Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendement—

As we indicated yesterday in the Second Reading debate, we want this clause to be changed and therefore I now move as an amendment—

We acknowledged that somebody should have the power to convene and prorogue the Coloured Persons Representative Council. The desire has already been expressed on both sides of this House that the Coloured people should be given more and more opportunities to handle their own affairs. We realize that the Coloured Persons Representative Council has rather limited powers under the Act of 1964, as amended in 1968. On the other hand, it is essential that this body should to an increasing extent be enabled to gain knowledge of the system of parliamentary government. We admit that this Coloured Council can never develop into a sovereign independent parliament. But when it comes to matters in connection with which simple decisions must be made, our point of view is that that power should be granted to them so that they will be able to gain more and more knowledge of the procedure under a parliamentary government. Therefore I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister cannot leave such a simple decision as the convening and proroguing of the Coloured Council to that Council itself. Hence my proposal that the chairman of the executive should exercise that power. In comparison with any other colour group, the Coloured people have more experience of matters such as these. The chairman of their executive is appointed by the State President and as such he is their most important man and occupies the most important post. He is closely associated with the Coloured Council itself and is also in daily contact with the Department of Coloured Affairs. Therefore we say it is best that he should exercise this particular power. I trust that the Minister will also see it in this light and that he will leave this decision to them. In fact, I think they want this, to judge by the discussions which have taken place. I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister should now be taking this power for himself, nor can I see how this amendment, if it is accepted, will prejudice the activities of that Council in any way. Matters will be able to proceed as smoothly as before. I do not think the Coloured Council want to adopt the attitude that they want to prejudice the activities of the council and the Minister.

I too intend opposing this clause. As I pointed out in the Second Reading debate, this clause involves for me a very important principle in that it reduces the power of the chairman of the Coloured Council. As the regulations are presently framed, the power of adjourning the council and of calling it together again rests in the hands of the chairman, except when it comes to first sessions. The Minister said yesterday that he wanted to place the procedure of the Coloured Council in this respect on the same basis as that of this House. Well, it seems to me as if the Minister is now placing himself in the position of being the State President for the Coloured people because he is taking unto himself the power not only to prorogue the council but also to call it together and to set down a date for any adjourned session. For this reason I opposed the Second Reading of the Bill and for the same reason I intend opposing this clause. The Minister stated that due to some mishap, the original Act did not contain the power to prorogue the Coloured Representative Council, I wish to move an amendment which allows the Minister to retain the power to prorogue but takes from him the power to adjourn and to call the council together for sessions in between main sessions. There may be some urgent reason for calling the council together and the Minister may for one reason or other not be keen to call the council together. In the circumstances, I would like the chairman to have that power.

As I say, I still do not understand why the adjourned session was not held on the 20th August. I know, for instance, that a resolution calling for equal pay for equal work was sent forward to the Government for its consideration. To the best of my knowledge no reply has been received by the Coloured Council or its Executive. I understand that not even an acknowledgment of the resolution has been received. Had the council met again on the 20th August as the chairman had intended, then there was every possibility that once again this matter of equal pay for equal work would have been raised. Sir, I move—

In other words, I leave the hon. the Minister with the power of proroguing but I do not leave him with the power of appointing such times for the holding of sessions as he sees fit.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Newton Park, and similarly I unfortunately cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton, however kind it may be of her to leave me some of my powers, at any rate.

I just want to say to the hon. member for Newton Park that I do not think we should develop the institutions of the Coloured people on the same pattern as the institutions of the Bantu. I want to accept that it is not their intention either, but yesterday the question was put by way of an interjection as to why we do not make it the same as that of the Transkei, and this afternoon the question was again asked, by implication, by the hon. member for Newton Park. I think we must develop the political institutions of the Coloured people on the pattern of the political institutions of the Whites. Therefore this is an attempt to guide the Coloured Persons Representative Council, in respect of the matter which is being covered by this clause, towards what we are doing in the case of our white Parliament. The fact of the matter is that when the Coloured Persons Representative Council is in session, its chairman has the full right to adjourn and to summon the council during a session, this right is not being taken away from him, and I do not want to take it away from him either. But a time comes when one must end a session, when the council must be prorogued. Someone must prorogue it, and the hon. member for Newton Park’s proposal is that the chairman of the council should do this.

No, the chairman of the executive.

In other words, the Prime Minister must then prorogue it.

Sir, at this stage I do not feel that there can be anything wrong in letting the Minister of Coloured Affairs fulfil that function. Surely somebody must do it and I personally think that the best solution is that the Minister of Coloured Affairs should do it until such time as the State President may perhaps do it as well, as in the case of our Parliament.

I think the person who prorogues the council must also be the person who summons the council again. Since we think that the Minister should prorogue it in this case, he should also be the person who summons it, but not arbitrarily. As matters are at present, the Coloured Council will adjourn to a certain date on a motion of the chairman of the executive. Unless exceptional circumstances arise, such as exist this year, the council may accept that the person—in this case the Minister—who is entrusted with the summoning of the council, will adhere to the resolution adopted by the Coloured Council when it adjourned. And the summoning will take place in terms of and according to the wishes of the Coloured Council as expressed in the resolution adopted: by it at its adjournment. I say that circumstances may arise as a result of which it will not meet on the date which was in fact mentioned in the resolution.

†The hon. member for Houghton asked me why the council did not meet on 20th August.

Well, according to all the information I have, the council did not want to meet in session before it was prorogued. That was the information conveyed to me by the Executive of the Coloured Representative Council, that they did not want to convene before this matter of proroguing the council was dealt with by Parliament as we are trying to do to-day.

I understand they did not realize the position.

They fully realized it and it was explained to them.

Why did they pass a resolution?

At that time there was no machinery to prorogue the council. There was only machinery to postpone the session of the council which was then in session, and they postponed it to 20th August in terms of the only machinery available to them; but because they wanted to start a new session, they also asked us to pass legislation in Parliament by which the old session of last year could be prorogued and a new session convened, which would be a completely new session. I really think that what we are doing to-day with regard to proroguing the council, has the full support of all the interested parties in the Coloured Representative Council.

In regard to the resolution passed there about equal pay for equal work, what the hon. member for Houghton has said in regard to that resolution is not quite correct, but she can raise it under my Vote and I will give her all the information. But even so, this resolution and the replies could still be discussed when they meet in November, as they will do.

*Therefore I honestly feel that unfortunately I cannot accede to these requests, because I am trying to place the Coloured Persons Representative Council further ahead on the road and at this stage the Government is of the opinion, and in any case we have the support of the executive of the Coloured Council, that at this point of our constitutional development the Minister should be the external person who prorogues the sessions of the council. As a logical consequence of that, he should also be the person who summons the sessions of the council; but once sessions have been summoned, the chairman retains all the powers of adjourning and summoning until after the prorogation. It is not the intention to whittle down or reduce their powers. On the contrary, on the course along which we want to guide them, the intention is precisely the opposite.

I do not know how the hon. the Minister can say that it does not change the power. I have the regulations here and in the regulations it says that every session shall commence on a date to be fixed by the chairman or the acting chairman of the executive, or if they are absent or unable to act, by the chairman or acting chairman of the council, and made known by the Commissioner for Coloured Affairs by notice in the Government Gazette of the Republic of South Africa not less than 30 days before the commencement of such a session. Will the hon. the Minister please tell me whether this Regulation No. 3, under the heading ’’sessions”, will remain unchanged? Because if it does remain unchanged it is in conflict with clause 2 of this Bill, which quite clearly says that the Minister may appoint such times for the holding of sessions of the council as he thinks fit. The two are in conflict. The regulations give the chairman or the acting chairman of the executive the right and the clause we are dealing with now gives the Minister the right. So he cannot say that no changes have been made as far as the powers of the chairman of the executive of the Coloured Representative Council is concerned.

The other point I want to raise is in regard to the fact that the hon. the Minister says that he is simply bringing everything into line with the procedure of this House. I may just point out to the hon. the Minister that the times for the sessions of our Parliament and the powers to prorogue Parliament are in the hands of the State President, but those powers are circumscribed by another section of the Constitution, which states that unless it is expressly stated otherwise or unless it is necessarily implied, “any reference in this Act to the State President shall be deemed to be a reference to the State President acting on the advice of the Executive Council”. In other words, it means that the Cabinet of this House advises the hon. the State President. Where in this Bill we have before us does the hon. the Minister have to consult with the Cabinet of the Coloured Representative Council which is their executive council, before he decides when the Representative Council will be adjourned and when he will call or prorogue sessions? I do not agree with the hon. the Minister that this is bringing the practice of the Coloured Representative Council in line with the practice in this House. I certainly would like the hon. the Minister to explain where I am incorrect in assuming that if clause 2 of this Bill is passed, the regulation which appeared in the Government Gazette of the 17th October, 1969, under the heading “Sessions” will fall away.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the hon. the Minister does not see his way clear to accepting the amendment moved by this side of the House. He has said on a few occasions that what he is trying to do by means of this legislation is to put the Coloured Council on the Government’s road. I must say that I do not know what that road is and I am not so sure that the other side of this House knows along what road they are guiding the Coloured people. In any case, they are having difficulties with it.

In the light of the statement which the hon. the Minister made yesterday when he said that he wanted to create a council on the pattern of this hon. House, I must say that his refusal of our amendment is not very clear to me. The first point which I want to put to the hon. the Minister is that R60 million is made available annually by this House to the Coloured Persons Representative Council. I do not think the hon. the Minister will say that the chairman of the executive is not responsible enough to decide about the summoning or proroguing of that council. I think the hon. the Minister will accept that he is responsible enough to fulfil that function, since he is entrusted with the spending of more than R60 million which this House makes available to that council. Now I am trying to find an answer. I feel that the hon. the Minister has not viewed the matter correctly. Therefore I am now seeking an analogous case, and I find it in the Provincial Administration. If the hon. the Minister wants to consider the pattern of the present Parliament of South Africa, and he thinks he has a council which can lead to something similar, which I am not so sure of, then the Provincial Administration is the course which he shall have to follow. I must say at once that I cannot foresee that the Coloured Parliament will ever be vested with sovereign power. In other words, for the time being and as far as the practical side of the matter is concerned, I must accept that this hon. House, namely the Parliament of South Africa, will always be the sovereign body. To my way of thinking, the Coloured Persons Representative Council cannot develop into much more than a provincial council. If I look at the Provincial Council as an analogous case, I say that the chairman of the executive is in precisely the same position as an Administrator. The Administrator prorogues and summons. The Administrator is also appointed by the State President, in the same way as the chairman of the executive is appointed by the State President. When I examine this case and I think of the responsibility entrusted to the chairman of the executive, and the fact that the hon. the Minister will never say that that man is not responsible enough to fulfil this function, I believe he should be spiritually strong enough to say that he will impose this particular obligation on, as he said, the Prime Minister of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. We would then have an analogous case in the constitutional pattern of South Africa. If, however, the hon. the Minister fulfils that function himself, I do not find an analogous case anywhere. Then that council is neither fish nor flesh and I do not think the hon. the Minister would like to turn the Coloured Persons Representative Council into something like that.

