Mr. Chairman, before we start dealing with the recommendations, I should just like to say a few words with your leave. In the first place I want to place it on record that this is the first time in history that the Select Committee on Pensions disposed of all the cases that were submitted to it up to the date of the conclusion of the Committee’s business, i.e. 2nd June. After that a few more petitions came in.

I should like to address a special word of thanks to Mr. Vorster, the Secretary for Social Welfare and Pensions, and his officials, Mr. Germishuyzen and Mr. Blignaut, for the work they did to make it possible to dispose of all the petitions. As you know, petitioners expect all petitions that are presented to the House of Assembly, to be disposed of during the year in which they are presented.

Then I also want to express a special word of thanks to the members of the Select Committee. We worked together very pleasantly. There were never any disputes, and the cases we approved there were deserving ones. I also hope that the Committee will consider these cases in that light and will approve them.

I should like on behalf of this side of the House to associate myself with the remarks which have just been made by the chairman of the Select Committee, and we would like particularly to associate ourselves with the compliment paid to the staff concerned. It was certainly a remarkable achievement that the Select Committee was able to deal with all the petitions referred to it by the House by the time it completed its deliberations. It is of great importance to petitioners that the Select Committee completes its task before the end of the session; otherwise the prospects of many of these petitioners of receiving benefits would be prejudiced. We associate ourselves with the remarks made by the chairman of the Select Committee.

Recommendation No. 5, viz.:

I move—

The reason for this is that, as this recommendation is the first of its kind, it would open the door to numerous other persons who have received moneys from the State to which they were not entitled, to submit similar requests to Parliament. This recommendation also clashes with the existing financial procedures followed by the Treasury in regard to the writing-off of moneys due to the State.

Motion put and agreed to.

Recommendation No. 13, viz.:

I move—

It has come to my attention that there are three other petitions to which the same circumstances applied and in the case of which the pension was paid as from 1st April, 1968. This case is therefore being brought into line with the other cases.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Recommendation, as amended, put and agreed to.

Recommendation No. 25, viz.:

I move—

The reason for this is that there is no legal authority in terms of which such service can be taken into consideration for pension purposes as regards membership of the Superannuation Fund.

Motion put and agreed to.

Recommendation No. 26, viz.:

I move—

This person was transferred, but refused to accept the transfer. He was then asked to resign. He had full opportunity to appeal, but he did not appeal. In other words, he forfeited his right in this respect.

He is now appealing to the highest Council.

Motion put and agreed to.

Recommendation No. 27, viz.:

1. (a) there shall be deducted from the amount payable from the New Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund an amount of R1,254.39 being the amount paid from that Fund to the said A. M. le Roux on his resignation from the service of the said Administration; and
2. (b) the said A. M. le Roux shall pay to the Public Service Pension Fund the sum of R1,254.39 together with interest thereon at the applicable rate from the 20th April, 1963, to the date of payment.

I move—

This petitioner handed in his resignation in writing on 9th April, 1963, and left the service on 20th April, 1963. His contributions to the New Railways Superannuation Fund were repaid to him. In the second place I want to mention that he tried to withdraw his resignation by telephone, but without success. However, he should have done so in writing, so that his department could have decided about his request. He did not do so.

Motion put and agreed to.

Recommendation No. 28, viz.:

I move—

†I want to point out that Mr. Moolman resigned voluntarily from another State Department, and this petition cannot be supported, as it would create an undesirable precedent and place the Administration in an embarrassing position since petitions of this nature which have been unsuccessful in the past, would have to be supported if new petitions were submitted, as would all future petitions of this nature. Servants who have been or are in the future refused permission to transfer to other services and who then resign, or resign to take up positions in such other services, could then submit petitions to Parliament in the knowledge that the rejection of their petitions would be most difficult.

Motion put and agreed to.

Recommendation No. 29, viz.:

I move—

Here again a precedent would be created, and if this were allowed to happen, numerous similar cases would have to be reconsidered and possibly granted by us in the future.

Motion put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported and adopted.

Under clause 4 (a) I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is the intention that this corporation should itself undertake industrial or mining undertakings without the consent of the Basterraad. Can they act independently in that area? I understand that they will finance the people there but will they be able to act independently in undertaking mining operations?

This corporation can undertake mining operations off its own bat or establish a burgher company to do so on its behalf.

Clause 4 (a) says that they can act independently.

They can also act independently or, alternatively, this may be done by way of a burgher company.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 10:

I should like to move the following amendment, as printed in my name—

Up to now we have not opposed this Bill, because we realise that this is an attempt to render service and assistance to these people and also because we hope that in the days that lie ahead means will in fact be found whereby the misunderstanding in the minds of these people may be cleared up. But at the same time we are very much aware of the fact that, with our assistance, this Bill is being passed here in the face of the strong opposition on the part of the people who are involved. That is why, no matter what the Government’s attitude in regard to this matter may be, we on this side feel that in these particular circumstances we must afford these people an opportunity so that they may be taken into our confidence at every stage of the activities of the corporation. We are of the opinion that the best way in which we can take them into our confidence would be to afford them the opportunity of making a recommendation in regard to the appointment of at least one director to the board of directors. In that case our slate would at least be clean, and if they do not want to accept it, it is their affair. If the hon. the Minister looks at the amendment carefully, he will notice that we do not mention a specific number. The amendment merely says “not less than one”, because the clause does not make provision for a specific number of directors; that is left to the discretion of the State President, and that is why we do not know whether it will be a large board or a small one. That is why we are leaving this open. For instance, if there are to be four or five members only, it would be fair to grant the Basters one representative. If the State President were to decide that this is to be a body consisting of ten members, the amendment leaves it to his discretion to appoint more than one. That is why we are using the term “not less than one”. Furthermore, you will notice from the amendment that we are, in addition, not saying that he has to be a Baster. We think it would be best if one of the Baster leaders were nominated, but it is not specifically stated like that in the amendment. We feel that they should be afforded the opportunity of nominating any person in whom they have special confidence. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are not married to the wording of the amendment. The panel may be larger or smaller than three. Nor shall we mind if the State President were to decide on the size of the panel he should like to have. This is an open matter. If the hon. the Minister is favourably disposed towards the idea that these people should be taken into our confidence and afforded the opportunity of recommending a person in whom they have special confidence, we are quite prepared to have the wording of the amendment changed accordingly. But we consider this to be a very reasonable amendment, and therefore I move it as it appears on the Order Paper.

I do not wish to repeat the considerations which this side of the House raised in this regard yesterday, considerations which I think are very valid, but I should like to point out to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that according to my interpretation of his amendment this would mean that the board would not be able to function properly unless at least one person recommended by the Baster Council served on that board, and there is a very distinct possibility that the Baster Council will refuse to do this, as the Minister intimated yesterday. It is very likely that they will refuse to nominate anybody. I am therefore of the opinion that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wants to create the possibility here that the Baster Council may completely defeat the activities of this board which is being envisaged here until such time as the Act can once again be reviewed. This is how I interpret the position, and that is why I want to suggest to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that he would be well advised to withdraw his amendment.

I should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. If it is not as perfectly worded as the (Minister would like it, then he could make some suggestion of a similar nature, and it would not be necessary to withdraw the amendment. I should like to refer also to what I said at the Second Reading. How are these directors to be selected? They are to be selected in terms of the provisions of subsection (3), for their ability and experience in business or in administration or their knowledge of the needs of the Rehoboth community. Who is more aware of the needs of the Rehoboth community than the members of this Basterraad? I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has put up a constructive proposal. Perhaps the Minister will suggest something better, which will result in the incorporation of these people in their own corporation. We are anxious to help them. They are a different community from our Coloured community and quite different from our Bantu community. These are an independent people, an established community on their own, and we think they should participate in the corporation which is being established for their benefit.

In reply to what the hon. member for Windhoek said I wish to say that it is, of course, a matter for the legal advisers to determine whether, if this amendment were accepted and the Baster Council were to decide not to make an appointment, the legislation as a whole would be jeopardised. I myself doubt whether this will be the case, for the State President will, after all, make regulations determining a quorum, and a quorum will never imply that everybody has to be present. But if that is really the only problem the hon. member for Windhoek or the Minister has, then he should have little difficulty in accepting the idea and submitting it to the legal advisers. In such a case we would be quite prepared to accept a further amendment to ensure that if the Basters should not appoint anybody, the Act as such would not be affected by it. The Minister could then remedy this matter in the Other Place. But our own views are that the idea should be accepted, and then the legal position may be remedied in the Other Place, if that should prove to be necessary.

If it is the intention of the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Kensington to grant the Basters a greater say in the administration of the corporation, they ought to be quite satisfied with the provisions in the other part of the Bill, because in this Bill the Basters are being granted a greater say and more opportunities for direct participation than is the case in any similar corporation. The system of committees affords the Basters opportunities for serving on those committees and being invested with powers similar to those of the directors of the corporation. In those committees it is also possible for them to be afforded ample opportunities for training so that in due course they may take over the whole board of directors. Initially I said, and I want to repeat it, that the object was that this board of directors of the corporation should eventually be staffed entirely by Basters. But this will still take a long time, since they still have to be trained in managerial techniques. The system of committees, through which they can reach the position where they can do work equivalent to that of a director, will provide them with that excellent training. In the burgher companies it is possible for them to hold positions where they will not only be shareholders, but directors as well. Those companies will also afford them training opportunities so that we may in due course appoint them for the purpose of taking over the board of directors entirely. But to accept this amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, in the light of our knowledge of the position, would not help. The other day, after the Secretary had seen them in connection with this Bill, the Baster Council intimated, iinter alia, that they were not agreeable to any nominal representation on the board of directors. They have already made this clear to us, and to me it is unpractical still to want to designate people who said that. According to our knowledge of the pattern it is very likely that, if it were to be provided in this legislation that one or two of them have to be directors, as was said by the hon. member for Windhoek who knows them very thoroughly, they would refuse and once again make this a point of dispute, and not only dispute either, but also a point of questioning the legal validity, which could only complicate the commencement of this legislation. It is true, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said, that we can speak to the legal advisers and that they can phrase the matter differently for us. It does not have any practical meaning to me. What does have practical meaning to me, is that these people should be given a start. We must take positive action to break down their mistrust. Until such time as we have broken down that mistrust, we shall encounter all sorts of obstruction— whether they do not accept this provision or whether they are now of the opinion that they can use this to obstruct the operation of this measure. That is why I really want to ask the hon. Opposition to withdraw this amendment. At this moment it does not serve a useful purpose. On the strength of our knowledge this measure, as printed here, will enable us to obtain the most rapid results. If I were to insert provisions into this Bill, which the Basters do not want in the first instance, which they can use to obstruct the functioning of this measure, we would not be serving the purpose we wish to serve.

Mr. Chairman, we understand the hon. Minister’s point of view and I think he has expressed it very well. He says that although they are not capable of sitting as directors of the corporation, they are capable of sitting as directors of subsidiary companies or of their own committees. We know that, and we accept that. What I cannot understand is how can a man be capable of sitting as a director in a subsidiary committee when he is incapable of sitting in a corporation as a director. That is a point we have raised on a previous occasion.

The other point is that we all accept that the Baster people are not willing to co-operate, but although they are not willing to cooperate, the hon. the Minister comes forward and says: “We are prepared to help you financially. We put these assets at your disposal if you wish to use them. It is our gesture.” All of us in this Committee agree that it is a fine gesture. Why can the hon. the Minister not go a step further? Why does the hon. Minister not say that although we are prepared to help the Basters, they are apparently not prepared to co-operate? We shall go a step further, however, and say, “Even though you are not now members of the directorate, I am prepared to nominate one of you as a director if you will accept office. We will give you the financial assistance. Now we are prepared to give you representation if you would like to have it.” I think that is a gesture which would be acceptable to the Basters, because we are all anxious to get their co-operation.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I cannot withdraw the amendment. I do not wish to repeat the arguments we advanced during the Second-Reading debate. But I think that members opposite are underestimating the capabilities of the Basters. A number of their business men have already done very well for themselves and ought to be capable of serving on a board of directors of this nature. The problem we as Opposition have is really that we are helping to carry through this Bill against the wishes of those people. We feel that we want to keep our slate clean by at least proving to those people our bona fides and affording them the opportunity of nominating a local person, who may be a white person or any person they trust, so that they may see and appreciate our bona fides and so that they may at least be cognizant of every stage of development of the corporation and its activities. They should at least be cognizant of these things so that the suspicion which exists in their minds may disappear. I cannot withdraw it and I am afraid that we shall have to put it to the vote.

Mr. Chairman, just to set the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s mind at ease in regard to the fact they as Opposition are supporting a measure which is against the wishes of the Basters, I can inform him that this is in fact a measure which is against the wishes of the Baster Council, but that it is not a measure which is against the wishes of the Baster people. The leaders of the Basters with whom I had talks, told me that by far and away the majority of the Basters would welcome a measure of this nature. The responsible leaders of the non-Council group even told me that 75 per cent of the Basters would welcome this measure. Therefore hon. members of the Opposition need not feel unhappy about their supporting a measure of this nature. Hon. members are supporting a measure which will be welcomed by the majority of the Basters.

Mr. Chairman, …

Order! The hon. member has already had three turns to speak.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—37: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

Noes—95: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Carr, D. M.; Coetzee, H. J.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman. F.; Heystek. J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais. J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais. W. T.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 22:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to say that this is a corporation which will be using public money. As was said during the Second Reading debate, there are some of these development corporations over which Parliament has no control after it has voted the necessary finance. This is of course foreign to all the parliamentary procedure followed in other countries and to some extent in our country. I suggest that instead of having a private firm of accountants, the accounts of this corporation should be audited by the Controller and Auditor-General. I think that is a modest request. If in any year the Auditor-General has any comments to make, he will make those comments.

Mr. Chairman, the provision as printed in this Bill, is identical with the provision in the legislation in terms of which the Coloured Development Corporation was established. There is also a similar provision in the case of the Bantu Development Corporation. This Parliament is still at liberty to discuss the annual report of the private auditors. Parliament will be able to discuss the financial affairs of the Rehoboth Investment Corporation. The hon. member requested that this amendment be accepted, but the acceptance of such an amendment could prove embarrassing to us. In the case of the Coloured Development Corporation and the Bantu Development Corporation. the same provision exists, i.e. that the Controller and Auditor-General does not come into the picture. If, all of a sudden, we were to follow a different system in the case of the Rehoboth Investment Corporation, those people would want to know what we have against them. They would feel that we have so little confidence in them that in their case the Controller and Auditor-General has to be called in, whereas in the case of other corporations we are prepared to appoint private auditors. I think the hon. member would be well advised to pay a visit to that Gebiet, for then he would see what the substance of this objection of mine is.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has fallen from his high estate because the reverse is true. The hon. the Minister can now say to the Rehoboth community that in the case of the ordinary development corporation we in the Republic are quite content to make use of the services of an ordinary private accountant but in the case of the Rehoboth Development Corporation the highest authority in the country comes into the picture. He can tell them that for their corporation we need the services of the Controller and Auditor-General, just as the Minister of Finance requires his services. I think the hon. the Minister’s argument has not been up to his usual standard.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment, as printed in my name—

After the introduction of the Bill the Durban City Council drew our attention to the fact that two of the non-white employees who had been transferred to the Post Office at the taking over of the telephone system, were members of the Durban Corporation Non-European Pension Fund. As I also said at the Second Reading of the Bill, it was agreed by the Post Office and the City Council that all who occupied permanent posts with the City Council would be appointed to permanent posts in the Post Office. This also meant that all who belonged to a pension fund with the City Council would be appointed to posts in the Post Office qualifying them for admission to the Public Service Pension Fund, and that they would get the choice of being admitted to the Public Service Pension Fund. Accordingly provision is now also being made in the Bill for the appointment of the members of the City Council’s Non-European Pension Fund in suitable permanent posts in the Post Office, and for the necessary arrangement in connection with their admission to the Public Service Pension Fund. The amendment to this clause incorporates the necessary definition of the City Council’s Non-European Pension Fund in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House are in agreement with the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments as printed in my name—

The first amendment to the clause is necessary to arrange for the two members of the Corporation’s Non-European Pension Fund, whom I mentioned in connection with the amendment to clause 1, also to be appointed to permanent posts, like the members of the Superannuation Fund and the Provident Fund, which will allow them to become members of the Public Service Pension Fund. The second amendment to the clause relates to a subsection incorporated in the Bill to empower the City Council to pay out a number of persons who, upon the taking over of the telephone system, resigned and did not join the Post Office, for certain extra accumulated leave to which they would have been entitled if they had not resigned as a result of the taking over of the system. From additional consultation on the Bill it appeared that in actual fact the subsection as worded at present still did not grant the desired authority. The matter is being put right by means of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we take cognizance of the hon. the Minister’s explanation and shall not oppose the amendment. However, there is one other question in connection with clause 2 which I briefly want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s notice. We took note yesterday of the hon. the Minister’s explanation of this clause and we accepted it as such. But then the hon. member for Germiston (District) also referred to this clause. I should like to quote the hon. member’s words, because there is a small matter in that connection which I want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s notice. It is in connection with subsection (4) of clause 2, which reads as follows:

In this connection the hon. member for Germiston (District) yesterday said the following:

I subsequently said, by way of interjection; “But that will surely not be taken into consideration when it comes to promotion?” The hon. member for Germiston (District) replied to this by saying—

Sir, my only purpose in rising is to obtain clarity in this connection. The impression I gained from the hon. the Minister’s original explanation was that when some of the former staff were transferred to the Post Office, and there was any question of promotion or something like that, proficiency in both languages would not be an essential requirement. All of us on both sides of the House also realize how essential the bilingualism requirement is in the Public Service, but we do know that here we are dealing with a particular case where persons entered the service of the Durban Corporation without it being a requirement that they should be proficient in both languages. I should like to know what the precise position of these persons, who are now going to fall under the Post Office, will be when they come into consideration for promotion. Will bilingualism then be a requirement in all cases, or will it depend upon the area in which they will be employed?

Bilingualism will not be taken into consideration in the case of those persons. However, they will be restricted to that area.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Durban municipal employees who are not bilingual will not be affected. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should do something practical in this regard. Classes or opportunities can for example be provided so that the staff can become bilingual. We have the example of the Shell Company, which has increased its standard of bilingualism considerably by means of audio-visual education. We are dealing here with a special class of person. In their case, according to the Government, bilingualism will not be compulsory. Obstacles for their promotion will not be put in their way, because they are not bilingual. However, they will still be left with the impression that they are different. Instead of taking negative steps, the Minister should take positive steps to encourage them to become bilingual. If something positive were done, he might well find that he would make far more progress than anticipated.

This is, of course, a matter which might be considered. However, I do not think it is the function of the Post Office to undertake such a service. As the hon. member for Pinetown probably realizes, the Post Office has other functions to perform. We do not have an educational function to make people bilingual. However, it is a matter which might perhaps be considered in due course.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments, as printed in my name—

All these amendments are being effected to make the necessary provision for the members of the Corporation’s Non-European Pension Fund, to which I already referred in connection with the amendments to clauses 1 and 2.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

There are two points that I want to raise under this clause. This clause provides for building societies to go into partnership with other people and to acquire shares in companies. In addition to that, they are given the right to make loans to joint ventures or to companies in which they own shares. What I should like to know from the hon. the Minister is whether there is provision for these loans to be secured.

Paragraph (mC) on page 6 of the Bill says—

What I should like to know is whether the Minister of Community Development, in conjunction with the Minister concerned, is entitled in terms of this provision to demand from building societies—in this paragraph the word “promote” is used, but I do not quite know what it means—that they should go in for a scheme providing low cost housing, or whether it is for the building societies to decide according to their widsom whether or not to go in for such a scheme.

As regards the first question asked by the hon. member, I want to tell him that building societies are being authorized by this provision to grant loans to a development company which may be established. Building societies will have full control over that company at all times. The hon. member may therefore accept that building societies will do nothing that would jeopardize their own position. It will be possible to secure the loans, in some cases by means of bonds. But the provision in the Building Societies Act in connection with the 25 per cent may cause problems. These loans, however, will be granted and furnished in the normal course of business to a development company over which the building society will have full control at all times.

In regard to paragraph (mC), this provision was in fact inserted in case it may become necessary one day. There is no intention at present to compel any building society to provide any particular form of housing. Any agreement with building societies will therefore be entered into on a voluntary basis, and they will honour the agreement with the Minister. This paragraph was inserted here in the event of a possible later development in the direction of asking building societies to undertake special projects for the lower income groups. If this should become necessary, we would have the statutory authority to enter into an agreement with them.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to record my objection to subsection (iv) of this clause. This is a new subsection providing that in the case of an offence under the Suppression of Communism Act, an offence for which a person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment without a fine, the person concerned is to be disenfranchised for the rest of his life. I consider this to be a very harsh provision indeed. As it is, anybody convicted of treason, of murder, of an offence requiring retention under the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act and anyone at a reform school is unable to exercise a vote, in the case of treason and murder for life and others while in prison. This clause has been improved to the extent that in future a person having served his sentence of imprisonment in respect of any crime other than those I have mentioned will be able to resume his normal right as a voter. However, this does not apply to persons convicted under the Suppression of Communism Act. I can see no reason for this perpetual punishment for a conviction under the Suppression of Communism Act. One must realize that this legislation covers a wide ambit indeed and that some of the offences carrying a sentence of imprisonment may be minor offences. Others again may be more serious infringements of the law. However, there is a distinct possibility that people who have been sent to gaol for crimes such as displaying a poster, collecting money for an organization which has been declared to be illegal, or even forgetting to report to a police station, is liable to be sentenced to prison although he does not necessarily serve a gaol sentence. Frequently it is a suspended sentence. Nevertheless such a person is to be disenfranchised for life.

