid without the approval of the Minister.

I have said that; must I repeat it? I know that the hon. the Minister must still give his approval. After all, I quoted the original Act and that part of the original Act which made the old concession subject to the approval of the Minister, has not been removed; it is still part of the Act. It has not been amended. Sir, I do not want the country to get the impression that this is a huge and wonderful concession that is suddenly being made, because we must remember, as the hon. the Minister himself indicated in passing, that the S.A.B.C. had pretty extensive powers in the past to grant licences, not free, but at a low rate. The original Act 22 of 1936, which has been in force now for 34 years provides (sec. 25):—

That has been in the Act for 34 years. There has been no vast change here. The limited change by the hon. the Minister is a change to which I personally would agree. I agree that it is a good thing that the S.A.B.C. should have the right to say that certain classes of persons and certain individuals need not pay a fee for their licence. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us in his reply which categories of persons or which persons have, up to now, been given licences at the low rate of 25 cents a year. I put a question in this respect some years ago and as far as I remember—I speak subject to correction—the reply was that in the main they were the employees of the S.A.B.C. itself. Those people were issued licences at 25 cents. A good case can be made out that they should get their licences at a reduced rate or even free. I am not objecting to that in principle. This provision has been on the Statute Book for 34 years. Surely with the powers which the hon. the Minister had, he should have done much more. This is no new vast, wonderful concession that he is making.

I know that in the past old-age pensioners received this concession. They have to pay more; I believe it is R1 or more. I trust that now we are giving the Minister these powers he will seriously consider the question of giving old-age pensioners free licences. These are members of a deserving sector; they are people who served their country well during their working years, and I do appeal to the hon. the Minister to use his powers once this Bill is on the Statute Book, to advise the S.A.B.C. to let the pensioners in South Africa have their listeners’ licences free. Let him extend the number of institutions which are getting their licences at a reduced rate.

The Bill mentions charitable institutions. I trust that the word “charitable” will not be interpreted in a narrow sense as referring only to institutions which receive their moneys from the Government only, because there are many old-age homes in the country—I am thinking of homes such as the Queen Alexandra Home in my constituency, of Randjieslaagte, and institutions such as those—which do not derive their funds entirely from the Government and which accommodate old-age pensioners who deserve to get these licences either free or at a low rate. They should not be required to pay this vast sum of more than R5 per annum for their licences. I hope that we shall hear from the hon. the Minister in this respect.

Sir, now I come to what I regard as an almost alarming provision in this Bill. I refer to clause 6, which is the clause which empowers the S.A.B.C. to erect broadcasting stations outside the Republic. This provision reads—

My word, Sir, television! Are we going to build television stations outside this country before we have them in this country itself?

Are we going to corrupt the rest of the world?

Read the principal Act, then you will not talk such nonsense.

I have read it and I challenge the hon. the Minister to read it. I will read it to him again, and I challenge him to read my Hansard afterwards. The main Act says—

Those words have been added. I do not know why the Minister asks me to read the principal Act. I have it here. I am quite prepared to assist the hon. the Minister.

You do not understand what you read.

Section 13 (1) reads—

It then sets out a long list of powers of the corporation. Section 13 (1) (a) of the old Act provided that the S.A.B.C. had the right to “acquire or erect broadcasting or television stations or sub-stations, and such studios or plant as may be required in connection with any such station, and acquire any equipment therefor or rights connected therewith”.

Precisely. There is nothing new in this Bill.

I never said that television was new. I am pleased to see that at least there is still some sign of an outward policy and that the hon. the Minister is not going backwards. Sir, I regard this provision as very important; I regard it as more than that; I regard it as an alarming one. I grant that television stations were mentioned in 1936 under a far-sighted United Party Government.

You are terribly frivolous.

Sir, I regard this as an alarming provision, particularly in view of the fact that we have had newspaper reports about broadcasting stations which have already been erected by the S.A.B.C. in other parts of the world. I have a report here of a very strange happening in Malawi. This report says—

So what!

Before I tell the hon. member what, I want to say that I do not intend discussing whether foreign aid of this nature is advisable or not. That is a question for the Foreign Affairs Vote or another occasion, but what I am objecting to is the fact that the power to erect these stations is being given to the S.A.B.C. and that we in Parliament will have no knowledge of what is being done and we will have no control over what is being done. The hon. the Minister told me during the Budget debate that it was a business transaction. If it was a business transaction, he should know what the figures are. Would he be so kind as to tell us what was the value of the station that was erected, how much was paid for it, what is the value of the broadcasting station itself, aside from the buildings, which is going to Malawi, whether it was valued and what was paid for it, if anything was paid for it. I spoke about a state being created within a state. This is no mere business transaction. The S.A.B.C. is here becoming an instrument of Government policy. It is creating policy.

You are seeing ghosts.

The hon. member says I am seeing ghosts. Am I seeing ghosts when I quote the words of the Minister himself? You will find these words in Hansard about the Malawi broadcasting station—

It is an admission before the world that it was no mere business transaction. In the words of the Minister, it was done “om die uitwaartse beleid van die Nasionale Regering te bevorder”.

He was pulling your leg and you were too stupid to realize it.

I have no objection to the “uitwaartse beleid” being propagated. That is not the question we are discussing here, but what I do object to is that this “uitwaartse” or “verkrampte beleid”, or whatever you might call it, is now being placed partly in the hands of the S.A.B.C. and that it can do these things without reference to this Parliament. If we do have a foreign aid programme, good and well. Then we can discuss it under the Foreign Affairs Vote. If the S.A.B.C. is asked to assist in that foreign aid programme, good and well, but let us know about it here in Parliament. Let us know about the amount of money being spent, and let us have an opportunity of discussing it under the Foreign Affairs Vote when it comes before Parliament. I would like to know from the Minister in what countries is it intended that these broadcasting stations are to be erected in future? He must know. According to his speech, these stations must be erected according to the laws of those particular countries, whether they are in Africa or in Europe. That is fair enough, but I think we are entitled to know in what countries we are going to erect stations through the S.A.B.C. without the knowledge of Parliament but with the money of Parliament. Am I being unreasonable in asking for that?

In which countries do you want us not to do it?

I certainly do not want the S.A.B.C. to go to Russia or to Ghana to erect stations there. Does the Minister want them to do so? I certainly do not want the S.A.B.C. to erect a broadcasting station in Red China, because it is sure to be expropriated in a very short time. The hon. member has just asked me a silly question. [Interjection.] That hon. member asks whether I object to one at Tel Aviv. I should like to know from the Minister whether there are plans for erecting a station at Tel Aviv. Let him give us the particulars and I will gladly discuss it here. We will deal with the matter on its merits. We will gladly reply to the hon. member for Middelland as soon as we have the full particulars.

I have come to the end of what I have to say. I am not going to use the full time allowed to me, and I want to conclude by saying that this is no innocent Bill. Ours is a sovereign Parliament and a responsible Parliament. We are a body of people who have responsibilities to the public. When things are done as part of national policy, it must be Parliament which has to approve of it, which has to discuss it and analyse it. When vast powers in regard to expropriation are granted to an independent corporation, we in Parliament should at least have the facts, so that if we are not satisfied with those facts we can discuss them. On this side of the House we object strenuously to the provisions of such a Bill which to a large extent is making the S.A.B.C. more than ever a little state within a state without the control of us on this side or of the Minister or the hon. members on that side of the House.

The hon. member for Orange Grove came along here with a speech this afternoon which simply amazed me. Here before us this afternoon the Minister has a Bill which is inherently not much more than a lot of small amendments. The hon. member for Orange Grove has now come along here with a whole lot of statements, inter alia, that as a result of the powers of expropriation which the S.A.B.C. is now going to receive and, secondly, the stations which it is going to erect outside the Republic, tremendous powers are now being entrusted to the S.A.B.C. I want to begin with his last remark about this station in Malawi.

The hon. member said that he had seen in newspaper reports that a broadcasting station had been erected in Malawi and that “it was presented to them by Mr. J. N. Swanepoel”. He quoted what the Minister had supposedly said about the promotion of the outward-moving policy and he said a whole lot of things which I think are unheard of.

Do you agree that it is going to Malawi?

We do not dispute that. The hon. member said that he did not, for example, want the S.A.B.C. to erect a broadcasting station in Russia or in Ghana, but just the other day he and his party gave Russia ammunition against the Western world. He and his party blessed the arms of Russia. They were members of the Friends of the Soviet Union. That was what his party did. Does he want to deny that? That is what they did to promote Communism. [Interjections.] You did not fight the Nazis, you promoted Communism. You blessed their arms, and their arms still carry that blessing to-day. He also spoke about Ghana. That was when the National Party, actually Afrikanerdom in the main, was fighting with all its might in 1960 to get a Republic in South Africa. The Opposition then said they should first wait to hear what Nkrumah had to say about Ghana. And where is Nkrumah now? The hon. member will still go the same way in his party.

The hon. member objected to the implementation of the outgoing policy, but what of the broadcasting stations erected in South Africa? It is not at all necessary to erect broadcasting stations elsewhere to broadcast the voice of South Africa to the world. Our stations are powerful enough to-day and they broadcast in many languages. I have previously stated in how many languages they broadcast and I do not want to repeat it, but they broadcast to Africa, Europe and the whole world. Do you want to deny that we make these broadcasts and that the world tunes in to South Africa, and do you want to deny that the world is happy with what is broadcast? And what is broadcast is the National Party’s policy in this respect that it reflects the way of life of the Whites in South Africa. My way of life and yours, whether you are a United Party member or a National Party member. It is the way of life of the Whites in this country about which broadcasts are made, and these broadcasts are received throughout the world. What is more, that hon. member knows how many letters from all over the world are written expressing satisfaction with this. It is simply not necessary to erect a station outside in order to broadcast something to the outside world. As far as the expropriation is concerned, the hon. member objected so greatly to the S.A.B.C. being able to obtain fixed property outside the borders of South Africa, but these are powers which the S.A.B.C. already has. I may just refer to section 13 (1) of the old 1936 Act. The Corporation may, for the purpose of carrying out its objects acquire, inter alia, movable or immovable property or interests therein and erect any building which may be required by the Corporation. This simply means that it may obtain land under the old Act. It is a fact that the S.A.B.C. can obtain that property. It is simply not stated clearly whether this applies internally or externally. As it stands here, one may obtain it wherever one wants to. It is now merely being more clearly defined in this amendment by stating that this can be done internally or externally. The hon. member surely knows that these amendments are merely being introduced for greater clarity. The stations may be erected for various purposes. After all, the S.A.B.C. has no power, for example, to go and erect a broadcasting station in any country without the approval and the co-operation of this Government and the Government of that other country. This can, after all, not happen. Now I want to ask the hon. member whether he is opposed to us engaging in business transactions with foreign countries, since it was stated clearly that it was a business transaction in Malawi? This station was erected in Malawi and, after all, those people are not getting it for nothing. Or do you think that the S.A.B.C. is now giving everything away? But the hon. member insinuated that the S.A.B.C. was now stealing the country’s funds and distributing them to other people, that Parliament would have no say about that, and in addition, that it would never be brought to the attention of this Parliament. The hon. member knows very well that Parliament is not being deprived of any of its powers. The hon. member knows that, before the 30th April, the S.A.B.C. must submit its report for the previous year ending on the 31st December—it is stated very clearly in the Act. The hon. member knows that this is so. Now he acts as if such a report will no longer be submitted.

I never said that.

However, the hon. member put the matter in such a way that it seemed as if no further reports would be submitted to this Parliament. The position is unchanged. As in the past, a report will still be submitted to this hon. Minister. That report will be tabled in this Parliament. What is there that will be taken away? The hon. member said that certain powers were being taken away and that certain information referred to in this old Act would no longer be given in future, for example, the amount of loans and securities provided. That hon. member knows that a great deal of this information is redundant. What is contained in that old Act is actually very unpractical. The hon. member also made the statement that the listeners are paying certain moneys, and that in future they would no longer have the right to know on what that money would be spent. He put it as if this were the only source of income which the S.A.B.C. had. I have here the Revenue and Expenditure account of the S.A.B.C. for 1967. According to the report the amount received in that year from listeners’ licences was R7,288,896. The gross revenue from advertising services, after deduction of commission, was R5,146,330. In addition there was still a great deal more revenue, such as the amount recoverable in respect of external services. The amount received for that was R1,358,703.

I know that.

The hon. member says that he knows that. Yet he puts it in such a way that it seems as if the listeners alone are paying and as if there is no other source of revenue. Why did the hon. member not mention the fact that the S.A.B.C. also earned money over and above that from listeners’ licences?

I did mention it.