I want to say at once that we accept the question of prorogation. It must be done. The fact that it is laid down in this particular legislation is a sound principle. We have nothing against it. It is merely a question that if one does not want to detract from this body and if one wants to see it in the light of a South African Parliament, the hon. the Minister cannot have this power and must entrust this particular responsibility to the official who is placed there by the State President, namely the chairman of the executive committee of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. I think the hon. the Minister’s refusal at the beginning probably arose from a misunderstanding. He thought that we were referring to the chairman of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, but this is not the case. The chairman of the Coloured Persons Representative Council is quite another person. We referred to the chairman of the executive, whom I am at this stage equating with the Administrator of a province appointed by the State President.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. the Minister. He said that at this stage he preferred the provision to remain as it is and that the executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council felt the same way.

In actual fact the Coloured people, who are still very inexperienced at this stage as far as matters of government are concerned, regard the Minister of Coloured Affairs as their head. I think the fact that the hon. the Minister is the one to prorogue and summon gives the council more status. Since the Coloured Representative Council must develop on the same lines as the white Parliament, I think it is quite correct that the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs should do that work at this stage. However, what will it boil down to in practice? In practice it will boil down to this, that the chairman of the executive will propose the adjournment. Surely the hon. the Minister will not do this. Just as in our Parliament the hon. the Prime Minister proposes a date on which Parliament is to be summoned to meet again, the chairman of the executive will propose the adjournment. Naturally the hon. the Minister will take this into account, just as the State President does when the hon. the Prime Minister moves a motion for the adjournment here. The hon. the Prime Minister also mentions an approximate date on which Parliament will be summoned to meet again and the State President always acts more or less according to that motion which is moved in this House at the adjournment. I think in practice the hon. the Minister will do the same.

Mr. Chairman, before we vote. I should like to reply to the arguments put forward by hon. members on the other side, namely the hon. member for Maitland and also the hon. member for Houghton.

I just want to say to the hon. member for Maitland that I do think it is constitutionally correct to compare the position of the chairman of the executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council with that of an Administrator. If the hon. member would just sit down and think for five minutes, he would realize that they are two things which one simply cannot put on the same footing or compare. To plead for certain powers for the chairman of the executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council and to base one’s argument on this one statement that the Administrator of a province has those powers, is obviously false reasoning which cannot be justified. The only correlation which exists between the two to-day, is that at this stage both are appointed. As the hon. member knows, it is a final situation as far as the Administrator is concerned. In the case of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, one can move towards a situation where eventually the chairman of the executive will be elected and will no longer be a nominated person. But on the other hand, I want to ask the hon. member something. He said that the chairman of the executive was a very responsible man.

Don’t you agree?

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. But if he is such a responsible person, why do hon. members not want to accept his recommendation, namely the recommendation which I submitted to this House to-day, that the Minister should be the person who prorogues? I have come to this House to-day with the full approval and co-operation of the chairman of the executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council to say that this is the way they want it as well.

However, I just want to say we should not forget that we have merely started taking the first step in regard to this Coloured Persons Representative Council. Last year in November they met for a week.

The council nevertheless has a considerable sum to handle.

Yes, quite correct. This Parliament votes a fairly large sum, as hon. members will see in the next few weeks. As the hon. member said, it will be between R66 million and R67 million. But we have only started with a constitutional development. I feel that within the framework, the pattern and the setup of the constitutional development in which we have placed this Council, we should give this power to the Minister, who, in 99 cases out of 100 will adhere to and take into account the adjournment motion which the Coloured Persons Representative Council itself passed at its adjournment, to call that council together again.

†The hon. member for Houghton again asked me about the regulations that were published, dealing with the powers of calling together and adjourning the sessions of the Coloured Representative Council. The hon. member must realize that after the Act was originally passed by Parliament in 1964, it was about five years before the council actually came into being. It is just possible that the matter of proroguing the council was at that time overlooked. So the powers were given at that time to the chairman of the executive to move motions of adjournment and to convene the sessions of the council. That is the reason why this provision was not embodied in the original Act. Now what will happen to those regulations, namely Nos. 2 and 3? They will be withdrawn, because now they will be embodied in the main Act. But new regulations. as far as I can see, will be framed and published, giving the chairman those powers and functions that he had, while the council is in session, of adjourning or convening before prorogation. We will pass regulations to give him those powers which, by rights, really belong to him. That is all I can say to the hon. member. I hope it satisfies her to a degree.

Question put: That the word “Minister” in line 18, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment proposed by Mr. D. M. Streicher dropped.

Amendment proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman put and negatived (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

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

During the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill yesterday, we raised certain points from this side of the House and suggested that they might be the subject of amendments to be moved during the Committee Stage. We stipulated those points seriatim throughout the Bill. Subsequently, however, the Minister placed an amendment to one of the clauses on the Order Paper. I understand that the Minister is prepared to give effect to some of our suggestions through the medium of the regulations when they are promulgated. It is quite obvious that this Bill cannot be brought into operation without regulations. I do not intend moving an amendment to clause 2, but would like to have an assurance from the bon. Minister on record. I am afraid that I shall in the process have to refer to the Minister’s amendment to clause 17. This Bill as originally printed allowed the Minister to delegate his authority under clause 2, but the effect of his amendment is that the powers under clause 2 will be left in the hands of the Minister, i.e. the right to proclaim a mountain conservation area. We pointed out that there was in the Bill no provision for an affected owner to be informed of the intention of the Minister to issue a proclamation and by the same token, giving him an opportunity to raise objections and to make any representations he may wish to make. I raise this point now with a view to getting from the Minister an assurance that provision will be made in the regulations for affected owners to be given an opportunity of getting to know beforehand of the intention of the Minister and giving them the right to make representations.

It is the intention to cover this point in the regulations. Clause 13 of this Bill makes provision for regulations to be gazetted to give effect to this legislation. But as I have said, I am prepared to accept the bon. member’s suggestion. Perhaps the department and the committee to be appointed can consider the matter to see how the hon. member’s suggestion can best be implemented.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

The clause dealing with the regulations to be issued is not yet before us and, consequently, you will understand our difficulties, Mr. Chairman. However, the sequence of the clauses in the Bill seems to me to be the best way of dealing with the matter. There is no provision anywhere in the Bill for an appeal to the Minister. The Board makes a recommendation and a proclamation is issued of which the affected owners have, in terms of the Minister’s assurance just now, been informed beforehand. But there the matter stops. On this point I should like to have the assurance from the Minister that he will deal with this matter in the regulations in such a way as he deems fit and proper. I do not want to go too deeply into the administrative side: I am prepared to leave that to the Minister and to his Department. Provision should be made in the regulations making it possible for an affected owner who is dissatisfied with the recommendation of the board to go on appeal first to the Secretary of Forestry and in the last resort to the Minister.

I am prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. member. The assurance I have given under clause 2 therefore also applies to this clause.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 11:

In clause 11 (2) provision is made for certain officers and persons, who are specified, to have the right of way over any land for the purpose of ascertaining the desirability of declaring that land a catchment area, etc. In other words, a right of way is given to an official or a person designated to enter upon that land. All I want to ask is that provision be made for reasonable notice to be given to the affected landowner. This too can be dealt with through the regulations.

I accept the suggestion of the hon. member.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 17:

I move the amendment standing in my name—

Sir, we want to express our appreciation to the hon. the Minister for accepting this. We think that it does really tidy up the Act and it will give a very great deal of satisfaction to know that the right of proclamation rests in his hands as Minister.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

We have had a lengthy discussion in regard to this Bill and I want to tell the hon. the Minister immediately that we on this side of the House are going to vote against the Third Reading. We are going to vote against this measure not because we are of the opinion that control over egg production as such is wrong in principle, but because the hon. the Deputy Minister, although we on this side of the House have explained our attitude to him, refused to appreciate the standpoint of the Opposition. In his reply to the Second-Reading debate the hon. the Deputy Minister told us that, after this legislation had been piloted through Parliament, he would tell the small producer outside that he was on the side of the small producer and that the United Party, in adopting the attitude it did, had been fighting the cause of the large producer.

That is true.

It is rather strange that this should come from the mouth of a Deputy Minister who constantly tells us that we on this side of the House should not try to make political capital out of an agricultural matter, but, when he is afforded the opportunity, says that he is going to tell the people of South Africa that the United Party is not in favour of egg production control. I hope that when the hon. the Deputy Minister tells that story with such enthusiasm to the people outside, he will recall the attitude adopted by the United Party in this matter. The Deputy Minister said that this legialtion had the approval of the Egg Control Board, of the South African Agricultural Union and of the egg producers. According to him, everybody agrees with this legislation. Sir, if everybody had agreed with his attitude, why was he not prepared to refer this matter to a select committee, as was suggested by the United Party, before the Second Reading was approved? If those people had allegedly agreed with him and if they had had the opportunity of submitting their views to a select Committee, it would have placed the Deputy Minister in a much stronger position and his arguments for the justification of this Bill would have carried much more weight. But the Minister did not want to take that chance. I want to tell the hon. the Minister now that if the opportunity had been afforded us to hold proper consultations with the producer. the consumer and the distributor, and if they had been afforded an opportunity to submit evidence to a select committee, I am quite sure that they would have told the hon. the Minister: We are not against the principle of production control, but let the industry itself have the right to introduce the form of control. In that case the hon. the Minister would have had the co-operation of this side of the House as well, because we know the hon. gentleman is facing a major problem.

This side of the House has never been unwilling to assist the Government and that hon. the Minister whenever the agricultural industry was faced with a problem. We have never been prepared to obstruct him when it was in the interests of the farmer of South Africa not to do so. This was proved by every debate we had in this House. I need not elaborate on that, nor am I in a position to do so. The attitude adopted by this side of the House in regard to this legislation was proof once more of our philosophy in respect of agriculture and of how we are prepared to co-operate with those people.