I know that this Bill as we have it before us is an improvement on the original Bill sent to the Select Committee, but I still have to record my strongest objection to the fact that a person who has been convicted and sentenced under an infringement of this widespread Suppression of Communism Act is to be put into the same position as a person who has been convicted of treason or of murder. To me a provision of this nature has no place in a democratic country, especially not in a Bill dealing with electoral procedures. Consequently, I object to it.

It is a good thing that the hon. member for Houghton has at least admitted that the clause has been improved otherwise. As regards the wording to which she objects, there is, of course, a fundamental difference between our approach and hers, and I do not think we can meet each other on any point in this respect. The fact of the matter is that her approach to Communism is totally different from ours. Her approach to this offence is quite different. The Communist Party has been banned in this country and the promotion of Communism is a very serious offence in South Africa. One does not forfeit one’s franchise for any petty offence under the Suppression of Communism Act or the Terrorism Act. It is laid down quite clearly in this section that to forfeit his franchise, the person concerned had to be sentenced to a period of imprisonment without the option of a fine. If he was given the option of a fine or a warning, he does not forfeit his franchise. It is quite clear that the wording implies that the person concerned should have committed a fairly serious offence under the relevant Acts; only in that case can he forfeit his franchise. We accept that the hon. member’s approach to Communism is quite different from ours. Consequently, we need not have a lengthy discussion on this matter, since we cannot see eye to eye in this connection at all.

Sir, what the hon. member for Parow thinks of my sentiments about Communism, does not interest me in the slightest. All I know is that our definition of Communism in South Africa is so wide that it can include crimes which in fact have nothing whatever to do with Communism. That is the first point. But the important thing is that the hon. member does not know what he is talking about because he says that it is only where a person is convicted of a serious infringement of the Suppression of Communism Act and where he is sent to gaol without the option of a fine, that he can lose his vote. What he does not seem to realize is that the one example which I mentioned can by no stretch of imagination be considered as a serious infringement of the Suppression of Communism Act. I referred to failure to report at a police station. This is a duty which is often laid on people who are banned or restricted. It is a very onerous duty indeed. People, for various reasons, sometimes forget to report to the police station. Such people are charged under the Suppression of Communism Act, and if they are found guilty—and obviously such guilt is always proved because the person has been arrested for having failed to report to the police station every day—it carries with it a minimum sentence of one year’s imprisonment without the option of a fine. Will the hon. member for Parow tell me that a person who has been banned and who has failed to report at a police station, has committed a serious crime by any stretch of imagination? [Interjection.] Then our sentiments differ very greatly and for that I am extremely grateful, Sir. But I can tell the hon. member that the courts do not consider it to be a very serious crime because in many cases although a sentence of imprisonment is imposed, as it has to be in terms of the Act, the sentence is suspended for all but four days, and for four days the person convicted goes to gaol for this “serious” crime and thereafter he is allowed to go free, or as free as his banning order allows him to be. Such a person is to be disfranchised for life under this clause. I cannot see any justification for it whatsoever, and I shall continue to oppose it most strenuously.

Mr. Chairman, I think I should place on record the views of the official Opposition in regard to this clause. The original clause, as it was proposed in the first draft Bill, was unacceptable to us in that it referred to “any conviction”, and any conviction included a conviction for technical offences. The view of this side of the House has always been that Communism is an evil. When the original anti-Communism legislation was introduced, this side of the House in fact proposed an alternate Bill; it proposed that Communism should be treated as high treason and that it should carry with it the death sentence, and, therefore, provided the sentence imposed is imposed by a court of law and the crime was sufficiently serious to justify a sentence of imprisonment without suspension—because a suspended sentence is not taken into account—we feel that that is a crime which is on a par with any other activity against the safety of the State, such as treason. In view of the fact that this clause refers to court procedure only and a conviction by a court, and in view of our background attitude towards Communism, we agree with the provision as it stands here.

I would like to point out to the hon. member for Durban (Point) that he is quite wrong when he says that this flows only from the decisions of the courts. He must go back to the basic thing, Sir, and that is that people are banned in South Africa without any recourse to the courts at all. People are banned in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act without any judgment by any court. It is simply a decision made by the Minister who decides that in his opinion such a person is advancing the aims of Communism.

But then it does not fall under this clause.

Yes, it does, because in terms of the example that I have given, a banned person who has never been tried by any court, who has never been given the opportunity of knowing what charges have been made against him by the Special Branch, who is given no opportunity of defending himself in any way at all, must report daily or weekly or monthly, or whatever the period may happen to be, at a police station. Such a person fails to report through forgetfulness …

But the court takes that into consideration.

The court has to sentence such a person to a minimum of one year’s imprisonment.

And then they suspend it.

But he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and in terms of this Bill, as it now stands, such a person is disfranchised forever.

A suspended sentence does not count.

Every part of the sentence, in terms of existing practice, is suspended bar four days; the person has to go to gaol. He is sentenced to a minimum of one year’s imprisonment, and in practice the courts in their discretion have suspended the sentence for all but four days. Let me take a specific example, the case of a person who has never been convicted in a court of law of any infringement of the Suppression of Communism Act, either a small infringement or a major one. Such a person has been banned by the hon. the Minister, without giving him any opportunity of defending himself. That is what happened in the case of Ian Robertson. He was not given an opportunity to defend himself, yet he was banned. In terms of the ban such a person must report to the police station. He forgets on one occasion to do so; he is then hauled before the court and in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act he must be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and the practice of the courts, in many cases, has been to suspend the sentence for all but four days. Does the hon. member for Durban (Point) and the hon. member for Yeoville, who is shaking his head sagely or sadly—I do not know which—honestly believe that this is a crime for which a person should be disfranchised for ever? Is this in terms of United Party thinking? Is it in terms of basic justice that such a person should be put on the same basis as someone who has been convicted of treason by the courts of law or has been sentenced for murder by the courts of law? I think this is scandalous.

Clause put and agreed to.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I made it quite clear that I wished to object to this clause.

Very well, I put the clause again.

Clause put and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, clause declared agreed to.

Clause 4:

Sir, I want to raise a point which I noticed only accidentally last night. I am not sure that we have not made a slip here. Clause 4 (b) provides for the deletion of subsections (2) and (3) of the original section. Subsection (3) provided for a person to be entitled to register as a voter at his place of employment in cases where he had no other permanent address. In other words, a person on permanent relief work who travelled around and who did not have a permanent address was entitled to register at his place of employment. When we removed the two months’ residential qualification it appeared on the surface that that was no longer necessary because it was a provision which also provided for a person who did not have the two months’ residential qualification and who could then register at his business. But by deleting it, we will disenfranchise or artificially enfranchise people who are still not of any fixed permanent address but who travel around. That person will now have to register at some address which was in fact permanent only for, say, two or three weeks, and then leave his name there when he moves on. I do not think that this is what was intended originally, and I am sure that if we had looked at this again, we would have left provision for registration at some permanent business address where a person did not have such an address at which he resided. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to have a look at this and, if necessary, to amend the clause in the Other Place.

I shall do so.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 16:

I move the following amendments—

Last night in the Second Reading debate we dealt with our contention that the postal vote as such could in our opinion be dispensed with. I do not want to repeat the arguments, nor do I want to repeat any of the points or deal with the general principle at this stage of the debate. This amendment seeks to effect a compromise. It seeks a compromise between the abolition and the retention of the original postal voting system. The argument was advanced that if you did away with the postal vote there would be oases of hardship which could not be met by special votes. This amendment which is already proposed in the Bill limits the use of the postal vote by excluding from it a group of people. It excludes from the postal vote persons who are outside South Africa on Government duty. My amendment proposes to extend that group who are excluded from the right to use the ordinary EF 33 postal vote in terms of section 43. It proposes to exclude those who would find no difficulty in voting by special vote. In other words, it would mean, if adopted, that all that would be required of a person to cast a postal vote, an ordinary postal vote, would be to sign a declaration that he cannot without undue difficulty vote as a special voter. It would therefore meet the case of all those people who have been quoted as being the problem, people far away from a magistrate’s office or from the office of the presiding officer for special votes, people who are not able because of distance or hours of work or other reasons to get to a presiding officer for special votes, and to whom a presiding officer for special votes could not without difficulty go in the case of illness, etc. So, it would leave available to the political organizations and to candidates the whole organization of the normal postal vote, but it would indicate that Parliament would prefer persons to vote as special voters, and therefore their first choice should be to vote as a special voter, and only if they find difficulty in exercising their vote in that way, would they then be entitled to apply in terms of sections 42 and 43 for a postal vote. This appears to me to be a reasonable compromise, which does not in any way prevent cases of hardship from being met, a compromise which enables the legislation to continue as it is, but which places an emphasis— a priority—on voting before an official. Therefore I move this and I hope that the hon. the Minister will realize the logic and the background to this proposal and that he will accept it.

I want to appeal to the hon. member for Durban (Point) not to insist on his amendment. In the first place, the amendment is not capable of implementation. In what way could the onus be placed on a returning officer to decide whether such person had good reason to cast a postal vote or not? One will find that arbitrary decisions will be made by various returning officers throughout the country. No two decisions will be the same. It will be the same as when a third-rate referee has to take the whistle in an international match. It will not work. But to me the most important thing is that this step is psychologically wrong. Nobody can accuse me of not being in favour of the system of special votes. As a matter of fact, I think the idea originated with me, and when I mentioned it to the hon. member for Durban (Point) for the first time, he nearly fell on his back; he was scared of it. I am in favour of the system of special votes, but we decided in 1962 that this system should be thoroughly tested along with the system of postal votes, and that the latter should be abolished if we were satisfied that the system of special votes would work. This system was put to the test in two elections, the last provincial election and the last parliamentary election. However, the Department did not take the matter very seriously at the time. They did not afford us the facilities to test the system properly. For this reason we cannot say that the system of special votes has really withstood a sound test up to now, and we should put the two systems to a proper test side by side, without trying to handicap one of them. There is no question of free competition between the two systems when one asks people to make a declaration to the effect that they want to vote according to one particular system because they could not vote according to the other. When this happens there is no longer any question of a free test of opinion. As soon as you include a provision of this nature in the legislation, you create resistance among the people and they ask: What are you afraid of now; why do you want to give preference to one particular system; are you afraid that it will not be able to hold its own against the other? If we did this, we would be doing the system of special votes much more harm than good. For this reason I want to appeal to the hon. member to allow this Bill to go through without calling for a division. We had one on the Select Committee and he knows what the result of it was, and I had hoped he would acquiesce in it. I hope he will do so now.

We have no desire to protract this discussion, but it is essential that the Opposition’s view should be clearly stated as far as this matter is concerned. We stand by the unanimous conclusion arrived at by the 1962 Select Committee, i.e. that the system of postal votes had lent itself to flagrant abuses in practise. We are therefore moving this amendment with the object of giving Parliament and the Government as well as the Opposition the opportunity of stating unequivocally that we wish to see the system of postal votes replaced by a system which does not lend itself to the flagrant malpractices which were unanimously found by the 1962 Select Committee to exist. For this reason we have no choice. To us this is a matter of principle, i.e. to ask, by moving this amendment, that every hon. member of this House should say where he stands in this matter.

I just want to point out that this may be a matter of principle for hon. members opposite, but that the ideal state of affairs would of course be to have a system which would not lend itself to either suspicion or malpractices at all, a system whereby you would limit the people to casting their votes at the polling booth on the day of the election. This would have been the ideal state of affairs, but because this is not practicable, an opportunity is being given to the absent voter who is not in a position to come to the polling booth on the day of the election to cast his vote as an absent voter. Now, we have had the old system of postal votes all these years. In spite of the terrible dissertation we had on the part of the hon. member for Durban (Point) last night in reply to a remark I had made good-humouredly, it is a fact—and I said so in my speech—that that system is liable to create suspicion, although I still think the whole thing is being tremendously exaggerated.

The Select Committee was wrong then?

I shall not take any notice of such remarks now. We are trying here to give something better to South Africa in this respect and I am serious about this matter. I want to agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) that we should see whether we cannot pass this law without having a division, but we can have a division on this. It is the desire and wish of all of us that there should be only one system. I am in favour of the special vote, but then we should give it an opportunity of proving itself. On the other hand, I do not want us to advance this as a reason or to enforce it. This is now being made something that can be enforced. A person may cast a postal vote only if he can prove that he is not in a position to cast a special vote without being inconvenienced. But we will not be in favour of that. We cannot accept that amendment and I want to appeal to the Minister not to accept the amendment, and this will not have the desired effect, on the electorate outside either. As it is, one has to make a declaration why one is not in a position to cast one’s vote at the polling booth, and one has to advance certain reasons; one has to make a declaration why one must be allowed a postal vote. But now one has to make an additional declaration why one is not in a position to cast one’s vote by means of a special vote. We should also take into consideration the memoranda as well as the evidence submitted to us, namely that one still finds people who are strongly in favour of the ordinary postal vote. For this reason I want to appeal to the hon. member that we should leave the matter as it is. We cannot accept this amendment he has moved.

I just want to reply to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central). The returning officer already has to decide on one of the five reasons why a person is asking for a postal vote. The person has to state that he is asking for a postal vote to be issued to him because he will be absent, and so forth, and the returning officer will then have to decide whether it warrants the issuing of a postal vote. The returning officer therefore already has the right to decide.

But rules are laid down for that.

But he has to make the same decision in this case. If he has the right to decide whether the person is ill or absent, he may just as well decide in this case. As regards the psychological effect, I do not agree with the hon. member at all. Psychologically one has to give guidance. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad said that the memoranda had proved that many people were strongly in favour of the system of postal votes and that there were certain people who were anxious to use the system of postal votes. In other words, as long as the two systems exist side by side, those people will use the postal vote out of their own choice and they will not give the special vote a fair chance. This is proved by the argument advanced by the hon. member himself. A person who feels so strongly in favour of the system of postal votes that he submits a memorandum for the system to be abolished, proves that in cases where he is given a choice, he will retain that system. That is his choice; he wants to retain the system, because he wants to use it and therefore he does not exercise a free choice. There will never be an opportunity for the system of special votes to prove itself as long as there are people who do not want to use the system. When people say they do not want to use the system and they want the system of postal votes, they do not give the system a fair chance to prove itself. But if you say: Use it, and if there is any trouble, we shall revert to the old system, then you have a real test. Then you have a chance to see whether it proves itself. I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that this is a matter we feel very strongly about, because we should like to give the voters a fair chance, and we want to give the system an opportunity of proving itself. We do not want to leave back doors open to deprive them of the opportunity to decide that they do not want to use it. Even if one made umpteen appeals, one would still find people who would not give the system of special votes a full chance. This amendment will see to it that it will, in fact, get that chance. Accordingly I am not prepared to withdraw my amendment.

The system of special votes has now been as wide as it possibly can be made. As a matter of fact, it is so wide now that I am convinced in my own mind that it cannot be dealt with by the State. To my mind it is quite impossible for the State to make sufficient facilities available in the vast rural areas, because the State simply does not have enough officials there. Facilities simply do not exist in the vast rural areas. Some of the large constituencies have only three magistrates’ offices. There are no other officials that can be used for that purpose, with the result that the voters in the rural areas are inconvenienced. We on this side of the House—and this was also evident in the Select Committee—would very much like to replace the system of postal votes by the system of special votes. We would very much like to do so because such a step would relieve the parties of an enormous burden and place it on the shoulders of the State. But we have had the experience in the past that the State is not in a position to make adequate facilities available. I say again that the state of affairs in urban constituencies is quite different from that in the rural constituencies, because there are a great number of public servants in the cities.

We are finding it equally difficult in the cities.

Very well, now hon. members can appreciate what the position in the rural areas is when we are finding it difficult in the cities. Hon. members will be able to appreciate it more because the public servants are concentrated in the cities. A few years ago a commission was appointed and hon. members on that side of the House also served on it. As a matter of fact, the matter was originally referred to a Select Committee which was subsequently converted into a commission. We had personal experience of postal votes. We put our heads together and we really had a frank discussion. We really tried to eliminate the discrepancies. I found in 1966, after the new Act had come into operation, that there were actually no contraventions. Not one contravention was brought to my attention. I do not know whether the hon. member for Durban (Point) can say the same, but I can state here to-day that I found that there were virtually no abuses during the 1966 election; as a matter of fact, there was not one single case of abuse. Not one single case was brought to my attention in my constituency. That is a fact, because our people—and I am speaking now particularly of the people in the rural areas who have dealt with these matters —are to a large extent law-abiding citizens and decent people. They are afraid and they try not to contravene the law. That is why I say that I did not come across any contraventions of the law.

The problem I see here, is that the United Party would not have adopted the attitude they did if they had one vast constituency in the rural areas. Their problem is not our problem, because we have all the constituencies in all of the vast rural areas. What we want to do is to make provision for the person who is entitled to vote, to get the opportunity to do so. That is why the system of postal votes was originally introduced. The purpose of it was to afford the person who was not in a position to go to the polling booth, the opportunity to vote. A voter should not cast his vote in a manner which is inconsistent with the law, but he should vote in a legal and proper manner. For that reason we want, if it is evident from the election …

But my amendment is not changing it.

I want to assure the hon. member and this House that I shall do my utmost in my constituency to give preference to the system of special votes. However, I am not going to cast aside this weapon I have, before I am convinced that the State is in a position to make available at all places sufficient officials who can handle this system of special votes.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say what my point of view is as regards this amendment that has been moved. Hon. members will recall that I said during the Second Reading that I accepted the recommendations of the Select Committee. When I said that, I had in mind this clause as well as all the other clauses as proposed by the Select Committee. I was aware of the fact that there was a difference of opinion as regards this clause, but on the other hand I also knew that this system of postal votes had served us for many years. I think the system has served us well. To my mind we would be adopting the wrong attitude if we proceeded on the assumption that because there are so many irregularities, we should simply abolish a system which—and I say this in all modesty—we have used effectively for so many years. Under the circumstances I feel that I do not want to interfere in this matter and alter the recommendations of the Select Committee as they are before the House now. I am not in favour of doing that. What we should rather do is to try to teach our workers to do the right thing as long as the system of postal votes is in operation. I am referring now to the workers the hon. member for Durban (Point) referred to last night who are sometimes inclined to go rather too far in their efforts to get votes for their candidates. We should rather teach them to do the right thing. As regards the Department, we shall make the necessary machinery available to deal firmly with the position should there be any contraventions or abuses. As far as I am concerned, the position should rather remain as it is. Therefore I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendments put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 22:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name—

This is just a textual amendment. It is just to correct an incorrect translation from the Afrikaans. This reads correctly “kiesbeampte” but is translated into English as an electoral officer. That should in fact be “returning officer”.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with options. We discussed this subject with the hon. the Minister yesterday afternoon. The Minister indicated during the course of his reply at the Second Reading that he might have an opportunity to examine the questions regarding profits on sale of shares. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister has had an opportunity of going through that report and whether he could give the House some further explanation with regard to the announcement made by one of the senior officials of his Department.

Since I addressed the House yesterday afternoon, I received a letter from somebody who is affected by this provision as far as it affects executives. An extract from the letter reads as follows:

This director is a young man in a company who was given options some time ago and who has a period of several years during which he can have the opportunity of acquiring those shares in the company where he is a senior executive. He now finds himself in the position as a married man with a family that he is forced to sell at least a portion of his options in order to meet his tax liabilities. I suggest that the hon. the Minister thinks again about this clause. It has been hastily constructed and I suggest that he is discriminating against one class of person at a time when we want to ensure that we keep our executive staff in our companies. For this reason I ask that the hon. the Minister should give consideration to their not being taxed until they have actually sold the options. If the hon. the Minister does not tax them until they have sold their options, and gives them the opportunity of holding their shares and retaining their position in their companies, they will be able to continue with the constructive work in the companies in which they are employed. If they cannot do that they will be forced to sell their options and the whole purpose of issuing shares with an option so as to encourage continuity of service will be destroyed by this new clause. As the hon. member for Parktown has said yesterday, this is a new principle in taxation.

Mr. Chairman, I think I made my standpoint very clear yesterday evening. We are not dealing here with the ordinary buying or selling of shares or options by an ordinary person, but with employees who in most cases are senior employees. The acquisition of options which are exercised later in part of a person’s remuneration, and for that reason it is taxable. That is what stands here and I explained it very clearly. I pointed out that this matter was not completely retrospective. In subsection (8) of the new section 8A we have made a rather generous concession in connection with this matter. Then I also want to point out that such a person who gets an option and who exercises that option after a number of years, need not sell all his shares simultaneously. He need not take the option on all of them. It can always be arranged gradually. I am quite sure that any employer who wants to retain his employee, will be able to accommodate him in some way or other so that he can pay his tax without being forced to sell all his shares. He can perhaps sell only part of them. I also want to point out that I agree with the hon. member for Pinetown, and that in my opinion it is advantageous that employees of companies, and especially private companies, should be able to be shareholders in those companies. But that still does not mean that it must be done in this way. If a company would like its directors to be able to get shares in the company, which is understandable, those shares can be sold and can be paid for on the basis of the price of those shares on that day. Payment can be extended over a few years if desired. It is not necessary to give it only by means of an option on shares extending over many years. I think I have accommodated these people as far as I can by not making this measure fully retrospective, but by allowing the tax to be levied according to a time factor. I do not think I can go into the matter any further at this stage. We shall see what happens in the course of years, and if this gives rise to difficulties in the course of years, we can change it.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

1. (i) income derived from the letting of any property or the use of or the grant of permission to use any patent, design, trade mark or copyright or other property of a similar nature contemplated in the definition of “trade” in section 1;
2. (ii) income derived from any trade carried on by her in partnership or association with her husband or which is in any way connected with any trade carried on by her husband.