I want to come back to the question of the broadcasting station at Malawi. It was a business transaction. It was an export product of another form. South Africa cannot only live by the gold it exports. After all, this is a vanishing asset. South Africa must export. We do not only export raw materials, articles which we manufacture, South Africa also exports its services. We have now entered a field where South Africa is exporting its brain-power. Does that hon. member now want to tell me that South Africa must not export its brain-power? This country has the knowledge and the ingenuity to construct broadcasting stations for the S.A.B.C. We then also construct them for other countries, thereby earning foreign exchange. What does that hon. member have against that? I say that if Ghana were to come along and ask us to construct an S.A.B.C. station for them and we were paid for it, consideration would have to be given to whether it ought to be done, for the sake of having an export product. Build them a powerful enough station so that they can receive the message of South Africa, hear about the way of life of the white man. Then we shall be able to tell them so that they may know about it. Then a few agitators will not merely be able to sit there and say what they like. Then it will be possible for the voice of the white man from the southern tip of Africa to be heard throughout Africa and the world. We have brainpower. If we think of Dr. Barnard, who has now performed the fifth heart-transplant operation, is this not something we can be proud of? This small white population has the brainpower. We must utilize this brain-power of ours. However, that hon. member is opposed to that. He does not want to see us in South Africa exporting our brain-power.

I said that the Department of Foreign Affairs could do that.

Why, then, cannot this hon. Minister introduce this legislation? It can most certainly not be done by the Department of Foreign Affairs. What does the Department of Foreign Affairs have to do with this legislation and with the S.A.B.C.? It is surely this hon. Minister, this Cabinet, this Government and the National Party which is responsible for that. That hon. member had a great deal to say here about the powers of expropriation. He quoted a great deal here and made a great fuss, intimating that the S.A.B.C. were bent upon robbing the country. He professed that the people would be robbed. The S.A.B.C. had these powers to a large extent; they are now merely being clarified. What is wrong with clarifying something in a Bill? What is wrong with defining something more clearly in a Bill, so that one may know what one is heading for? This hon. member objected most strongly to the fact that as a result of these few additional definitions this Parliament’s powers would now be decreased, However, this Parliament has never controlled the S.A.B.C.’s funds via the Controller and Auditor General. The hon. member now pretends that something terrible has happened, merely because these few additional items can no longer be audited and controlled by the Controller and Auditor General. I want to tell that hon. member that the funds of the S.A.B.C. are examined by professional firms. The firms doing so are all firms of professional auditors. I now want to ask the hon. member whether he has any grievance or complaint about the statements of the S.A.B.C. Does the hon. member have any grievances or complaints about the way in which the statements of the S.A.B.C. are examined and controlled? Does the hon. member know that it is done by professional men, who adhere to a strict code? These are honest people and the hon. member knows that they are controlled by the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board. If there is merely the slightest error in their work he can, after all, report them to the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board. Why do they not do so? I challenge that hon. member to report any mistake in connection with those people! What is more, sufficient information is supplied in these statements annually. Information is very definitely not withheld from Parliament, as that hon. member claims.

That hon. member also made another far-fetched statement. He said that stations would be erected abroad and that the stations, for example in Malawi, would be given away to them in secret. Where has the S.A.B.C. ever given away anything in secret? That hon. member made an accusation against the S.A.B.C., and indirectly against the hon. the Minister, to the effect that the S.A.B.C. was giving something away for nothing. I think that that hon. member owes it to Parliament and to the S.A.B.C. to state very clearly where this happened so that action can be taken, because if this is the case it is theft. The hon. member said very clearly that the S.A.B.C. was giving things away in secret; in other words, he is accusing the S.A.B.C. and its Control Board of secret, underhand transactions and donations, of things which in fact do not exist. That hon. member did not count his words. He came along here with accusations and I think that he owes it to the country to say what happened, where it happened and when it happened, if something did, in fact, happen at all.

Did the hon. member know of the broadcasting station in Malawi?

Sir, that is not what he insinuated initially. He made his statements and then tried to find an example. Afterwards he came along with a newspaper report about Malawi’s broadcasting station. Nothing in respect of this broadcasting station is being done in secret. It is not being given away at all, as that hon. member’s accusation has it. I think that that hon. member owes it to this House and to the hon. the Minister this afternoon to say where and when it happened. He said that the listeners are paying for the erection of those buildings. He also said that the Minister was, for example, removing certain securities, etc., and that as much as R20 million, or R30 million may be involved in the future. What did the hon. member mean by that? And with these so-called secret dealings which, according to him, would take place? I think that that hon. member said something which was beneficial neither to himself, nor to his party, nor to the people of South Africa.

The hon. member also mentioned the free listeners’ licences. He very much wanted to know to what categories of people they would be granted. It is stated very clearly in the Bill. It is stated here to whom they will be granted. The hon. member also made the statement that, in reply to a question put by him previously, it was said that it would chiefly be the employees of the S.A.B.C. who would obtain these licences. That hon. member surely knows to which bodies these licences will be issued. He even cast suspicion in this regard by saying that in the future the S.A.B.C. would not act properly in the granting of these applications. That hon. member surely knows that in the past the hon. the Minister was responsible for those free listeners’ licences. He remains as responsible for them in the future. What difference has come about? Whether the Postmaster General and his staff grant them, or whether the Control Board of the S.A.B.C. do so, what is the difference? It nevertheless still remains the responsibility of this Minister. I want to ask the hon. member please not to make so many statements and so many insinuations here, and not to cast suspicion on matters which do not warrant it. We know that, inter alia, the hon. member has a grievance against “Current Affairs”. He expects them to hold a talk every evening about him alone, and expects them to sing his praises as if he were South Africa’s hero. That hon. member should actually have held a panegyric on the S.A.B.C. this afternoon on behalf of his party. [Interjections.] Sir, did you hear what the Opposition said this afternoon? Did you hear their snorts and groans about the S.A.B.C.? The S.A.B.C. is to-day most certainly the institution which, apart from many things, fulfils certain functions …

That is true!

… in South Africa that are outstanding, and the purpose of these amendments is to streamline those functions. Just think, for example, of our aged who receive these free listeners’ licences. I think that they are entitled to them. They are entitled to them, because they can apply for them when they are living at certain approved homes. The S.A.B.C. is bringing their religion to them, because as a result of physical disability they cannot move. It brings them programmes throughout the day, and the best programmes that are broadcast on any broadcasting station in the world. We do not have its equal and nothing superior, not by any manner of means. I should like to know what broadcasting station in the world is better than ours. It gives those people their news in good time, it affords them pleasure and relaxation, gives them talks, etc. It also affords them relaxation in the form of music. It gives them a joy of living and happiness. But this Opposition wants to break this down. The fact that now, in terms of this Amendment Bill, provision is being made for this small sector of our population, these old people, so that the S.A.B.C can give them free listeners’ licences, is simply not good enough for the Opposition. I thought that they would give it a little praise. I thought that they would perhaps ask for still more. I think that this afternoon the Opposition ought to have thanked the Minister for these amendments and for what he is doing to provide these services.

Many other services are performed by the S.A.B.C. There is, for example, the Parliamentary news which is broadcast every morning. We are three to one here, but they still receive 50 per cent of the publicity.

Order! What the hon. member is dealing with now, has very little to do with the Bill. The hon. member must come back to the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, I am merely pointing to a few matters which will be streamlined even more as a result of these amendments.

That happens without this Bill.

The Opposition moved an amendment consisting of two points. In conclusion I just want to say that there are no sinister powers embodied in this amendment Bill which the S.A.B.C. does not already have. There are a few matters being dealt with here, such as the changing of the name of the Control Board. That hon. member surely knows, as the Minister has also said, that for years the annual report has made mention of the control board and not of the governers, as contained in the old Act. I still want to draw attention to a few other matters. I specifically want to refer to employees of the S.A.B.C. We are very grateful for the housing scheme, the bursaries and the auxiliary fund which has been instituted for the employees of the S.A.B.C. At present there is a great manpower shortage in South Africa. As a result of the tremendous economic boom in our country, the private sector is, of course, also offering tremendous competition to attract people. These additional advantages which have now been introduced are to the benefit of the S.A.B.C. We want to thank the Minister for the fact that this is being done.

In conclusion I want to say …

Again?

… that the hon. member for Orange Grove had a great deal to say about broadcasting stations that are erected beyond the Republic’s borders. This also implies the erection of a broadcasting station beyond the borders as far as South-West Africa is concerned, because it is not a part of the Republic. In other words, that hon. member is opposed to the erection of a broadcasting station in South-West Africa. [Interjections.] By implication this legislation must be amended, because it cannot merely be applicable within the borders of the Republic. If we were to erect a broadcasting station in South-West Africa it would surely be beyond the borders of the Republic, because South-West Africa does not form part of the Republic, although the Republic administers it. That is purely technically speaking.

Mr. Speaker, I mention this in conclusion to prove that that hon. member did not by any manner of means give thought to this matter. That hon. member did not realize what it was all about. He merely noticed that there was a Bill before him and he jumped up to see how much venom he could extract from this Bill. [Interjection.] Does that hon. member now want to say that South-West Africa is part of the Republic? Although this Bill is applicable to South-West Africa, this is a technical point. Such amendments have specifically been moved to resolve technical points. But that hon. member for Orange Grove did not notice it. We are very glad that these amendments have been submitted. We want to thank the Minister and say: May the S.A.B.C. flourish and prosper, because it provides South Africa with a service which few other institutions can provide for their mother country and their people.

Mr. Speaker, to follow the hon. member who has just sat down, I believe would take some doing. One no sooner has to scratch that hon. member, then out will trot the usual “liberals, agitators, communists, dangers to the Whites”, the whole gamut of race relations in South Africa. He also went so far as to start his speech by saying that we sent arms to Russia during the war. I thought this was quite amusing, because the thought suddenly occurred to me that we would have even given arms to that hon. member if he would have helped us during the war.

The other point, of course, is that the hon. member forgot to remember that not more than two or three weeks ago one of his own Ministers on that side of the House informed us with a fair amount of glee that we trade with Communist China. Of course, we will trade with anybody in the world.

What has that to do with this Bill?

I am replying to the hon. member who has just spoken.

It has nothing to do with this Bill. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I am replying to the points he made, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to reply to them one by one. I believe that that would be a waste of time and subjecting the House to too much suffering. Hon. members on that side of the House have now on three successive Bills told us that no change is being brought about in the Bills we are discussing. We have had the same argument from the hon. member who has just sat down. It seems that we have had no change in any of these Bills. I wonder why the time of the House is being wasted in discussing them, particularly this one here. I agree entirely with my colleague, the hon. member for Orange Grove, when he pointed out that this Bill again gives more power to the hon. the Minister. It seems to give more power to the hon. the Minister and less information to this House.

It seems that the S.A.B.C. has now entered the field of foreign affairs by the establishment of the station in Malawi. But in entering this field of foreign affairs, we are going to be in the hands of either the hon. the Minister or the Board of the S.A.B.C., but not in the hands of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It would be quite interesting to dwell upon some of the problems that may arise with regard to this station in Malawi.

Elaborate on that point.

The hon. member who has just sat down, called it merely a “trade transaction”, we were “trading” with Malawi. He was very pleased at this fact. I think we all are. But one wonders if the S.A.B.C. has now entered the field of commerce and industry. Because if they have, I think the hon. the Minister should better look to his laurels, for he might find one of his colleagues wanting to take over his affairs as well.

I want to raise one or two matters with the hon. the Minister which appear to need some explanation when one looks at this Bill. In the Bill there is talk of a housing fund for “officers and other employees”. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would inform me what is exactly meant by “other employees”? Does it also mean, for instance, the Bantu employees at the S.A.B.C. who produce the Bantu Affairs programme? Are they also considered as “other employees”? If so, will that entitle them to the benefits that are shown in the Bill under the housing fund?

Surely you know how they are housed; what are you worrying about?

I think I would rather have the answer from the hon. the Minister than from my hon. friend to the left, whose knowledge about these matters and most other matters is extremely limited.

I should also like to refer the hon. the Minister to clause 13 where it is stated that an insurance fund will be established. In this connection I should like to ask him whether tenders will be called for in establishing this fund; whether quotations will be obtained. I say this because too often we feel that insurance funds of this sort, or aid funds of this nature, are allocated to certain companies without due regard to the normal competition of business. I should like the assurance from the hon. the Minister that if the S.A.B.C. enters this field, competitive quotations will at least be obtained from the companies in this field.