But the hon. the Minister tried to play a trick on us with this legislation, a very simple political trick and that is all it is. All you have to do, is to come to this House with legislation giving extraordinary powers to the Minister and when you find that the Opposition vote against it, you go to the people outside and tell them that the United Party is against this, that or the other contained in the legislation. [Interjections.] This is such a simple and obvious political trick that I think anybody outside can see through it. The people outside will therefore not believe the hon. the Minister when he tells them that the United Party has done this, that and the other and that the Minister has adopted a certain attitude because he is on the side of the small producer. I now want to tell the hon. the Minister another reason why the small producer would not be convinced if he were to adopt this attitude.

This is a real eggdance.

What did the hon. the Minister admit to us during the Second Reading and also during the Committee Stage? We have subclause (4) here on page 5 of the Bill. Any producer who had a certain number of laying hens on 28th February of this year, may apply for a permit, but the Act states quite clearly that he shall not have fewer than he had on that date, that is 28th February. We out the following question to the hon. the Minister: How is he going to give effect to subclause (4)? The Minister gave us a reply in the Committee Stage yesterday and the reply he gave us was more or less to the effect that whether you were a large producer or a small producer, you would be entitled to apply for a permit to increase the number of laying hens you had.

By 10,000.

That is interesting. I am pleased the hon. the Minister is assisting me even further. That means 10,000 laying hens for the large producer and 10,000 laying hens for the small producer. I am asking the hon. the Minister this, because according to the reply he gave me yesterday, the large producer will be entitled to increase the number of laying hens considerably, but the small producer will be entitled to do that too. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister: How can he tell the people outside that this legislation is aimed at protecting the small producer of South Africa when he gives this right to both these groups? Surely, he is going to do the same for the large producer. What problem is it this hon. the Minister is really solving then.

I told you your “pals’ ’could expand by half a million.

That hon. the Minister says that our so-called “pals” can expand by half a million. I now want to know whether they will be allowed to expand? That is what I want to know from the hon. the Minister.

By 10,000.

Very well, it means that they will not be allowed to expand by 500,000, but that they will be allowed to expand by 10,000. There are a large number of large producers of eggs in South Africa, but by the same token there are also a large number of small producers in South Africa. If the hon. the Minister is now going to adopt the attitude that he is going to allow both these groups to increase their quota, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what problem he is really solving with this legislation? How can he say, as he said during the Second Reading, that the United Party is only on the side of the large producers while Hendrik Schoeman is only on the side of the small producers, but if the large producers want to expand, they are able to do so by not more than 10,000 hens. Therefore I do not believe that the political “trick” of the hon. the Minister is going to work.

The hon. member would do well to come back to the Bill and leave the political “tricks” alone.

Mr. Speaker, but it is so nice. As a matter of fact, I was quite surprised that the hon. the Minister had dragged politics into the matter and I am simply pointing out to the hon. the Minister that if he wants to make political capital out of legislation of this nature, he should wait until he has become a little more skilled in this respect. The reason why we are opposing this legislation, is that the hon. the Minister will do this mainly by way of regulation. It is true that the hon. the Minister will have a committee to assist him. but a committee which will be subordinate to him and which is only going to do the work it is asked by the hon. the Minister to do and this only concerns the issuing of permits. The hon. the Minister will be in a position to ignore this committee completely as far as any other matter is concerned. The hon. the Minister can sit in his office and can do anything he thinks fit in terms of clause 2 in order to give effect to this principle of egg production control in South Africa.

Let us now consider the attitude of the United Party. How would we have done it? We would have done it in such a way that the Minister would, in fact, have had certain powers, for example, powers to make regulations, but if we had enacted this legislation, we would have had, in the first instance, more co-operation from the people outside because we would have asked them for their views in this matter and because we would have consulted with them. But we would also have said that if any sector of the agricultural industry was involved, they would have been the people who should have had the major say in a matter such as this. In other words, we would have had a special committee comprising the producers, the consumers and the distributors. These regulations would have been promulgated only when this committee felt that the regulations issued by the hon. the Minister were sound and most favourable to give effect to the aims of this Bill. Where will one find a more democratic attitude than this? Parliament would always have been consulted, the producer would have been consulted. and if the hon. the Minister had to abrogate for himself certain powers, then these would have been minimal. In other words, it would not have been possible to interfere with people’s rights in such an undemocratic way under the United Party Government. That is the difference between the approach of this hon. the Minister and our approach. Because this legislation does not recognize those essential principles of democratic action and democratic consultation of people who are affected by this, we on this side of the House are going to vote against this legislation. We believe that the hon. the Minister is not going to be as successful as he thinks he is going to be in applying egg production control in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park should ask himself: Where has this legislation originated and what has given rise to the fact that this legislation is before this House to-day. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Deputy Minister made it quite clear, and the hon. member for Newton Park is also aware of this, that, this legislation had originated after consultations with the Egg Control Board. How did the Egg Control Board come into being? The Egg Control Board is a statutory board established in terms of an Act passed by this Parliament, namely the Marketing Act, and comprises the producers, the merchants, the packers and the consumers, in other words, the entire industry. In other words, the consultative body which was used to help formulate this Act had been established in a democratic way. I do not think the hon. member for Newton Park can advance any arguments to dispute this fact.

I cannot agree either with the other argument advanced by the hon. the Opposition, namely that this legislation should be referred to a Select Committee, because the process of democratic consultation with the existing Egg Board and the South Africa Poultry Association has already been followed. This Board has all the information at its disposal in regard to the particulars and circumstances which cause this problem of an overproduction of eggs. What would have been the sense of appointing a Select Committee consisting of hon. members of this House which would have had to go through the process of consultation and investigation again? This would simply have been a duplication of the work which had already been done by the Minister, his Department and the Egg Control Board.

Another argument advanced by the Opposition concerned the form in which this measure had been drafted. They objected particularly to clause 2, dealing with regulations and which, as was alleged by hon. members opposite, gave the Minister too many powers. I am not a lawyer, and I do not think the hon. member for Newton Park is one either, but I think hon. members opposite have placed themselves in the hands of the hon. member for Durban (North). The hon. member for Durban (North) became so involved in legal theory as regards this entire measure, that they were finding theselves in the situation where they had become quite impractical as regards the implementation of this legislation. It is probably necessary for those of us dealing with agriculture, to be able to consider the circumstances under which a certain measure will be applied. What are the circumstances in the light of which this measure has to be considered? The circumstances are of such a nature that this measure is closely linked with the functions of the Egg Control Board. In terms of its scheme, the Egg Control Board is responsible for relieving the market of any surplus eggs in order to bring about stability on the market. An additional problem we are coping with, is the fact that we are dealing here with a specific commodity, namely eggs, which have a brief production cycle. In other words, it may happen that chaos may arise within a short period of time as a result of overproduction. We must therefore judge this legislation in the light of this problem. Where regulations are promulgated, they should be of such a nature so as to enable the hon. the Minister to cope with the overproduction of eggs which may arise from time to time. Parliament cannot be summoned every time it becomes necessary to control an overproduction of eggs. This is quite impractical. For that reason we should consider the practical implications of this measure as well.

Without doubt the Egg Control Board is therefore bound in terms of clause 2 (1) (f) in this regard. In his Second-Reading speech the hon. the Minister gave the undertaking that the Egg Control Board would be consulted in the implementation of this legislation. The hon. the Minister also accepted an amendment, moved by the hon. member for Newton Park, in connection with the committee dealing with the issuing of permits, to the effect that that committee would only consist of members of the Egg Control Board. Surely it is wrong to say that the Minister will abrogate for himself extraordinary powers when he has given an undertaking beforehand and when he says that he will consult these democratic bodies as far as the implementation of the regulations are concerned.

During the Second-Reading debate the hon. member for Durban (North) made a remark to the effect that the powers given to the Minister were so wide that the Minister would be able to devise all kinds of plans in a small dark room in Pretoria, but this is not the case either. When I, as a practical person, read this Bill it is quite clear to me that clause 2 (7) provides that these regulations, like other regulations, will be laid upon the Table of this House from time to time. In other words, this is not something that is going to be done in the dark. The regulations will be laid upon the Table. The Minister continues to be responsible to this Parliament, also as far as these regulations are concerned.

Another argument that has been advanced, is that the Minister will now be in a position to suspend certain laws by virtue of the powers he will have in terms of the regulations. But this specific clause quite clearly imposes certain conditions to the suspension of such laws. I quote clause 2(1) (g)—

To me as a layman this means that the Minister cannot summarily suspend any law, because he is bound by the legal conditions which lay down that this should be done in all reasonableness. To me as a practical person that argument is therefore unfounded.

In conclusion I want to say that, while the Opposition have declared themselves to be in agreement with the principle of the control of the production of eggs, I cannot see how they will be able to achieve anything more by way of a Select Committee than what we have at present achieved. Arguments may be advanced as regards the composition and the form of this Bill, on which we can express a diversity of opinions. But there is nothing wrong as far as the exercising of control by this Minister in terms of this Act and the practical implementation thereof are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin where the hon. member who has just sat down, finished off. He said that he could not understand what assistance a select committee could have been in determining the issue which was before this House in this Bill. But in justifying his argument, I suggest he in fact supported this suggestion which we made on this side of the House through the hon. member for Newton Park, because he said that one of the things which a select committee may have done, is to change the form of this legislation. This, after all, is the very point which we have been making in opposition to this Bill. We have made it clear to the House that we accept that some form of control over the production of eggs is necessary in view of the circumstances which have developed. We do not, however, accept the basis which is put forward in this Bill. We cannot accept this method of legislating. This Bill is quite contrary to any other form of control measure which has been placed before this House. Here we find a method which really amounts to an abandonment of any attempt to legislate within the four walls of this Parliament. In terms of this legislation we are simply saying to the hon. the Deputy Minister: “We give you all power. Do what you like with it”.

Order! All those arguments were used during the Second Reading. We are dealing with the Third Reading of the Bill now.

Sir, with respect, this is a Third Reading and I am entitled, without going into the matter at great length, to deal with principles once again. I shall not elaborate. All I am doing is to deal with these matters of principle.

I have given my ruling and I hope the hon. member will obey that ruling.

What is your ruling, Mr. Speaker?

That this is the Third Reading of the Bill.

In that case, what am I allowed to say and what am I not allowed to say?

The hon. member knows the rules.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may an hon. member during a Third-Reading debate not discuss the Bill as a whole as it emerges from the Committee Stage?

Yes, but an hon. member may not deliver a Second-Reading speech again. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker. I emphasize that we are not prepared to accept a legislative process whereby all power is handed to the hon. the Deputy Minister in an unrestricted form, and that is what is being done in this Bill.