Mr. Chairman, we welcome this amendment of the hon. the Minister about which he was good enough to advise us last night. I should, however, still like the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the possibility of his staff finding a means of protecting a woman who is genuinely working for her husband. I know it is difficult, but I feel very strongly about this matter. I spoke to the hon. member for Transkei about this matter last night. He told me that the ordinary trader in the Transkei must have the assistance of his wife to enable him to run his store. The trouble is that you cannot obtain white assistance in these areas. Mr. Chairman, you will find that this also applies to poorer persons who are trying to establish themselves. It applies particularly perhaps to people in the platteland.

And hoteliers.

The example of hoteliers is a very good one. I am aware of the hon. the Minister’s difficulties. All I ask him to do is to give consideration to this matter during the recess to see whether a formula can be found which will do justice to these women who are genuinely working for their husbands.

Mr. Chairman, I have every sympathy with the standpoint of the hon. member for Parktown. I can give him the assurance that a great deal of attention was given to this matter. We shall nevertheless comply with his request and give further attention to the matter. At the moment, however, I am not yet seeing any light. By granting his request we would be opening the door to abuses. Perhaps we shall see some light one day, but at the moment I cannot see any.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 32:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

1. (a) by the insertion after paragraph (a) of the following paragraph:
   • “(aA) Companies referred to in section 38 (2) (c), (d) and (f);";
2. (b) by the substitution for paragraph (b) of the following paragraph:
   • “(b) companies in respect of which the provisions of section 28, 32, 33, 35 and 36 are by virtue of the definition of ‘total net profits’ in section 49 applicable to the determination of that portion of their total net profits which is derived from their principal business;”; and.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the hon. the Minister to give his earnest consideration to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Rosettenville. This clause is creating a problem which did not exist previously. The problem is created by this Bill and is going to cause hardship. I do not know whether this clause was discussed with the Medical Association or the Council for Medical Schemes. I have a suspicion that the main guiding hand here was an official of the hon. the Minister’s Department or else someone associated with that Department. The hon. the Minister is extremely fortunate in handling this Bill. Firstly, he has himself practised where medical schemes were concerned. The hon. the Minister has on this side of the House two men who have had a great deal of experience of the working of medical schemes. The hon. the Minister also has among his own members I think five men who have also had great experience of the working of medical schemes and medical benefit schemes. In other words, I beg the hon. the Minister to take heed of what we on this side of the House have to say. It is the result of years of experience. I am sure that he will get the same advice from those medical men on his side of the House. I, however, do not see any of those members in the House at the moment. I beg the hon. the Minister to use the experience of men who know what they are talking about, who for years have worked amicably as medical men with medical aid and medical benefit schemes, and who so continued to work until the father Act of this Bill was thrown into the cockpit and started all the trouble. Here we have a problem. We agree with the hon. the Minister in this respect that we do not wish any person to belong to two schemes. We agree on that point without any question. It is undesirable, leads to abuse and can lead to doctors acting unethically, although “innocently”. It is a clause which is going to cause the pot to boil again. Before the hon. the Minister brought in this Bill he went to a great deal of trouble in his long consultations with the Medical Association. That I know. He came out of the discussions with great credit. I am sure the hon. the Minister could not have discussed this aspect with the Association. They would have said to him: “No, do not do it. Do not try to separate husband and wife. Do not try to separate mother and child.” That is what he is doing. That is the risk he runs here. This amendment was designed to prevent this. All that is asked is that a husband and wife should not be separated as regards medical care, against their will, and in some cases to their financial loss. We do not want this to happen. All we ask of this Minister is: Where there is a family, different members of which can belong to different schemes, he should allow the one party to choose the scheme she wants to join. I say “she” because it will probably be the wife. That is all. Why force a woman who works as a garment worker to join the medical benefit scheme of the Railways or of the Police or of the Prisons? Why force her to do so when she can quite easily stay where she is. She should have the option to choose. If she does not want to stay there, she does not need to. The hon. the Minister is trying to force these people to change their schemes. As the hon. member for Rosettenville will explain, they will lose the use of accumulated funds if they do so. This will take place merely because someone has advised the hon. the Minister that they should have no option. We do not say that they should have to belong to two schemes. We do not want that. That is something which is liable to abuse. However, this does not happen much in practice. In my 40 years of personal experience I have only found some three or four people who have belonged to more than one scheme. In general such cases do not occur. We are dealing here with the husband and his wife, or the father and his son, or the mother and her daughter. These are genuinely people whom the Minister is forcing to climb into a cleft stick. In my personal experience, such cases have arisen where people have deliberately joined multiple schemes. This is done in order that, when they want a holiday, it pays them to be sick, rather than to work. They then receive more money when they are not working and are on sick leave, because they are paid by two, three or four schemes. These people were a nuisance. We practising men knew them. Sometimes we appealed to the heads of these schemes to stop this practice, but they would not stop it. This Minister has now created the problem himself. He did it deliberately. Now he will not accept the advice of experienced people who say that this is going to cause a great deal of harm. This is already a complicated Bill. It has had to face all sorts of criticism, and it will have to face more. He is creating a rod for his own back.

The reason for our amendment is simply to give that person who is affected by his conditions of employment a choice. Now, one of the conditions of his employment may be that he shall belong to a medical scheme. Let us, for the sake of convenience, limit ourselves to the position of husband and wife. Where the wife is working and has to belong to a medical scheme in the same way as the husband in his sphere of employment has to belong to a medical scheme, we ask the Minister to give the person affected, the choice of belonging to one of the two schemes. It is simple enough. We do not ask that a person shall belong to both schemes; we are only asking for the benefit of choice. This is important. A wife may have been contributing to a scheme for 15 years and she knows that the benefits she derives from that scheme are good, better than the benefits derived by her husband from his scheme. Surely, in the circumstances, she should have the right to stay on as a member of the scheme she is used to?

She has to.

She stays on now, but according to this there is no choice; there is no choice whatsoever. If the hon. the Minister can persuade me of the opposite, it will of course be a different story. But I say, according to the Bill as it is now, those people are excluded and those who come under industrial conciliations or who are employed by the Railways, will have no choice but will have to belong to the benefit society to which the husband belongs. The hon. the Minister must realize that he is now compelling a person to belong to a benefit society to which he or she may not want to belong. Another point the Minister must realize, is that, directly or indirectly, the worker is paying for the privilege of receiving the benefit. Then, surely, you ought to be entitled to choose your own scheme? Under the amendment I have put forward it will be possible for the husband to go to his medical scheme and say that he wants benefits only for himself and his children and that he wants to exclude his wife because she has her own medical scheme. The wife, on her part, can then remain a member of her scheme. All this will obviate the unpleasantness which is going to be caused under subsection (2A) as he has proposed it. There is no question that we on this side want people to belong to two medical schemes; we do not want that and we have never asked for it. All we ask is for the right for people who pay for their benefits to choose which benefit society they would like to belong to. The hon. the Minister knows that with doctors it is a precept that a patient should have a choice of doctor, where that is possible. Surely the Minister should encourage this precept that the patient ought to have the right to choose his doctor. Why should he want to close the door? For what reason? I cannot find any reason for the Minister having brought this in. Some of these medical aid schemes have been in existence for many, many years and the majority of their members are working wives. If these now have to leave these schemes, these schemes will no doubt suffer adversely, some of them even going out of business altogether. That again means that people who have been receiving benefits in the past may lose such benefits. I have a sneaking idea that there may be political motives for introducing 2A. I just cannot understand why the Minister is willing to be a party to refusing a worker the right to choose his own benefits; I fail to see the reason why the Minister should be a party to preventing a worker from having a choice of doctor where a choice is possible.

And why can’t a woman not have a choice as well?

That is what we are asking for. I do not know whether any of the other medical men on the other side are going to take part in this discussion. But perhaps the Minister himself will give us the reasons why he has introduced 2A into what appears to be a first rate scheme.

It seems to me that there is a certain measure of misunderstanding here. The hon. member for Rosettenville says his amendment is aimed at protecting the working man and woman, whilst the hon. member for Durban (Central) asked for not separating the husband and wife or mother and child. May I suggest to the hon. member, and I intend proving to him that it is so, that as the clause reads now it is not the intention to separate husband and wife, nor the mother and child.

You are forcing them into one medical scheme.

No, we are not. Clause 2 only applies to those benefit funds and schemes excluding those which are mentioned. All the others that have been registered up to now have been compelled by clause 38 not to belong to more than one scheme. In other words, this has now been in operation for three years already for all registered schemes. That is the de facto situation to-day. We are now creating this situation in regard to those mentioned under clause 3 which have already existed for the majority of schemes which have been registered over three years. What does this clause say? It says that a person is not entitled to belong to more than one scheme.

We agree with that.

I am glad that you agree with the principle, otherwise it could lead to abuse and cause a doctor to act illegally. Therefore we want to lay down the principle that a person should belong to only one scheme. The schemes mentioned under clause 2 in most cases make provision for the whole family to be covered by the scheme to which the husband belongs. Let us take an example; the hon. member named an example …

The mineworkers.

The hon. member asked why force a wife, say of a policeman, to join the benefit fund of the Police or of the Prisons Department. That is the example he named, although I think this is not a very good example. But let us take that. Now, the position is that she is not forced to join any scheme to which she does not want to belong. But if she is covered by the scheme which covers her husband and the children, then, so we say, she is not allowed to belong to a second scheme. On the other hand, if she is not covered by her husband’s scheme, she is entitled to belong to any other scheme. Therefore, husband and wife can belong to two different schemes. Only where the husband’s scheme covers the whole family will it be an infringement to belong to an extra scheme.

What about the condition of employment?

I am coming to that. I just want to complete this point first. The hon. member for Durban (Central) also asked me whether I had consulted the Medical Association and the Association of Medical Schemes. Yes, this very point was discussed at length during discussions we had in Pretoria, and also afterwards, and I have the full agreement of the Medical Association and of the Association of Medical Schemes for this clause as it stands.

Then the hon. member for Rosettenville made the point that there was no choice. That is not true. There will be a free choice for anybody to join whatever scheme he likes, provided he is not already covered in one way or another by a scheme.

That does not allow them to reject this other “scheme”? They have no choice.

We are only dealing now with schemes under clause 2. If the wife and the family are covered by the scheme to which the husband belongs, then they cannot belong to a second one.

And if it is a condition of employment?

I am coming to that, but let me deal with it seriatim. The hon. member also spoke about protecting the working man and woman. My point is that this clause as it stands does exactly the same thing; it protects the man from belonging to two schemes.

*Let me just take this point a little further by saying, first of all, that the said principle, i.e. that a person may not belong to two schemes, has been applicable to all registered schemes since 1967. As the hon. member knows, the only thing we are doing now is to include also the schemes concerned under the provisions of section 38. The amendment of the hon. member for Rosettenville will mean that members of all these schemes, who, for a period of nearly three years, have not had the right of belonging to two schemes, will again be implicated in this matter by giving them a choice, and I do not think the hon. member wants that.

I do not mind their having that, as long as they have the choice to belong to the one or the other.

But they have that. They have every right to belong to any scheme. These schemes mentioned under clause 2, those that have been exempted, are mostly schemes under which the husband is obliged to pay for his wife and his family and in that case we say it is unethical for the wife, too, to be obliged to belong to another scheme now when that is a prerequisite as regards her conditions of employment. It is a further requirement of this Act—and we all agree about this—that the dependants i.e. the wife and children of a member are entitled to the same benefits as the member. If such a family is already covered, we say it is unethical—for another employee to be able to oblige the wife to belong to their scheme as well; in other words for such a family to have to make double payments. The wife must pay in the garment workers’ industry for example, and her husband in the car industry, for example. We say this is wrong. If the wife is not included in the scheme under which her husband is insured, she has the free choice to join whatever scheme she wants to join. But this is determined by the scheme to which the husband belongs. The hon. member also asked what the benefits were. We know that the work of a wife is of a much more temporary nature than that of her husband. Let us once again take the garment industry as an example. There is a much larger turnover of women in that industry than men. When the husband and the family are covered, the position in the majority of cases under clause 2 is—I do not know of one case where this is not the position—that the wife and children are covered also when the husband dies.

†When the husband dies the family and the wife are still covered. In the case of the female, who is registered only in her own name, the position is that the moment she leaves her employment because of pregnancy or for some other reason, she loses her benefits, and then she has to revert automatically to her husband’s medical scheme.

*I say it is wrong that this instability and this unethical situation, where payments have to be made for her under two schemes, should continue. The other benefit which I have mentioned, is that on the death of the husband, the wife and the children retain those benefits.

Then the hon. member asked what the position was in cases where it was a condition of service of the wife that she should join the scheme of her employer. If this legislation is passed, it will be illegal for any employer to make it a condition of service that a person should belong to two schemes. It will not be possible to enforce this. One may say that in such cases that may influence the agreement in respect of such a woman, but this is an empowering clause and it is just possible that the council may grant exemption in such cases. I think it is completely wrong to say that people are being deprived of this free choice; this is not so. We are merely saying that in cases where the wife if already covered she may not belong to a second scheme. I want to tell the hon. member that the Medical Association and the Association of Medical Schemes were not the only organizations whose concurrence we sought in this regard; the Confederation of Labour asked for this. They asked us not to allow this unethical situation to continue, i.e. the possibility of forcing a person to belong to two schemes and to pay subscriptions to two schemes. The Trade Union Council as well as the garment industry had an interview with the Minister of Labour on this matter ten days or two weeks ago. At that time they put certain matters to the Minister. One of the matters raised by them was that the sick fund of the garment industry also provided X-ray services with regard to tuberculosis examinations. We satisfied them on this point because, as hon. members know, these services are provided free of charge by the Department of Health. They also made the point that membership of a certain sick fund formed part of the conditions of service of such a person. The Minister of Labour then pointed out to them that as far as sick leave was concerned, that could not be embodied in the conditions of service with regard to the sick fund, as the Factory Act provided that such a person should receive at least two week’s sick leave, and, what was more, after three weeks the Unemployment Insurance Act came into operation in any event. In other words, this aspect is completely covered. The hon. the Minister of Labour also pointed out that apart from the fact that there was separate bargaining for contributions to sick funds, that need not necessarily be included for the medical scheme. Then I should just like to furnish these figures to hon. members with regard to the garment industry because this is the industry most often implicated. Its membership is approximately 25,000 and not more than 600 of these members will be affected by this. I should also like to point out to the hon. member that as far as this clause is concerned, there has been very close co-operation with the Minister of Labour. He had no objection to this clause, and up to this day he is of the opinion and supports the principle that it is better to make absolutely sure, as we are doing here, that there will not be duplication and that we provide protection to the husband and wife in that they will not be separated. We are now giving the assurance that if a husband and wife are covered under the same scheme, that is how it should remain. If we do not do so, an employer will be able to force that husband and wife to be separated by means of certain conditions of service.

†I think the hon. member will agree with that.

I follow you.

Therefore I am not prepared to accept these amendments, not for the reasons suggested by the hon. member a few moments ago, but I think it would be to the detriment of the workers if we did not also cover those under clause 2. As I have said before, all the other registered schemes have already operated under this particular legislation and under the provisions of this particular clause for a long time.

*Therefore it will be clear to hon. members that I am unable to accept these amendments. If exemptions have to be made, the Central Council is at liberty to grant exemption, possibly also to honour existing agreements of employment.

The hon. the Minister has not convinced me. He is debasing his argument. We have accepted that no person may belong to two schemes, so I think we can leave that aside. The point that we are disputing is how this shall be brought about. The hon. the Minister is presuming to decide what is best for the family. It is a dangerous presumption that the family must necessarily all be in one scheme.

Only if that is the case.

But the Minister is assuming that the wife must follow her husband.

I said only if the wife is covered by the husband’s scheme. If that is not the case, then she has a free choice.

Yes, I agree there. We all accept that; we are not arguing that point. The point is that if she is covered by one scheme, her employer may offer her a better scheme or a scheme which she prefers. The husband’s scheme has to be paid for. Take the case of a railwayman. There is deducted from his monthly salary his own subscription. He then has to pay an additional amount for his wife and an additional amount in respect of his children. Where both husband and wife are working, it is obviously a hardship if the wife is also required to contribute towards her employer’s fund. What we are trying to obviate is that the husband has to pay for the right which his wife does not wish to exercise. I want also to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that all these new schemes which he is bringing under section 38, are not under the control of the council; they are exempt. The council does and should lay down minimum benefits but not for these four or five schemes which the Minister is now bringing in under section 38.

It is the first step.

Why not take them together?

Why not take the whole lot out then?

The Minister’s predecessor has taken out the cream of the schemes. The richest schemes and the most stable schemes have been taken out. Why not put them back? Why must they be exempted? We opposed this at the time; we did not want it, but this is an accomplished fact and these people to-day are not controlled. They can give benefits which are so small that they are not worth while. It is unlikely that they will do so, but nevertheless they can do so and other schemes cannot do so. The main benefit of the previous Act was that it made provision for minimum benefits. The hon. the Minister is creating his own problem and when we offer him a solution, he refuses to accept it. If he will remove clause 2 (a) we will be quite happy. He can either remove clause 2 (a) or accept our amendment, in which case we will be happy.

He will get into trouble if he does not do so.

He is going to have years of difficulties.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could help me with this particular case. Take the case of a man who is a member of a mines benefit society and a woman who belongs to the clothing workers’ benefit fund. They marry and they have a family. Is the position that the woman would then become a beneficiary under the mines benefit fund?

That is laid down under section 20.

Now the woman finds it necessary to go out to work and she works for one of the organizations which has a medical benefit fund under the Industrial Conciliation Act. Although the Minister has said there is no legal obligation that she must belong to that fund, it can be used as a bargaining point by her employer who may say: “We want you to belong to our medical fund; you are already committed”. I take it she cannot leave the mines benefit society now to become a member of this particular fund.

That cannot be a condition of her employment.

No, but her employer can choose somebody else. He may say that he would rather employ somebody who will join his fund, and then that woman will be penalized under this clause. There is no way out of it, as far as I can see.

Section 20 says that “no medical scheme shall be registered under section 15 unless provision is made in the rules, (c) that the dependants of a member are entitled to the same benefits as the member”. This applies to all dependants. In other words, the dependants must, according to this Act, of necessity also be covered and be entitled to the same benefits.

Not under (2). You have no control over those; they are excluded.

I am not arguing about that. The point is that if under (2) the wife and the dependants are also covered, then that woman cannot be compelled to join another scheme. That is the only point I am trying to make.

But she can be penalized.

I suppose so.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Health put and agreed to.

Amendments proposed by Dr. E. L. Fisher put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

The Minister here brings in a new subsection 2 (aA) saying that one of the remaining ordinary members of the council shall be a member of the S.A. Medical and Dental Council established by the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act who is not registered under that Act. It is very difficult for me to understand why the Minister has made this curious selection. There are only a few people from whom to choose and one of them he puts there himself. He has two laymen that he appoints. The one is usually a lawyer who is on his way up to the Bench and the others are two nurses who are put there by the Nursing Council. Those are the only four who are members of the Medical Council but who are not registered. I should like to know why the Minister has limited himself to that choice. I would also like to ask him how he arrives at his choice of the fourth person, a person who has special knowledge of medical schemes. Will he select a man who has done a lot of work for medical schemes, like a doctor who has done much work for them, or will it be someone who has written a letter or an article showing that he has thought a lot about medical schemes, or is he a man who has compiled a model medical scheme which has impressed the Minister? How does he exercise this choice? I would be grateful if the Minister would tell me that.

First of all, in regard to the person from the Medical Council who is not registered under the Act, the hon. member will see that there is a very fine balance here in this central council. There is one medical practitioner; one dentist; one chemist and druggist; one person with a special knowledge of medical benefit schemes; one with a special knowledge of medical aid schemes; one with special knowledge of medical schemes established under section 48, of Act No. 28 of 1956; one person with special knowledge of hospital services; and then comes the person the hon. member referred to. At these discussions we had in Pretoria it was quite impossible to get the schemes to agree to having another medical practitioner or dentist, but I felt, and it was agreed upon by all concerned, that the Medical Council is the umbrella body in South Africa in regard to all medical knowledge. I would like that principle to be established in every possible case. I personally came forward with that suggestion. I knew I could not possibly get it through if it had to be a medical practitioner or a dentist. Now I have the two laymen, one being a man with special knowledge of law, and I have two nurses, but I felt I wanted to bring into the Central Council—and as I say, everybody agreed—somebody from the Medical Council which is the umbrella body. That is the reason why it is only confined to these four persons. It could not have been done otherwise.

Then the hon. member wanted to know how I decide on a person with special knowledge of medical benefit schemes. I think the same question could be applied to the person with a special knowledge of medical aid schemes and also to the sixth one. It is very simple to decide. Obviously the Association of Medical Schemes has as its members gentlemen who have had knowledge over very many years. I think the present member of the Central Council—I do not wish to mention names— is a person who is acceptable to the Association of Medical Schemes, and I will continue to appoint such people who are acceptable and who come from either the staff or the representatives of the medical schemes.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 12:

May I just refer to subsection 6 (f) on page 14, line 54? What we are concerned with here is the constitution of the remuneration commission as well as its functions. At the top of the page the constitution of this remuneration commission is given, and this is not what we are disputing now. It consists, as you will see, of a judge, a medical practitioner proposed by the Medical Association, a dentist proposed by the Dental Association, and a representative of the National Association of Medical Aid Schemes. The proposal to us contained in subsection (6), is that in the consideration of the tariff of fees representations may come, firstly, from the Medical Association, secondly, from the Dental Association, and, thirdly, from the Medical Aid Schemes and the Medical Benefit Schemes. In paragraph (f) reference is then made to “any medical scheme”. I accept the addition to this of “with the approval of the commission”, but now it seems to me that if we were to leave this subsection in its present form, we might create considerable difficulties for ourselves because in that case one could have 101 different schemes that wished to make representations. From the nature of the case this is not being done in the case of the medical men; we say that should be done by the medical associations. It seems to me as though we have something here which is unnecessary. I should like to learn from the Minister why he is insisting on the retention of this paragraph, and in the second place, I want to say we shall be able to save ourselves a great deal of trouble by omitting paragraph (f).