I should like, too, to refer the Minister, as the hon. member who has just sat down did, to the question of licences. The Minister has said that not a great deal of the original Act is being altered. I agree, but I should like to point out to him a difficulty that has cropped up in regard to licences for old age people. The hon. member for Sunnyside told us how much pleasure old age people were deriving from listening to the radio. I agree entirely with him. I think they derive a great deal of pleasure. In fact, to most of them in South Africa it is the only pleasure they get in life. But I can assure him that they do not get any pleasure from Current Affairs. In fact, they do not listen to Current Affairs. They listen to all the serials on the commercial station. [Interjections.] They do not listen to Current Affairs. If the hon. member is so anxious about entertainment for old age people, I think he ought to speak to the hon. the Minister, and perhaps we can even get television for these old people. But I think that narrow-minded members would not like them to have something as marvelous as that. In regard to these old age pensioners, some years ago it was possible for certain homes to get concessionary licences from the department under this section of the Act. This was withdrawn from these old age homes, because it was maintained that they were not, in fact, subsidized homes. They were neither subsidized by the provincial authorities nor by the local authorities. Therefore the right for a special licence was withdrawn. But I should like to remind the hon. the Minister that even though perhaps local authorities or provincial councils did not subsidize the homes, by their very nature they were subsidized, even if it meant by street collections and other charitable actions. I mention in particular homes like the M.O.T.H. homes, which were at one stage on the Minister’s list. But they were taken off that list because it was held they were not subsidized. I think that is something that could easily be investigated by the Minister, because obviously any old age home is subsidized to some extent, even if it is subsidized by the man in the street and not by a local authority as such. So, the Minister should give consideration to this matter. There are people living in these homes who still enjoy a reduction in their licence fees, because they were there originally, but newcomers to the homes do not enjoy the same privilege. In terms of the Act, as it is at the present time, old age pensioners who live alone are entitled to a concession. But hon. members probably know that many old age pensioners do not live alone. They live with, perhaps, friends who are also old age pensioners. They have no such concession. I think that when the Minister gives consideration to these concessionary radio licences, a little deeper consideration should be given, thereto, because there are certain groups of people who are not being given these concessions, which they should have.

I should like to conclude by merely repeating what I have said earlier in supporting my colleague’s amendment. I do so in the belief that the S.A.B.C. is getting out of the control of the Minister himself. One wonders whether the S.A.B.C. controls the Minister, or the Minister the S.A.B.C.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Natal will pardon me if I do not go into what he said. In actual fact he said nothing. He spoke about assistance to Malawi, which I shall come back to at a later stage, and in addition he put certain questions to the hon. the Minister, to which he suggested certain malicious replies. In my opinion the hon. member did not want information, he merely wanted to sow suspicion.

Actually this measure merely brings about small amendments to the existing Act, but it nevertheless has important implications for South Africa, and therefore it is lamentable that it should be discussed by emotional persons in an emotionally charged atmosphere, people who commit gross exaggerations. They give an altogether erroneous representation of the actual object of the Bill. One would expect something good to come of a calm discussion of this measure. A balanced person with reasonable arguments, who furnishes constructive criticism, can make a contribution to a discussion where there is no political gain to be had, no political scavenging to be done and where constructive criticism can also come from the other side. But we did not have this here to-day. We had an emotional outburst such as we are accustomed to from the hon. member for Orange Grove. He made far-fetched, suspicion-creating statements here which are not confirmed by anything contained in the Bill.

Order! Are the matters which the hon. member is discussing now, contained in the Bill?

I am reacting to what the hon. member for Orange Grove said, Mr. Speaker. With respect, when you were not here he spoke of “too vast new powers for the S.A.B.C. … a dangerous Bill … Parliament’s control is lessened … secret moves …”. These are all nonsensical claims. It has really surprised me that every time the S.A.B.C. comes up for discussion here a tirade of accusations comes from the other side. They are guilty of negative, destructive criticism which would cause any straight-thinking and responsible person to hang his head in shame. Why this concerted feud, this campaign of hate and disparagement? Is this service which the S.A.B.C. furnishes to the South African nation really so poor that it deserves no praise from the other side of the House? Any straight-thinking person must, after all, ask himself this question, because on every occasion, whether it be the hon. the Minister’s Vote which is being discussed, or whenever, we always have this damning tirade of negativity.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, I am reacting to what the hon. member for Orange Grove said, but I am coming back to the measure.

Order! The hon. member for Orange Grove has now been replied to sufficiently, and from now on hon. members must confine themselves to the Bill or else they must resume their seats.

I am coming back to this measure. I should just have liked to give the reason for this argument. Why are these accusations being made about the S.A.B.C.? It is because the S.A.B.C., as well as this legislation before us to-day, supplies a service to the South African nation. The S.A.B.C. stands foursquare on South African soil, and for that reason and that reason alone it can supply a positive service to the South African nation. Because hon. members opposite have not yet given their hearts to South Africa they reject the S.A.B.C., which has, in fact, already done so.

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

Mr. Speaker, clause 6 has a bearing on the more efficient implementation of the services of the S.A.B.C., by the obtaining of concessions beyond our borders and outside of South West Africa. The hon. member for Orange Grove also launched a tirade about this. It is surely self-evident that when the S.A.B.C. wants to construct repeater stations in an area outside of South Africa, negotiations must take place—perhaps at diplomatic level—to obtain those rights and concessions. The Governments of other African states may grant us those concessions subject to special conditions. There may be a condition of secrecy. We know what the world situation is. We know what blusterers and braggards there are at the U.N. and the O.A.U. The international situation is becoming ever more difficult. The hon. member said that it was an “alarming” state of affairs because it has not been blazened abroad here that we have, for example, now obtained broadcasting rights in Malawi. Can one imagine anything more ridiculous? If we have obtained the right to have a repeater station in a foreign area under certain conditions—i.e. conditions of secrecy—must it now be blazened abroad so that hon. members opposite can make a fuss again which can be used by our enemies at the U.N.? That is what the hon. member wants. I say “It will be an alarming position” for the U.N. and the O.A.U., but not for South Africa, if we can obtain such repeater stations. For us it will only be a tremendous asset to have such repeater stations elsewhere.

Our external service has expanded tremendously in recent years. The voice of South Africa is carried over by our transmitters into all the countries of Africa, Western Europe and North America. With a view to the venomous and distorted propaganda from the North which is concentrated upon the people of the African states, propaganda from transmitters which are communistically inspired, transmitters which broadcast statements describing the Whites here as “the White pigs of South Africa”, it is necessary for us to expand our external services and to make them as effective as possible. Therefore this right which the S.A.B.C. is now obtaining for the erection of repeater stations beyond our borders as well, is a very important one. It will enable the people of Africa to listen to the sympathetic, helpful and friendly voice of the South African nation. If we were to be forced to introduce television in South Africa, I foresee the possibility of also making use of these repeater stations. It will probably be a very effective means of refuting the distorted propaganda of our enemies. We shall be able to show the people of Africa what the actual position is. They will be able to see it on television with their own eyes. I know that when that happens the hon. member for Orange Grove will again say that he pleaded for it, because he pleads for everything that is impossible. I hope he lives to see that day.

These powers mentioned in the Bill are nothing new. All 73 countries with external services have such powers. They erect repeater stations in other countries to make their transmissions more effective. Why does the hon. member begrudge us this? I say it is because his full loyalty and full allegiance are not vested here. Hon. members opposite also claim that these powers are being requested in order to use our external service for propaganda purposes. But the then Prime Minister of South Africa, Dr. Verwoerd, assured the world at the inception of our external service in 1966, that South Africa would be true to the international legal regulations signed by 37 countries in 1946 and which were endorsed by the General Assembly of the U.N. in 1945. This agreement provided, inter alia—and it is interesting to note this—(a) that no transmission which is intended to undermine the order and safety of other states shall be undertaken (b) that no transmissions shall be undertaken which are aimed at inciting two countries to war; (c) that in times of crisis care should be taken that transmissions meet with the requirements of truthfulness and accuracy and (d) that transmissions which would disturb good international relations be prohibited. Sir, in its external service South Africa still maintains this international agreement, and the S.A.B.C. will also continue to do so in its external service. It will confine itself strictly to this agreement. It is surely interesting to note that the people who are to-day shouting for the banning of South Africa from international conference halls are specifically those people who have no respect for international rules and regulations, and that they transgress them as they please. With its external service the S.A.B.C. has made great breakthroughs in the past. The voice of South Africa is heard everywhere in the world and has made many friends for us. This is confirmed by the thousands upon thousands of letters which the S.A.B.C. receives annually. For example, in 1967 almost 15,000 letters were received from 92 different countries in appreciation of the factual quality, accuracy and matter-of-factness of the service, thousands of which were also received from 39 African states. This proves the value of the external service to South Africa, but that hon. member said that the external service was there for the National Party! What value does the external service have for the National Party? The external service carries the voice of South Africa abroad and not that of the National Party, because, after all, we cannot recruit members from abroad. I can foresee that if such a service were to be directed at areas further away from Africa it would mean a tremendous amount for our country.

In conclusion I merely want to add the following in connection with clause 10. The hon. member for Orange Grove pleaded for free licences to be granted to all pensioners. Is he doing this with a view to a little political propaganda? Because here in the Act it is stated that the S.A.B.C. is now being empowered, with the approval of the Minister, to exempt certain groups of aged persons from payment of licence fees. I want to thank the hon. the Minister heartily for that. I know that all pensioners definitely do not need to be exempted from the payment of radio licence fees, and therefore this cannot apply as a general rule; it would be foolish to do so, but I also trust that this rule will definitely be made applicable to all State-supported institutions for the aged, because it is a fact that the radio is of tremendous value to our old people —I express my thanks for that in anticipation. While the lonely aged would otherwise have pined away and died in their loneliness, radios are to-day becoming their only and their finest companions. They can enter into the spirit of their church services, their national festivals; they know what is going on in the world.

Would it not have been much better for them if there had been television?

Order! That has nothing to do with this matter.

I recently heard of an old lady who passed away peacefully while her bedside radio was still playing. We want to express our heartfelt thanks for this concession which has been made to this group of people.

Sir, our amendment objects to the extended powers which are given to the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation without sufficient control, in our opinion, by Parliament or without supervision of its finances by the Auditor-General. We further complain about inadequate information concerning the activities of the Corporation, information to which we believe the public and their representatives in Parliament are entitled. As the hon. member for Orange Grove pointed out, the only control which appears to us to exist over the S.A.B.C. is by way of the issue of a licence to that Corporation and by way of the tabling of an annual report for Parliament to discuss. Over the years this side of the House has taken the line that we should have a very much more direct control over the activities of the S.A.B.C. than we have. We have seen time and time again in this House that questions have been put to the Minister concerning the S.A.B.C. and that we have very often been told that it is not the concern of the Minister and that the Corporation is an independent one.

By the previous Minister.

Sir, I would have thought that the two members on the Government side who spoke this afternoon, the hon. members for Sunnyside and Algoa, would have been very interested in a little less control being exercised over the S.A.B.C. I would have thought that they, and I suppose about another ten members of this House, would have had a particular interest in the activities of the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation. Sir, both these two speakers from the Government side agree that this Bill has wide implications. They agree that inside South Africa the policy of the National Party is broadcast by the S.A.B.C.

Your policy as well.

They agree also that broadcasts outside of South Africa are not the policy of the Nationalist Party because, they said, that it was not necessary for them to canvass members in the outside world. I would like to ask those two members what policy is exported by the S.A.B.C. if it is not the policy of the Nationalist Party and of the Government? Is there one policy for international consumption and another one for internal consumption?

The official South African policy.

What is that?

I thought that others in the Nationalist Party would have welcomed closer control of the S.A.B.C. more particularly at the present time. One thinks of the recent broadcasts in Current Affairs and its comments on two of the leading newspapers which support the Nationalist Party, Die Burger and Die Beeld.

Order! Is the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) reading a newspaper?

He is doing some research.

The hon. member is not allowed to do so.

Both hon. members who have spoken from the Government side believe that this is a very important Bill although to my astonishment the hon. member for Sunnyside indicated at the commencement of his speech that the Opposition was getting excited about a Bill which was not particularly important. But what was most impressive to me was the extent to which both those hon. members dealt with one aspect of this Bill, namely clause 6, and the establishment of radio stations, television stations and sub-stations outside of South Africa. Not only did the hon. member for Sunnyside commence his speech by talking about this clause, but be came back to it approximately three times and ended with a tirade about the Opposition and its attitude towards broadcasts outside South Africa. I think that the reason why the Bill contains this clause 6, which gives the S.A.B.C. the power to establish radio stations outside of South Africa, is that the S.A.B.C.’s idea of en outward policy is not quite the same as that of the Government. They would be far happier to establish radio stations outside of South Africa themselves than to have the Minister of Foreign Affairs do so; they would have far greater control over the programmes to be exported over those stations.