Let us look at the normal form of legislation which is introduced when the House wishes to control a particular sphere, especially in the agricultural field. There are many controlling measures in the agricultural field. There is legislation to control wines and spirits and production in almost every sphere of agriculture. How is that done? We challenge hon. members on that side of the House to produce one single Act passed by this House which is a controlling measure and which is in the form of this Bill. Not one member, neither the Deputy Minister nor any other member on that side of the House, has been able to refer us to one other measure which provides for the control over a department of agriculture in the terms of this Bill. There is not one. What is the normal method? Surely the normal method is first of all to constitute some sort of controlling body and to stipulate how that body is to be constituted as well as what powers it is to have. There may possibly also be some method of appeal against its decisions. In terms of the normal procedures, provision is then made for the hon. the Minister to be empowered to make regulations which are not inconsistent with the provisions previously enunciated in the Act. Surely that is the normal method of introducing a controlling measure? It is a most extraordinary way of legislating simply to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister: “Here you are. Here are full powers. Do with them what you like”. To suggest that the provisions of clause 2 (7) should satisfy this side of the House, is nonsense. The hon. member who has just sat down, drew attention to subsection (7) and pointed out that in terms of that subsection a proclamation issued by the hon. the Minister must be tabled in the Other Place and in this House. This of course is so. But, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have drawn the attention of hon. members on the other side of the House to the fact that whilst this serves some purpose, it has a very limited purpose because in terms of the rules of the House, the times when members on this side of the House can debate regulations, are limited. Furthermore, the Government, if it wishes to avoid that debate going to a vote, simply talks out the period of two hours or 2½ hours or Whatever the period of the debate is. Then the debate lapses. It cannot be taken to a decision. So what is the value of a debate that lapses?

Where is the argument of the dark room?

Mr. Speaker, this is a figure of speech. The hon. member must surely appreciate that one does use figures of speech in speaking. He does so himself.

The hon. member also referred to clause 2 (1) (g). He drew attention to the fact that what is permitted here is that the Minister may suspend the operation of any provision of any law or the common law in so far as it may in the opinion of the Minister be inconsistent with or hamper the enforcement of the regulations or prohibit any act the performance of which is—and there were the words to which the hon. member drew attention— “reasonably necessary for or incidental to the effective application of the regulations or the achievement of the objects of this Act”. This is perfectly true. It has to be related to the objects of this Act. But I would point out to the hon. member that this can be done, if in the opinion of the Minister it is necessary for or incidental to the effective application of the regulations. This is not something which can be made subject to the decision of the courts. It is not the courts that have to decide whether an act of the Minister is reasonably necessary for or incidental to the effective application of the regulations or the achievement of the objects of this Act, which is the normal process.

But he is still responsible to Parliament.

But I have just pointed out that this has virtually no effect whatsoever because if we try to debate the regulations hon. members on that side of the House can talk it out and we will not be able to bring it to a vote. Therefore we cannot get a decision on it. This is of very little value, On the contrary, the reference to paragraph (g) shows the extent of the powers which are being given to this Minister. To suggest, as hon. members on that side of the House do, that this is simply a Bill to control the production of eggs and that therefore we on this side of the House should not be so concerned about it, is taking a very shortsighted view of the functions of each and every member in this House as Members of Parliament. This is not a Bill to simply control the production of eggs. What is the principle of this Bill? If that had been the principle of this Bill, I suggest with respect that Mr. Speaker would not have ruled against the instruction which the hon. member for Newton Park tried to move. Because if that had been the principle of this Bill, it should have been possible to suggest a different method of controlling the production of eggs. The fact that you, Mr. Speaker, ruled against the instruction proposed by the hon. member for Newton Park proves that you, Sir, hold that the principle of this Bill is to hand to the Minister powers in an unrestricted form for the control of egg production. That is the principle of this Bill—to hand powers to the Minister to control egg production and as a principle this is quite different from the principle of establishing a controlling body for the control of egg production. Having regard to this I wonder how hon. members opposite can justify their statements that the Egg Control Board and the S.A. Agricultural Union want this Bill. What proof is there of this? What they have asked for is a measure to control egg production. What proof do hon. members have for saying that the Egg Control Board and the S.A. Agricultural Union want a measure in terms of which complete powers are being handed to the Minister to do what he likes in connection with egg production? I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister realizes the extent of the vast powers he is taking. He knows that in this industry there are many conflicting interests and provided he can satisfy these conflicting interests and keep the price of eggs to the consumer at a reasonable level all may be well for him. But he must make no mistake about it that he is taking such vast powers that if things go wrong, he is going to be blamed by this side of the House [Interjections.] I want to make it very clear to hon. members on that side that we on this side are not in the least afraid of their taunts that they will go outside and say that we are against the control of egg production. The public to-day has a lot more sense than to fall for this type of misrepresentation.

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

They know, Mr. Speaker, …

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

Mr. Speaker, the public knows what is in the Bill …

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the Bill or resume his seat.

What I want to deal with at this stage …

You had better sit down.

No, I won’t sit down. I have quite a lot more to say and I will not sit down. What I want to do at this stage is to refer to the provisions of clause 2 (1) (j), the paragraph relating to offences. We challenged the hon. Deputy Minister to say, either when he replied to the Second-Reading debate or in Committee, why he wanted the words “which in the opinion of the Minister may defeat the achievement of the object of this Act.” As we read these words, the Minister is hereby enabled to create an offence after the event with the result that at the time a person may be committing an act he will not know whether at some future date the Minister will not say that that act tends to defeat the achievement of the objects of this legislation and to declare it an offence. How can hon. members opposite justify legislation of this sort?

The Deputy Minister is not even listening.

He is not even concerned, Mr. Speaker, because he has no reply. He is merely trying to shrug it off because he has no reply and hon. members opposite are prepared to sit there and support him when this comes to the vote. [Interjections.]

Order!

Lovely just to sit …

Order!

Like sheep in a kraal.

Order!

You are the biggest sheep of all.

Order!

Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that despite a provision of that sort, the Minister still retains the provision that on conviction the court may impose a fine of up to R5,000 or imprisonment for a period of up to one year, or both. How can the Minister justify a provision of that sort? Sir, we are not prepared to support measures of this sort. But if the Government is prepared to put forward a properly reasoned Bill for the control of egg production, it would have our support, not a measure in these terms.

Just before I react to what the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) had to say. I want to express my amazement at the arithmetic of the hon. member for Newton Park. It amazes me that he cannot discover that 10,000 on 10,000 gives a different percentage than 10,000 over 500,000. It amazes me, further, that he cannot see that the expansion which major producers may undertake is less than that of smaller producers.

But I want to return to the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave). He tried to imply that this legislation departs from the control which applies to other commodities. But I maintain that the form of control over a commodity depends on the nature of that commodity. After all, hon. members opposite cannot say that the form of control for wine, sugar and mealies should be cut in the same mould. Surely it is dependent on the nature of the particular commodity. Eggs are a commodity with its own particular problems. In the first place it is not subject to major fluctuations because people can produce them on small units under controlled circumstances.

They can expand rapidly, and therefore the control of this commodity requires special measures. These measures are being adopted here, and as has been repeatedly said by the hon. the Deputy Minister, these measures arc being adopted in the closest conjunction with the S A. Poultry Association and the Egg Control Board. The only principle in this Bill is to control the overproduction of eggs, and none of the other principles which hon. members opposite want to drag in here are present. A great deal has been made of the tremendously expanded powers; it was suggested that the hon. the Minister was obtaining dictatorial powers under this Bill. In this regard I should just like to quote two short passages from Die Uitleg van Wette by Steyn (Third Edition). The first paragraph I want to quote briefly appears on page 190 of the edition and under the title (translation) “Express Powers” it reads—

It is very clear therefore that the Minister, in making regulations and in the administration of this Act, will be expressly bound by the general principles of the Act, and therefore will not be able to do what he wants.

Secondly I want to say that the hon. members for Durban (North) and Durban (Musgrave) launched a tremendous attack on me because I condoned this Bill containing a provision which empowers the Minister to promulgate regulations which can suspend the common law and statutory law under certain circumstances. But, Sir, it is not so unheard of to give the Minister that power. I want to read out a quote which will prove that an ordinary municipality has that power in regard to regulations, under limited circumstances— that I want to concede—and I am quoting again from this publication by L. C. Steyn, page 221, where he says the following (translation)—

In other words, if a municipality can make a regulation which, under extremely limited circumstances, can suspend the common law, then I want to suggest that it is most certainly fair to expect that the Minister will also under certain limited circumstances be able to make regulations which will have the same effect. Under the circumstances, taking into account the particular commodity and the particular circumstances, I want to maintain that this Bill before the House is a fair one and that it is in the interests of the producers and the consumers that we accept it during this Session.

The hon. member for Kroonstad who has just sat down is obviously a legal gentleman and I cannot really enter into any legal arguments with him, especially when he quotes an authority like Mr. Justice Steyn. But I want to say this as a layman who has no legal knowledge behind him: In terms of this Bill, which is now reaching its final stages in this House, the hon. the Minister can deprive me, or any other person, of any recourse that I might have to the common law in defence of any action which the Minister, in terms of this Bill, considers, “in his opinion”, may defeat the achievement of the objects of ths Act. And that is the point. This is. the point which I believe our legal team have fought on. It has now been accepted by the House because the Bill has come this far that this remains there. That is one of the reasons why we have opposed this measure.

The hon. member for Kroonstad, who now appears to have left, also mentioned earlier that the form of control depends on the commodity, I could not agree with him more, but is this not the case we have made throughout? Is this not the case we have made for referring this Bill to a Select Committee? We did so because we realized the problems facing the Minister in carrying out the intentions behind this Bill. and, as has been pointed out over and over, we are not opposed to the intention behind this Bill. We are not opposed to it. If we are to accept the argument of the hon. member for Kroonstad that the principle behind this Bill is to control the production of eggs. this side accepts it. but it has been argued over and over that that is not the principle which is written into the Bill. It is the intention behind the Bill, and we concede that point to the Minister and we support him in that intention, but it is not the principle which is written in here The principle written in here is that the Minister shall have power to pass regulations, and that is the point.

The hon. member for Kroonstad says there are different problems. That is why we wanted a Select Committee Who has had any experience of the control of egg production? Has the Deputy Minister had such experience? Does he know what he is going to control? Does he know the problems which will confront him in controlling egg production? That is why we should have had some advice from all sectors of the egg industry. And here I go back right to the beginning where you produce the food, where you produce the eggs, where you produce the chickens, right through to the packers and the consumers. We could then have come to this House with a Bill which could have controlled egg production, a Bill which would have had the support of both sides. I ask again whether the Minister has experience in controlling egg production? He knows that I have asked questions and in February we had a statement from the Deputy Minister which I welcomed, freezing the production of eggs.