I am able to set the mind of the hon. member at ease. I am glad he raised this point, because this is a possibility which could have existed, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the schemes are members either of the national body for medical schemes or the national body for medical benefit schemes. However, it is not compulsory for them to be members of the national associations. Now it may happen that there may be a scheme, or an insurance company, that is not a member and consequently we have added here “with the approval of the commission”. I did not want to appoint a commission with a judge as its chairman and with such a high status and then restrict the commission if it could possibly obtain information which could assist the commission in taking a decision in the interests of everyone. This is the only reason for the inclusion of this paragraph.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

It is very difficult to regiment sick people and it is also difficult to regiment the people who look after them. If we look at the principal Act, we see that that was drafted with a view to making it easy to regulate these matters.

There was a great deal of goodwill on both sides but the difficulties are arising gradually. Now again the hon. Minister is making it difficult by putting in a maximum. Already he has found the fruits of this clause are embarrassing him by the fact that the dentists are now opting out. It is mainly if not entirely because of this clause that the dentists are opting out as the doctors did last year for different reasons. The minimum is fairly easily arranged. The council has to decide what are the minimum medical dental nursing, hospital and medicine benefits. There must be a minimum standard. This standard is settled by the council. On that minimum standard the council decides whether or not the scheme will be registered. If it is not registered it must, in order to be registered, conform to the minimum. That is right and that is how it should be. It is the function of the council to see that the subscription paid brings at least reasonable benefits to the members of the scheme. But when we come to the question of the “maximum” we are faced with a different point of view. The various schemes differ in their subscription fees. Their subscription amounts are not standard. They can arrange the subscription they ask from their members. In return they can differ in their maximum; that is, the minimum standards laid down by the council of the scheme should not necessarily be the maximum. It does in some instances become the maximum. In quite a number of cases the benefits are arranged by the schemes themselves to be at a higher level. They are not bringing in outside benefits like sick pay or anything of that sort. That is excluded. But they are giving better service. For example they will arrange for gold plates or gold fillings. They can arrange for certain free medicines, that is medicines without charge. These are items which the poorer schemes may not afford. Therefore it is causing this difficulty with the dentists. The dentists are giving a preferential rate to the schemes, but they are not, as the doctors are, getting their fees paid. If a doctor thinks his bill is very high, he can go to the scheme and make an arrangement with the scheme. Generally an arrangement is made. The dentist is faced with a very serious problem. Dental services is always in a medical scheme more expensive than the medical because everybody goes to the dentist, when it is free. Everybody does not go to the doctor. In such a way the schemes make up what they lose on sick members consulting doctors, from those who do not employ a doctor for perhaps a year or two. But the dentist is nearly always consulted; his position is different.

Dentists are in that respect faced with serious problems because with a family of about three or four the amount of a bill can be very high. What is the dentist to do? Must he turn away the people who need his care? Must he refuse to deal with the gumboil of a child because the father used up all the money over the preceding months? Therefore I think it should be made possible for the schemes to fix their own maximum. If a rich scheme, like the accountants, says that they will cover all the dental treatment, let them do it. If on the other hand, a poorer scheme says that it cannot afford for a family to have more than R50 of dental care in a year, very well. Then let them inform the dentist. The dentist will then know. At the present time he does not know. If the maximum should be fixed, let it be done by the schemes themselves. Let them carry out the second part of this clause and state the maximum on the card which the man will carry that he can spend on dentists. Then there will be no misunderstanding. But do not let the council of the schemes set the maximum. It must be done by the individual schemes, each for itself.

Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty with regard to the question by whom the maximum will be set. The clause, as it is set out now, is understandable as far as the minimum is concerned. One understands that protection must be given to the subscriber as far as the minimum standard is concerned. I take it that this standard is a standard which the medical scheme will insist on before the medical scheme is registered. If I want to introduce a medical scheme I must give a minimum standard before I can be registered. But as it is at the present moment, there is nothing to say who will fix the maximum. If it is the intention of the Minister to allow the medical schemes council, for instance, or himself to fix the maximum, I cannot accept it. Surely, if I can afford to join a medical scheme which will give me all the benefits, the sky being the limit, surely, I should be entitled to pay for it. If I want to have a telephone in my private suite when I have my operation and also want to have a special nurse and I am prepared to pay the medical scheme for that, surely I should be entitled to do it.

However, if we will look at this maximum as a prevention of one medical scheme giving better service than another medical scheme, I am against this word “maximum” being introduced. But if the Minister will give us the assurance that the maximum will be laid down between the subscriber and the medical scheme, in other words, if it is a personal arrangement between the two parties involved, then it will not be necessary for him to include the word “maximum”. The question that the hon. member for Durban (Central) brought up is very interesting as far as the dentists are concerned. The dentists feel that because they are giving a special tariff, all dental fees which are incurred by a family should be covered by the medical scheme. The medical scheme should lay down a maximum between the dentists and themselves, what each person is prepared to pay and for which service the dentist will receive payment. If we can get those little points worked out, this amendment of the Minister will be accepted by us. But as it stands now, we cannot allow a maximum to be introduced into this Bill on the understanding that it is the Minister or the Medical Scheme Council that will lay down the maximum. If it is not the Minister or the Medical Schemes Council it will not be necessary for him to include a maximum.

Mr. Chairman, I think there is some misunderstanding in this connection as well. The example was mentioned here of the dentists and the decision which had been taken. That decision has absolutely nothing to do with this clause, as it has not been put into operation as yet. The problem which the dentists foresee for themselves—personally I disagree with this—arises from the very thing which the hon. member has just advocated. I agree with him; it should remain as it is, in other words, the scheme itself should be able to lay down the maximum. I want to make the clear statement here, and this is intended also for the Dental Association and the dentists, that they really ought to think twice before acting as they intimated they were going to act. I am saying this for the following reasons. The dentists in South Africa derived more benefit from this Medical Schemes Act than any single person in South Africa did, because prior to 1966, as hon. members know, very few schemes, virtually none of them, offered dental benefits. As a result of this Act we already have quite a few schemes which do offer such benefits. In due course more must be added to this number, because we cannot possibly shut our eyes to the neglect of dental benefits in schemes. In other words, the dentists are the ones who have been deriving most benefit from this.

It is true that the schemes, with the fees charged by them, have been unable to provide 100 per cent benefits with regard to dental services immediately. Therefore the schemes themselves, not the central council, laid down in their rules that as far as certain dental services were concerned, the scheme would pay 70 per cent, 80 per cent, 90 per cent, or whatever the case may be. That was what the dentists objected to and they said their services should be compensated 100 per cent. That is why I am very serious in drawing their attention to the fact that they did receive that benefit, i.e. the benefit of schemes paying compensation for dental services to an increasing extent, whereas dentists had absolutely nothing like that before. Let me be frank now; if we were to experience problems with dentists, more and more pressure would be exercised for clinical services to be established in South Africa with regard to dental services. This would be to the serious detriment of the dentists. I want to state very clearly now that I, as Minister of Health, will oppose that as far as it will be possible for me to do so, because that is nothing but a State medical service in respect of dental services. I am 100 per cent opposed to that. But in that case I shall need the assistance of the dentists.

As far as this clause is concerned, I want to point out to hon. members that this merely is an empowering clause.

†It only enables the central council to lay down maximum benefits if they so wish. Secondly, if they want to lay down rules or regulations in this regard, it will only apply to a percentage of the benefits which this scheme offers. I shall come back to that later. But before they can do so, these intentions must be publicised in the Government Gazette, according to clause 3 I think, for three months. These rules can only be promulgated if they are authorized by the Minister. So there is a whole procedure before this can be done. The reasons are the following.

*Let me tell hon. members what these reasons are. It is not the idea at all to make this applicable to, for example, hospitals or in respect of operations, etc. But hon. members know that during all these years the Medical Association has been pointing out—as a matter of fact, has been asking for this state of affairs to be remedied—that the services of medical practitioners are being exploited if 100 per cent benefits are offered. This now is not the overall benefit; this is the benefit laid down by the medical scheme in order to be registered. It cannot be registered if it does not provide certain benefits. This clause is nothing but an empowering clause which enables the central council, after it has followed this procedure, to determine that 10 per cent or 20 per cent should be paid by the patient himself for a consultation, for a night visit or a day visit by a doctor. The Medical Association has always been asking for this. In other words, they may lay down the maximum benefit, viz. that it will only be 80 or 90 per cent of what the scheme pays.

I want to point out to hon. members that this clause does not arise from what the Railway Sick Fund has been doing lately but is in line with that. From their personal experience throughout the years hon. members will know that they, too, have found that the advantage which has been taken not only of doctors but also of the available manpower has obliged them to charge the subscriber a certain amount for a visit or a night visit now. This is the intention of this clause.

I should now like to refer hon. members to clause 3, which sets out the procedure to be followed. I repeat that this is an empowering clause which affords the Central Council the opportunity of determining a maximum benefit.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest to the motives given by the Minister for this particular provision that he has included, but we still maintain that this is a retrogressive step. We accept the need for minimum provisions being introduced.

But could I perhaps put these thoughts to the hon. the Minister? I think the moment one begins to impose certain maximum benefits, too, one then in fact imposes an upper limit. By doing this, I think one introduces very great rigidity. There are now a lower limit and an upper limit. It means, in fact I believe, that one eliminates in a very particular way the competitive element, because one now gives these medical schemes a lower limit and also an upper limit; so, in fact, the element of competition is eliminated. As I understand it, too, there is no question of profiteering or anything that could be associated with it.

It could be.

The type of contribution which these schemes require is, after all, determined very much by the sort of coverage that they offer. Could I put this particular example to the hon. the Minister? Assume now that there is a scheme where the risks including administrative cost come to R1. Then one will find that the particular scheme that offers 100 per cent coverage, will demand a contribution of R1. But the scheme that only provides an 80 per cent coverage, will charge an 80 cents’ fee. That is the way these schemes normally operate. Therefore I do not see why, if certain schemes want to give additional benefits, they should be prevented from doing so. Certainly, if one introduces a maximum benefit, one will reduce everybody to the same common denominator. I think in practice it has also been found that, where one only gives partial benefits, the scheme becomes less efficient and more costly, because one often has to cover bad debts. One has all sorts of administrative costs involved in trying to collect fees that must be paid. The information that is put to me and the advice that I am given by people who operate very actively in this field, is that where there are these partial benefits, administrative efficiency always suffers.

There is one last argument, too. I do not know whether it is correct, but I am told that the Medical Association is also opposed to maximum benefits being introduced. This is certainly how I understand it. But I think the main argument is that the ordinary individual, in terms of this particular provision, is now left in a position where he cannot choose the type and the amount of coverage that he wants. I think the competitive element is very largely eliminated, and I think that is a retrogressive step.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister interjected and said that it could be used for competition between various funds, that is, if they have no maximum benefits. The hon. member for Hillbrow has made a good reply to the question.

I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that when the contribution system had been put into practice before the other Act was introduced, insurance companies, and very big insurance companies, rushed into this field, trying to compete. They rushed out about four times quicker than they came in. They found that they had lost large sums of money running close to millions of rand. They now go about and say that doctors are dishonest. I think there is nothing to fear in respect of competition if the council does its duty. The primary duty of the council is to see that the overheads are kept down. That is one of the main reasons for the original Bill’s introduction as there were schemes using large sums of money in overheads. If the council does its duty it must see that these overheads are not charities. These institutions are semi-charitable and are there to help people and not to make profits for its officials. I am sure that if the hon. the Minister will listen to us he may avoid a lot of trouble in this matter regarding various complications. It is not a good thing to try to regulate illness, because it cannot be done. You are well to-day and dead tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply in brief to what the hon. member for Durban (Central) said. He spoke of the insurance companies and I may tell him that most of them rushed out as fast as they had rushed in. However, one did remain behind, and at present it is giving very good coverage. The whole idea here is to create for the Central Council the machinery of combating abuses. These are not excluded, and I want to tell the hon. member that in the past major abuses did occur with regard to certain entrepreneur schemes. I know that unless the Central Council obtains these powers, which it is seldom going to use, abuses may occur. The abuses occur particularly in the field of the offering of certain benefits, benefits which are hardly ever used, but which draw a large sum of money from the person who has to pay the premiums. These abuses relate to salaries, etc. The question of the “competitive element” is not mentioned here at all. When one examines the schemes which have been registered, one sees that there is such a variety as regards benefits offered by one and not by the other, that it is not possible to affect this matter in any way. I repeat, as far as the maximum is concerned, the idea is not to restrict the benefits but to create an opportunity for the Central Council to step in if abuses do occur. These may be abuses with regard to 100 per cent benefits or abuses with regard to these entrepreneur schemes. The council, after having investigated the entire procedure, will have the power to take steps.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, for many years now provincial councils have voted moneys for research in connection with matters in which they, and local authorities under their control, have a direct interest. Contributions were made chiefly to projects launched by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, such as those in connection with oil and water pollution, re-use of water, efficient building methods, road construction and road safety. According to a legal opinion which was obtained, it would, however, appear that contributions of the said nature fall outside the powers of the provincial councils. As a result of an appeal by the C.S.I.R. for grants-in-aid for investigation into water and effluent control at abattoirs and related undertakings, the Administrators at their recent conference in Bloemfontein decided to accept the principle that the provinces should have the right and should be encouraged to make contributions for such research and research of a similar nature. The Government agrees with this, and in clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill now before the House provincial councils are being empowered to vote money for research and to validate contributions made for the purposes in question prior to the commencement of this amending Bill. I may mention that my Department held extensive consultations with the Treasury and the Department of Planning in this matter, and that the proposed amendments are supported by them. Hon members will remember that the Scientific Research Council Act, 1962 (Act No. 32 of 1962), was amended by the Scientific Research Council Amendment Act, 1969 (Act No. 21 of 1969), in order to enable the said council to receive contributions from provincial councils. As hon. members are probably aware, the erection of a monument in honour of the pioneers of the Afrikaans language, particularly of the First and Second Language Movement, is contemplated. This monument, which will be known as “The Afrikaans Language Monument”, will be erected in Paarl, and is expected to cost about R½ million. The secretary of the Afrikaans Language Monument Committee appealed to the hon. the Administrator of the Transvaal for a contribution towards the costs of erecting this monument. Because Afrikaans was the language of the then Transvaal Republic, and since it is to-day still the language of the majority of the inhabitants of the Province of the Transvaal, the Executive Committee of the said province felt the need to make its contribution as well and intends to provide an amount of R50,000 for this purpose. However, since the funds will be spent outside that province, this expenditure must be legalized by Parliament.

I may just mention that the Province of the Transvaal also made a contribution of R50,000 at the time towards the erection of the 1820 Settlers Monument. This expenditure was also legalized by Parliament in 1963, and in this connection hon. members are referred to section 3 of the Financial Relations Further Amendment Act, 1963 (Act No. 54 of 1963), in which the provinces were authorized to make contributions towards the erection costs of the monument. The Cape Province also decided to contribute R50,000, and the Executive Committees of Natal and the Orange Free State have also approved their contributions in principle, but the contributions have not yet been determined.

Mr. Speaker, the provinces were requested by the organizers of the South African Games of 1969, held in Bloemfontein, to make a financial contribution towards the costs of the Games and/or to take part in processions. The Cape Provincial Administration approached the department in order to obtain legal authority by way of legislation to enable the Provinces to make contributions towards the 1969 Games. However, at the same time the aforementioned Administration suggested that the powers of the provinces in this connection be extended to cover any matter of national interest. This suggestion was made in order to promote efficiency, and to eliminate the work and time wastage involved whenever specific authority has to be obtained by way of amending or supplementary legislation. The other three provinces, to which the suggestions were referred for comment, supported them, and the Treasury did not raise any objection to them either. After careful consideration the Cabinet decided to empower the provinces to contribute towards the erection costs of the Afrikaans Language Monument and also to incur expenditure in respect of the South African Games. In addition it was decided to introduce omnibus legislation which would authorize this expenditure with retrospective effect and also make provision for future contributions in respect of matters of national interest. These proposed amendments to the Act were also embodied in clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill we are dealing with now. Hon. members will notice, however, that the provinces are not being given a blank cheque, but that all expenditure is still subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance, and that the Minister of the Interior must decide when a certain matter is of national interest. This he will, of course, do in consultation with the Cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that all hon. members will agree that this Bill is essential and justified, and I have the pleasure of submitting it to the House now.

Mr. Speaker, we support this measure which has been introduced by the hon. the Minister of the Interior. According to his explanation, this is a twofold measure. Its purpose is partly to regularize a practice which has grown up over some years. The provinces have been making contributions and expending money for the purposes mentioned in this Bill and this has now been questioned and must be regularized. This Bill is also aimed at extending the powers of the provinces to make donations and contributions in the future, subject to certain consents. One realizes that the extension of powers contained in this measure is in effect only of a temporary nature. One can anticipate that in future this provision will have to be adjusted to any new dispensation granted to the Provincial Administrations as far as their finances are concerned. One therefore appreciates the necessity for the Government to retain in the hands of the Central Government the power to approve of the expenditure, which is in the hands of the hon. Minister of Finance. This is necessary because after all the Government makes the provinces the grants which enable the provinces to function.

In the second place there are the powers which are retained by the hon. Minister of the Interior to determine what is a matter of national importance. I think that this Bill also raises another issue which is of considerable importance to the whole field of research. I refer to the extent to which research in the fields mentioned by the hon. the Minister, should be fragmentized, if I may use that word. In other words, attempts and efforts are being made by various legislative and statutory bodies to do research, which probably overlap to a great extent. The hon. the Minister referred to road construction and road safety, which go together. It seems that here again it is necessary to ensure that there is no wastage of expenditure on similar research being carried out by different bodies. I believe that this matter will be sufficiently corrected by means of the provisions of this Bill, because the provinces will now obviously make use of the services of the C.S.I.R. as far as research of this nature is concerned.

We support this Bill because it is necessary to make provision for certain kinds of research which are peculiar to the problems of a particular province. The hon. the Minister referred to water pollution. One may have water pollution of one type possibly creating difficulties in Natal while there may be water pollution of an entirely different type creating difficulties in the Cape or the Free State. There one sees the necessity of the provinces and the local authorities being authorized to make contributions for necessary research. I believe we have a problem at the present moment in the Cape Province in regard to the envisaged development of the Coloured metropolis on the Cape Flats in that there is a good deal of investigation to be done into water, underground water, the quality of water and other water resources which exist, and the way in which it is affected by various drainage and other schemes on the Cape Flats. This will enable that type of research to be undertaken.

There are one or two matters which arise incidentally to this clause namely the control of subsidiary bodies within the framework of the Provincial Administration, for instance hospital boards or subsidiary organizations and funds under the control of local authorities. To what extent are they now to be given the go ahead to use money for these particular purposes? It seems to me to be a matter which needs caution. As I said earlier, it may result in a dissipation of funds by too many people trying to do too many jobs. The result will be that none of them have enough resources to do the job alone effectively. The other aspect that we welcome in this Bill is the provision that the provinces and local authorities can each in turn make contributions to matters which, in terms of the Bill, are referred to as matters of national interest.

It will enable the provinces as provinces to be directly identified with these particular matters. The hon. the Minister referred quite correctly to the position of the 1820 Memorial Monument which is being constructed at Grahamstown. In this respect authority has already been given through this House to the Transvaal to be identified with something in the Cape. There is also the Taal-monument to which reference has been made. There will no doubt be future occasions such as the National Games when it will be of significance that the provinces should each be identified with matters of that nature. Obviously the hon. the Minister of Interior realizing that he will be giving with one hand, will be cautious and conservative in the determination of what he is prepared to declare to be a matter of national interest. The hon. the Minister will have to make certain that the making of donations or contributions by the provinces is rather the exception than the rule. Furthermore, there is the control through the Minister of Finance to approve of the amounts. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether or not he agrees with my view that this really is a Bill which will be taken up eventually in any new dispensation in so far as finances and the financing of the Provincial Administrations are concerned; that the checks provided in the Bill are necessary checks for such period as the provinces rely on grants from the Central Government in conducting their affairs in the provinces; and that those checks may well be removed at a future stage when the new setup of provincial finance in relation to the Central Government, following on the recommendations of the Borckenhagen and the Schumann Commission reports, is known. We support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, there is only one small question which the hon. member for Green Point put to me at the end of his speech. In that question he was, to a certain extent, anticipating the decisions of the Government in respect of the Borckenhagen and Schumann Commission reports. My personal opinion is that the safety valves contained in this measure will probably remain on the Statute Book. Personally I anticipate that any new financial arrangement between the Government and the provinces will probably not necessitate the removal of the safety valves provided in this legislation. I would prefer not to give a definite reply to that question at the moment. This is altogether dependent upon what the new financial relations will be.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This is the Bill which is introduced practically every year, and in the past its main object has been to give effect to concessions to pensioners announced by the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech. As hon. members know, pension funds and schemes are, with a few exceptions, at present governed by regulations issued under various enabling Acts. Such concessions are therefore being put into effect now by means of appropriate amendments to the regulations concerned. Some concessions and new measures, however, still require parliamentary sanction. In addition, certain provisions of existing Pension Laws are also being amended in order to eliminate problems being experienced in regard to the application of those provisions. Certain improvements arising from recommendations made by the Interdepartmental Committee on Pension Schemes for Officers of the Public Service and the Railways also have to be implemented by way of legislation passed by Parliament. I do not want to enlarge on each separate provision of the Bill. This can be done far more profitably in the Committee Stage.