Sir, I should like to welcome certain features of this Bill. I should like to welcome the benefits which are being conferred on the workers of the S.A.B.C. The benefits which are referred to in clause 6 (f) and (g) are, I think, substantial benefits: the establishment of a housing fund for the provision of housing for officers and other employees of the Corporation upon terms and conditions such as the Corporation may determine. Frankly, I think it is a pity that those terms and conditions are determined by the Corporation. I would have preferred them to have been the normal terms and conditions laid down in respect of Government departments. They may well be, but it is a pity that we do not know whether they are or whether they are not. Secondly, I naturally welcome the establishment of the bursary fund to finance or to assist in financing in the interests of the Corporation the training or further training of existing or prospective officers and other employees of the Corporation. All of these are very worthy objects and they are naturally welcomed by this side of the House. The hon. member for Port Natal has already referred to the issuing of free licences, and here I should like to make a plea to the hon. the Minister who. after all, is the last arbiter on the issue of free licences, for more concessionary licences to be given, particularly to organizations such as, for example, the Moths organization. If free licences can be given to some of those elderly people who have served their country well, I think it is something that will be very much appreciated, not only by this side of the House, but also by people outside. I would therefore ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the question of issuing free licences more freely than has been the case in the past.

Then I come to the question of the establishment of radio stations outside of South Africa, a matter which is dealt with in clause 6. The establishment of radio stations within the Republic is apparently within the functions of the S.A.B.C., without ministerial approval. Am I right in saying that the S.A.B.C. may establish radio stations in South Africa without the Minister’s approval at present? Paragraph (a) then goes on to say that the S.A.B.C. may establish radio stations with the approval of the Minister outside the Republic and the Territory of South West-Africa. The point I want to make is that very wide powers are given to the S.A.B.C., albeit with approval of the Minister, to acquire or erect broadcasting or television stations or substations and such studios or plant as may be required in connection with any such station, and acquire any equipment therefor or rights connected there with. What is not clear to me is whether those radio stations are South African property, whether they are South African radio stations or whether, in terms of this clause, the S.A.B.C. can erect those stations for the benefit of another country? I take it that that is what happened in the case of Malawi, the case to which the hon. member for Sunnyside referred. As I understand the position, the S.A.B.C., presumably at the behest of the Malawian Government, erected a radio station there, possibly because Malawi itself could not do it, and Malawi then paid for it. Is that correct? If that is the case, we naturally have no objection to assistance being given to friendly States, and we naturally have no objection to the S.A.B.C. erecting stations in friendly States for the purpose of broadcasting to them from South Africa. That makes good sense to us, but we would like to have more details about these contracts the S. A.B.C. can enter into with friendly states We would like to know the financial implications. We should like to know who approved these agreements. I take it the Minister must approve all of them. It is interesting, in terms of this clause, to see it is possible that while we are going to be able to erect television stations for other friendly countries, we shall not necessarily have it for ourselves. That is, of course, a matter which lies very near to the heart of the hon. member for Orange Grove. To-day we feel there should have been very much more frankness by this Minister when he came to Parliament with this Bill. We believe that this is one of the occasions where a lot of jumping to conclusions by us and other people outside could have been avoided had the Minister come to us with a White Paper explaining in great detail the objects and the provisions of this Bill. I think, for example, the hon. member for Sunnyside would perhaps not have been quite so confused in his approach to this Bill had there been a White Paper issued and made available not only to him, but also to this side of the House. For the reasons the hon. member for Orange Grove has given in his amendment, we object to this Bill.

The Opposition has seen fit to move an amendment to this legislation, which reads that “this House … declines to pass the … Bill as it (a) further extends the powers of the Corporation without providing for any control by Parliament or scrutiny by the Auditor-General”. The hon. members stated in their speeches how the control of this Parliament would now, to a larger extent, be curtailed by this Bill, and they mentioned as examples the powers of expropriation. I stated specifically in my speech “in addition, it will only be possible to exercise these powers in any specific case with the approval of the Minister”. If the Minister still has to grant his approval, then, when all is said and done, the Minister still remains responsible to this Parliament and has to report to this House on it, and then questions can be put to him in regard to matters of this nature. Now I should like to know where the control of this Parliament is in any way being curtailed in respect of these powers of expropriation? In regard to free listeners’ licences, I stated that the regulations in terms of which it can be specified that a certain category of persons may receive free licences are not valid without the approval of the Minister. There is no curtailment in this case, either of the control of Parliament, for the Minister is responsible to Parliament; and the same applies to radio stations abroad. It will therefore be necessary for the Corporation to convince the Minister of the need and desirability of each proposal of this nature, and these powers can only be exercised with the approval of the Minister. But are the powers of Parliament being curtailed in any way by these amendments? The Opposition cannot show me one instance where justification exists for the first part of their amendment, i.e. that the powers of the Corporation are being further extended without in any way providing for any control by Parliament or careful scrutiny by the Auditor-General.

Now. in regard to the Controller and Auditor-General and the request of the Opposition in this regard. This is not a matter that this amending measure now seeks to change. This is a matter for which provision was made in the principal Act of 1936. At the time the United Party Minister, the late Mr. Clarkson, introduced the measure in this way and had it accepted by Parliament in this way, that it should not be the Controller and Auditor-General who scrutinizes the accounts of the Corporation, but in fact appointed accountants, appointed by the Corporation itself.

But the 1948 Commission did in fact recommend that it should be done.

That has nothing to do with it. The fact of the matter is that in 1936 the United Party Government made provision for that, and the position of Escom, which is also a utility company, is precisely the same as that of the S.A.B.C.—the Auditor-General has no powers in regard to the accounts of Escom.

In addition the amendment states that the already inadequate information concerning the activities of the Corporation with the Minister is furnished to Parliament is being further limited. They mention the “already inadequate information”. The hon. member has, during the past year, since I became Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, asked me a great number of questions, and I did not withhold from him one single detail in regard to the affairs of the S.A.B.C. which he requested from me. What right has the hon. member for Orange Grove to talk of the “already inadequate information”?

Did you say one word about the S.A.B.C. in your Budget speech?

No, the hon. member is trying to create a totally wrong impression now. After all, he knows as well as I that the loans which are made available to the S.A.B.C. by this Government are not made available under the Post Office estimates, but under the estimates of the Minister of Finance, and the occasion will arise when I shall have to give an account of those loans made to the S.A.B.C. The hon. member is trying to create a totally wrong impression. But since the hon. member for Orange Grove is talking about this—and this is the important point—have I refused to reply to one single matter raised by hon. members on the opposite side of the House on the affairs of the S.A.B.C. under the Post Office Vote? But he knows that this is not the case, and that I have replied to everything. I accounted for everything in full. There is not a single question to which I did not reply. I want to say that I think the Opposition has in the past introduced many ridiculous amendments, but I think this one tops them all. for not a single word of this amendment is true. There is nothing in this amending measure they can produce to lend substance to their amendment. I have had—and this is propably my fate and I shall simply have to endure it —to listen to a great deal of nonsense from the hon. member for Orange Grove, but I have never listened to more arrant nonsense than he spoke here to-day on this measure.

The hon. member for Orange Grove returned to the so-called gift as he called it, to Malawi by the S.A.B.C. and then he referred to words I used in the House in reply to his allegations, but the hon. member must at least try to listen to the tone of voice one uses when one is joking with him. But on 28th March the hon. member for Orange Grove put a question to me. He asked whether I had any knowledge of donations or cases of assistance rendered or the sale of equipment by the S.A.B.C. or the Post Office, amounting to R1,000, to countries beyond the borders of South Africa, or to bodies in such countries. I told him that I knew only of sales in the case of the Post Office. My reply on the matter was clear and unequivocal. After all, the hon. member for Orange Grove cannot now embroider on the information I gave him as recently as 28th March and say that I did not furnish him with the details. But he is coming back to the subject. (Interjections.) But I told him I only had knowledge of the Post Office. Now the hon. member is saying that he does not have the details to raise it under the Foreign Affairs Vote. But why does the hon. member not put the question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs? Why does he not try to seek the information there? I am not prepared to help the hon. member for Orange Grove, when he deliberately plays the ignorant, to help him in his ignorance. He knows better. He is too good a Paul Pry not to know what procedure he should follow in this House. More than anything else he is a Paul Pry. That is one thing he can do well, to pry and to thrust his nose into everybody’s business. Must I go so far as to help the hon. member in this pastime? I would fail hopelessly if I had to help him to pry about some more. I think that I shall still have to learn what he has forgotten about all the methods of prying.

A great deal was said about free listeners’ licences. This amendment arises from an amendment to the Radio Act which I still intend introducing this year and which will be introduced into Parliament soon, in terms of which the collection of radio licence fees will be changed. Certain things arose from that in terms of which it will no longer be necessary for the Post Office, which in fact acts as agent for the S.A.B.C. as far as the collection of these fees is concerned, to keep a register of radio licences; and since the 25 cent licences where the person pays only 25 cents, which can in fact be regarded as a free listeners’ licence, will not in future be collected by the Post Office, and it will as a result no longer be necessary for them to keep a register of this list, it is being left to the S.A.B.C. to keep a record of these free listeners’ licences, and to publish it themselves. This saves the S.A.B.C. the expense of paying agents’ commission, to put it like that, to the Post Office, and it will, in all probability, save those people who receive the free licences that 25 cents. That is one of the harmless changes which are being effected in regard to the free listeners’ licences, i.e. to authorize the S.A.B.C. to issue the licences itself. But the conditions under which they will be issued will still be determined by the Minister. The powers of the Minister are not being diminished in any way, and therefore the powers of control of this Parliament are not being diminished in any way. Consequently, all those ulterior motives which hon. members opposite see in this, do not exist.

I saw no ulterior motives here.

No, but others did. The other harmless change is that provision is being made for free licences to be granted not only to educational and charitable institutions and hospitals, but also to deserving categories of persons. That is all that is being done, but apparently if one effects harmless changes like this, one is suspected of curtailing the control which Parliament has over these matters, etc. The hon. member for Orange Grove asked me to state to whom these 25 cent licences were being issued. I shall furnish the list:

Does the hon. member perhaps know how many such licences were issued?

I am speaking under correction now, but I think that the number is plus-minus 4,500. I shall return just now, when I am replying to the hon. member for Port Natal, to the question of these licences. In regard to radio stations abroad, I just want to say that as the Bill provides, the S.A.B.C. is being authorized to erect radio stations. Now, the hon. member for Orange Grove is insinuating that provision is also being made for television stations here. He also put the question as to whether we would now find ourselves in the untenable situation that this hon. Minister is making provision for the erection of television stations for South Africa abroad, whereas we in South Africa do not even have television?

I was only pulling the hon. Minister’s leg.

Oh, now it is simply a matter of leg-pulling. The hon. member said this in all earnest. What impression was he trying to create by doing so? He was simply creating confusion by trying to create the impression that I now, for the first time, wanted to make provision here for the erection of television stations. However, the hon. member knows as well as I do that provision has already been made in the principal Act for the establishment of television stations. Provision has also been made for the establishment of such stations at home. This is quite obvious, because if I had omitted the word “television station” in this amending measure, that hon. member for Orange Grove would have shouted and carried on to such an extent that one would have been able to see his tonsils. He would then have imputed to me that I was engaged in the most sinister, the most secretive of activities. Of course, there is nothing to prevent him from creating the confusion, uncertainty and doubt on the other hand, with what he calls “only a joke”.

It may become desirable for the S.A.B.C. to acquire broadcasting stations beyond the borders of the Republic of South West Africa. I mention to you the reasons for strengthening and improving our overseas service. I have always thought that the Opposition was very strongly in favour of South Africa’s point of view being represented abroad. If the reply to that is in the affirmative, what objection can the hon. Opposition then have to an improvement in our overseas radio service? The B.B.C. has powerful short-wave transmitters on Ascension Island. Along the Ivory Coast the “Voice of America” radio stations have been erected for the reception and re-broadcasting of their programmes in order to strengthen their overseas radio service. So why cannot South Africa make the same provision? But no, the hon. members on the opposite side must kick up a major fuss about this. The hon. member for Orange Grove cries out that Parliamentary control is being curtailed as a result of this, and that this is a dangerous Bill. When these steps are taken, that is the kind of thing we get from the Opposition side. The S.A.B.C., also in the interests of its domestic services I may add, may find it necessary to acquire transmitters beyond the national borders, for example in Mozambique or Botswana. The hon. member for Simonstown is trying to imply that we want to establish a radio station in Malawi, and that that radio station belongs to us. But did I not tell the hon. member in my introductory speech on what conditions we would establish radio stations abroad. Why should I repeat it now? Did the hon. member not listen to me? After all, I said that for the obvious reason that it was being established in another country, consent would first have to be obtained from that particular country through normal diplomatic channels. I also told him that this could not take place without the consent of the Minister. When I say “without the consent of the Minister”, then that is most certainly not without the consent of the Government.