Yet we had the statement from the Deputy Minister in reply to the Second Reading debate in which he accused us on this side of wanting to have a Select Commitee in order to give time to the large producers to expand, and to complete their expansion programmes. But he had already pegged it There is no urgency now whether this Bill is passed to-day or in three months’ time because, in terms of the Deputy Minister’s statement no producer can increase his production. And that is the position to-day. Really, I have a very high regard for this Deputy Minister, and he knows it, but when he played blatant politics I felt that he was not playing the game.

I want to produce some figures to show just how wrong this Deputy Minister has proved himself in the short space of six months on this very question of the control of the production of eggs. I think the Deputy Minister knows to what I am alluding, and that is the total purchases by the Board. According to the statistics—the latest I have are on 13th August, 1970—if we compare that figure with the previous three years we find this pattern at the week ended 17th August, 1967, which is the nearest to the week ended 13th August, 1970. the purchases by the Board totalled 54,537 cases. The week ended 15th August, 1968, purchases by the Board totalled 61,414 cases of eggs. In the week ended 14th August, 1969. purchases by the Board totalled 92,159 cases. This made the case for production control. However, we do not have production control as yet.

What is the position for the week ended 13th August. 1970? Only 17,077 cases were bought compared to 92,000 cases the year before; What then is the urgency for this Bill to go through? Purchases of 17,000 cases of eggs in a week are negligible. Of that I should imagine very little is surplus. All that has been consumed here in the Republic of South Africa. This is the point: How wrong can that hon. the Minister be when within six months the picture has changed completely? I think the hon. the Deputy Minister agrees with me. This is another reason why this side of the House moved that this matter should be referred to a Select Committee.

We find that the Bill provides that the hon. the Minister can make regulations to control production of eggs, but the hon. the Minister has assured us in this House that he. in the regulations, is going to apply it only to the producers who have 10,000 hens and more. According to latest statistics I have received —unfortunately it is only for September, 1969 —we find that at that date there were 1,411 farms in total engaged in the production of eggs Of those farms only 143 had in excess of 10,000 hens. Therefore, this measure which we are discussing now is only referring to 143 egg producers in this country. If we look further, however, those 143 egg producers, approximately 10 per cent of the total, kept 65.2 per cent of the total number of hens kept by the total number of registered egg producers in the Republic. In October, 1969 they produced 67.5 per cent of the total production of eggs. A statement by the hon. the Minister that I have been unable to follow so far, was his statement that he is prepared to allow these producers, and by that I presume he means all of them and not only the 143 large ones, to increase their flocks by 10,000 hens. What I did not follow is whether he has said that each of them can increase their flocks by 10,000 hens per annum. Did he say per annum?

Yes, per annum.

Now, what does that mean?

It can be altered to 20,000 if you want to.

Did the hon. the Minister say that it can be altered to 20,000; if I want to?

It all depends on the production.

No, I do not want to alter it, because the hon. the Minister has taken the control. He is the one who is going to control this matter. I do not want anything of this sort. What I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister is whether every producer can automatically increase his flock by 10,000 hens per year? Or if this is not the case, what does he mean? I am serious about this. Does he mean that he will allow them to increase their flocks by permits?

Yes, by permits.

This is a different story then. This was not made clear in the debate.

I told you that.

It is in the Bill.

No, it is not in the Bill. There is nothing of that kind in the Bill. All that is in the Bill is that the hon. the Minister can make regulations. That hon. member must read his Bill before he speaks. Now, let us get this matter straight because it. is a serious matter.

It is in 2 (1) (c).

No, it just gives the hon. the Minister the powers. That is all. In any case, we accept clause 2 (1) (c). Now the hon. the Deputy Minister has said that this will not be automatic and that the farmers now are going to be licensed. That is the first thing we have to accept in regard to this Bill. They will be licensed to keep a certain number of hens. By permit only will they be allowed to increase the number of hens to a maximum of 10,000 per annum. Is this correct? Is this not an automatic increase?

No.

I am glad to have the assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister. I must say that it makes us on this side of the House feel a lot happier about his intention in this regard.

There are just two other small matters which I think should be brought to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to ask him about a fear which has been expressed to me with regard to applying this only to producers who have more than 10,000 hens. Has the hon. the Minister received any representations regarding large organizations who will keep different plants of under 10,000 birds each? Has he received any such representations: has he thought about how he is going to control this, and, if he has, could he give us some indication with regard to this? We have had information that certain “Johnny-come-lately” organizations, large organizations which have gate crashed this market, are not in the least perturbed by this legislation. They are not worried and say that they are not going to be controlled and that they will be able to produce as much as they want to and will be able to expand. They also say that they have no worries at all.

The other aspect I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should give this House some indication of his thoughts on, is the question of the control of other than table egg producers. What we are concerned with in this Bill is the production of table eggs, eggs which are going to be consumed in one form or another at the table. The Bill, of course, controls all egg production. This includes eggs produced in breeding establishments and broilers.

Broilers are excluded.

With respect to the hon. the Deputy Minister, there is nothing in this Bill to say that broilers are excluded.

It is in the regulations. I cannot give the hon. member the regulations before the Bill is passed.

Yes, I know, but this raises another interesting point, something of paramount importance. Is it the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to exclude broiler production?

Of course.

This is the whole point. This is one of the reasons why we have argued in the dark, while we discussed this measure. We did not know what we were really discussing. As we see it the principle of the Bill is merely to give the hon. the Minister the power to make regulations if he thinks it is necessary. We did not know what was going on. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister tells us that broiler production is going to be excluded. But does the hon. the Deputy Minister know how many eggs from broiler plants find their way into the table egg market?

Yes.

He knows, but he is still prepared to exclude them. I do not know and I have not been able to ascertain how many. I want to say that some broiler production plant owners have admitted to me that nine per cent of the total number of eggs produced in their plants are finding their way on to the table egg markets. That is what they have admitted, but estimates I have received from other sectors of the poultry industry estimate the percentage as high as 20 per cent. Anybody who has had anything to do with egg production and of incubating chickens in particular, knows that not every egg is fit to go into an incubator. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows it. There is therefore a certain percentage of those eggs which must come on to the table egg market. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister now tells us that they will not be controlled.

Then there is the question of breeders. I am talking about the genuine breeders who are producing eggs to develop strains of chickens as well as those who are breeding and selling day-old chicks. A percentage of their eggs arrive on the table egg market as well. What is the hon. the Deputy Minister going to do about that?

I am sure that I have said enough now to let this House know that these are the doubts we on this side of the House have. I am also sure that I have satisfied this House that we had reason to doubt this and that we had reason to take the stand we did. We are not against the intention of the hon. the Minister; we support and accept it. We cannot, however, accept the Bill which is before this House to-day.

Mr. Speaker, to my mind what is at issue here is one question, i.e. whether we are still being honest. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, said during the Second Reading debate that he was in favour of controlling egg production. Not one hon. member on the opposite side put forward one argument to help me in applying this measure. They are even opposed to there being a fine of R5,000. They are dissatisfied with every clause, but say that they are in favour of control. In my Second Reading speech I made it clear what the position in respect of broiler chickens was. I said at the time—

This is what I said and it has been in print in Hansard for all of three weeks. The hon. member is now returning to the question of broiler chickens again. But the hon. member made an insinuation about these announcements which we made in February. Outside in the Lobby I have heard people say to me: With this egg legislation of yours you are going to be the cause of an egg shortage. The hon. member referred to figures. On 21st August, a week ago, 5,548 crates of eggs were bought up by the Egg Control Board, which is a surplus and which must be sold on the overseas market.

Are those surplus?

The Egg Control Board has a surplus removal scheme. It simply removes surplus eggs. I am not talking about Natal alone.

What about the surplus?

Yesterday I again heard the story that there had been a decrease in egg production. That is true. That was our whole purpose. We have a R2.2 million loss on the export of eggs every year, but we are still sitting with a vast quantity. If we had not acted on 21st February, the loss, would by now already have been R5 million, I received the following telegram this morning from the Control Board. I quote—

This is 1st July, 1970—-

But now bon. members are saying here that there is already a shortage in Durban. That is the story which is being told outside. If hon. members could only understand this important matter! I do not know whether hon. members are aware that there is concern among the farmers about companies with powerful capital resources which are entering the field of agriculture and competing on an unequal basis. I am repeating the question I asked at the beginning, are we really being honest in our arguments? The hon. member referred to the 143 farmers who had more than 10,000 hens. This matter does not concern only those 143 farmers. It concerns that one big company which announced clamorously in the Press that they, were going to increase their number of hens by more than a half million a year. Should the Government have stood by and said to this group of farmers, “You must all go to wrack and ruin”? But the hon. member forgets the most important matter. He referred here to the 143 producers with 10,000 hens, but he did not say a word about the 1,430 who had less than 10,000 hens, who are making poultry farming their life task, and to whom the hon. members now in other words want to say, “Man, you will have to muddle through somehow; the big boys are taking over now”. That is what this whole matter is all about.

Sir, my conscience is clean in respect of the clauses and the tremendous powers we are taking. Nothing troubles me when I am dealing with a matter of principle and am making provision to be able to make adjustments from time to time. The hon. member is concerned about 10,000 hens. He states that we are treating everyone alike now and that the small as well as the large producers can add 10,000. We put our heads together for hours to find a solution when we drew up these regulations.

Are you now going to allow everyone to expand?

If we allow everyone to expand and find in six months’ time that a production deficit has arisen, we can say “Very well, the Western Cape is a surplus area and the increase there must remain at 10,000. But the Eastern Cape, Durban or file Transvaal can increase their number of hens by 15,000 or 20,000 per farming unit”. In this way it can vary and one can bring about orderly marketing. If we eventually find that there has to be larger producers, then that can happen. But it will not happen overnight, on an unequal basis.

But the hon. member said that I was making a political issue of this. The hon. member must tell me whether my attitude is incorrect when I go among the farmers of South Africa and they ask me this question. If a producer asks me what my Government standpoint is, am I wrong if I go to that producer and tell him that my Government’s standpoint is: Proceed with this egg legislation and see to it that there is orderly marketing and protection for all. But the standpoint of the Opposition was that they opposed us in every sphere and said that we would not be able to pilot this Bill through Parliament. Did I lie or not? I call Hansard to witness and the Opposition can glance at the arguments over the past few days when I say that if we return to this matter in two or three years’ time, the hon. members of the Opposition are going to say that this was their Bill. They are going to come forward with that argument, and they will sing a completely different tune in the rural areas from the one they sing in the towns. One of the members also stood up and said that we must consider that the consumer must pay a reasonable price for his product.