I should just like to mention a few of the more important provisions here. Firstly, in the case of the injury or death of a Government employee while on duty, two calculations have been made in the past—one in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1941, and one in terms of the regulations issued under the Government Service Pensions Act, 1965. Then it was necessary to decide which of the two benefits would be more advantageous to the beneficiary. Upon the recommendation of the aforementioned committee this cumbersome procedure is now being eliminated. If an officer or employee of the Government is injured in an accident arising from, or occurring in the course of his duty, the compensation benefits and medical aid benefits are determined by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner in accordance with the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 1941. In the event of the death or enforced retirement of such person as a result of injuries sustained by him while on duty and under circumstances which entitle him to receive compensation in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the pension and other benefits in terms of the Government Service Pension Regulations are being increased by 1 per cent for each R100 by which such person’s pensionable earnings at the time of his death or retirement exceed the earnings on which compensation to him for injuries sustained on duty was calculated by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. Section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, in terms of which an alternative award had to be made, is therefore now being repealed in clause 1 (1).

Secondly, it is necessary to amend the Government Service Pensions Act, 1965, in order to admit persons employed in the newly established Bureau for State Security to the South African Police and Prisons Service Pension Fund. Any person who, immediately prior to being appointed to the Bureau, was a member of a Government-controlled pension scheme with effect from any date prior to 1st January, 1966, will therefore also be entitled to retire at the same age at which a member who became a member of the said Funds prior to that date may retire. Provision for this is made in clauses 7, 8 and 10.

Thirdly, it happens from time to time that the Government is obliged, or deems it desirable, to take over certain institutions or services from local authorities. The Pension Laws make no provision for the transfer of pension rights between Government and municipal pension funds, with the result that, whenever such a take-over takes place, it is necessary to make special legislative provision for the transfer of the pension rights of the staff concerned. Clause 13 of this Bill now proposes to make general provision for such transfers of pension rights, which would facilitate and expedite negotiations. Persons so taken over will be able to become members of some or other pension or provident fund (as the case may be) established by the State for its employees. Provision is also being made for the retention of previous pensionable service.

Fourthly, I want to mention that, as from 1st June, 1965, pensions payable under the parliamentary scheme were virtually doubled, and were subsequently further increased as from 1st April, 1968. The improvements have all along been introduced only with effect from a current date, with the result that persons who became entitled to pensions prior to 1st June, 1965, receive relatively small pensions.

The object of clause 14 is to increase the pensions of persons in respect of service rendered prior to 1st June, 1965, by an allowance equal to 50 per cent of those pensions. In spite of a 50 per cent addition persons receiving very small pensions will derive little benefit, and provision is therefore being made for a minimum pension and allowance of R1,200 per annum in the case of a former member and R800 per annum, i.e. two-thirds thereof, in the case of a widow.

Fifthly, I want to point out that it is proposed in clause 17 that the 10 per cent bonus which war pensioners have been receiving since 1st October, 1968, will not affect a right to receive a social pension or allowance, and, furthermore, that the said bonus will not be reckoned as means or income for the purposes of social pensions or allowances. These people have therefore been accommodated in this way.

Sixthly, hon. members will notice that clause 21 provides for the retention of the pension rights of persons who had been employed at certain institutions established as schools or declared to be subsidized schools in terms of the Educational Services Act, 1967, since 1st April, 1969. Such persons, however, will also be allowed, if they prefer, to become members of the Public Service Pension Fund.

These are some of the more important clauses. The details we can iron out in the Committee Stage. I want to contend myself with that.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill because the principle is to improve pensions and to attend to certain administrative difficulties that arise in the administration of the various pension Acts. However. Sir. I should like to say that we are disappointed that the hon. the Minister did not issue a White Paper, an explanatory memorandum. to accompany this Bill, as has been done in the past. On almost every occasion where a Pension Laws Amendment Bill, which is an omnibus Bill, such as this, and which contains many amendments to various Acts, has come before this House, it has been of great assistance to have a White Paper at hand, particularly when one deals with the details contained in some of the clauses. One of the clauses in this Bill is some three pages long. It contains a great amount of detail concerning the pension rights of persons being transferred from a local authority which has been taken over by the Central Government. This is obviously a provision which is vitally important to the employees concerned.

There are certain comments I should like to make on this Bill which is now before us. One is in regard to workmen’s compensation. It is interesting to note that this Bill is amending the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and repealing a section of that Act. As we know, this Act is administered by the Minister of Labour. It falls under the Department of Labour, but the Central Government is endeavouring to assist employees of the Central Government who have to claim compensation in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It is obviously an Act which requires a great deal of overhaul and further investigation. However, this Bill does bring about an improvement as far as Government employees are concerned.

Then there is the question of the amendments to the Associated Institutions Pension Fund Act. The hon. the Minister did not give any information in this regard during his Second Reading speech. There are certain details in regard to which we should like further clarity. Perhaps we shall be able to obtain this information during the Committee Stage. In the meantime it would appear that the Bill intends to discourage any schemes which may be commenced by an institution which falls under the Associated Institution Pensions Fund Act, and to preclude them from doing so. However, there is a provision whereby they may supplement their pension scheme on a voluntary basis with group insurance. This is an important feature, because many employees who endeavour to obtain greater coverage, join a group insurance scheme. Because it is a group scheme, the costs are reduced. Such a scheme assists employees because it is supplementary to any other pension they may have.

One of the other points the hon. the Minister mentioned, was in regard to the transfer of pension rights of those who will be employed in the Bureau for State Security. It is obviously important to ensure that these people who are transferred from other departments, where they have been contributing to a fund, will have their pension rights preserved and their pensionable service recognized. There is a great deal of difficulty involved when a person’s service is broken. The Select Committee on Pensions invariably has to deal with the question of breaks in service. Great difficulties are sometimes involved in the transferring of certain pension funds. It would appear from the Bill which is before us that this is an endeavour to facilitate the transferability of pension rights and pension funds so as to protect the employee fully.

There are other aspects in regard to the transfer of pension funds which I should like to raise. In clause 13, where provision is made for an employee of a local authority to become an employee of the Government, these employees have the right of election. This ensures their right to membership of the Government Service Pension Fund. This is an important point. Obviously these people wish to obtain the best possible benefits. They can now do so on the grounds of their past pensionable service. This clause also ensures that a transfer to the Government Service Pension Fund will be to their benefit.

Another aspect which I believe deserves comment, is clause 17, which deals with the position of those who received an increase last year, in terms of the Pension Laws Amendment Act. They received an increase of 10 per cent in their military pensions. These people obviously welcomed the financial relief which was afforded them. However, those people who are still receiving war veterans’ pensions, and windows who receive military widows’ pensions and who also receive a social pension, such as an old age pension, then found that the old age pension, the war veterans’ pension or the social pension was subsequently reduced by the same amount as the military pension was increased. Consequently these people were no better off after 1st October, 1968. It is pleasing to see that clause 17 provides that that 10 per cent bonus will now not be taken into account as income, for the purposes of the means test, when calculating the social pension due to these people. It is pleasing that this matter is being attended to in this Bill, with retrospective effect, to 1st October, 1968. This will mean that they will in effect receive an increase in their total pension.

Clause 21 deals with special schools which have been transferred to the Central Government. Persons who were previously employed by the Provincial Administration in these special schools had to decide, after 1st April, 1969, whether they would transfer to the full Government Service or whether they would elect to be seconded to the Government, and retain certain rights under their provincial pension scheme. These people, because of their conditions of service and their pension benefits, were entitled to retire at the age of 55. Many of them had planned their retirement accordingly. However, as a result of their transfer after 1st April, 1969, many of these people were in a quandary because they did not know what choice to make. They were assured that their pension rights would be preserved by legislation. To-day we have the necessary provision under clause 21, which sets out, safeguards and preserves their various pension rights. It is important to note that they will still be able to exercise their right to retire at the age of 55. I should be pleased if the hon. the Minister in his reply to the debate can give a little further information as to the position of these people, to ensure that they will exercise that right without prejudice as far as their pension benefits are concerned.

Sir, another aspect, which is dealt with in clause 22, is the position of civil pensioners. This provision gives legislative effect to the announcement made by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech that 5 per cent of the bonus paid would be consolidated into the basic pension. The position would therefore appear to be that the basic pension will be increased by the 5 per cent, which was previously part of the bonus, and that in addition a bonus will be paid. It is gratifying that this amount has been consolidated. However, I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should consider other means of consolidation in the payment of civil pensions. When one tries to determine the civil pensions which are paid to-day, one has to calculate the basic pension and then add a percentage bonus, which is dependent upon the date of retirement of those who retire earlier, plus a temporary allowance, plus a supplementary allowance, plus a special supplementary allowance where the person concerned is over 70 years of age and qualifies for a war veteran’s pension. The pension is therefore made up of these various allowances and bonuses, and this is all rather confusing as far as the civil pensioner is concerned. Confusion has undoubtedly arisen as a result of the Minister of Finance’s announcement with regard to the concession that was granted to civil pensioners. The Minister of Finance announced that 5 per cent of the bonus would be consolidated into the basic pension; that the equivalent of the bonus would then continue to be paid on the new basic pension and that there would be an increase, as a bonus, of between 10 and 20 per cent if the person had retired before 1st October, 1958. Some of these people have found that it is difficult to assess whether they have in fact received that increase of 10 to 20 per cent on a sliding scale, depending upon the date on which they retired from the Service. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister therefore that he should give consideration to the question of a further consolidation. The temporary allowance is now evidently paid to all civil pensioners and Railway pensioners because no means test is applied in determining whether the temporary allowance should be paid. I think the hon. the Minister should also indicate why, in the provisions of clause 22, he has not accepted the principle which was adopted by the Railway Administration concerning the payment of bonuses and increases as far as civil pensioners are concerned. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor last year advised the House, in reply to a question, that an inter-departmental committee of inquiry had been appointed to investigate the present pension schemes. This committee was appointed in October, 1967. The parties represented on it were the Treasury, the Public Service Commission, the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, the S.A. Railways and the Government Actuary. The terms of reference of this inter-departmental committee of inquiry were as follows:

1. (i) the rate of interest guaranteed by the Treasury on moneys invested on behalf of the pension funds;
2. (ii) whether the benefits payable from pension funds should be calculated in a different manner and, if so, what consequential changes, if any, should be introduced in the basis of contributions by members and/or the employer;
3. (iii) whether the existing differentiation in the rates of contributions of female officers should be continued; and
4. (iv) whether in view of the continual erosion in the value of money, special steps should be introduced to effect the automatic adjustment of annuities, in addition to or in lieu of the existing relief afforded by way of a bonus, temporary allowance or minimum pension, and to submit recommendations to cover any proposed variations or new schemes together with an indication of the financial implications involved in the implementation of such recommendations.

Sir, this last term of reference was a vitally important one. As far as the Railway pensioner is concerned, we know that the Government has adopted the policy of endeavouring to bring about a degree of similarity between the pension paid in terms of the Government Service Pension Fund and the pension paid from the Railway Superannuation Fund. The hon. the Minister of Transport introduced legislation in terms of which the Railway pensioner would be granted, as a bonus, an increase of 2 per cent compounded annually over a maximum period of 20 years. I believe that that was a most important step forward to meet the problem of the erosion in the value of money. In the Bill which we have before us to-day there is no indication that the hon. the Minister has accepted that method of meeting this particular problem. Instead of that, the Bill before us merely consolidates 5 per cent of the bonus into the basic pension, thus creating a new basic pension which is payable from the Fund, and then, of course, there are the bonus and the various allowances which are payable from Revenue. I believe that the hon. the Minister should give this Committee some indication as to the reasons why he has not been able to institute a more satisfactory method of calculating these civil pensions and the pensions paid from the Government Service Pension Fund. We realize that the Public Service Commission is faced with great difficulties because of the shortage of staff. It is within the power of the Government to improve the fringe benefits which are given to employees, and one of the greatest fringe benefits is undoubtedly the assurance which Government employees have that their pensions will continue to be increased. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister is able to give us further information in this regard. I should like him to consider whether, rather than consolidating part of the bonus with the basic salary and varying the bonus from time to time, the whole system of civil pensions should not be reviewed.

Sir, as I indicated at the outset, the principle of this Bill is to improve pensions and to iron out certain administrative difficulties that arise. It is a lengthy and important Bill which affects a large number of people, and we have much pleasure in supporting this Bill in principle at the Second Reading.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat asked why no explanatory memorandum had been issued with the Bill. I want to say to him at once that most of these amendments are consequential amendments arising from policy statements or from the Budget or from policy Acts which have already been passed. In view of the lack of time I did not deem it necessary to issue an explanatory memorandum in this case. I want to give the hon. member the assurance, however, that in the Committee Stage I shall reply fully to all the questions which he may want to put in this connection and that we shall make the necessary time available for that, if it should be necessary.

The hon. member asked a few questions in regard to which I should just like to say something in general. I think that we can then leave the matter there and that we can very profitably iron it out step by step in the Committee Stage.

In regard to the question of associated institutions the hon. member asked whether the people were now being obliged to contribute to these group insurance schemes. I just want to tell the hon. member that there is some confusion among the people in this connection. It is therefore necessary to clarify what is meant and at the same time to prohibit such institutions from compelling members to contribute to schemes other than those intended in the Act. However, no member is being prohibited from participating on a voluntary basis in a group insurance scheme approved by the Minister, neither is any institution prohibited from contributing on behalf of a member, provided such contributions are not defrayed from public moneys. This is the reply in that specific regard, and I hope it will satisfy the hon. member.

As regards the question of transferability of pension funds, there is a general need—and I think it is a good thing—that there should be as much transferability as possible. It is not always possible in practice. We often come up against tremendous problems in this regard, but it would be beneficial to the overall pension position in South Africa if we could have more transferability and if it were practicable. The transfer provided for by clause 13 is that between municipal pension funds and our pension funds, because certain take-overs occur frequently. Clause 21 deals with the specific schools which the hon. member mentioned. In this connection I may say that all pension rights, including the retirement ages which applied to them under their previous schemes, are being fully safeguarded under the new provisions, and there need therefore be no confusion in this regard.

Clause 22 deals with the entire concept of consolidation as such. The hon. member referred to the increase of 2 per cent per annum announced by the Minister of Transport in connection with his pension fund. I just want to tell the hon. member that no attempt is made constantly to bring our pension fund into line with the Railway Pensions Fund or to bring their pension fund into line with our pension fund, for the simple reason that the Railways is an independent business organization which adjusts its salaries from time to time according to its own financial position, and which from time to time announces improvements in its own pension funds and schemes. That does not mean, however, that we have to follow exactly the same line. On the contrary, while the Minister of Transport approved an increase of 2 per cent per annum for a maximum of 20 years, it is the practice in our case for the whole question of consolidation to be taken into reconsideration more or less every three years. We have now approved a 5 per cent consolidation, and we shall from time to time introduce further consolidations in the light of prevailing circumstances, but I am not prepared to commit myself now and to say in advance that I shall grant an annual increase of 2 or 3 per cent. The cost of living may increase at a slower rate or it may increase more rapidly. I therefore do not want to commit myself, but I do give the undertaking that from time to time we shall take the matter into consideration and make the necessary adjustment. I think with this I have more or less replied to the main questions. I think we can iron out the rest of the points raised by the hon. member, very profitably in the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

As is customary, this Bill was introduced, firstly to give effect to certain Budget proposals. In addition it deals with various other matters affecting the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Railway and Harbour Fund.

I do not consider it necessary to deal with each clause in detail, since the various clauses are explained in the explanatory memorandum hon. members have before them. If any hon. member desires more information or some or other aspect, I shall do my best to furnish further particulars, or if the matter in question falls more specifically under one of my colleagues, then he will reply to it.

I only want to refer to clauses 6 and 7 The position in regard to the possible creation and allocation of special drawing rights by the International Monetary Fund I explained in my Second Reading speech on the South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill. I also said at the time that provision would be made for the necessary powers to be able to receive such an allocation of special drawing rights, and that such provision would be included in the Finance Bill.

The two clauses concerned accordingly introduce the administrative measures in terms of which the Treasury and the Reserve Bank would have to act and record the transactions.

As I said before the allocation of special drawing rights will be a kind of “loan” that is made to a member country without the obligation of repayment for such time as it remains a participant, or the grant is not cancelled. It should also be borne in mind that grants and allocations are only made to members of the International Monetary Fund, in our case, therefore, to the State.

In these clauses the Treasury is empowered to receive such allocations to the Republic and to transfer them to the Reserve Bank, which in fact acts as an agent. When the rights are transferred to the Reserve Bank, the Bank gives the Treasury the equivalent of the value of the rights in South African currency, and because the allocations, as I have said, are a type of loan, the Treasury receives the amount as a credit to the Loan Account. The amount is transferred from the Loan Account to the Reserve Bank, which then keeps it in a deposit account, where it will be kept virtually sterilized because, for the present at any rate, we do not intend applying it for other purposes.

Any expenses in connection with transactions in regard to the special drawing rights will have to be defrayed from the Revenue Account of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, while any benefits we may receive, in the form of interest for example, will accrue to the Revenue Account.

As in the case of other reserve assets, the Reserve Bank also holds all assets in special drawing rights to the credit or to the debit of the Government of the Republic. If a depreciation or an appreciation took place as a result of a devaluation or a revaluation, it would be debited or credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, as the case may be.

I also propose to report annually upon transactions in special drawing rights by way of a statement which will be submitted to Parliament.

I just want to point out once again that we have not yet decided to participate in such a scheme if it should come into being, but if we do decide to do so, we will have to be prepared, and that is why it is necessary for us now to make this provision in our legislation.

We agree with the hon. the Minister that the best place to discuss this Bill is really in Committee, and therefore I do not have very much to say at this stage. The Minister has concentrated on telling us a little more about the arrangements being made in the event of our availing ourselves of the special drawing rights, should they come into operation. I do not know what the Minister thinks about the probability of their coming into operation, but the general opinion seems to be that round about August or September they may do so. I wonder to what extent the whole thing is being controlled by the United States. It seems to me, the more one reads and hears, that the International Monetary Fund is more and more being controlled or dictated to by the United States, and one wonders just where it will all end. However, that is beside the point here. I was interested to hear the Minister telling us that he proposed to lay a statement on the Table of the House every session, giving an account of any activities there might have been in regard to the drawing rights. But there is one thing I might ask the Minister about, and that is the question of the International Development Association. We have been asked now to make a further contribution to that association. I seem to remember that we used to get a regular report on the activities of this association, which is to assist under-developed countries and which has now spent something like, I think, R1,200 million. I have not seen any report and I wonder whether the Minister has seen one. It seems to me that we should receive a report regularly as subscribers to the fund, so as to be able to know exactly how the money has been spent. I wonder whether the Minister can give us any information as to the activities of this association in the last year or so, because we have had no information at all about the fund.

In regard to the first question, regarding the implementation or the activation of the S.D.R.s, the general idea was that they could be activated by the end of this year, but according to recent reports there seem to have been troubles between the Europeans and the Americans. They have different views, and opinions are being expressed to-day that they might not be activated before the beginning of 1970. But I am not quite sure when they will be activated.

In regard to the International Development Association, reports are issued every year and they are discussed at the annual meetings of the I.D.A. I can roughly give the hon. member a few figures which I have at hand. The initial subscription, to the I.D.A. was about 1 billion dollars. The second one was a replenishment which amounted to 745 million dollars, and then there was a third replenishment of 1.2 billion dollars, so it all amounts to about 3 billion dollars already. These sums, except the last one, which is not fully paid up yet, have mostly been spent for the following purposes: Transportation, 34.5 per cent; industry, 28 per cent; agricultural and forestry, 17.4 per cent; education projects, 7.1 per cent, electric power, 6.8 per cent, and other purposes, 6.2 per cent. The principal beneficiaries were in the first place India, which received about 50 per cent of the total credits, and Pakistan, which received about 19 per cent. The countries in Africa received in the aggregate about 17 per cent of the total credits extended by the Association.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, by now it has become customary to come forward with a General Laws Amendment Bill at the end of a Session. In any case, hon. members ought to feel relieved at the fact that this Bill is shorter by half than last year’s one. Actually, most of the provisions are obvious ones, and consequently I shall simply elucidate in broad outline some of the most important principles. This is in fact a measure which could be discussed to better effect in the Committee Stage.

Clause 3, Mr. Speaker, ought to be welcomed by statutory lessees. This clause makes it possible for them, under certain circumstances and with the written consent of the lessor, to sublet the leased dwelling occupied by them for specific periods of time. As the Act reads at present a statutory lessee cannot, even with the consent of the lessor, sublet the dwelling. This anomaly is now being eliminated.

As far as clause 7 is concerned, it is well-known to hon. members that the general rule in criminal trials is that every witness must give his evidence orally in open court. Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Act, however, contains various exceptions to the rule, in terms of which evidence by way of sworn statements can be submitted to the court. This happens for the most part in cases where facts are discovered by way of a scientific examination or process by a person connected with one of the institutions mentioned in the said subsection, or who is, from time to time, appointed by the State President. The main purpose of the section is to prevent expert witnesses, whose evidence is seldom disputed, from attending court unnecessarily as witnesses. Now it happens that owing to the priviso to subsection (4) it is, to an increasing extent, being experienced that persons who give evidence by way of sworn statement are being required to attend court session simply to be informed there that their evidence will no longer be disputed and that consequently their presence there will no longer be desired. This is coupled with unnecessary waste of time and money. The proviso is now being deleted and a consequential amendment effected in subsection (5) so that these two clauses can be brought into line with the other subsections of section 239. The deletion will entail no prejudice of rights, for if the presence of the said person is really required the court in which such a sworn statement has been submitted as evidence in terms of subsection (6) of section 239 can have the person making the sworn statement served with a summons to giver verbal evidence.

Clauses 8 and 9 envisage the elimination of the time-consuming procedure in regard to the mode of proof of previous convictions in the case of supreme court proceedings, and to effect uniformity in lower as well as higher courts.