A great fuss was made about the expropriationary powers. Escom has the same powers we are granting to the S.A.B.C. here. This is also in the interests of the improvement of our home services. After all, a radio service is a service which is undertaken in the interests of the country. The establishment of the F.M. network, with which we are still proceeding, includes the erection of transmitters on mountain peaks, to which access roads and power lines had to be laid on. The S.A.B.C. often experiences major problems in regard to acquiring the sites and the through-access roads to the sites on the mountains, because the owners charge quite exhorbitant prices in the knowledge that the S.A.B.C. is compelled to make use of the specific sites. I just want to mention two examples of cases like this. We had a case where a land owner, after prolonged negotiations, would not accept a price of less than R7,500 for a piece of land, 5 morgen in extent, which had officially been valued at R40 per morgen. His original price was R20,000. Eventually, however, it was sold for R7,500. After three years of negotiations the Corporation is still engaged in trying to persuade that man to allow a power line more than a mile long to be erected across his farm in spite of the fact that he has already been granted the right to take power to his house, as well as other concessions by the S.A.B.C.

Order! Hon. members are not allowed to read newspapers.

In another case the S.A.B.C. was also denied the right to lay on power to the F.M. site across farmland unless power, at a cost of R15,000, was supplied to the farm owner as well. But surely this is a simply impossible state of affairs. Surely it is essential, and in the interests of the domestic services, that these rights of expropriation be granted to the S.A.B.C.

Who did the expropriation in the past, if I may ask.

The S.A.B.C. did not have any such powers of expropriation. I now want to grant them this power here for the first time. After all, it can be deemed justifiable that the S.A.B.C. should be granted these powers. However, hon. members are forgetting that the S.A.B.C. must still convince the Minister of the desirability and the need for such an expropriation. Eventually they must also obtain his approval. Hon. members on the opposite side, however, are not stating that restrictions are being placed on Parliamentary control. Where do they get such statements from? I shall not allow myself to be lured into a discussion of the principal Bill, because this is most certainly not the occasion for that. If the principal Act, which is not being amended in this respect, imposed a certain restriction in respect of domestic matters, which cannot be disclosed in this Parliament, then I am definitely not prepared to make any statement on that occasion; not on an occasion such as this where entirely different matters are being dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member for Wynberg allowed to read a newspaper in the House of Assembly?

It is not a newspaper, it is Veg.

I have already ruled that the hon. member may not read a newspaper.

The hon. members on the opposite side of the House have tried to imply that the provision in respect of the particulars which are furnished in the annual report of the S.A.B.C. is a terrible restriction. These particulars appear in any case in the financial accounts of the accountants, and these also appear in the annual report. Does the hon. member for Orange Grove now want to know how many tables and how many chairs the S.A.B.C. owns? Does the hon. member now wish to know all the details of that kind in regard to the S.A.B.C. property? Oh please, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove has, through his conduct in this House in regard to these amendments, caused the United Party to appear ridiculous. The hon. United Party members and their hon. Leader are also to blame in this because they ought to know that they cannot trust the hon. member with these matters. They ought to know that, and it is a pity that the Opposition should be made to appear so ridiculous by such irresponsible actions on the part of such an irresponsible member. They completely fail to fulfil the purpose of an effective Opposition in this country.

Order! The hon. Minister should moderate his language a little.

Mr. Speaker, I shall do my best, but it is very difficult. I do not know what is wrong with that.

It seems to me the hon. Minister is taking this too seriously.

No, Sir. The hon. member for Port Natal referred to concessionary licences issued to pensioners, and he advocated that such licences should also be given to those who do not live alone. This matter was carefully considered b/ the Government on previous occasions, and although these people have my sympathy, it is simply impossible to accommodate them all. When the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) raised this aspect at the right stage—it should never have been raised under this Act—I told him that we hoped to receive an increased revenue as a result of the change in the method of collecting radio licence fees, and that I could assure the hon. member that the matter would receive sympathetic consideration. We must also consider the revenue of the S.A.B.C.; that is obvious, because they also have their obligations which they have to meet, and that is also in the interests of the country.

In addition the hon. member referred to the words “other employees” as they appear in the Bill. With the words “other employees” which have been inserted throughout the legislation, it is the intention to make it clearer that the S.A.B.C.’s powers extend to all categories of its staff. This is not anything terrible or secretive as the hon. member for Port Natal suggested. In this definition Bantu employees are also included. At least, the S.A.B.C. is now able to allocate accommodation privileges to Bantu. I also want to inform the hon. member that if concessionary licences have to be allocated to these organizations for which street collections are held, it would be so wide that it would not be possible to lay down a fair criterion for issuing them. In any case, municipalities allow street collections to be held according to their own judgment and how should one now determine what organizations are deserving and what organizations are not? The present criterion is in my opinion the best criterion, i.e. that concessionary licences are only allocated to organizations which have been investigated, registered and subsidized by the State. At the moment, however, we cannot take these concessions any further.

As far as insurance schemes are concerned, I just want to say to the hon. member that the corporation receives quotas on the basis of the regulation requirements of the corporation, and that it always complies with them. I think that I have replied to virtually all the arguments which were raised. I want to repeat: It is a pity that the Opposition, when we come forward with a measure like this one, should waste the time and the money of the House and the country through having made a poor study and through not having learnt their lesson, by moving a ridiculous amendment such as the one moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members will perceive from the long title of the Bill the principal object of the proposed legislation is to make provision for two matters. Firstly for the discontinuance of the procedure whereby documents relating to immovable property in a township in the area of the Rand townships registration office are registered also in the Deeds Registry in Pretoria, and secondly for altered procedures regarding the registration of transfer of land expropriated by, or by law vested in, the State or certain other bodies, and the transfer of any right of servitude or right to minerals so expropriated or vested.

Duplicate registration of deeds as far as it relates to immovable property in a township in the area of the Rand townships registration office in both the Johannesburg and the Pretoria registries has its origin in the Townships Amendment Act, 1908, of the Transvaal. The Rand townships registration office was established in terms of this Act, falls under the Department of Mines at present, and is for administrative reasons combined with the Office of the Registrar of Mining Titles.

Deeds registration is completely foreign to the objectives and functions of the Department of Mines. In fact, what it amounts to is that that Department is burdened with control over a section which in no respect has any connection with the primary functions of that Department. Consequently interested Departments are agreed that the Rand townships registration section, which deals solely with the registration of deeds, should be transferred to that Department under which all the other Deeds Offices fall, at present the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Inter-departmental negotiations in regard to the transfer are already in progress.

Section 53 of the Townships Amendment Act, 1908, provides briefly that all documents, of any nature whatsoever, which relate to proprietary rights to land situated within any township in the mining district of Johannesburg, Boksburg and Krugersdorp (at present incorporated into the mining district of Johannesburg) can be registered either in the registry of the Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria, or in the registry of the Registrar of Rand Townships, Johannesburg. This necessitates the drawing up of said documents, which consist for the most part of deeds of transfer and mortgage deeds in triplicate, so that the registry at the one centre can submit a copy to the registry at the other centre for registration. In addition this implies that the offices in question must each notify the other of all transactions affecting said deeds. This is done in order to enable the various offices to make the necessary endorsements on the filed deeds in question and to make the requisite entries in the registers.

The application of the provisions of section 53, and the resultant procedures as explained, obviously entail tremendous duplication of work for both offices, something which ought to be eliminated in view of the manpower shortage in the Public Service. In this way, for example, no fewer than 14,999 deeds of transfer and 12,756 mortgage deeds (a total of 27,755) which were registered in one year in the Rand townships registration office were also registered in the Pretoria office.

A further aspect of duplicate registration is the question of the costs for the public of Johannesburg, as well as of Pretoria, but more specifically those of the former centre. Most transactions in the jurisdiction of the Rand townships registration office are first registered in Johannesburg, while a relatively small number are first registered in Pretoria. The prescribed conveyancers’ fee for the preparation of a triplicate copy of a deed amounts to R2, and in 1966 it cost the public in Pretoria R55,510 in respect of duplicate registration of deeds of transfer and mortgage bonds.

The said system of duplicate registration does not exist in any of the other registries, and the maintenance of such a system in respect of the area concerned is not considered to be in the public interest. Provision is therefore being made for the discontinuance of duplicate registration, with effect from a date to be determined. In addition provision is being made for incidental matters in regard to the Rand townships registration office as an independent office in order to effect uniformity as regards the appointment of Registrars, Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars, and the qualifications required for such appointments.

Apart from duplicate registration of deeds, a further anomaly has arisen there with the passage of years and as development in the Witwatersrand area took place, viz. that a number of townships are laid out in such a way that small portions thereof, or even a portion of an erven, is situated outside the boundaries of the area of the Rand townships registration office. This causes confusion with the registration of transactions in connection with those erven. It is desirable that the boundaries of the said area, as presently defined in paragraph (h) of the Second Schedule to the Deeds Registries Act, be amended to eliminate the intersection of townships and erven, and to correspond to existing surveyed boundaries. This matter has been investigated by the Surveyor-General and it has been found that only approximately 100 erven are intersected by the existing boundaries. Consequently it is being proposed that the latter erven be included in the area of the Rand townships registration office and that the description of the area in paragraph (h) of the Second Schedule of the Deeds Registries Act be amended accordingly. To prevent a similar problem being experienced in future, it is further proposed that section 49 of this Act be amended by providing that no township will be established or laid out or approved by the Administrator of the Transvaal unless the land which has to be included in the township is either situated entirely within or outside the area of the Rand townships registration office.

I should like to make it quite clear that the adjustment of the present boundaries of the Rand townships registration area is exclusively aimed at eliminating the present intersection of townships and erven, and as already indicated, only a few erven are concerned in the boundary adjustments. This step must not therefore be deemed to be an indication that my Department is in favour of decentralization.

In terms of section 31 of the Deeds Registries Act, the transfers of land which has been legally expropriated can take place by way of a deed of transfer which can be executed by the Registrar of Deeds concerned, i.e. without the person from whom the land has been expropriated playing any part in the transfer. Where a servitude on land or a right to minerals is expropriated, Section 32 of the Act provides, however, that the servitude or right to minerals must be registered by way of a notarial deed which must be signed by the owner of the land, or if he refuses to sign it or to authorize its signature, the deed must be executed by a nominee of the expropriating authority. Apart from the fact that no justification exists for the registration of an expropriated servitude or right to minerals having to take place in the first instance with the co-operation of an owner who may be unwilling or who cannot be traced, whereas this is not the case with land which has been expropriated, the procedure is clumsy and time-consuming.

The Railways Administration in particular has submitted representations for the simplification of the procedure which is at present being followed for the registration of expropriated servitudes, and is particularly concerned about the servitudes which are being expropriated in regard to the pipeline which is being constructed between Durban and the Witwatersrand via Richards Bay. Some of the properties between Durban and Richards Bay belong to numerous Indian owners, of which a few cannot be traced at all. This complicates the registration of the servitude rights according to proper survey charts. The latter is regarded as essential in order to prevent a repetition of what happened at Pietermaritzburg when the oil pipeline was damaged by the bulldozer of a building construction firm as a result of the fact that the situation of the pipeline was not specified by means of proper registration.

The registration procedure in regard to expropriated servitudes and rights to minerals have also been investigated by the departmental committee of enquiry into the simplification of work in the deeds offices, which proposed inter alia that section 32 of the Deeds Registries Act be amended to make provision for the registration of expropriated servitudes and rights to minerals by way of a deed which; can be executed by the Registrar of Deeds on the same basis as in the case of expropriated land. Provision is therefore being made for transfer of said expropriated servitudes and other rights by way of a deed of cession which has to be drawn up by a conveyancer and executed by the Registrar of Deeds. In addition provision is being made in sections 31 and 32 for authorization to be granted to the Registrar of Deeds to endorse an expropriation deed or expropriated servitude or right to minerals only against the registration duplicate of a title deed when a sworn statement is submitted to the effect that the transferee or cessionary, as the case may be, was unable to obtain the deed of transfer.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House want to support this Bill. We cannot see any reason either for it being necessary that duplicate registration should take place on the Rand and in Pretoria. In view of the fact that the Government is experiencing a great shortage of officials, and cannot obtain the necessary officials, we will help them to facilitate registration in this way Consequently we support this measure.

I should just like to thank the Opposition sincerely for their support in this connection.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill contains a number of divergent amendments of the 1968 Marketing Act, and I shall consequently explain the various amendments point by point for the convenience of hon. members.

The marketing of meat, maize, dairy products, wheat and tobacco was, before the introduction of the Marketing Act in 1937, regulated by separate legislation which had been passed by Parliament. The Livestock and Meat Industries Control Board, the Mealie Industry Control Board, the Dairy Industry Control Board, the Wheat Industry Control Board, and the Tobacco Industry Control Board, all owe their establishment to this legislation. With the passing of the Marketing Act in 1937 special provision was made for the introduction of schemes under the latter Act in respect of the products for which the aforesaid boards were established. The Marketing Act provides that all provisions of the old Schedule Laws, as they were generally known, which were compatible with the provisions of published scheme for the products, should be suspended during the period in which such a scheme was in force. Shortly after the passing of the Marketing Act, schemes in respect of all the aforementioned products were introduced. Certain powers granted by the Schedule Laws, which were not embodied in the Marketing Act were incorporated into the schemes. Although the aforesaid laws were therefore suspended for the duration of the schemes in question, they still had a specific use in this respect that certain provisions of the scheme were derived from the aforesaid laws.