What is wrong with that?

That is quite correct, but the hon. member said repeatedly that we should refer this matter to a Select Committee so that the producer, the consumer and the distributor could have some say in the matter. But the legislation was requested by a control board on which all three of those bodies have representation. The Opposition is saying that we played a trick, but it is the hon. member who wants to play a trick on us with the Select Committee. I am honest enough and have the conviction to say that control must be introduced. Even if they accuse us of taking despotic powers, then we will still take them because we have only one porpose in mind, and that is orderly marketing and protection of the bona fide farmer.

Motion put and the House divided:

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

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, at the very outset I want to express a word of congratulation to the Department of Justice for this informative report for the year 1969. To many the particulars contained herein may perhaps not be very clear. However. I think that most of us will at least be so conversant with the activities of this Department that we will in fact be able to formulate an idea of the colossal amount of work which is being done in that Department. Allow me to congratulate the Department of Justice on the Budget and in particular, as far as salaries are concerned, on the fact that this Department has succeded in reducing its advocate’s fees and expenses by R130,000. The fact that they were able to succeed in doing so is an indication to me that the Department succeeded in gaining for its staff so many persons who were on the point of being accepted by the Supreme Court as advocates that it was no longer necessary, during the year, to get so many advocates from outside to cope with their business. Consequently it appears as if the Department is now able to use its own officials for the Supreme Court work and other advocates’ work which has to be done. This speaks volumes for the recruiting campaign of the Department of Justice. If there had perhaps been any misgivings to the effect that this Department may after a few years have found itself in extreme difficulties as a result of a shortage of staff, this course which is now being adopted has put paid completely to those misgivings. As these advocates gain experience and have undergone a finishing course, the Department will go from strength to strength. I want to express the hope that it will not be found necessary to reduce this amount any further. The money which is being set aside for this item should be added to salaries so that there may be even more advancements according to merit in the Department. If you ask how, I want to point out that the Department can allocate advancements according to merit. According to the report it seems to me that there have not really been many advancements according to merit over the past year. I can only deduce that the reason for that is that the standards of the Department are so high that an official can by making minor errors forfeit points which could keep him from getting advancement. I want to advocate to the hon. the Minister that he should keep an eye on these advancements to see whether advancements according to merit could not be allotted to a larger number of officials, perhaps to as many as 120 or more of them. If this were to be done, my plea to the public that they should persuade their sons and daughters to join the Department will bear fruit. This report testifies to a tremendous volume of work which has to be dealt with by officials. The official who is worth his salt, must have the prospect of earning more than one promotion per year, which would then serve as incentive to the others. The hon. the Minister should really keep this in mind and see whether something cannot be done in this direction. This Department is not an office Department; it operates on a country-wide basis: it deals with 323 magistrates’ offices, seven Masters of the Supreme Court offices, 10 registrars’ offices, seven Attorney-Generals, six State Attorneys, eight Deeds Registries, a total of 361 Offices which have to be staffed by approximately 4,800 persons. These offices are distributed throughout the country, and must render service to the public and give satisfaction. In addition this Department still renders agency services—for example, for Bantu Administration, for Coloured Affairs, for Health, for Immigration, for Indian Affairs, for the Interior, for Labour, for Social Welfare, for Statistics, for Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Here therefore the Department also has to deal with difficult customers, because farmers can only be helped from time to time. In addition there is still Water Affairs, the provincial administration, census and numerous others. And this Department has to make the grade and must maintain and cause all this State machinery to function. In addition, what they primarily have to cope with are thousands of criminals, offenders, civil debtors; and they also have to deal with attorneys and advocates—probably some of the most difficult people, at magistrates’ offices. They must be assisted so that the machinery of justice can continue to function smoothly. Then there is the police. In a city such as Johannesburg there are almost 40 penal courts, and they are in session every day. Each one of them is served by a number of police stations. We can imagine what it needs to keep this whole machine in operation. In additon the wishes and desires of advocates and attorneys have to be complied with with a friendly smile. Matters must be arranged in such a way that they do not feel aggrieved.

There is another matter to which attention could also be given. I understand that other Heads of Departments are already thinking in that direction, that is to do away with monthly routine reports, or to approach the activities and devotion to duty of officials in a more realistic wav. Officials regard some remarks as pinpricks. Courts work under great pressure and may go into session five minutes later or adjourn five minutes earlier. It is remarks such as these and certain personal elements which can get the backs of officials up. It is not easy to get a good official of justice down. If he has an unfavourable report against him, he replies to it, and this sometimes leads to interminable correspondence, reports and explanations which are time-consuming. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to bring the Committee back again to the subject that was raised last night and that is the question of detention without trial, and if I have time I will also say a word or two on the Immorality Act. I do not want to go too far into the United Party’s highly erratic record on measures dealing with the question of detention without trial. I would just remind the Committee that they voted against the Sabotage Act in 1962; they voted for the 90-day Act in 1963; they voted against the 120-day law in 1965 and they voted for the Terrorism Act in 1967 and now, Sir, three years after they gave the Government the green light by voting in principle for the Terrorism Act, which contains section 6 which allows indefinite detention without trial, and seven deaths later—because seven people have died in indefinite detention under the Terrorism Act —they are suddenly aware of the abuses to which such powers can lead. Sir, I want to point out that it was because I was aware— and I said so at the time—that such abuses can arise out of laws of this kind that I voted against the Terrorism Act and not, as hon. members on this side are fond of saying at political meetings, because I am in favour of terrorism. I am not going to raise with the hon. the Minister the question of the treatment of people detained under the Terrorism Act. I believe that that pertains to the Minister of Police because once people are detained they are in the hands of the Special Branch and the Police and the hon. the Minister does not have very much to do with it, so I will raise this matter under the Police Vote. There are however two aspects of the implementation of the Terrorism Act which in fact are very much within the province of this Minister. Firstly, Sir, what sort of people have been held under this Act? We were given many assurances by the hon. the Minister when the Act was introduced. He told us that—only terrorists would fall under the ambit of the Act—

He went on to say—

I want to give a few specific examples of little fish that did not immediately get thrown back into the water. The hon. the Minister likes examples and I am going to give him specific examples. Sir, between October, 1968, and March, 1969, members of the Bakwena tribe living near Hebron were detained under the Terrorism Act for various periods, some for as long as ten months. Seventeen such people were detained. Not one of them was ever charged with terrorism. Only six were eventually charged with any offence whatsoever, and they were charged with sabotage, alternatively attempted murder or alternatively arson. Interestingly enough. Sir, all the accused were acquitted. Two of the little fish never got back into the water at all because they died while they were in detention under the Terrorism Act. Seven members of the Bakhubeng tribe near Rustenburg were arrested in December, 1968, on a charge of attempted murder. They were brought to trial on this charge on the 14th January, 1969. On the 23rd January one of them asked for an order restraining the Police from interviewing or assaulting him and that order was granted. On the 24th January the charges against all seven were withdrawn but they were immediately re-arrested under section 6 of the Terrorism Act. Thereafter, of course, they had no access to the courts; they had no access to legal advice and the Police had complete charge of them. A further 38 members of this tribe were arrested under the same Act in the ensuing six weeks, bringing the total now to 45. Of these 45 people only ten were eventually charged, and in some cases they have been in detention for over six months. Then they were charged with terrorism or, alternatively, assault with intent to commit murder. One died on the eve of the trial and of the remaining nine, six were convicted of assault with intent to commit murder. It was clearly established at the trial —this is the important thing, Sir—that these people had no connection whatsoever with terrorism, as we understand it. They were not armed bandits seeking to destroy the Republic of South Africa; they were engaged in a tribal faction fight. They were objecting to the imposition of a new head, who happened to be not of royal blood, not even of the same tribe and as it happened was a woman. Sir, I say that these people had nothing whatever to do with terrorism as such.

I want to give another example, the prime example. I daresay there are many examples that I know nothing about and there must be many examples that nobody in this House knows anything about, because nobody can get any information about the number of people detained under the Terrorism Act. Not even Parliament is given that information because I ask for it religiously every year and am always told that it is not in the public interest. So nobody knows how many people are languishing in police cells or in prisons, having been detained under the Terrorism Act. But I know of two cases which are even more bizarre than the ones I have mentioned. They are the cases of two Indian men who were arrested and detained at different times under the Terrorism Act, one for several months and one for not quite as long, for a suspected infringement, as the charge eventually was. of the exchange control regulations. In one case even that charge was eventually withdrawn after the man had been held for several months. In the other the case has still to be heard. I cannot discuss the case of the 22 which is sub judice, but at least 40 were originally held, some for months and one for over a year, and I want to say that the Minister’s assurances are meaningless. It is not the Attorney-General’s prosecutions that concern me. but the enormous Dowers given to the police under this Act and the way in which they are using them. Sir, there was a time in South Africa when acquittal meant just that: acquittal meant acquittal. Acquittal to-day. can mean arrest immediately after acquittal under the Terrorism Act and then nobody having access to the people so detained. I think the hon. the Minister has to account for the way in which the Act has been implemented in two other respects; firstly, the sort of people who have been held, and under what justification these tribesmen were ever arrested under the Terrorism Act, and under what justification were the two Indians detained under the Terrorism Act and subsequently charged under the Currency Exchange Regulations. The other respects are, first of all, that the Commissioner of Police is supposed to report to the Minister as soon as possible after the arrest of a detainee and shall furnish reasons once a month why any detainee shall not be released. I suspect that these reports must be very brief indeed, because otherwise I do not know how people can be held for such a long time and how the sort of people I have just described could ever have been held at all. I suspect it is “the matter is still being investigated” type of report which we so often get, despite the assurance the Minister gave the public quite recently that he is at all times kept informed of all the circumstances concerning a person’s detention under the Act.

The other thing I want to ask the Minister about is this question of the magistrates who are supposed to visit wherever possible the gaols every fortnight and report. Now I wonder just what sort of visits they pay and what sort of reports they submit. All I can say is that they cannot be very observant and I wonder how concerned they are because we have had too many cases of people dying in detention. too many cases where magistrates should surely have noticed that something was wrong with the detainee and should have reported it to the Minister before death occurred. I say, as I said originally, that this Act lends itself to abuse and I want to say that I believe that the way in which it is being implemented, has in fact shown that it is being abused.