The amendment to clause 10 is necessary in view of the Public Service Amendment Bill which has already been piloted through this House. Clauses 11 and 12 are an extension of the presumptions for which provision is made in section 7 and 8 of the said Act, with a view to making it easier for the State to prove that specified actions on the part of the person is likely to prove useful to an enemy. The presumption which is being created by these provisions is of course a rebuttable presumption.

Clause 14, and to a certain extent clause 16, relate to the amendment in clause 21.

Section 30 of the present Act provides, inter alia, that prisoners who were sentenced in South-West Africa can serve their sentences in the Republic. However, there is no statutory provision to the effect that prisoners who are sentenced in the Republic can serve their sentences in South-West Africa. It happens that prisoners who are serving long sentences here, are required in South-West Africa on further charges. Since it is in the interests of the administration of justice that matters be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, it is necessary that such a prisoner ought in the meantime to be able to serve his sentence which was imposed in the Republic in the Territory while he is awaiting trial. This is now being made possible by means of clause 16 through the insertion of a new subsection (5) in section 73.

Clause 17 is aimed at making it possible to provide official accommodation to non-official members of a prison board, medical officers and religious workers who have been appointed in terms of the Prisons Act to a prison, etc. The services of these persons are as essential for the good administration of the Department of Prisons as the services of the other full-time employee of that Department. As the Act reads at present the State President may promulgate regulations only in regard to the occupation of official dwellings by members of the prisons service, who are defined in the Act as an officer, warrant officer, or warder serving in the Department of Prisons.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned I had finished dealing with clause 17. I am now dealing with clause 19.

Clause 19 is aimed at clarifying the delegation of powers in terms of the Children’s Act in certain respects, and to expand it in other ways.

As far as clause 20 is concerned, it is uncertain whether a person who is a member of the Senate or of the House of Assembly and who is at the same time a member of a board established by law, is entitled to receive an entertainment allowance from that board without having been deemed an encumbent to an office of profit under the Republic, as envisaged in the Constitution. The statutory position is now being clarified by means of this clause.

To give effect to the objectives of certain provisions in regard to extradition agreements, which were recently entered into, and announced in the Government Gazette, it is necessary to delete section 14 (d) of the Extradition Act in order to enable the Republic to meet its obligations in suitable cases, even if the person concerned has not yet served out his sentence in South Africa. This is being done by means of clause 21.

The Controller and Auditor-General has pointed out that the legal position in regard to certain aspects in the Rural Coloured Areas Act, 1963, and the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act, 1964, are not clear. Clauses 22 and 24, which are in fact self-explanatory, are aimed at clarifying these aspects. The amendments in paragraphs (a) and (c) of clause 23 bring the said provisions of section 5 of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act into line with the amendment in clause 2 of the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill which was recently submitted by a Select Committee of this House. Clause 25 enables accommodation establishments, which are entitled to sell liquor in terms of section 100bis and 100sex of the Liquor Act, to apply to the Hotels Board to be registered as an hotel.

As far as clause 28 is concerned, the Group Areas Act of 1966 contains effective measures to control all aspects of possession, occupation and utilization of immovable property by the various race groups and consequently makes these title deed restrictions of no value. Apart from that it causes unnecessary work because it must be included in the deeds of transfer with every transfer of immovable property. For that reason provision is now being made in this clause for the lifting of restrictions of said nature on the title deeds of immovable property.

As far as clause 29 is concerned, Sir, the admissibility of evidence in regard to the security of the State and the public interest is regulated by common law and statutory law provisions. In the view of court findings made from time to time it is deemed necessary to leave no doubt that no person will be allowed to give evidence or submit papers in regard to a matter relating to the public safety or the interest of the State. The result of this will be that in matters of this nature the court will have to accept a certificate, as intended in this clause. In this way any harm which the law of restraint is intended to avert will be prevented. With that, Sir, I have elucidated the general principles of the most important provisions.

Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect of this Bill which delights, I think, all the members on this side of the House, and that is that this is the first General Law Amendment Bill that we have had since 1963 which does not contain that clause which came out every year and which was known as the Sobukwe clause. We are delighted on this side of the House that this Government has at last taken our advice. [Interjections.] We have been saying this for years, every single year since it was introduced. We said that to contain one man, surely we should not have on the Statute Book a provision such as this was. It is not going to be renewed this year, and will lapse altogether.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling. You are quite right. What I really wanted to say, was just that that is the only good thing about this Bill, namely the provision that is not in it and which, as you so rightly said, Sir, I cannot now speak about.

There are two clauses in this Bill which render to us on this side the whole of this Bill offensive in its present form. Those are clauses 10 and 29. The Deputy Minister, when he introduced this Bill, dealt with clause 10 in the most perfunctory manner. He said, Sir, that it comes as a result of the Public Service Amendment Act which was passed earlier in this Session. What an extraordinary way of dismissing a clause like this. It is a great pity that the hon. the Deputy Minister did not look at the Bill that he was introducing, as well as the notes that he was given of the speech that he made. If he had, he might have found it necessary to say a few more words about it.

Why should I?

What does the Deputy Minister mean, why should he? He is introducing the Bill.

I was just referring to what was necessary.

That was necessary. The hon. the Deputy Minister forgets that the House as a whole relies upon the hon. the Minister who introduces a Bill to be frank with the House and tell them what is in the Bill.

We can deal with that in the Committee Stage.

What an extraordinary approach! The hon. the Deputy Minister is telling us about this Bill and about the principles of the Bill, and he says: “Oh, we deal with it in the Committee Stage.” What does the hon. the Deputy Minister think we have a Second Reading debate for?

[In-audible.]

I must say, Sir, I did not think I had so good a case, until it became necessary for the hon. the Minister of whatever he is now to protect the hon. the Deputy Minister in charge of this Bill.

Why do you not go on with your speech? We do not have the rest of the year to deal with this Bill.

I do not know how much time the hon. Minister of Sport has to spend here, but we have all the time to spend that is necessary to deal properly with all the legislation that we will deal with in this House.

It seems to me as well that the hon. the Deputy Minister could not possibly have read clause 29. Otherwise he would certainly not have despatched it in his Second Reading speech in the way in which he did. As a result of what we find in these two clauses, I move the following amendment—

1. (1) create uncertainty and insecurity in the minds, and lives of the people; and
2. (2) unduly interfere with the normal protection the individual enjoys under our system of justice”.

I want to indicate why we move this amendment. If we look at clause 10, we find that one commits an offence now under the Official Secrets Act. In clause 10 the new subsection (2) (a) reads—

The words “or security” have been inserted.

What I always want to know is what do those words which have been inserted mean?

It means “security”.

That is right, the word means “security”. I must say they are coming along.

Really!

Yes, if you were following the arguments …

When were you instructed by Helen?

No wonder they did not make you Minister of Education.

No wonder they do not have you in the Government.

How you got there puzzles everyone!

Order! I would be glad if these interjections would cease now.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development will have a look in his Bill he will find the definition of “security”. He will see that “security matter” is defined as—

I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will confide in the House when he replies to this debate what is meant by this definition. He did not deal with it at all. He merely said that it flows from the Bill which established this bureau and which had been passed through this House. It says “any matter dealt with by the bureau”. This bureau, as hon. members will recall, was set up in terms of the Public Service Amendment Act, and it was to be surrounded by secrecy, which is quite obvious. B.O.S.S. it is called. You do not have an organization like this unless it is in fact surrounded by secrecy. The activities of this body are not even to be known to the members of this House. The appointments, the finances and the details thereof are matters which even this House is not entitled to know. If no one is entitled to know what this bureau deals with, how is anyone expected to know whether in fact he is contravening any provisions of this section by having in his possession or unwittingly publishing something which the bureau is dealing with when the law provides that one should not know what the bureau is dealing with? The hon. Minister did not deal with that. The hon. Minister just brushed it aside as just flowing from the previous legislation. But that is not what was intended, nor was it accepted by this side of the House when that bureau was set up, as indicating that this state of affairs would exist. The very clause itself presumes that you should not know what the Bureau for State Security is doing, because you shall not disseminate wittingly or unwittingly anything relating to the affairs of this bureau. This is quite impossibly wide. We objected before when the Police provision was put in because that was very wide. If I may say so it is taken even further in this case than one can with any ingenuity or with any imagination possibly try to define. What does the hon. the Deputy Minister think this means, and how does he think this is going to be interpreted? We shall move an amendment to this in due course, but I want to indicate that if this is to be created as an offence, it is a most serious offence which carries with it seven years of imprisonment if found guilty. Surely, we are entitled, the people are entitled and anyone is reasonably entitled to know what the offence is. We must be able to define it, but you name it, whatever it is, and it falls within the definition of a security matter, namely, “any matter being dealt with or relating to the bureau”. This hardly helps our courts. It hardly helps our system of justice or the people who have to administer it when you resort to this extraordinary generalization. What does the Bureau of State Security deal with? What has the security branch dealt with in the past? They have dealt with “smear letters”. If one is interested in the activities of the persons concerned with smear letters, then one would commit an offence, because it is known to be something they are dealing with. Whatever they deal with, as I say, is a secret. Therefore, you do not know when you are committing an offence or not. It is quite clear from the questions the hon. the Minister of the Interior has answered in this House, that they also deal with investigations under the Population Registration Act. If one deals with that, does one commit an offence in terms of this Bill? They also deal with Group Areas. In fact there seems to be nothing with which the Security Police do not deal. At least we know that and we are able to deal with that, but we are not going to be able to know what they are dealing with and when we are committing an offence when we talk about a matter with which they are dealing.

As I say, clause 10 goes with clause 29. They cannot be considered in isolation. I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Police is here, because I am sure that he will agree with me that the explanation of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Justice on clause 29 when introducing this Bill is even more inadequate than it was in respect of clause 10. We hear so often from the hon. gentlemen on that side of the House about matters being raised in this House in order to “beswadder” the name of South Africa. But I cannot think of any clause more likely, almost more calculated to achieve that object than clause 29 of this Bill.

This very clause is also taken up in the common law of Great Britain.

Is it really?

Yes.

Well, let us have a look at it. I want to be charitable to the hon. the Deputy Minister and say that the wording of this clause may not have been intentional, but if I may say so, it is typical of the inadequacy that this Government displays every day in trying to deal with the situation. The Government then falls with both its great big feet into the hole and says, “We shall just cut the whole earth out so that we can get ourselves out”.

You have not got a case; therefore you are overstating.

Well, let us see if you are right. In this regard I shall be delighted to hear from any other hon. legal members in this House as to how they justify the provisions of clause 29 of this Bill. I quote from subsection (1) of clause 29:

I particularly want to draw the hon. members’ attention to these words I have just read.

I repeat:

Then subsection (2) says that this shall only apply in those cases affecting the interests of the State or public security. Now, Sir, let us examine the hon. the Deputy Minister’s interjection that this is the common law of Great Britain. Where in the Western world is there a provision allowing a Minister to prevent one, if one is an accused person in a court, from giving evidence on one’s own behalf? The hon. the Deputy Minister must not look so shocked. That is what the wording of this clause means. It is as wide as that.

Yes, and it says so in the common law too.

A long time ago, I do not know whether it was 100 or 150 years ago …

I am surprised that you are still practising at the Bar.

Why do you not listen like a decent person?

I am not surprised that you never practised at the Bar.

Yes, the hon. the Deputy Minister may be an advocate in name, but he has certainly exhibited the fact that he is not an advocate in practice.

Order! What did the hon. member for East London (City) say?

I told the Deputy Minister to listen like a decent person.

Is the hon. member suggesting that the Deputy Minister is indecent?

No, I did not say that.

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw, Sir.

It is all very well the Deputy Minister making remarks about me being an advocate, Sir, but his trouble is that he is only an advocate in title. If he had practised the law, he would appreciate the significance of this particular clause. I shall read the clause to him again, if he likes, but I have pointed out that no person shall be permitted to give evidence in any court of law if the Minister signs a certificate to the effect that it is a matter prejudicial to the interests of the State, or of public security.

Sir, this goes even further. What affects the interests of the State? I have never seen a provision like this before. I can understand the Deputy Minister being interested in public security and public safety. But here we have to do with the interest of the State, in the opinion of a Minister. One must now ask the question: What is “in the interests of the State”? What do the various Ministers regard as being in the interests of the State, and when will they sign these certificates? Everything is in the interests of the State in the end. Everything of any importance and every matter which comes before our courts is in the interests of the State. Sir, let me give you two examples. Firstly, let us assume that the Security Police, suspecting that I may have committed an offence, or may have some information, come into my house and turn it upside down, then assault me and leave. If this happens, they will no doubt have been there about the interests of the security of the State, in the opinion of the Minister concerned. If I were, in terms of this clause, to institute an action for damages as a result of that unlawful assault and the unlawful invasion by the Police, as well as all the other things which would be unlawful and which would cause me damage and give me a right to claim in law, I could be debarred from giving evidence of the facts because a Minister could produce a certificate to the court saying that this was done in the interest of the State, and that I should not be allowed to give evidence. Sir, I know it sounds incredible, but that is what this clause says. If the hon. the Deputy Minister will read it, he will see that it is in fact so. He may not intend it to be so, but we do not know what the intentions of this Government are, and what the intentions of the Minister are. We are dealing here with a Bill which gives these rights to a Minister. It is monstrous to suggest that anyone should have these powers, especially in our country.

Why especially in our country?

Because we are very proud of the legal system we have in our country. I say this for the benefit of the hon. member for Maitland. That is why I say that this will do our country’s image far more harm overseas than most things will. We must not forget that one of the things which has kept us on top when we have been in trouble, is our legal system, our court system, our judges and our law. In the case of a civil claim, such as I have mentioned, one can be debarred from giving evidence—evidence upon which the claim is founded—in a court of law. As I have said, this goes further. One can, as an accused person, if it is in the interests of the State, be debarred from giving evidence in court in terms of this clause. It may be said that it is very doubtful that this would ever happen, but one wonders why this is couched in these terms. One might for example be a person who is detained in terms of the Terrorism Act. One might be assaulted whilst being interrogated. One might have one’s leg broken. One might want to claim against the State for this assault and the damages caused by it.

Can you give me a practical instance where the accused could produce a certificate by the Minister?

I am about to give you one. Just listen to the rest of my argument. If such a person were then to desire to give evidence, in order to claim for such damages, is it not possible that the Minister of Police might suggest that this was a matter which affected the interests of the State or public safety for the very reason that he had been arrested and interrogated under the Terrorism Act? Would the Minister then not be able to debar him from giving evidence as to what happened to him, because when he gave evidence he would be subject to cross-examination, and the rules of cross-examination, as the hon. the Deputy Minister ought to know, provide that one can go as far and as wide as you like in order to test the credibility of the witness in the witness box? That is an example of what might happen. I must say that the attitude of the Minister of Police, when we raised the matter of the death of the Bantu prisoners in a Police van, was certainly not reassuring, when one looks at this Bill and wonders what his attitude or the attitude of his colleagues will be in regarding the raising of that issue as being a matter which affected the interests of the State on the grounds that it would have the effect of blackening our name.

Sir, let me point out another aspect of this Bill to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Clause 29 (1) reads, inter alia, as follows:

Sir, this is terribly wide. We should like to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister’s point of view on this matter. One wonders whether this could not affect this House itself, or the Other Place, or a Select Committee of this House. It is cast so widely that it seems that it could in fact include these bodies. It might not affect Parliament itself, but once this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, this House will certainly be bound by it. We shall find the position arising where the executive, which is supposed to be controlled by this House, will be able to control the information we in this House can receive, merely by producing a certificate. The fact of the matter is that the provision is there. This Bill provides that we must accept what the Minister or any of his colleagues say. We should like to know why this provision is cast so widely, and exactly which institutions or bodies the hon. the Minister actually has in mind.

What I have indicated is, I think, a fair reflection of what this Bill says. It will have some grotesque results if it is passed in its present form. [Interjections.] Sir, I hope that all these hon. vociferous gentlemen will get up and justify this provision. We all obviously believe that the State must be protected, and secured against subversion from within and without.

Do not blow hot and cold at the same time.

The hon. member for Prinshof says that I must not blow hot and cold at the same time. Let me say that you subvert your internal security perhaps more when you disregard the normal processes of justice, than you do when you try to produce some law which is an iron fist to the Executive. I am surprised that the hon. member for Prinshof made that interjection. Surely, if you subvert those processes, you provide for such insecurity amongst the individuals who make up the State, as to subvert the very State itself. Such a situation cannot strengthen the State. This Bill, and the attitude displayed by my hon. friend from Prinshof, reflect the difference which exists between the two sides of this House. We believe that the State exists for the benefit of the individual, and not vice versa. In all these circumstances, we cannot accept the Bill in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (North) tried very hard to appear indignant. He was not very successful. I think he should learn a lot from the hon. member for Durban (Point) because that hon. member does such things much more dramatically and with far more success. The hon. member had of course been driven into a corner, inter alia, by a leading article in The Star of Saturday, which appeared under the following headline: “Is the Boss beyond the law?” He then discovered his “boss” because what did The Star say? This is what it said: “At all costs the Opposition should try to get the Bill narrowed down”. After all kinds of “grotesque” results, as they called it had been summarized in this leading article, they gave the United Party instructions as to how they were to act. As a result of what their “Boss” said we have now had this speech. The argument which has been raised now was to a large extent a variation on an old theme. But I think that the hon. member for Durban (North), for whom I have considerable esteem, was under pressure from another source. In the Sunday Times of 3rd June, 1968, Mr. Stanley Uys wrote an article in which he gave advice and found fault with the United Party. He said the following:

Then Mr. Stanley Uys went on to say:

Now we have witnessed the spectacle of them throwing all caution to the winds and giving free reign to their imagination. I am afraid that in their attempts to please Mr. Stanley Uys they overstrained their imagination a little. They also became a little rash. The hon. member for Durban (North) made a political mountain out of a normal legal principle which has been established in our judgments, and of an essential amendment to Act 16 of 1965. Let me prove this. We established a Bureau for State Security. In that debate the Minister concerned stated: “The times in which we are living have made it essential that steps be taken to ensure the security of the State both at home and abroad”. He goes on to say the following in column 5878—

The hon. Opposition, with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as spokesman, supported us. In all fairness, I want to quote what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said. In column 5881 he said the following—

Just read a little further on.

Yes, the rest is all the same. If the hon. member has this Hansard with him he can quote further in the Committee Stage if he wants to. I am keeping to the essentials. What we are dealing with here is that there are some people, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, who will have to be converted so that they will be able to understand these things. There they sit. The hon. the Leader will have to begin converting there.

Among his own people.

The facts before this House are that we established this Bureau with the support of the Opposition. Subsequently we created the means of financing it with a special measure. Now we are creating, in clause 10 of the General Laws Amendment Bill, the means by which this Bureau will be able to implement its work. We are making provision for the effective and practical implementation of its work by protecting it from its functions being thwarted. There is nothing new in clause 10. The hon. member has already read the clause. It is an existing principle which is already contained in our legislation on official secrets. He became so concerned about the mere fact that we had inserted the words “or security” matter. What are the requirements of this provision? The requirements of this section which he feels so concerned about and which has been standing since 1956 already is that the person has under his control or in his possession a sketchplan, etc. Secondly he must use it in a way or for a purpose which is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the Republic. The State must acquit itself of this onus in open court. The same applies in respect of security matters. But the hon. member must also look at clause 11, Section 7A which is being inserted by clause 11 reads as follows—

That is the one I have just read—

In addition he still has the opportunity of proving the contrary. This is the principle which we have already embodied in our legislation with these safety valves of a dual onus of proof which rests on the State. Now this principle is simply being adjusted to this Bureau, which we have established and which we are financing. Must we establish it and then render it helpless? Do we want to emasculate the entire Bureau. I want to point out that from the nature of the case and as it has in fact been described by the hon. the Minister when the legislation was being introduced, we cannot define in detail the functions of this Bureau, a security matter. Precisely as a result of the nature of its work we cannot have such a restricting definition. As I have said, the onus still rests on the State to prove that a man has done these things for the purpose of undermining or prejudicing State security. In addition the State still has to acquit itself of a dual onus in terms of clause 11. I think I must now leave it at that. I think the flights of imagination in this respect were a little wild.

We now come to the much discussed clause 29. This is the clause which that hon. member read out in such a dramatic way and in which he found the devil himself lurking. Do hon. members know what is happening here? The hon. member intimated that this did not form part of our common law. What do we find here? We find here that statutory shape is being given to a recognized rule for furnishing proof as embodied in the English law of evidence which we took over. In a moment I shall prove to him that this is the case. I will not make wild statements into the teeth of the wind. I want to refer him to the decision of the House of Lords and the Privy Council. I also want to refer him to the decisions of the appeal court in this country. The position is that in the course of past years certain conflicting judgments have been made in our jurisprudence in South Africa. There were as it were two streams of judgments. These judgments, the history and application of these principles, were summarized in detail by Chief Justice Steyn in the case Van der Linde vs. Calitz 1967 (2) page 239. So much so was this the position before this judgment of the Appeal Court that an authority like May, South African Cases and Statutes on Evidence, summarized the entire position as follows in his fourth edition on page 266—

That is as May summarized the law of evidence in South Africa in 1962, before the judgment in the Appeal Court case of Van der Linde v. Calitz. I just want to mention briefly that in the English courts two conflicting judgments were given in two famous cases. The first was Rabinson v. The State of South Australia in 1931 before the Privy Council. In this particular judgment it was alleged that the court had the power, when it did not allow documents or evidence, to satisfy itself that it should not be allowed in the interests of the State, in other words, that the court possesses a reservatory power. On pages 247 and 248 of the appeal court judgment of 1967 Justice Steyn sketches this for us. In 1942 the House of Lords adopted a much stricter standpoint in a very famous case, i.e. Duncan and Another v. Camel Laird & Co. Ltd., the details of which are set on page 248 of this appeal court judgment. It was an exceptionally strict standpoint, and I should like to quote it. They said (translation)—

Over the years there has been conflict between these two standpoints, but owing to the fact that prior to 1950 the Privy Council was our supreme court of appeal, South Africa, as well as other Commonwealth countries, had to give preference to the decision of the Privy Council which was in conflict with that of the House of Lords. Notwithstanding that we find in South Africa that this House of Lords judgment which was subsequently confirmed in the so-called Glasgow case of 1965, was followed and that our courts in the various provinces differed in regard to this admissibility. I want to quote to you what Chief Justice Steyn said on page 254, where he referred to the case of Fraser v. Sievewright, where Lord De Villiers expressed the following opinion—

In our own Appeal Court there was a case, Real Printing and Publishing Company (Pty.) Ltd. v. Minister of Justice, which concerned the functions of a committee of inquiry in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act. The Chief Justice stated (translation)—

In the case The Zamora in the English Appeal Court in 1916, the following significant statement was made—

This case was quoted with concurrence in the Duncan case decision of the House of Lords.