With the passing of years the Marketing Act has undergone a complete metamorphosis. The provisions of that Act have been expanded to such an extent that the provisions of the aforesaid schemes are now almost completely covered by the Marketing Act. In one case only, the imposition of a levy by the Meat Board, is the authorization of the scheme vested in the previous Act. This is the Livestock and Meat Industry Control Act of 1934.

In view of the fact that the Schedule Laws have at present almost fallen into general disuse, it is now proposed that aforesaid laws should all be repealed and that provision should be made in the Marketing Act for the Meat Board levy, and for the re-introduction of the said control boards in terms of the various schemes under the Marketing Act. I should also like to bring it to the attention of hon. members that prior consultations were held with all the boards in question in this connection, and that they support the proposals. With the re-introduction of the said boards the opportunity also presents itself to simplify the former clumsy titles. “Mealie Industry Control Board” will for example be simplified to “Mealie Board” which corresponds to the name by which the board is known in common parlance.

The repeal of the Schedule Laws also entails that the Marketing Act will of necessity have to be adjusted in certain respects. Although these proposed amendments are for the most part of a technical nature, and I do not want to burden this hon. House with them, I do nevertheless want to refer briefly to the proposed repeal of section 27 of the Act. This section provides at present that if the Mealie Scheme should cease to relate to sorghum a separate scheme can consequently be introduced for sorghum and that a board other than the Mealie Board may implement such a scheme. The provision was originally included in the Act as a result of nature of section I (3) (f) and 8 (2) (d) of the Act, i.e. that sorghum is deemed to be the subject of the Mealie Control Amendment Act of 1935, and that the board which was established in terms of that Act, is also deemed to have been established in respect of sorghum. The Mealie Control Amendment Act of 1935 is one of the Schedule Laws, the repeal of which is now being moved, whereas section I (3) (f) and 8 (2) (d) will also have to be deleted in order to correspond with the proposed repeal. With the deletion of these sections the purpose of section 27 lapses, and there is no reason why it should continue in force. However, it in no way detracts from the existing legal machinery which will be required for the introduction of a separate sorghum scheme if it should subsequently be decided that the introduction of such a separate scheme is justified.

In addition the measure makes provision for the suspension of certain restrictions in regard to the imposition of a levy on a controlled product. Sections 41 and 44 of the Marketing Act grant a control board the power to impose a levy and a special levy on the product in respect of which such a board controls a scheme. Although these provisions are very generally phrased the application is however, considerably curbed by the restrictive nature of the provisions of section 42 which allows that a levy can only be payable by certain specified classes of persons. These restrictions on the classes of persons by whom the levy has to be paid has recently resulted in problems in that it is not always possible in view of the divergent nature of the various marketing systems, to confine the application strictly to the specified classes of persons. Since the sections must now be amended in any case in order to make an allowance in respect of the classes of persons who have to pay the Meat Board levy, i.e.—(a) in the case of the uncontrolled areas, the abattoir owner who at the same time must receive a right of recovery from the butcher and the butcher in turn from the owner of the animal in respect of the amount of a levy paid; and (b) in the case of the controlled areas, the handling agent who brings the animals into the area, who at the same time must be granted the right to deduct the amount of a levy paid on the yield of the meat, it is now being proposed that all restrictions in the section on the classes of persons who can be required to pay the levy be repealed so that this class of persons can be prescribed in the schemes according to the circumstances peculiar to the regulations in respect of each separate product. The alternative of course is to prescribe specifically in the Act the various classes of persons, with reference to the various products, but it is felt that such a provision will not be in line with the other provisions of the Act which are all phrased in general terms.

The Act makes provision for the promulgation of a prohibition on the sale of a product unless it has been packed and stamped according to the grade prescribed by regulation. Such a prohibition applies at present in the case of meat which is sold in the urban areas of the Republic. The requirements in regard to the grading and stamping of carcases are being strictly enforced in these areas, but practical problems are being experienced in regard to the application of the prohibition in the case of meat cuts and portions of carcases which originated in adjoining territories or which are remains of meat which cannot be profitably exported or canned. This meat is at present being sold in the controlled area by means of public auction, under the supervision of the Meat Board. Such meat cannot be stamped in accordance with the prescribed grades, firstly, because meat grading in the uncontrolled area where it comes from is not compulsory, and secondly, because carcases which are intended for export cannot be stamped on the meat itself. Consequently this meat is at present being sold contrary to the aforementioned prohibition.

The only practical solution appears to be to exempt such meat from the operation of the prohibition until such time as a method can be devised to grade meat which is no longer in carcase form. However, the Act at present provides only that exemption can be granted when the product is sold by way of experiment. It is consequently being proposed that provision be now made for the exemption of a product which is sold under special circumstances, as is the case with meat cuts.

In a memorandum which was published at the same time as the Bill, a summary is furnished of the contributory causes as to why it has become necessary to obtain authorization for the imposition of a levy on uncontrolled products, and purposes for which the yield from such levy will be applied. Owing to the financial implications of the introduction a full marketing scheme in terms of the Marketing Act is not always justified from an economic point of view in the case of the lesser important industries. Although such industries cannot afford the prescribed marketing schemes, it does not necessarily mean however that such industries cannot in addition be assisted by way of a simpler and cheaper scheme. It is therefore being proposed that provision be made for a system by means of which it will be possible for the Minister and his Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing to adopt measures in regard to the production and marketing of uncontrolled agricultural products, and to obtain any funds which may be required in that connection by way of a levy from each such industry. The Department will administer a separate account on behalf of each industry concerned, and all payments in respect of the measures adopted in regard to the product concerned may be debited from it.

The purposes for which the fund may be utilized are deliberately being phrased in general terms in the Bill since it is not clear at this stage precisely which forms the measures will take, particularly as a result of the divergent marketing requirements of the different products. What is being envisaged for the most part however is to counteract the prejudicial effect of surplus conditions, with which certain industries are faced from time to time, by rendering assistance for example in regard to the removal of surpluses from the markets at an appropriate juncture.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Deputy Minister quite rightly mentioned the original Marketing Act which was passed in this House in 1937. Since that time no changes as to the principle have as yet been made to that Act. As the hon. Deputy Minister also quite rightly said, the principal purpose of that Act was to afford farmers the opportunity of submitting certain schemes to the Minister and of affording the farmers a greater say in the marketing of their product. The principal aim was to effect price stability. For those products for which schemes were introduced, special levies were also imposed in order to combat expenses in regard to those products.

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

I have to inform the House that the State President has been pleased to nominate me to open the Transkei Legislative Assembly in Umtata on 23rd April, 1969. On my visit to the Transkei I shall be accompanied by the hon. members for Klip River and Wolmaransstad and the Deputy Secretary to the House of Assembly. I shall consequently be absent for the sittings of the House of Assembly on 22nd and 23rd April and, if necessary, also on 24th April. During my absence the provisions of Standing Order No. 17 will apply.

May I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? I have a large number of subjects to discuss with the hon. the Prime Minister this year and I intend to group them under four different heads. The first group will concern matters flowing from personal decisions taken by the hon. the Prime Minister as Leader of the Government. The second will concern what I regard as faults and weaknesses in the administration of certain Ministers, defects so serious that they demand the intervention of the head of the Government. The third will concern policy matters in respect of which there appears to be confusion in the ranks of the Prime Minister’s party …

And what about your party?

… confusion, I believe, induced by the lack of leadership by the hon. the Prime Minister. The last group concerns certain developments in the Prime Minister’s policy in the field of foreign affairs.

The first matter I want to raise under the first head, that is matters flowing from personal decisions by the Prime Minister, has to do with international sport. Hon. members will recall that the hon. the Prime Minister outlined his policy in respect of international sport in two speeches early in 1967. Since I want to deal with the D’Oliveira case and the subsequent developments arising from that case, I want to quote that portion dealing most pertinently with cricket. We find it in Hansard, Volume 20, at column 3994 in the English edition. Briefly, this is what the Prime Minister said—

That is perfectly plain and I emphasize those three conditions because of subsequent developments, because in effect I accepted them in column 3998. I dealt with the Prime Minister’s statement and the Prime Minister interjected to say, “With a proviso attached”. I then replied—

There is no doubt that this statement led, and quite understandably, to the belief that an M.C.C. team, including the Coloured cricketer D’Oliveira, would not be unacceptable to South Africa. Now we hear that by February, 1968, long before the team was chosen or there was any question of it, the Prime Minister had privately warned Viscount Cobham that D’Oliveira would not be acceptable. If that warning had been given publicly, of course it would have meant that the team would not come as the M.C.C. had made it plain that they would not be dictated to. I must say at once that I was unaware of this conversation until I saw it reported in the Press. When I saw it reported in the Press, I took the trouble to telephone Viscount Cobham in England. He is an old friend of mine and he is an old friend of South Africa. His mother was a South African, and he is a man who is very well disposed towards us. I gave the hon. the Prime Minister an account, privately, of what was said in the course of that telephone conversation so it is no surprise to him to-day. Here is what he said, and I think it is as well that we should deal with it. He said that Mr. Vorster had never made mention to him, as suggested by Hennessy in The Times, that we might run a risk of violence if a white umpire were to give D’Oliveira out. He says the Prime Minister never said that and he himself was never guilty of saying anything of that kind, nor had Mr. Vorster ever suggested to him that South Africans would be prepared, if necessary, to reimburse D’Oliveira for any loss of earnings. He said there was no question of that; that is out of the question. He says that he never made it public that he had seen the Prime Minister; that he had merely said to Billy Griffiths, secretary of the M.C.C., privately that Mr. Vorster had said that D’Oliveira would be unacceptable to the Government; that somehow this had leaked out, not from Viscount Cobham; that he was ’phoned by the Daily Mail at 12 o’clock one night and asked whether he had seen Mr. Vorster; that he replied “yes”, but gave no further details of any kind.

I may say, Sir, that he wants to tender his apologies to the Prime Minister if he has embarrassed him in any way, because this is not his intention or desire. Sir, before dealing with the statement I want something else to be very clear indeed, and that is that I am satisfied from the facts, in so far as they are available to me, that the coaching offer to D’Oliveira, of which we are hearing so much to-day, was neither sponsored nor inspired by the Prime Minister and his Government or by the South African Cricket Association. I accept that unequivocally. Sir, my concern with the Prime Minister’s action lies in a different direction. I want to know and I think the public of South Africa wants to know, because this story of the interview with Viscount Cobham is now public property—it has been published in the Press and the warning has been published in the Press—what caused the Prime Minister to give this warning to Viscount Cobham, as I believe he did early last year. I want to know which of the three conditions that he laid down operated in this case.

Did you perhaps see him yourself?

No, unfortunately not. I believe I arranged an interview for him with the Prime Minister on his previous visit but not on this visit. Funnily enough, he does not remember it either; I may be wrong. I accept that; I did not see him myself after he saw the Prime Minister, and my discussions with him previously were on a different basis, of which I think the Prime Minister has also been informed. Sir, let us look at these conditions again. The Prime Minister laid down three conditions: Politicians must not intervene in the matter to impair relations between countries …

To which column are you referring?

I am quoting from col. 3994 of Hansard, vol. 20. The Prime Minister said—

Those were the three conditions. Which of those could have applied in February, 1968, to cause the hon. the Prime Minister to make that statement? It is true, D’Oliveira had played during that English winter in a series of test matches in the West Indies where he had not done very well; the series against Australia had not yet started and it was very uncertain whether he was going to be selected. What would cause the hon. the Prime Minister to make that statement? I think the public is entitled to know which one of those provisions he felt applied and why he thought it necessary to make that statement. I feel that the Prime Minister also owes it to the public to tell us what he told Sir Alec Douglas Home. Did it differ any way from what he told Viscount Cobham? We have heard that the M.C.C. preferred the advice of Sir Alec Douglas Home to that of Viscount Cobham, but we do not know exactly what took place. Sir, this brings me to another point, and it is that all this is important because there is an allegation in a publication which is known to the hon. the Prime Minister …

And the Minister of Transport.

I refer to the publication called Veg, which reported an allegation alleged to have been made by the hon. member for Innesdal—

Sir, I raise this more in sorrow than in anger because I am one of those who are very anxious to see that the New Zealand rugby tour comes off. I think the time has come for us to have a clear and unequivocal statement from the Prime Minister.