Now I want to say a word or two about the Immorality Act, which is causing such a stir again after so many years. Sir. the anonymous private member’s Bill to which the hon. member for Durban (North) referred last night was of course my private member’s Bill, but he could not bring himself to say so.

Why should I have said so?

Well, it is usually done, you know, when one refers to something another hon. member has done in the past. Even when you use their questions it is usual to say who asked the questions, but never mind the motives of the hon. member. Anyway, it was my Bill and I moved it in 1962, and the United Party’s attitude was not what the hon. member said it was at all. He said that the United Party then said that it wanted a judicial commission of inquiry and if it did not get that it might bring itself to vote for the Second Reading of my Bill. Quite the opposite was said by Mr. Mitchell Senior, the hon. member for South Coast, who in fact was the main spokesman of the United Party. He said a judicial commission was not required at all. He said it was quite enough to have a Select Committee of this House. The hon. member should get his facts right. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, one can understand why the hon. member for Houghton spoke about detainees in the way she did. A few months ago, in the American magazine “Life”, there was a report of what happened when her election results came out. It is said that the people who were helping her, gathered round her and sang “We shall overcome”. Now I just want to say that one gets to know a person by his friends, and you get to know your friends by what they sing. I want to refer back to the Immorality Act. I want to concede at once that the application of this Act is a very delicate matter, but I also want to point out that this Government has a policy of multi-nationality, and multi-nationality presupposes boundary lines which may not be crossed. It would most certainly undo the policy of this Government if we were to abolish certain entrenchments such as the Population Registration Act, the Mixed Marriages Act, the Immorality Act and other Acts. I want to assert at once that this Act is not so unpopular as the hon. member for Houghton, the Opposition and the Sunday Times, are trying to imply. Here before me I have an extract from Dagbreek of 29th March, 1970; and there an opinion poll of the organization Market and Opinion Polls is furnished.

They have often been wrong.

This is all indication given there, but it is a very good indication. According to this survey, which was made according to language groups and various other groups, only 4.8 per cent of the Afrikaans-speaking population is in favour of the abolition of the Act, and 32.3 per cent of the English-speaking population; only a percentage of 15.8 per cent of all respondents were in favour of abolition. What is also interesting is the fact that a survey was also made of political parties and the attitude of the supporters of the various political parties to the abolition of the Act. In the National Party only 5 per cent are in favour of the abolition of the Act. Of the supporters of the United Party, 25.9 per cent are in favour of the abolition. That means that the United Party is apparently not completely in touch with their own supporters, if they attempt here to advocate the abolition of this Act. As far as the Immorality Act is concerned, I personally have no sympathy with offenders who are found guilty, whether they are White or Coloured. There are in fact problems in so far as the implications of these Acts are con cerned. The publicity attaching To persons who are found not guilty and the publicity attaching to the families of the guilty and the innocent, drag in an unnecessary number of people here. But who is responsible in most cases for the families of the guilty and the innocent being dragged in here? It is most certainly the sensation-seeking Press, and specifically the king of the sensation-seeking Press, the Sunday Times. I have just seen an edition of the Sunday Times where the husband of the daughter of an eminent professor was involved in such an incident and in which a photograph of this daughter appeared. In addition certain statements made by her were reported. Under the cloak of agitating against the Act, photographs of family members are inserted, reports and statements from family members are included, and in reality the purpose of the Sunday Times and the sensation-seeking Press in general is merely to agitate against the Immorality Act. I maintain that there will be many fewer tears shed if the Sunday Times and other newspapers would cease their impossible sensational reports which they publish on these cases.

I want to make haste to say a few words about our prisons system. Yesterday evening an hon. member here pointed out the daily number of people who were being detained in prisons in our country. I do not know with what purpose that was done, but it was probably to indicate the overpopulation. In this regard I just want to refer to the book by Eschel M. Rhoodie. entitled “Penal Systems of the Commonwealth”. On pages 76 and 77 he refers to the situation in Commonwealth countries. He refers for example to New Zealand and states: “Officially the shortage of accommodation is considered to be ‘very serious’.” Then he refers to Britain and says the following: “In 1961 the central office of information in Britain stated that the rising trend in the total number of indictable offences known to the police has led to severe overcrowding.” He also referred to the position in Canada and said: “Tn 1959, addressing Parliament, the Minister of Justice said that by 1957 the situation had already reached almost emergency proportions.” We most certainly also have problems in this country in regard to the over-population of our prisons. However, our country has a heterogeneous population. But if countries with homogeneous populations are also experiencing these problems, the Government can certainly be pardoned if they also have this problem, in spite of all the praiseworthy attempts which are being made.

In addition, in regard to the staff in the prisons, I want to express my appreciation for the wonderful work which is being done in the John Vorster Prisons Training College at Kroonstad, to train white warders, and where they are enrolling approximately 1,000 student warders per year. Not only have the authorities concerned provided the beautiful buildings, but I also think that work of the highest calibre is being done there. I do not think I could pay them a better compliment in respect of their work there, and also their work in general as far as the staff is concerned, than to quote again from the book by Rhoodie. On page 183 he says the following—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member will forgive me if I do not follow his line. I want to start with a brief reference to the hon. member for Houghton, who made a brief reference to my party. I want to say that in her brief reference, the hon. member for Houghton attempted to perpetuate the canard which her party publicized widely at the last election and before, namely that the United Party had supported detention without trial. This was again the impression which the hon. member attempted to convey. I suggest that she, more than anybody, should know that that is not correct. She knows perfectly well that on each occasion when the clause regarding detention without trial has come before this House, we have opposed it strenuously. There was one exception, namely the 1966 Bill in regard to the 14 day detention, which had judicial safeguards. The story, which this hon. member’s party spread about the country as extensively as possible, is that we had supported those clauses. I say it is an absolute canard, and the hon. member should know better; because the hon. member who herself did not support section 2 of the Terrorism Act, will know that there are other aspects in clauses and in Second Readings of Bills which influence people in deciding their whole attitude to a measure. I would have thought that where one had on record an absolutely direct call for a division upon a particular clause involving detention, the least one could expect of one’s political opponent in this regard. is that one would get honesty. I am sorry that we have not achieved it so far. Let us hope there will be improvement.

So much have they succeeded that the hon. member for Prinshof fondly believes that the United Party in fact supported the entire Bill in regard to terrorism. He said so in his speech last night. I am very glad that he is in his place in the House to-day, because he said that “daardie kant van die Raad heeltemal daarmee saamgestent het”. He attempted to base an allegation of two-facedness and double talking on this allegation.

Did you accept the Second Reading?

We opposed the detention clause completely. The Second Reading was of a Bill which had many clauses, including the one which made terrorism a crime. We had strong objections and stated them, and voted upon them; we did not accept the principle. In the Second Reading we stated absolutely clearly that we were completely opposed to detention without trial, that we would vote against the clause, and we did not waver. It amazes me that hon. members can be under this understanding. One of the best answers to the hon. member for Houghton is the fact that every single member on the opposite side of the House, with the exception of the hon. member for Prinshof, went round the country, saying we opposed the detention without trial clause. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton I am afraid, should consider the matter carefully.

You went around saying I was pro-terrorist.

I said nothing of the kind. I would say, as I have said today, that the hon. member gave certain reasons why on balance she did not vote for the new crime of terrorism. That was her decision. Likewise, on balance, we decided otherwise, while opposing detention.

In the short time left to me I want to say to the hon. member for Prinshof that I agree with him to a great extent that we are engaged in a struggle against some very fiendish opponents. This does not mean to say that we will automatically follow a course he may prescribe. The hon. member is interested in the safety of South Africa and he believes that these clauses ensure that safety. He must also bear in mind the harm to the safety of South Africa that such clauses can bring about. They alienate important international friends of ours and perhaps cause weapons, which we need to protect ourselves, to be withheld from us.

Do you want them or not?

Hon. members opposite must weigh the manner in which these clauses affect our security.

What must we do?

Order! The hon. member for Prinshof must give the hon. member a chance to make his speech.

The hon. member must bear in mind that people in various fields are turned against us because of the fact that this measure is on the Statute Book. For this reason, too, the Security Council or countries who supply us with weapons for defence, may be turned against us. The hon. member must consider the position, as well as the powers we already have …

Sir, may I ask the hon. member a question?

I am very sorry, but I have only three minutes to go. I have answered some questions already. The hon. member must bear in mind the powers we already have apart from this measure. I want to remind the hon. member that the Prime Minister himself, before we have had a single one of these measures on the Statute Book, said in 1963—

In other words, with the normal powers of inquiry which we already had and with the normal use of our Police Force and security men, we had in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, virtually exterminated this organization. [Interjections]. To reply to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central), it was this very Second Reading speech in which the 90-day Bill was introduced. We did not have these powers at the time the hon. the Prime Minister made this speech.

Hon. members opposite must also bear in mind the value of statements elicited by this interrogation. I do not have the time to go into the matter in detail, but I should like to refer the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite to the case of the State versus Makhalipi in the Cape Provincial Division, where judgment was given on 2nd February, 1966, and the case of the State versus Yose and 25 others in September, 1969. In Makhalipi’s case it was stated by the Judge that the statements obtained from witnesses under interrogation were very much open to suspicion and very often could not be admitted at all. On page 3283 the Judge said:

He went on to elaborate on that point. We can therefore see that very often a great deal of value cannot be attached to these statements.

We have seen that one can go a very long way towards controlling the situation without such powers at all. I stress that the amount of damage which measures of this kind have caused to our important international affairs, is unknown to us. I need hardly refer to the suffering of individuals, which has already been referred to. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to take all these matters into account and to give us an indication of how he sees the future of this matter in the light of the pros and the cons I have mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage I should like to reply to a few of the speeches made by hon. members. I want to begin with the speech made by the hon. member for Durban (North). This hon. member really amazed me yesterday evening. The way in which he participated in this debate, was quite different to the way I have come to expect from him. I also want to tell him that he was not as clear as he usually is. I read his speech. But honestly, after I had read his speech, I still found it very difficult to understand precisely what it was he wanted. But what it amounted to in the end was that he charged me with not applying the Terrorism Act and the powers given me in terms of this Act properly. To a certain extent he complained about that. To a much greater extent he complained about the Act itself. Now I should like to inform this hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Pinelands, that when I introduced this Bill in 1967, I left no doubt in anybody’s mind as to precisely what the case was. I shall quote to him from my Second Reading speech, and I shall quote it in English so that he could perhaps understand it better. I began by saying—

I went on to say—

In other words, we have it here in our midst as well. In my opinion the Opposition was therefore completely informed about this legislation. The hon. member for Transkei said in that debate—

He also said—

In this regard I should just like to say, just in passing, to the hon. member for Houghton, that it is not true that I ever intimated that we would only guard against terrorists beyond our borders or on our borders.