On page 258, Chief Justice Steyn said the following (translation)—

That is to say the court has a right to state that it wants to see them before it regards them as being admissible. He goes on to say—

Our Appeal Court went further to say the following (translation)—

It is also stated—

In this particular case, Van der Linde v. Calitz, the court did in fact state that the documents could be disclosed. But the Chief Justice also said—and this is true, and this is also the point which has given rise to this legislation—

The judge decided that in that particular case such documents were not at issue.

As I have said, there were two streams of decisions in England. There were also two streams of decisions in South Africa, which came to a point with this case in 1967. Consequently the Chief Justice also stated that he need not give a ruling in this respect, i.e. whether he should give preference to the Duncan case or the Robinson case. Now he rules, however, that the court does in fact have an inherent jurisdiction over certain documents. Consequently we find in this legislation precisely what has been laid down over the years by our common law and with our court decisions, i.e. that when State security or the interests of the State are concerned, the Prime Minister or a Minister may issue a certificate stating that such information or evidence would be prejudicial to the interest of the State or public security. These are in fact the words which are being used in the Bill. It is not as the hon. member for Durban (North) said here. Now, what is it we find here? We find in the first place that we have brought legal certainty in respect of this rule of the law of evidence. We find that it is confirmed by subsection (2) of this clause that the inherent jurisdiction of the court in respect of the other matters, apart from those in respect of the two matters where a Minister can issue a certificate, is not being affected. Thirdly, we find that where there was uncertainty in regard to the procedure which should be followed by a Minister or the head of a department, i.e. whether he should make a statement, write a letter, or appear in person, it is now being provided that this should be done by means of a certificate signed by the Prime Minister or another Minister.

Actually the hon. member for Durban (North) brought two matters together which have nothing to do with each other. The one was a definition of an offence under the Official Secrets Act, in which a component of a substantive offence was inserted, with all the safety valves of the law of evidence, and where the onus rested on the State. On the other hand, we are dealing here with a clause which gives statutory shape to our common law, the decisions of our courts and, to tell the truth, the decision of the House of Lords in the Duncan case and then again in the Glasgow case. That is the highest court in England. Under those circumstances and since they have now seen so many spectres and mistrust the Government to such an extent, I want to inform hon. members that this Government bears the responsibility for the security of the country. It has been doing so for 21 years, and has been keeping the hon. members on opposite side of the House safe. If the findings of the highest courts in England, as well as our own courts, associate themselves with the statement that “those who are responsible for the national security must be the sole judges of what the national security requires”, I am afraid that after the display we have had this evening, Mr. Stanley Uys of the Sunday Times would be very disappointed with the “imagination and loosening up” which in pursuance of his advice, he saw here, and that he should in fact withdraw that advice.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Odendaalsrus, in justifying this Bill before the House and particularly in justifying clauses 10 and 29, quoted first of all May, then Kalil’s case, judgments of the South African courts and judgments of the House of Lords. I want to deal in some detail with his argument later in my speech. But I want to ask the hon. member one thing before I go on. Is there anywhere in May, in the judgments of the South African courts and in the judgments of the English courts that he has quoted, a principle in terms of which an accused person or a man in his own defence can be prevented from giving evidence to defend himself, in the so-called interests of the State? I should like the hon. member for Odendaalsrus, when he gets up in the Committee Stage to justify clause 29, to tell this House whether the principles upon which he has relied in justifying clauses 10 and 29 go that far. Because that is how far clause 29 goes. An accused person under clause 29 of this Bill can be prevented by the Minister from giving evidence in his own defence. He can also be prevented from giving evidence in a claim against the State.

That is nonsense.

I am very interested to hear this. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus has clearly said that this is nonsense. I presume he means that the principles he has quoted go as far as he has suggested. Is that what he means? The hon. member is silent.

Be more lucid and I will reply.

I will remember this when we deal with clause 29 in the Committee Stage. I will then expect him to justify this clause.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to come to the hon. the Deputy Minister who introduced this Bill. I must say quite frankly that I am amazed at the approach that he had to this House in introducing this Bill. He treated this measure as though it was an innocent little Bill with nothing to worry about. In fact, the hon. the Deputy Minister never even dealt with clause 10. All he said was that it was consequential and that it follows because of other legislation that has been passed. In dealing with clause 29, all he said was that this merely confirms the common law and the judgments of the courts. Either the hon. the Deputy Minister was misleading the House—and I accept that he was not—or the only other conclusion which can be drawn is that he does not understand the extent of these two clauses. He does not understand the far-reaching effects thereof and that these clauses are so wide as to create, as the hon. member for Durban North in his amendment has said, uncertainty and insecurity in the minds and lives of the people, and unduly interferes with the normal protection the individual enjoys under our system of justice.

Why should I circumvent your imagination?

I regret to say that this interjection by the hon. the Deputy Minister indicates that despite the speech of the hon. member for Durban (North), in which he made clear our attitude, he still does not realize the implications of these two clauses, or, alternatively, he does not wish to understand the implications of these clauses. I am now beginning to think that the latter is the position. These two clauses, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Durban (North), have very far-reaching effects. In legislation of this type there are always two conflicting interests which must be weighed one against the other. On the one hand we have the interests of the State. On the other hand we have the interests of justice, the interests of the freedom of the individual. We on this side of the House consider that the State exists for the benefit of the individuals, the citizens, who make up the State. Hon. members on the other side of the House appear to take the contrary view, that is that the individual exists for the benefit of the State. We wish to make it clear that we do not share this view.

What is your point?

If the hon. member will just wait one moment, he will understand what I am getting at. On the one hand we accept that the security of the State is the supreme law. That has come down to us from Roman times and it is a principle which we accept. But on the other hand we also believe in the freedom of the individual. We believe that it is important that the freedom of the individual should be upheld subject only to the safety and security of the State. I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister and hon. members on that side of the House to say that they do not accept the principles that I have just enunciated.

Having explained the basis upon which we look at this, I now come to the Bill before the House and in particular to clause 10, which as I have already said the hon. the Deputy Minister completely glossed over as though it had no importance whatever. What does clause 10 say? Clause 10 states that “any person who has in his possession or under his control any sketch … or information which relates to … any security matter and who publishes it or directly or indirectly communicates it to any person in any manner or for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interest of the Republic, shall be guilty of an offence”. I want to stress the word “indirectly”. The hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Odendaalsrus dealt with this matter as though it were a simple matter. In their view all it did was to relate to the security of the State—everybody is in favour of preserving the security of the State and that is the end of the matter. But what is the definition of a security matter? It is significant that neither the hon. the Deputy Minister nor the hon. member for Odendaalsrus referred to the definition of a security matter. The Bill states that “ ‘security matter’ means any matter relating to the security of the Republic”. That is fine, but it also goes on “includes any matter dealt with by or relating to the Bureau for State Security referred to in section 1 of the Public Service Act, 1957 or relating to the relationship subsisting between any person and the said Bureau”. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister, when he replies to this debate, or the hon. member for Odendaalsrus during the Committee Stage, or any other hon. member on the other side, to tell us what is meant by the words “dealt with by … the Bureau for State Security”. How is any individual or member of the Press to know what matter or matters are being dealt with by the Bureau for State Security because the very essence of this Bureau is complete secrecy. The very essence of the Bureau is that they will not tell anybody what they are dealing with. It would defeat their whole object to do that. In terms of the definition as it reads at the moment, a man could quite inadvertently and innocently refer to, publish or communicate something which is being dealt with by the Bureau without knowing at all that that is in fact the case. I challenge those hon. members to deny or dispute that the definition goes that far. If it goes that far, how can this clause be justified? Surely the hon. the Deputy Minister who is an advocate, or claims to be an advocate, or the hon. member for Odendaalsrus …

What do you mean by that?

I mean that the hon. the Deputy Minister claims to be an advocate. I want to know how the hon. Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Odendaalsrus, who is an attorney, and other legal men on the Government side, can possibly justify passing legislation which is so wide that the ordinary citizen cannot possibly know whether he is transgressing the law and committing an offence.

In justifying this clause the hon. member for Odendaalsrus referred to clause 11. He said that this new section 7A provides that “if, in any prosecution against any person for an offence under section 2 (b) or 2 (c) it is proved that he is a foreign agent …” certain provisions applied. However, the hon. member omitted to tell the House that that provision deals only with section 2 (b) or 2 (c). Also it applies only if the person concerned is proved to be a foreign agent. If the prosecution takes place under section 2 (a), clause 11 does not apply. If the person concerned is not proved to be a foreign agent, that provision does also not apply. How can clause 11 therefore assist hon. members opposite in justifying the proposed amendment?

The hon. member for Odendaalsrus also said that this clause was not really so bad because the Crown must prove “a purpose prejudicial to the State”.

The Crown?

I meant the State, of course.

They have found some relief, at last.

To me this is far too serious a matter to allow remarks like this to lead me off the track. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus said that we were unduly worried about this measure and that it did not really go as far as we said it did, because the State must prove “a purpose prejudicial to the State”. But the hon. member for Odendaalsrus omitted to draw the attention of this House to section 8 of the principal Act. Section 8 of the Official Secrets Act, No. 16 of 1956, alters the onus of proof. It alters the onus of proof to make it very hard on an accused person. I do not have the time to read the whole of section 8 which consists of two subsections, but I challenge hon. members opposite, when we come to the Committee Stage, to deny that section 8 so alters the onus of proof, placing the onus in many respects on the accused, that it does away altogether with the argument which the hon. member for Odendaalsrus advanced. He based his argument on the onus of proof being on the State. The onus of proof is in practice no longer on the State in the case of a prosecution under this Act. I would therefore again draw attention to the examples given by the hon. member for Durban (North), to show how far-reaching clause 10 is. I do not wish to take this matter further at this stage.

I now want to proceed to clause 29. The first thing I want to say about clause 29 is that the rubric is misleading. The rubric reads as follows: “Privilege arising out of the interests of the State or public security.” Clause 29 does not only create a privilege for a person giving evidence. It does not only create a privilege. It sounds very nice when one reads this rubric, to find that this House is now creating a privilege for the benefit of someone giving evidence in cases of this nature. But clause 29 goes a lot further than creating a privilege. It enables the Minister to prevent a person from giving evidence in respect of a matter about which he may wish to give evidence in his own interests or in his own defence. Once again I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister and hon. members on that side of the House to dispute that contention. Clause 29 reads—

That goes a lot further than creating a privilege. It is a prevention. Even if he wants to, he is prevented from doing so, if there is a certificate by the Minister in the terms that are set out here.

We have had a very interesting reason to justify clause 29 by the hon. the Deputy Minister and by the hon. member for Odendaalsrus. They say that the common law states that, under certain circumstances persons shall not be compellable to give evidence, and that there have been judgments of the court which are not too clear as to the extent of this provision. So, all that they are doing now, in terms of this innocent little clause 29, is to clear up what is not clear at the moment in terms of the common law and the judgments of the court. I should like to know from the Deputy Minister, whether he is suggesting to this House that the common law and the judgments of the court are such that a man can be prevented from giving evidence in his own defence…

Give me one practical instance of that. I have asked you that repeatedly.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to ask me a question, he must first answer mine. He is introducing this legislation and must justify it. The hon. the Deputy Minister based his justification for the clause on the common law and on the fact that the judgments of the courts are not clear. I want him to tell this House whether these two, the common law and the judgments of the courts, go so far as to say that it is a principle of the common law that a man may be prevented by a Minister of the State from giving evidence in his own defence or in his own interests

Give me a practical instance of that.

The hon. the Deputy Minister will not be permitted by this side of the House to draw red herrings across the track. If he will not answer this question when he gets up to reply to this debate, he will be asked exactly the same question when we deal with this Bill in the Committee Stage. I trust that at that stage he will be able to give us an answer.

The hon. member for Durban (North) has pointed out how far-reaching clause 29 is, because it deals, not with the security of the State only, but with any matter “affecting the interests of the State”. Surely almost anything happening affects the interests of the State in some way or another. Whether it affects the security of the State or not, it may affect the interests of the State. This term “interests of the State” goes a lot further than the security of the State.

The wording of clauses 10 and 29 as they stand is such that individuals and our newspapers can be convicted in cases where they have acted in all innocence and where they had no intention of committing an act which is prejudicial to the safety of the State. It is for this reason that we on this side of the House are completely opposed to clauses 10 and 29 of this Bill. It is for this reason that the hon. member for Durban (North) has moved this amendment, which I support.

Mr. Speaker, firstly, as one advocate to another, I want to say that I take the remark he made about the hon. the Deputy Minister, i.e.: “He claims to be an advocate” very much amiss of him. It is, to say the least, an unprofessional statement for the hon. member for Musgrave to make. I take it very much amiss of him.

Does he not claim to be an advocate?

It is no use the hon. member making witty sallies from the wrong bench. I can reply to him as well if he wishes, and with all kinds of witticisms! It was a serious charge against the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I think it is absolutely unfitting for one advocate to do this to another.

I want to agree with the hon. member for Musgrave when he subscribed to the statement that the security of the State is the highest law. This is an axiomatic statement which is accepted by all democratic countries in the world. It is applied in England, not only in times of war, but even when civilian uprisings take place. I can furnish the hon. member with examples indicating where this statement was at some time or other used in all the countries of the world to pass legislation of this nature which we have here to-night.

Secondly, I want to state that the hon. members of the United Party gave their full support to the Bureau of State Security. In other words, at this juncture in our history the hon. the Opposition has accepted that it is essential to establish a Bureau of State Security. Why did they accept it? They accepted it because we in South Africa, at the present juncture, are in fact living in a state of insecurity. I think it is absolutely indisputable that we, with our 3,500 mile long boundary to the north where constant terroristic infiltration is taking place, and from where a possible projection of these people to the Republic could take place, need clauses 10 and 29. With the passing of the Act which established the Bureau of State Security the Opposition by implication accepted that legislation of this kind at this juncture was essential as is befitting all good democrats in all democratic countries.

You cannot justify that statement.

If the hon. member wants to say that, I can support it. I can point out to the hon. member everything that has happened in South Africa. If hon. members are even at this early juncture forgetting that history it is quite clear that if we do not throw up entrenchments, if we are not careful and if we do not develop our Bureau of State Security into an effective police machine, we will experience the end of a democratic state in South Africa. The hon. member knows as well as I do that this kind of legislation serves to safeguard them. I am in full agreement with the hon. member for Odendaalsrus when he accused them of simply running after the Press and of allowing themselves to be incited by the Press into disputing this legislation.

What does Veg say about that?

The hon. member is asking what Veg had to say about it.

Yes!

I am busy fighting (veg), and I say there is danger.

But they do not say so.

We do not need references to Veg. The poor hon. members on the opposite side of the House are so afraid of Veg that it is all they can think about. The hon. member referred to clause 10 and said, “They could quite innocently publish such a thing”. The hon. member knows as well as I do that this is not the case. The hon. member for Musgrave simply failed to read this clause. The hon. member stated that innocent people could get into trouble. However, it is stated as plainly as possible that this is in fact the fundamental point of the clause. The fundamental point of the clause is contained therein that any person who—

shall be guilty of an offence. That is the fundamental point and the heart of this clause. How can the hon. member now state that they could innocently publish something which could get them into trouble when the purpose has to be to undermine the security? If a person wants to undermine that security, how can the hon. member state that they are innocent? But that is not all. This clause has existed for a long time and was accepted in principle by the hon. members many years ago. The section is simply being extended to include what the hon. members have accepted, i.e. the Bureau of State Security. Whereas it first fell under the Police, the words “or security” matters are now being inserted. In other words, this legislation is still the same legislation which we have always had on the Statute Book. It only applied to a police matter, but now that the Police have been expanded into a State security section, State security matters are being included in this clause. What objection can hon. members have to that in principle? Absolutely nothing, because they have been accepting it time and again.

Let us now glance at clause 29, the clause which hon. members became so angry about. I think the hon. member for Odendaalsrus was quite right when he stated that it was an old principle in our administration of law that there was certain evidence in our administration of law which was privileged. Let us just look at what evidence is privileged in this way. I am quoting from the “Law of Evidence” by Scoble. On page 330, under the heading “Affairs of State” I read—

Is that the best authority you can quote?

The hon. member must not be derogatory of the writer of the book. If he can write better, why does he not write a book himself?—

He goes on to state—

Let us now glance at the much discussed clause 29. What is the essence of this clause? One would say that the Minister could at any time, simply for these assaults which the hon. member for Durban (North) mentioned, be able to issue a certificate absolutely mala fide in order to prevent evidence being brought against the police if they had assaulted a person. This is the most arrant nonsense I have ever heard in debates!

Who is talking about mala fide?

What is the essence of this clause? The essence is contained in the following words of subsection (1). These provide that the Minister can take steps when any matter or thing, communication or document affects the interests of the State or public security and that the disclosure thereof will, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, or the said person so authorized or other Minister, as the case may be, be prejudicial to the interest of the State. Then only does the Minister issue a certificate.

Why do you say mala fide?

It states here that the Minister or persons to whom he may delegate his powers can issue certificates. Now the hon. member for Durban (North), with the examples he quoted, implied that if the Security Police should assault a person, they could be protected by the signature of the Minister. That is in fact what the hon. member intended here, or how else can one interpret his example? One cannot interpret it in any other way. I want to point out to him that a certificate can only be issued by the Minister if the matter concerns public security and when the disclosure of specific evidence will be prejudicial to the interests of the State or public security. A Minister will only do that under those conditions. It is of no avail stating here that the courts can also do so. The Minister can also do so. All the documents which are mentioned here must be signed by the official concerned. The privilege is always under the signature of the official concerned. I really do not think that the hon. Minister understood this clause.

The hon. member for Musgrave asked, “Does he suggest that the common law is such that a man can be prevented from giving evidence in his own cause?” But, Mr. Speaker, it is as clear as can be: “The principle is the security of the State, and if the security of the State requires that evidence should not be disclosed in a public court on behalf of a person or against a person, it is essential that this evidence should not be given in public. I do not think hon. members opposite can in any way dispute this statement of mine. In fact, the hon. member for Musgrave accepts it. Or let them now inform us whether they accept the statement, because if they do accept it, it agrees with what is contained in the clause, i.e. that only when the security of the State is concerned will a certificate be issued. [Interjections.] I do not think the hon. member for Transkei read this clause at all, because the principle is contained therein.

What principle?

The principle of the security of the State. You see, Sir, that is the difficulty with the Opposition. They want to intimate to the country that when it comes to the security of the State they are 100 per cent behind the Government; that is why they supported the establishment of the Bureau of State Security; when it comes to the implications, however, when the matter has to be taken further, when it comes to it being implemented to its full consequences, they run with the more liberal elements of their party; then they keep their one ear open to what the newspapers are saying, i.e. that this legislation should be prevented because it affects the rights of the individual. But the rights of the individual are in no way being affected here. The rights of the individual are always subject to the security of his state. Here I come to the question which was put by the hon. member for Musgrave. He stated that their standpoint was “That the individuals exist for the benefit of the State”. But, Sir, surely this is a foolish statement. We do after all acknowledge the dignity of our citizens; we accept and recognize the dignity of our citizens 100 per cent. But precisely because we do recognize the dignity of our citizens we are prepared to see to it that their safety is not undermined by terrorists and other subversive elements. We are not prepared to go so far as to offer up our state security for the sake of the individual, for his individual freedom or whatever else it may be. But we recognize his freedom; we recognize his individual dignity. At the same time, however, we say that for the sake of our survival in South Africa we should all sacrifice a degree of individual freedom for the sake of the Republic of South Africa. And that is what is embodied in these two clauses. It is of no avail hon. members trying to see anything sinister in this, because this is all there is to it. We have all agreed that a Bureau of State Security is necessary. Here we are now enabling that Bureau to carry out its functions in full.

I can see what we can expect when Parliament has prorogued, the type of speech we may expect to hear throughout the country, i.e. the type of speech just made by the hon. member for Prinshof, an appeal to the people about the dangers to the State, the dangers from terrorists, the dangers from outside while the United Party plays down these dangers and in fact supports the “liberal section”….

Don’t those dangers exist? Why don’t you admit it?

We did admit it; that is why we gave our support to the Public Service Amendment Bill.

You must give your support to this.

If the hon. member for Prinshof has listened to our amendment, moved by the hon. member for Durban (North), he would know that we stress it once more. The hon. member suggested that because we gave our support to the Public Service Amendment Bill we should now give support to any measure the Government proposes to protect the security of the State. That is what he said. He said that if we gave our support to the Public Service Amendment Bill, we ought to support this measure. I now want to read to the hon. member what my leader said when we supported this Public Service Amendment Bill. This is what he said—

He then went on to say that we supported the Bill. At the same time, however, he warned about the dangers inherent in giving support to a Bill like that, the dangers inherent in giving the Government those powers. However, we supported the measure inter alia because—

This is what my leader said on that occasion. He said that while we were giving those powers, we should make sure that they were not abused. The hon. member says that in clause 10 of this Bill there is no real alteration to the law. The law as it stands now says that it is an offence to disclose or publish any document or information which relates to munitions of war or any military or police matter. Now it is proposed to alter these words to read “… or any military, police or security matter”. The words “or security” are inserted. Yet the hon. member says there is no real alteration because we now have the Bureau for State Security. But what the hon. member did not do, was to read further what a security matter is, a description which did not exist before. The hon. member should read the proposed section 3 (2) (b) (ii) reading—

What are the duties of the Special Police? What did the Prime Minister and the Minister of Police say were the duties of the Special Police? They said that they would operate in any matter under any law at any time if need be.