You have had it.

No, I have not; I have not had any statement from the Prime Minister as to why he made that statement to Viscount Cobham.

You have had it in both senses of the word.

There is one sense in which I have not had it, that is quite clear, but maybe the Prime Minister has had it. The other thing is this. We must get absolutely clear, there must be no doubt at all, what the position is in regard to the New Zealand rugby tour next year. That is the first thing I want to raise with the Prime Minister.

The next matter I want to raise under this head concerns an apparent administrative decision as a result of which it would seem that the secret services of the army, the navy and the air force will now be removed from the control of Defence and will be placed under the charge of the hon. the Prime Minister himself. I see the Prime Minister’s Vote includes an amount of R4 million plus for secret services, while military intelligence is down to R39,000 from R830,000, but the Police Vote under the head is up to R1 1/4 million. This means there is going to be a big increase on what is spent upon secret services. It means they are going to be under the control of the Prime Minister. What I want to know and what the public want to know is whether all security and intelligence agencies are now under one central control. We understand Defence intelligence is now controlled by the Prime Minister who is also controlling the security police who previously were under the Minister of Police and whose vote is still provided for under the Police Vote. Secondly we want to know the reasons for this vast increase, we want to know the reasons for this change, and we want to know also whether they are carried out with the approval and support of the Minister of Defence and the chiefs of the Defence Force.

You see, Sir, there are many examples in other parts of the world of intelligence services falling under the chief executive, but they have not always been so happy, because intelligence services operating externally sometimes resulted in foreign involvement. Those foreign involvements can be pretty awkward indeed if the intelligence service concerned is controlled by the chief executive and not by a Minister other than the chief executive himself.

I have been dipping into some books on the activities of intelligence agencies. One concerns the Central Intelligence Agency in the U.S.A. I quote here from “The Central Intelligence Agency” by Andrew Tully, page 57, where he deals with the revolt of the French generals. Here is what they write—

Then there is another passage in that book which is significant. I quote—

Then there were other critics who pointed out that intelligence might get mixed up with politics. If one looks at the history of the C.I.A., even after the Second World War, one finds that they have been involved in many external adventures. There was the Algerian generals’ revolt; there was trouble in Guatemala; there was the overthrow of Mossadeq; there was the prevention of a revolt in Jordan; there was an attempt to prevent one in Iraq; there was the position in Egypt with Naguib, and then Nasser; there was the Hungarian revolution. So I could go on. There is no doubt that they were involved. What worries me, and I think the public as well, is that something of this kind might happen in which the Prime Minister himself will be involved. I think what we want from him is an assurance that it is not the intention that this central control will result in involvement outside South Africa.

Sir, I have a third issue under this head which I want to raise with the hon. the Prime Minister. Last year, when the Prime Minister was still Minister of Police as such, he caused the Police, in this case the Security Police, to investigate the origin of two pamphlets which were called “smear pamphlets”.

One, not two.

I accept it. The hon. gentleman says one. It was distributed evidently by enthusiastic young Afrikaners who were apparently disappointed in the hon. the Prime Minister’s departures from some of the late Dr. Verwoerd’s policies. The whole matter gave rise to a great deal of comment in the Press. Hon. members will be familiar with the facts. It is not necessary for me to go over them again. As a result, I asked the hon. the Prime Minister three questions through the Press. I asked the hon. gentleman, first of all, what alleged crime were the Police instructed to investigate? What charges, if any, have been laid? Is it usual or desirable for the Minister concerned, in this case the hon. the Prime Minister as Minister of Police, to reveal the identities of the suspects before they have been charged, and if charged, before they have been brought to trial, and to attack them at a public meeting for political actions without specifying any crime of which they may be guilty?

Before I deal with the hon. the Prime Minister’s reply, I do want to deal with just one other item of news which appeared at the same time. It reads as follows—

I see the hon. the Minister of Transport sitting there. I take it this is correct?

Substantially.

Thank you, Sir. Now, the hon. the Prime Minister replied to me and said that this investigation, in fact, was nothing unusual, that the first pamphlet had purported to come from communist or fellow travellers, and that while investigating this matter, the Security Police became aware of the identity of the writers of a second pamphlet. They, in fact, came and revealed their identity to them.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that the second pamphlet was investigated because of a mention of the State President.

Inter alia, but it was not even necessary to investigate it, as I told the publishers.

Yes. They admitted that they were responsible for a pamphlet. This was the reply of the hon. the Prime Minister which was published in Die Transvaler—

Did the hon. the Prime Minister not reveal these names to the hon. the Minister of Transport?

That is not making it public.

So it is not public if it is revealed to the hon. the Minister of Transport. I see, the hon. the Minister of Transport has the right to know before people are charged. This is the point I was getting at. The hon. the Prime Minister says it was not made public. However, it was revealed to the hon. the Minister of Transport.

The hon. the Minister of Transport is a member of the Cabinet.

So what? The hon. the Minister of Transport is also Chairman of the Nationalist Party of the Transvaal. It was revealed to him in order to decide what steps should be taken against them by the Nationalist Party of the Transvaal, and not what State action should be taken against them, not whether they should be prosecuted or not. This was used for party political ends, and not for the administration of justice. That is the point I am trying to make.

After that appeared in the newspaper I replied to the hon. the Prime Minister; I think it is worth-while having that in some detail. I said—

Need I read any more? What absolute nonsense this is! Who could take a pamphlet like this seriously? It is investigated by the Security Police. What for?

With regard to the second pamphlet, the following also appeared in the article—

This was my reply—

The phrase which appeared in the letter reads as follows—

Is that criticism? I think it was a very sensible remark the hon. the State President made before he was State President. Is this the reason for the Police being called upon to examine this document? I have raised this matter before and I have raised it again, because of the dangerous implications arising from this sort of action. This was criticism of the hon. the Prime Minister, as Leader of the Nationalist Party. This is not the first time the Security Police have been given surprising tasks. Hon. members will remember that the Security Police were called upon to investigate when the Sunday Times published information they got from certain documents which appeared to originate from Broederbond sources. What happened? They confiscated the documents and these documents have never been handed back. However, they were perfectly legally in the possession of the Sunday Times and no charge has been laid at any time. Why were they used for this purpose? I can give other examples. I must say that I very seldom find myself in agreement with Mr. S. E. D. Brown, in fact very seldom indeed! [Interjections.] My friend says that we are not bedfellows. I do not think that we are even in the same dormitory, as a matter of fact, I do not think that we are even in the same building. This is what he has said—

What has been the upshot of all this? The upshot of all this has been that many people of all shades of opinion in South Africa have rejected the explanation which was given by the hon. the Prime Minister in respect of this investigation. I think it is right that he should know this. What I want and what the public want, is an assurance that the activities of the Security Police will be limited to matters affecting the security of the State and the safety of South Africa. We also want to be assured that their activities will be directed against the enemies of South Africa, and not the opponents of the Nationalist Party or the opponents of the hon. the Prime Minister.

The fourth matter I want to raise has to do with the position of the hon. member for Ermelo. I am very sorry that he is not in his place this afternoon. The Prime Minister has dropped him from his Cabinet without a public word of thanks, as far as I have been able to ascertain. He dropped him from his Cabinet last year and ever since he ceased to be a Cabinet Minister, the hon. gentleman has kept his counsel and has not responded to the questions in the minds of the people, which have been posed from all sides in South Africa.

Last Monday in this House the hon. gentleman broke his silence. I must say it was an astounding speech. It was astounding, because until recently he enjoyed the confidence of the Prime Minister as a member of his Cabinet, and, if one were to judge from the Prime Minister’s silence since Monday, he still enjoys his confidence. It must be one of the most grievous blows to the ideal of national unity; certainly the most grievous blow since I have been in this House. I do not ask the House to accept my judgment on the hon. member’s speech. Holding the position I do, I shall no doubt be regarded as prejudiced. Therefore I shall call a witness; a witness who by all standards should be prejudiced in the favour of the Prime Minister’s Party.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, my only purpose in rising is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition may be afforded an opportunity of completing his argument.

I am very grateful and I hope I shall not have to make too much use of the time of the House.

I call the editor of Die Burger who analysed the speech of the hon. member for Ermelo, not immediately, but only on the following Wednesday after he had had ample opportunity of considering the implications of the speech very carefully. In that article he saw the speech as establishing a dividing line between élite Calvinist Afrikaner Nationalists and incurable English Nationalists who should always be suspect because of their alleged susceptibility to leftist influences. The editor of Die Burger in his leading article, described such a categorizing and labelling in our broader national life as being as inaccurate as it was pernicious. He found it regrettable that a Nationalist politician could have been seduced into such action which he described as contemptuous insinuations against the English-speaking community which deserve repudiation with contempt rather than serious consideration.

It would be difficult for anyone to condemn the speech of the hon. member in more stringent terms than those which I have referred to. This is how a prominent Nationalist newspaper saw and heard what the hon. member for Ermelo has said. I know that he has given an explanation. I really do not think it helps him very much. Sir, while Die Burger has spoken out, the Prime Minister has remained silent. He has told us many times that he wants national unity in South Africa. I wonder whether he could be happy when one of his front-benchers differentiates between an Afrikaner élite and incurable English who must always remain suspect. If Die Burger’s judgment is right, the Prime Minister can be true to his protestations only if he repudiates and denounces the speech of the hon. member for Ermelo.

The Prime Minister is the Chief Executive of the Government and the Leader of his Party. Can he lead the nation if he cannot lead the political organization which has raised him to the highest political post in South Africa? Leadership as South Africa expects it, implies not only that loyalty is demanded from those who follow you, but also that you are loyal to them as well. If Die Burger is wrong, and if there is nothing wrong in that speech, why then has the hon. the Prime Minister not spoken up in defence of the hon. member for Ermelo? I do not think he can reconcile the responsibilities of his leadership with the attitude of Die Burger on this issue and at the same time condone the sentiments of the hon. member for Ermelo. Not only his followers in this House and outside, but also the people of South Africa have the right to demand from the hon. gentleman that he should have the courage to tell us where in his view the truth lies—with the hon. member for Ermelo or with the leading article of Die Burger.

Mr. Chairman, I am rising to deal at once with certain matters raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. With some of the points he raised I can deal later and tell him why I am doing so.

Because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised the D’Oliveira question first, I got the impression that he regarded it as the most important one. [Interjection.] I am speaking to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now. When I want to speak to the Deputy Leader I shall draw his attention to that fact. As far as this matter is concerned, I have stated my point of view very clearly and unequivocally. It stands recorded in the Hansard from which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted. In fact, I do not think I left any doubts as to what my standpoint was, because if I had in fact left any doubts in regard to my standpoint, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would have asked me to clarify them, and he would have insisted on further replies. I must assume, therefore, that when we originally discussed this matter, we considered all its consequences.

I do not want to repeat everything I said on that occasion, but I laid down the following as one of the basic premises: After I had referred to the traditional sport relations between Britain, the British, and South Africa, I stated most clearly that we had never in the past, and that we would never in the future either, play the role of selection committee for Britain or for any other country, for the moment one tried to do that, one destroyed those sports relations immediately. Because no country in the world is going to allow one to act as its selection committee in advance. Surely that is clear to all of us assembled here. I laid that down as a principle.

I now want to say at once that neither the Government nor I, nor the cricket people, as far as I know, and I think I know everything there is to be known about this matter, have played the role of selection committee for Britain in this regard, just as—and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows far more about cricket than I do—we did not for one moment play the role of selector for Britain in the days when Subba Row—and the hon. member can perhaps mention the names of many more people than I can—as a black man was at the peak of his cricket career and was omitted from the team which came to South Africa. We did not at the time, either through the Government or through the Cricket Association, say to these people that they could not, or should, bring this man to South Africa. Those people, taking into consideration the particular sport relations which existed between them and us, took that decision themselves.

In the first place now, I want to confine myself to the first fact, which is that neither the Government nor I adopted any official standpoint towards either the British Government or the M.C.C. as an organization in this connection. It is perfectly true that Lord Cobham saw me, not at my request. It is also true that I saw him for a few minutes, from 2 p.m. to 2.15 p.m. until the bells of this House rang. It is true that we spoke about cricket. It is equally true that I spoke to Sir Alec Douglas-Home, again not on my own initiative, but on his, and that he discussed cricket matters with me. Now I want to make it very clear that Lord Cobham told me that he was a former president of the M.C.C.—the hon. the Leader can correct me if I am mistaken—but was no longer associated with the organization.

Home and Cobham both.