If need be.

Yes, and what was the example which was quoted in this House? It was the case of the Security Police tracing up the smear letter. [Interjections.] That is the answer which the Prime Minister gave us. They were also tracing the Broederbond documents which were mentioned in the Sunday Times. That is what the Prime Minister referred to when he said that they would use the Security Police to investigate any matter. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Odendaalsrus says “Quite right”.

I did not say a word; you should apologize.

I do apologize to the hon. member for Odendaalsrus. But then it was the Deputy Minister who sits behind him who said “All right”. I could have expected that. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I object. I did not say a word. The hon. member must apologize.

Well, it is quite clear that neither of those members agree with the Prime Minister. I was quoting what the Prime Minister said.

The hon. member could at least have referred to them as “neither of the two hon. members”.

I am sorry. Neither of those hon. members agrees with the Prime Minister.

And neither wants the hon. “Veg” to be investigated.

When I suggested that one of them said that what the Prime Minister said was quite all right, they both got up and demanded that I apologize. I willingly apologized. I wonder whether any other hon. member here supports what the Prime Minister said, because not any of them has said a word. They obviously do not agree with the hon. Prime Minister that the Security Police should undertake tasks of that nature. Neither do we. But that shows how ridiculous this law is. It is ridiculous that the Security Police can undertake investigations of that nature. Whoever is involved in that investigation becomes concerned in this clause that we are discussing now.

Read it with (2) (a). How will that affect the case?

I have just read it. The hon. the Deputy Minister asks me to read subsection (b) (ii) and I have just read it.

Read it with subsection (2) (a).

But I have stated the whole position. The hon. the Deputy Minister must read it again. I am not going to read the whole paragraph to the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister cannot get away from the fact that “security matter” is defined as I have read it out. It is any matter which is in the opinion of the Prime Minister prejudicial to the interests of the State. The hon. the Deputy Minister is possibly worried about the interest of the State. Now I also want to quote something else in connection with clause 29 which also refers to the interests of the State, to documents affecting the interest of the State. What are the interests of the State?

Security.

Security of the State? The hon. member for Prinshof was here when we discussed the unfortunate death of those prisoners in the police van. What did the hon. the Minister of Police then say? He accused the Opposition of raising this matter in the House, a matter affecting the interests of the State. He accused us of doing it deliberately against the interest of the State. That was his whole objection to the matter being raised.

He said, “You are smearing our country”.

There you are. The hon. member says, that the Minister of Police said that we were smearing our country. [Interjections.] But the hon. member just said that we were just smearing our country. That is the line taken by the Government all along. The line taken by the hon. the Ministers and the hon. members on the other side is that any criticism we offer is against the interest of the State. Any action which the Security Police might take no matter what they are interested in, is held to be in the interest of the State by the hon. members on that side of the House. The mere fact that a letter of that nature was published against the character of the Prime Minister is regarded by hon. members opposite as against the interest of the State. They regard it as against the interest of the State for the public to think that this country should have a Prime Minister of that nature. Let us suppose the Security Police were called in to find out who wrote the leading article in the last edition of the South African Observer. What was the headline of the latest issue of the South African Observer? It was “the credibility gap”. This article went on to prove that the Prime Minister was telling untruths. The whole two pages of the article dealt with the matter. Can the publication, especially abroad, of an article like that suggesting that the hon. the Prime Minister does not know the truth, not be held as against the interest of the State? Once one starts going into these matters and remember for what purpose the Security Police have been called in before, one does not know where it will stop. Of what interest could it be to anybody except the Nationalist Party that the Sunday Times is in possession of a copy of the Broederbond membership list? Of what interest was it to anybody except the Nationalist Party? Must the Security Police be used to investigate matters of that nature, unless the Government thinks it is in the interest of the State that those names should not be published? That is why we say that we cannot accept any assurances given by members that a law of this nature will only be used against terrorists? The suggestion is that it will only be used against terrorists. We must take the law as it is printed here. We must take the powers that are given, not only to the Prime Minister, but also to all other Ministers who have the same power.

To do what?

To stop evidence being given in a court of law. It rests on any Minister to decide what he thinks is in the interest of the State or not. I can imagine that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development might think that quite a number of matters should not be disclosed, where others would not agree with him, because it might not be in the interest of the State to find what the Africans are thinking of the Nationalist Government or what they are doing. I think it was the hon. member fox Prinshof who suggested that the evidence could be given in camera and not “in die openbaar”.

You are putting words in my mouth.

Well, then I do not know what the hon. member meant. He said that the evidence should not be heard in “die openbaar”.

You are talking absolute nonsense.

The hon. member said that the evidence should not be heard publicly. That is what he said.

I was speaking about a matter of privilege. It is not that at all.

No, I am very sorry, but the hon. member said that the evidence should not be heard publicly. If he did not mean that, he meant that it cannot be heard at all. I thought that he was going to suggest that it should be heard in camera. Apparently, he does not even want it to be heard in camera. He does not want it heard at all. There was a big difference between the cases quoted by the hon. member for Odendaalsrus and the cases mentioned by the hon. member for Prinshof, in that it was the court who previously decided whether it was in the interests of the State or not that evidence should be given. If the courts found that it was not in the interests of the State that such evidence should be given, the courts ordered that it should not be given. Clause 29 does not only prevent evidence from being given.

But you know that the courts never go beyond the issuing of a certificate.

What case are you talking about now? The courts have all held, and quite rightly so, that secret State documents and secret State communications, as the hon. member mentioned, should not be allowed in open court. That is quite right, but this clause does not say that. Clause 29 does not state that secret State documents may not be used in evidence. It says that evidence may not be given on the strength of a mere certificate from a Minister. Clause 29 reads inter alia as follows:

That is where the difference comes in. A court, without this law, would not compel a witness to give evidence against the security of the State, as past cases have shown. A court would not permit a person to give such evidence. This Bill now says that a person may not be ordered to give evidence, even when a judge thinks that a person should give evidence in his own interests. The court can now not allow an accused to give evidence, or a person to give evidence in defence of somebody else. It may be of the greatest importance for the liberty of the accused that the evidence should be given. The court cannot now order him to give the evidence, even if the court thinks that it should be given.

This matter goes far beyond anything we have experienced so far from the Government in this connection. A short statement by the Minister to the House, has produced a Bill of this nature, containing these two vital clauses. He treats this as a trivial matter, without trying to justify it at all. That is what amazes us. We thought that we were going to hear a long statement from the Deputy Minister as to why such a serious inroad into the freedom of the people and the rights of citizens should be made. But he says nothing. He gives no justification whatsoever. I think that he has treated the House in a shocking manner. He now expects us, merely on what he has said, to pass a Bill of this nature. There are other clauses in this Bill which we support. We shall give our reasons in the Committee Stage. I do not intend dealing with them now. There are also some clauses which we do not support. But the main objection to this Bill arises because of these two clauses. And that is why we have dealt only with them at this Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, so far this House has listened to a gaggle of lawyers, presenting either their objections or their support to this Bill. I speak as an ordinary citizen who is not a lawyer, but who has been very intimately concerned, over the years, with watching the incursion of the State into normal civil rights. Long ago we set off on the slippery slopes of giving unfettered powers to Ministers. This is another Bill cast in exactly the same vein. Therefore it almost goes without saying that I am going to oppose this Bill. I must say that I am going to go further than the Official Opposition. One thing the hon. the Deputy Minister said when he introduced the Second Reading of this Bill, with which I concur, was that it is customary at the end of every session to introduce a General Laws Amendment Bill. It has been my custom, over the last five years anyway, to oppose such a Bill. I have done so because, although there are clauses in such an omnibus Bill which are not objectionable, there is always a clause which is so objectionable that one must object to the Bill in the most stringent Parliamentary way possible. In the past five years we have had a clause known as the “Sobukwe clause” in the General Laws Amendment Bills. Because of the inclusion of that clause, I have opposed these Bills by moving the most stringent Parliamentary motion of opposition and that is: To omit “now” and to add at the end “this day six months”. I propose therefore, in this instance to move the same amendment. Although the Sobukwe clause is fortunately absent from this Bill, there is another clause which is very far-reaching indeed. That is clause 29 of this Bill. As the hon. member for Transkei has said, this clause goes very much further than almost anything we have had in this House so far.

We have always had it.

The Deputy Minister says that we have always had it. If we have always had it, why do we need it now?

We are codifying the law.

This codifying excuse is always used when Ministers want to take their existing powers just a little bit further, when the common law is not quite good enough for them, and when they want to have the position stated in print on the Statute Book. That is when they go that much further. The hon. member for Prinshof, who has now disappeared, used as his explanation for this far-reaching clause the fact that South Africa is in a state of near war. He said that we are threatened, that we have long borders, that there are guerrillas, and so on. There used to be a time in this House when Acts were passed to give Ministers extremely far-reaching powers because we were told Communists were at work. Now it has become the guerrillas. There is always something that accounts for these powers that the Government takes. Now, of course, Communists are almost innocuous. They are just the sort of people who start agitations against the mini skirt. Now it is guerrillas. Anything is done because of the guerrillas. Sir, the Government has an army. We are to-day voting 23 per cent of our total expenditure on the Budget to Defence. If that amount of money and manpower …

Order! That is not under discussion now.

What I am saying is that our Army is able to deal with the guerrilla threat. We do not need clauses such as clause 29, which is included in this Bill. This is a very far-reaching clause indeed. It goes, as the hon. member for Transkei said, much further than anything we have had up to now. We have had powers taken by Ministers in the past, powers that transcend the courts of law and powers which undermine civil liberties in any normal democratic country. Now we have this Bill which was introduced by the Deputy Minister this afternoon with hardly an excuse. Of course we are used to Bills of this kind in this country now, Sir. We do not need very many excuses. The Government says it is necessary, and the majority of the people accept that therefore it is necessary. I am a little more sceptical and I do not accept the necessity for this Bill. I do not accept the necessity for clause 29. I do not accept the necessity for clause 10 either.

I want to pause for a moment on clause 29, because that is of course the more important of those two clauses. This clause states that no person shall be compelled, ordered or permitted, to give evidence or to furnish information in court or before any statutory body or institution, if the Prime Minister or any other Minister certifies that it affects the interests of the State or public security and that the disclosure thereof will, in the opinion of the Prime Minister or any other Minister, be prejudicial to the interests of the State or public security. What matters will the Prime Minister and other Ministers consider to affect the interests of the State? This is an all-encompassing provision and an all-encompassing description. Nobody knows what sort of disclosures will be considered to affect the interests of the State. The hon. members here have been saying that the police van debate was something which affected the interests of South Africa. Somebody remarked that this is a matter that should have been raised departmentally and not over the floor of this House.

That was Le Roux.

I do not care who it was, but that was the comment that was made, namely, that it should not have been made a public matter and that it should have been raised departmentally, because it affected the interests of the State. In this way anything that happens in South Africa, of course, and which is something we should either be ashamed or regretful about, is likely to affect the interests of the State. I can give other examples. At present there is an inquest being conducted on somebody who was held under the Terrorist Act, and there is an inquest as to why he died. It is quite likely that that is another matter which hon. members think should not come before the courts, and that evidence should not be produced because this is against the interests of the State. Hon. members may say that it is not a pretty story and that it does not do South Africa any good. But I might point out that the very fact that these things have happened perhaps does South Africa more harm than the disclosures, revelations and the objections to the fact that these things have happened. There were race classification cases which offended the sentiments of most of the Western world and which created headlines in overseas newspapers. Such cases are not in the interests of South Africa, if one considers this in a broad context. One does not know, therefore, however much it may be felt that the Prime Minister or any other Minister who is given this power, will confine himself to the narrow limits of State security, whether this is going to be so. We were given similar reassurances when other wide and far-reaching measures were passed in this House. We were assured by the Ministers in charge of those Bills that these powers would be used with circumspection. Experience has shown quite the opposite. Powers given to Ministers are not used circumspectly. Powers like these are very much like eating to a compulsive eater; the more one eats the more one wants to eat.; the more power one has, the more power one wants to use. I have not gone into the detailed legalities of these clauses. They have been covered by other members who have spoken before me, but there are those two clauses to which I object, and more particularly clause 29.

There is another clause I want to say something about and which has not yet been mentioned, and that is clause 23. Clause 23 is very similar to another clause in another Bill which we debated earlier this afternoon. Clause 23 extends to the Coloured Representative Council the same provisions that were extended to White voters under the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill, which was passed this afternoon. I objected to that clause as it affected White voters of South Africa, and now I wish to take exactly the same objections to clause 23 that I took to the clause which was debated earlier this afternoon in another measure. Clause 23 is the clause which disfranchises for life anybody who would be entitled to vote for the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council if such a person is sentenced to a period of imprisonment without the option of a fine for an offence under the Suppression of Communism Act or the Terrorism Act of 1967. I am more particularly concerned with the Communism Act, because that is, of course, a very wide Act indeed. That Act covers all sorts of offences, and is very ill-defined in its authority, so that it is very far-reaching. One has had the experience over the years that this Act has been implemented so that it has touched not only people who have in fact committed serious infringements under the anti-Communism Act, but also people who have committed minor infringements under that Act. I want to tell the official Opposition that since we have had our debate this afternoon, I have taken the trouble to check up on whether or not the fact that a sentence has been suspended makes it still a sentence of imprisonment. It does, of course. It is only the operation of the sentence which is suspended, and not the prison sentence itself. In other words, whether or not a magistrate decided that the infringement of the particular Act was so minor that a mandatory prison sentence could be suspended …

Order! That has nothing to do with clause 23.

With respect, Sir, may I ask you to look at clause 23.

I am looking at clause 23.

May I read clause 23 to you? Clause 23 says, and this is what I am now debating, that any person who has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment without the option of a fine for an offence under the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950, or the Terrorism Act, 1967, loses his voting rights. That is exactly what I am talking about. The point that I am trying to make is that a person who has, for instance, been banned under the Suppression of Communism Act, and who has never appeared before a court of law but has been banned because in the opinion of the Minister he is advancing the aims of communism, may subsequently violate one of the provisions of the Act which would lead to his being given a mandatory sentence of imprisonment. This can include forgetting to report at a police station, quoting any banned person or being in possession of any article which leads to the suspicion that the person had ever been a member of an unlawful organization. All these particular offences carry mandatory prison sentences, and whether suspended or not, because of minor infringements, such a person will be forever disfranchised in terms of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act. To me this is also a very objectionable clause. For all these reasons I move—

Mr. Speaker, I rise only to deal with the last issue raised by the hon. member for Houghton in relation to earlier debates and allegations which, as the hon. member said, she has allegedly discovered since the debate this afternoon and which she has made use of outside this House. The hon. member referred to clause 23 of the Bill before the House and quoted certain sections to the House. But I noticed that she deliberately did not quote the last part of clause 23. She omitted to quote the new paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 5 of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act, substituted by clause 23, which reads as follows—

The effect of this clause is to bring the Coloured voting registration procedure into line with that of White voters. The effect is to achieve exactly what the hon. member for Houghton has just said she had found to be incorrect this afternoon, and had subsequently verified. Here we have before us a Bill which in fact is designed, by the deletion of the word “suspension” from the original subsection in the Act, to bring Coloured voters in line with White workers. I also have before me the report of the Select Committee on the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill which deals inter alia with this question of the remission and suspension of sentences. I want to quote from page 3 of the report where I put a question to the witnesses from the Department of the Interior who appeared before the Committee at that time. I asked the following question:

The official answer was: “Volgens die nuwe voorstel, sal sy totale tydperk van diskwalifikasie dan een jaar wees.” In other words, only an unsuspended sentence counts for the removal of the person concerned from the voters’ roll. That is the ruling of the Chief Electoral Officer of the Department of the Interior. The Coloured Representative Council is brought into line with this provision by the amendment before us now. In terms of the former Act a Coloured could be removed from the Voters’ Roll if he were subject to a suspended sentence. This is the known practice and cases could be quoted if it were necessary to do so. There are tens of thousands, if not more, persons who have been sentenced to imprisonment and had their sentences suspended. Those persons are entitled to be, and are in fact, on the voters’ roll to-day. They are not only entitled to be there, but they are also entitled to all the other privileges flowing from being on the voters’ roll. That did not apply to voters in the case of the Coloured Representative Council but this provision is now being amended. In numerous debates in this House this question has been raised. It has been raised for instance in connection with a person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for failing to pay maintenance as a result of a divorce or a separation, and has had his sentence suspended, subject to his paying such maintenance. I myself raised that particular example, when we removed from the Electoral Law applicable to White persons, the provision for a minimum period of three months, for which a person had to be sentenced before he could be removed from the voters’ roll. At that time it was made clear that a suspended sentence was not regarded as a sentence which disqualified a person from registration as a voter.

The hon. member for Houghton who this afternoon took a contrary view, to-night claimed that this measure supported her view, when in fact the exact opposite is the position. This measure is now bringing the Coloured Representative Council in line with the position of the White voter. I take strong exception to the hon. member’s attempting to create an impression which is in reality not borne out by the facts.

Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to speak for only a short while so that we could still vote on this measure this evening, but owing to the fact that the last speaker did not adhere to the arrangements of this House, I am now going to speak for as long as I can.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I ask what ruling of the House I broke? The hon. the Deputy Minister said that I had broken a ruling of the House. I should like to know what that ruling was.

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the arrangements between the Whips.

That is an altogether different matter.

I shall now reply in full to the matters raised by the hon. members. This legislation, which is annual legislation, runs into 30 clauses. Usually this Bill, which is called an “omnibus” Bill, has no general principle, which can then be opposed. It has always been the practice to dispose of the Second Reading of the Bill as quickly as possible so that we could deal with the various clauses individually in the Committee Stage. This evening, however, we have witnessed a new spectacle here. The hon. member for Durban (North) was fully aware of the fact that clauses 10 and 29 would be discussed fully in Committee, but he nevertheless decided to use them as a reason for moving an amendment at the Second Reading this evening. If the hon. member had done so on the merits of the case, it would still have been all right. But he used this as a propaganda means in order to play the same tune again this evening as they have been playing for years. I do not like the terms he used. They are terms that have already been worked to death in this House. We are sick and tired of constantly hearing them from the opposition. For example, the hon. member said the following: “This is another monstrous Bill; no Western country would tolerate this; it will do our image much harm; it will subvert the rule of law” and “it is an inroad into the freedom of the individual”. Those are the kind of remarks the hon. member made under this clause this evening. I want to make the statement this evening that there is not one single principle contained in this Bill which does not already exist in the substantive law which is applied in South Africa to-day. I challenge the hon. member to prove the contrary in any respect. I think it was preposterous to act in this way and to have done so because the Star dictated it to him. It is really beneath the dignity of the House for the hon. member to have carried on in this way. Let us now look at the two clauses in question. The proposed section 3 (2) (a) in clause 10 creates an offence, an offence which already exists. Only one word is being added to the existing section in order to make the crime applicable to security matters as well. Previously security matters were dealt with by various departments in South Africa. Inter alia, the Department of Police was also charged with them. In connection with Police matters, this same offence which is being defined in the proposed subsection (2) (a), existed. This year we had new legislation, which was supported by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the following words—

That is the position and the history behind this. The Leader of the Opposition said—

This is the matter which that hon. member described as “no other civilized country would tolerate this”. I have quoted to you what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said. He said—

Subsequently the Bureau for Security Matters was created. This Bureau for Security Matters must carry out its activities in exactly the same way as the Security Division of the Police carried out theirs. Let me read to you the existing section without the addition. It reads as follows—

When anyone does this, he shall be guilty of an offence. Now the words “security matter” are being added because we have created this new division. When this division fell under the Police the crime was already defined. Under the division which has now been created the crime will still exist. The words “security matter” are simply being added in order to define it further.

The hon. member for Transkei came along here with the usual collection of cock-and-bull stories. I am now speaking about the cock-and-bull stories about smear letters, etc.

Are they true or not?

Even if they were, the Security Police, like the Police, can investigate any matter at all.

They are not cock-and-bull stories.

The cock-and-bull story lies in the fact that you said that it is a crime. It is no crime; it is merely an investigation.

When did I say that it is a crime?

You said that a person could be investigated and that the mere investigation would expose him to the provisions of clause 10. That is what the hon. member said.

When did I say that it is a crime?

The crime is defined in clause 10. The police may investigate any matter at all. But that does not mean that the investigation will lead to a conviction in terms of clause 10. Clause 10 provides that someone must have communicated the matters mentioned in a manner or for a purpose which is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the Republic. Only then can he be found guilty of that. I should then like to know why the hon. member mentioned this matter. There is no reason whatever why he should have done so. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Musgrave came along here with a very strange tale. The hon. member said that we were now making laws according to which the accused would be prohibited from giving evidence in his own defence. This is the biggest lot of nonsense and rubbish in the world. The hon. member for Musgrave took the liberty of saying that I had claimed to be an advocate. At least I am not the kind of advocate he is. I do at least know that if I defend a person I do not need to reveal my defence to the State. I do not have to reveal my defence to the State. The hon. member, as an advocate, ought to know this. You are not going to reveal your defence beforehand in respect of any person you are defending. [Interjections.] How on earth is a Minister to know what evidence you are going to lead, so that, by way of a certificate, he can prevent you from doing so beforehand?

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