Yes, and they are no longer associated with that organization. I want to make it very clear that neither of them was competent to speak on behalf of the cricket organization or did speak on behalf of that organization. They spoke to me as private individuals. As far as these talks are concerned then they were personal, private conversations between gentlemen, and it has never been my policy to divulge personal, private conversations between gentlemen across the floor of this House, to newspapers or to any person. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may take it amiss of me now if he wants to, and hon. members opposite can take it amiss of me if they want to, but I do not intend to deviate from that principle. I repeat therefore that no official communications whatsoever went out from either the Government or the Cricket Association in South Africa, not as far as I know from the Cricket Association and certainly not from the Government. What did in fact happen—and this is common knowledge; every member of this House knows it, and every person outside knows it—was that this person was not chosen and that a political uproar broke out in Britain. I want to state this very clearly once more, and I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to deny this: If D’Oliveira had been a white man and had not been selected, that uproar would not have taken place. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has a different standpoint on this matter, he must tell me, because I say that he cannot have a different standpoint. Nor does he have a different standpoint. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also knows what things were all brought into the D’Oliveira issue at the time, and that is why I adopted the standpoint I did in fact adopt, and I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I accept full responsibility for that standpoint which I adopted in consultation with the Minister of Sport in Bloemfontein after we had discussed the matter. I said on that occasion that the team which was coming to South Africa was no longer a sports team, that it was no longer the team of the M.C.C., but that it had become the team of Sanroc and the political enemies of South Africa. For that reason, as I had said here in my speech in this House, I had the courage of my convictions to declare in public that under those circumstances this team, with D’Oliveira included, would not be welcome in South Africa. I want to go further, Mr. Chairman. I believe that what I said at Bloemfontein I was saying not only on behalf of my people, but on behalf of most people in South Africa, including the people of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Consequently I want to say to him that I accept full responsibility for having, as a result of events which I do not want to elaborate on now—if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to do so, he may do so, and other hon. members will reply to that further—adopted the standpoint (and this remains my standpoint) that I will not play the role of selection committee for any country, but that if these conditions I laid down are prejudiced in any way, in whatever sport it may be, I shall act in the same way as I acted before. Let there be no doubt about that. While we are on this subject, I want to say that I made it very clear in that 1967 statement of mine that sport here in South Africa would be practised separately by our inhabitants, and would continue to be practised separately. There must be no misunderstanding about that, and I want to make it very clear that if any other country, or the representatives of any sport, want to put it to us as a condition that they will only maintain sport relations with us provided we allow mixed sport here in South Africa among our own people, then those sports relations will immediately be broken off. There must be no doubt about that either.

The hon. member asked me what my standpoint was in regard to a rugby team from New Zealand which included Maoris. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows the reply to that as well as I do, because I have stated my standpoint in public on a number of occasions. In fact, I have stated it here in Parliament, and what I said in Parliament I repeated on a number of occasions outside and at my congresses. It is as follows: We have on previous occasions had New Zealanders with Maori blood in this country who came to play rugby here. I said that such persons would come here again. I said that eight such persons had been here before. I have the names with me here and I can mention them if it should be necessary. Such persons will come here again, and we shall receive them in exactly the same way as we received them in the past. These are the sport relations we have with New Zealand, and they not only satisfy us, they satisfy New Zealand as well. I do not know on what grounds the hon. Leader has now raised this matter in Parliament. Has he raised it here because he wants to stir up trouble in this connection? Surely the hon. the Leader is aware, and this has been mentioned in the newspapers, that no problem exists between the South African Rugby Board and the New Zealand Rugby Board. Surely the hon. the Leader knows that the New Zealand Board has accepted the tour invitation, that the tour itinerary has already been published … I shall wait, if necessary, until the hon. the Leader has received his instructions.

Childish.

I am saying that the hon. the Leader knows, surely, that this matter has been finally disposed of, that there are no outstanding matters in this regard. The hon. the Leader is also aware of the fact that leftist elements in New Zealand are doing everything in their power to wreck this tour, and anything which we may now say in this debate is going to be grist to the mill of those people who would like to wreck the tour. That is why I am concluding that aspect of the matter …

Would the hon. the Prime Minister react to the extract my hon. Leader read from Veg?

If the hon. member for Pinelands now wants to know something about Veg, let me tell him this. The editor of Veg, together with the son of the Leader of the Opposition, is addressing a meeting to-night, and he can attend it and ask his question there. I really do not feel myself called upon to occupy myself in this Parliament with such slander and gossip. If the hon. member takes pleasure in doing so, then he can take all the pleasure in doing so that is necessary. I say that we shall serve no purpose in discussing these sporting matters any further at this stage, that is to say, if we really have the interests of the sport relations of South Africa at heart. I would for example not have taken it amiss of the hon. the Leader if he had discussed the New Zealand question if there were any snags in this regard between our Rugby Board and theirs. I did not interfere in this matter, because it is a rugby matter. If there were snags between them, and it was my fault, or the hon. the Leader thought it was my fault, then I would not have taken it amiss of him if he had raised the matter here. But knowing full well that there are no problems or difficulties whatsoever, I cannot understand why the hon. the Leader should have raised the matter here. I am proceeding to the next point.

The hon. the Leader asked me about the question of secret services. In the first instance he quite rightly pointed out that the amount was much larger now, i.e. a little over R4 million. But if the hon. the Leader had looked at the Estimates he would have seen that this amount includes the salaries, vacation bonuses, etc., of the staff in question. This is not an amount which is hanging in the air. But now the hon. the Leader has the right to ask me why the number of people receiving remuneration is not mentioned there. My reply to him is that it is not customary to do so, because the moment one mentions the number of people one may just as well proclaim from the rooftops what kind of organization this is, that is, if you are going to make known its staff. For that reason I do not deem it advisable or in the interests of public safety to do so.

I am not asking you to.

No, we understand. For the sake of the record I just want to say that last week already I offered to furnish the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with information on this matter. He then preferred not to be informed before this debate. He said that he would prefer to be informed after the debate. [Interjections.] No, there is nothing in connection with that. That was the hon. the Leader’s standpoint, and I accepted it as such. I told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he would understand that I would, for security reasons, say as little as possible across the floor of this House. That is why I am in fact going to say as little as possible.

But I want to reply to the questions which the hon. the Leader put to me. In the first instance he asked me what the reasons for the increase were. I have just informed him that the reason for the increase is that the salaries of a large number of people are included in that, but I am not prepared to say how many people, because it is not customary to do so. The hon. the Leader asked me the reason for the change that has been made in this regard. Now, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will know that previously we had a combined or umbrella organization as far as these matters were concerned. In practice it did not work as one would have wanted it to, for reasons which I need not go into now. That organization has been disbanded. In its place a new organization has been formed. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Durban (Point) will remember that I said, on the occasion when the announcement in respect of General Van den Bergh was made, that the Security Police would continue to fall under the Police. We devoted a great deal of attention to this matter. The Minister of Defence, the Minister of Police and I discussed this matter in all its consequences for days on end. The different spheres of the police organization, the Military Intelligence Section of the Defence Force and this organization of General Van den Bergh have been properly demarcated.

May I ask a question? Do the Security Police in fact serve under General Van den Bergh or not?

The answer is no. The Security Police do not serve under General Van den Bergh, in the same way as members of the Military Intelligence Section do not serve under General Van den Bergh. That proper demarcation of functions was made, and the Military Intelligence staff fall under the Commandant General, while the Security Police fall under the Commissioner of Police. General Van den Bergh’s organization is an independent one. Each, as I have said, has its own functions. That is as far as I am prepared to go at this stage.

The hon. member asked me whether this new set-up had met with the approval of the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Police and the heads of those departments. My answer is yes. To tell the truth, attention has been given to this matter since 1960 already, when an interdepartmental committee was appointed, the chairman of which was the present Commandant General. I anticipate that this new dispensation can only be of advantage to South Africa. I want to put it to the hon. House, and I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me, that in view of the threat hanging over our heads, and in view of the time which lies ahead for us, the aggregate amount which is being requested for Defence, Police and this central organization under General Van den Bergh, is little enough to pay for the security of South Africa, definitely little enough. We are making a start with a new organization here. As such, everything must be purchased for it, and therefore I want to state quite candidly to this House that we have, under the circumstances, estimated on the generous side, and that a portion of the amount will in all probability remain, money which will not be spent. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to put further questions to me on this matter, I shall gladly give him any further information he desires.

Does this organization have a name?

Yes, the State Security Organization, the State Security Bureau.

I now come to the next point raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He had raised this matter when I was still Minister of Police, because this happened when I was still Minister of Police. I am referring here to the pamphlet which appeared at the time, a pamphlet which purported to be from a communistic or communistically inclined source. The pamphlet was anonymous. I received the pamphlet a few days after it appeared in Pretoria. Upon receiving it I immediately got into touch with General Van den Bergh. He was in charge of security in Pretoria at the time. I asked him whether he knew anything about the pamphlet. It was my intention to direct him to investigate the matter, but when I asked him about it, he said that he not only knew about it, but had received one himself, the one that was marked for his personal attention. He had received it the day after it had appeared in Pretoria. In any case, when I got in touch with him in connection with the pamphlet, he was already instituting an investigation in order to determine from what source that pamphlet had derived. Consequently it was not necessary for me to direct him to investigate the matter. However, let me make it very clear that if General Van den Bergh had at that stage not yet instituted an investigation, I would in fact have directed him to do so. Let me also make it very clear to this House that I accept full responsibility for everything that happened in connection with that pamphlet. I accept full responsibility for that. In any case, General Van den Bergh had the matter investigated and traced the writer of the pamphlet. I am talking about the first pamphlet now. As far as the second pamphlet is concerned, I have already stated in public that it was not necessary for General Van den Bergh to investigate this pamphlet. It was not necessary for him to ascertain who the writers of that pamphlet were, because the writers of the first pamphlet told him who the writers of the second pamphlet were. They gave themselves away the moment they were interrogated. But as far as this second pamphlet is concerned, the House would be interested to know how it happened to be posted in Stellenbosch. I am only mentioning this because the hon. member mentioned the name of Mr. S. E. D. Brown here. The second pamphlet purported to have come from Stellenbosch. It was posted here. In fact, the impression the pamphlet wished to create was that it had originated in Stellenbosch. In actual fact it had been drawn up in Pretoria and had been duplicated there. It may interest the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to know what one of the writers of the second pamphlet said in a sworn statement in regard to the matter. After they had drawn it up in Pretoria their problem was, so he said, to get it here to the Cape so that the impression could be created that it had originated in Cape Town or Stellenbosch. They deliberated upon this problem a great deal. In his sworn statement he says—i.e. a certain Mr. S. F. van Huyssteen—that after three weeks had elapsed and they had still found no way of getting the pamphlets to the Cape they turned as a last resort to Mr. Brown of The Observer, because they were aware that he had lived in the Cape for many years and might know someone there who would be able to post the documents. He and another writer, a Mr. Van der Merwe, then in fact turned to Mr. Brown and put their problem to him. He undertook to help them. Mr. Van Huyssteen said he subsequently took the pamphlets to Mr. Brown and the next he heard was that the pamphlets had been posted here in Cape Town.

So what?

It is not I who raised this matter; the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did. If this proves embarrassing for the hon. member for Yeoville among his new friends, Mr. Brown and others, I cannot help it. In all fairness I just want to say that Mr. Brown claims that Mr. Van Huyssteen is lying; he did not receive the pamphlets, knows nothing about them, and did not undertake their consignment either. They will have to settle among themselves who is telling the truth and who is not telling the truth.

As far as this matter is concerned, the position therefore is that this was a pamphlet purporting to have derived from a communistic source. The matter was investigated by the Security Police on their own initiative. If they had not done so themselves, I would have directed them to do so. Without any need for the origins of the second pamphlet to be investigated, the writers of that pamphlet came to the attention of the Security Police through information supplied by one of the persons concerned with the first pamphlet. It is true that those people were called in. They were asked whether those were in fact the first persons, and they said “yes”. They all made statements to that effect. Of course, I not only told my colleague the Minister of Transport, I also told my other colleagues. Why should I have omitted to do so? I do not know what point the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to make in that connection. I want to repeat that I mentioned no names to the Press. These names appeared in the Press, and in particular they appeared in the Sunday Times, for a very good reason. The reason is that, in spite of the cloud of dust kicked up in this connection, there is in fact a very close information tie-up between Mr. Barry Botha, who was the writer of one of these pamphlets, and Mr. Serfontein of the Sunday Times. That is why the names appeared in the newspapers in the first instance. It did not come from me. It did not come from one of my colleagues, and it did not come from the Police. I now want to repeat to hon. members on the opposite side that if any pamphlet appears in South Africa purporting to be of communistic origin, such a pamphlet will be investigated here in South Africa, whether hon. members on the opposite side like it or not. Hon. members simply have to accept that. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition deduces from that that the Police were used in regard to political matters here, that is simply not the case. He also tried to put up an argument with reference to the Broederbond documents. Does the Leader of the Opposition not know that we were dealing with stolen documents in that case?

Who stole them?