I did not say you did.

To complete the picture I want to make further quotes in this regard. The hon. member for Durban (North) said the following during that debate—

Those were the words of the hon. member for Durban (North). But I want to go further. I come now to the Third Reading of this Bill. What did hon. members say then? In the Third Reading debate the hon. member for Transkei said—

Then he went on to say—

This is at the Third Reading now, where we have to reach a final decision—

He supported it 100 per cent. Even the hon. member for Durban (North) said in the Third Reading debate—

In other words, Sir, the hon. members virtually gave me carte blanche. They gave this measure their full support. I warned them that it was a far-reaching measure; I told them that we would have to take extraordinary steps, and they must not come and blame me to-day for our having taken extraordinary steps, because provision has been made for that.

Sir, we have had various court cases. The Opposition insisted that these people be brought before the courts. We have on various occasions brought people before the Courts. We had the case in Pretoria where ten accused appeared before Justice Ludorf, and where we applied the Act; we had the case in South-West Africa where a number of accused were charged and where we appointed advocates at Government expense to defend them. These persons were found guilty. At present there is a charge pending against 20 accused. I do not want to discuss the case now, because it is of course sub judice. But this shows that we have done precisely what we envisaged. These persons are eventually, after proper interrogation, brought before the Court. Sir, hon. members must realize, as I said in the Second-Reading debate, that you are dealing here with shrewd people.

Rogues.

You do not get the truth out of them; you must detain them; you must interrogate them and interrogate them again. They have been taught to keep secrets. The hon. member for Prinshof mentioned here yesterday evening what their instructions were. Their instructions were that as soon as they were detained, they were to complain that they were being tortured; that they must at all costs accuse the police of maltreatment and that they must do various other things. This is the type of person you are dealing with here. Sir, without discussing the case of the 22 detainess, I just want to say this. This is the case which was blown up in the newspapers and on which I am convinced the hon. member based his speech. What are the actual facts in regard to the detention of these persons? The position is that they were detained in May of last year. This is a large number of people one has to interrogate. Just in passing, 44 were caught, and I shall come to that in a moment. This was also conveyed to the hon. member by the Minister of Police in reply to a question. Forty-four people had to be interrogated, and it had to be established precisely how the parts fitted into the whole. In the end it was decided, in October, I think, to bring them before the court. In October they were brought before the court. It is generally known that we had to rely on accessories and those accessories let us down; they refused to testify and in the end we had to throw in the towel. Fortunately, further information came to the attention of the police at that stage; the police immediately arrested them again, and a new case against them was drawn up. It was in February that the Attorney-General intervened and put a stop to the case. Sir, we were then in session in this House and not one member stood up and put a question in regard to these detainees to me —not one single member. They did not ask me why we were detaining these people for such a long time and why we had now withdrawn the case against them. Not one of them did so, and now the hon. member comes along and raises the matter here. When the police investigated the matter further, the Leftists presumed that it was almost time the Attorney-General would have to take action, and then they began with this tremendous agitation. Unfortunately this happened just at a stage when we were almost ready, and what did I do? I immediately issued a statement. The hon. member said yesterday evening that I issued the statement “when the pressures built up”. I did not do so because pressure was being exerted; I wanted to inform the public on the case. We then charged them, and hon. members are aware of the subsequent course of events. The detention of a few of them was terminated, and the rest were charged, and we shall have to wait and see what the case produces. Sir, in addition I want to say this: When it comes to this kind of thing, some people and newspapers, and I fear the hon. member for Durban (North) as well, are only too fond of dragging in a few professors and quoting them. Sir, there are some of our professors—and I say this with all due respect for the knowledge they have— who allow themselves to fall into an obvious trap. On 28th May I issued this statement On the 17th May the following report appeared in the newspapers—

And then the report goes on to read—

I want to point out that they were not found not guilty but that they were entitled to their discharge. The case against them was withdrawn. Their discharge was on technical grounds.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL; They were found not guilty and discharged.

On that particular charge.

I am quoting further—

We shall now hear what his qualifications are—

I want to tell you what these professors said—

That is what Professor Van Warmelo said, and Professor Van der Walt said—

And so it goes on. I am not the Minister of Police, but I do nevertheless, for the information of this House, and also for the information of these professors, want to explain what is going on. I am prepared to have people criticizing this Act, but then they must also convince me that they are better aware of what the situation in respect of State security is than are the Government and the police. I should like just to read this for the information of the House, and I do not want to do so in order to sow pandemonium, but this is what is going on. This is a public document, and it can be obtained. It is called “’Blueprint for Conflict” and it was published by a man with the name of Daniel T. Brigham. It is said that “it was prepared for and published in the public interest by the American-African Affairs Association, Inc.”—

[Interjections.] And what is more, they have contact with people in this country. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton had a chance to speak.

I shall continue. I want to mention to you what they said further—

This is an interesting twist which implies that a rebel intelligence network is in existence. I quote further—

7. Each invasion party was under the command of at least one, but generally three specially trained commisars (their word for it) each of whom was chosen for the leadership of the assignment because of his record of ruthless brutality.

These are the people we have to deal with.

I will not quote any further except for an extract in regard to the weapons they are using. I quote—

Then I have another quotation which deals with whether the terrorists when captured want to talk or not. I quote—

I have now spent quite some time on this question, but the point I want to make is that this is the type of person we are dealing with. The professors and others who have voiced criticism on the steps which we have taken must have knowledge of what I have now quoted. In addition, too, I want to say to them that those terrorists have contact with people in this country. Those people have posts and routes from Zambia to the interior here. This is what a responsible Opposition must bear in mind before it begins to criticize and cast suspicion on our system and our legal system.

There is just one further point I want to make. As hon. members know these people were released in February of this year, and were immediately afterwards re-arrested. This month the matter was handed over to the Attorney-General. Originally there were 44 persons involved in this matter, and subsequently only 22. I have the charge sheet which was drawn up here. It consists of 58 pages, and the hon. member for Durban (North), who is a jurist, ought to know that when one is dealing with 22 people, a period of four months to prepare a case thoroughly is not too long a period. In fact, I think it is a very reasonable time for something like that. So much then for the 22 detainees to which the hon. member referred and whom I believe were the reason for the speech he made.

The hon. member also criticized my Department. I do not want to say much in reply to that, but I just want to point out to the hon. member that he was being very unreasonable in referring to certain statistics which we were unable to furnish him with. He asked how many people had been released before they had been able to plead, after they had already been detained for a number of months. My Department, does not concern itself with keeping statistics of that nature. We are concerned about making certain that people appear before court as quickly as possible. It often happens that an accused is detained and that an important witness is perhaps ill or unconscious. When his statement is subsequently taken, it is discovered that he is in fact the person who should be charged. The person who was detained must then of course be released. What my Department is concerned about, however, is to deal with cases as quickly as possible. This test of that is in the case of regional courts. In our regional courts the longest period any case is pending is two months. In that time such a case has been dealt with completely. I think our record in this regard is a very good one.

There is still one other matter I want to touch upon. The hon. member for Musgrave, also with reference to a statement made by the hon. member for Durban (North), referred to Mr. Justice Hiemstra. I then told the hon. member, by way of an interjection, that he was using the Sunday Times as his authority. In actual fact, the hon. member for Musgrave did not even quote the Sunday Times correctly to us. He did not distinguish between what Mr. Justice Hiemstra had said and what had been the Sunday Times own comment. He also discussed the terms of reference of Justice Botha’s commission. Here is the report in the Sunday Times. I read it and I now want to quote it here—

That is what the Sunday Times said. The term “indefinite detention” was incorrect; he meant “prolonged detention”. He was of course talking about preparatory examinations. The report goes on to read—

That is what the Sunday Times said, not Mr. Justice Hiemstra—

To tell the truth, he never expressed any opinion. When I told the hon. member for Musgrave that Mr. Justice Hiemstra had never said anything of the kind, he said that he would like to hear the Minister reply to this. Here I have now replied at his request. This morning we communicated telephonically with the Secretary of the Commission and established that Mr. Justice Hiemstra had never in his evidence referred to the Terrorism Act or to the detainees in terms of section 215bis. His entire argument dealt with the curtailment of the trials according to an inquisitorial system instead of an accusatorial system, i.e. preparatory examinations.

Then I want to return to the question put by the hon. member for Durban (North) to the Minister of Police. As I understood him, he said that there had been witnesses at the terrorist trial. This is what the Minister had said in his reply. He asked why those people had not been detained in terms of section 215bis. but in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act. The reply is quite simple. They were accessories, and remained such until such time as they had to appear before the courts What is more, in respect of the crime of Terrorism, there is no provision in the Act that section 215bis affords them protection. It is of course only in respect of murder, theft and a few other crimes which are mentioned in Part IIbis of the Second Schedule. It is only in respect of those offences that one can in fact afford the witness protection in terms of section 215bis. I am now giving the hon. member the assurance that section 215bis is never utilized for any other purpose. It is not utilized in respect of interrogation. The hon. member can believe what I am saying in this respect. I receive regularly every month—I think it is every month; it may possibly be every quarter—a report from every Attorney-General throughout the country on section 215bis detainees, in which they must furnish their reasons for doing so. These are all for offences of that type.

Sir, I want to thank the hon. member for Innesdal for the compliment he paid the Department. I want to say that personally I have a very fortunate Minister. I have two of the best Departments in the Public Service. The Department of Justice cannot be improved upon, and the same applies to the Department of Prisons. This is a fact. If one takes into account all the places in the country where the Department of Justice has to act and the manifold functions it has to perform, then each one of us must take off our hats to our Justice officials. This applies to all the officials, from the Secretary down to the most junior clerk in the Department. The same applies in the case of the Department of Prisons. It applies to every official from the Commissioner to the most junior warder. I therefore want to thank the hon. member for Innesdal, as well as the hon. member for Kroonstad, for their contributions.

I must now reply to the questions which the hon. member for Houghton put specifically to me. Her Charge is that the Act is being used for purposes other than those for which it was originally intended. That is the charge she levelled. She mentioned the Hebron and the Rustenburg cases. I want to say that immediately after these cases came to our attention, we made enquiries in both cases. The Police satisfied me that these persons were doing something with intent to endanger the maintenance of law and order in the Republic, or any portion thereof, and that they had in the Republic or elsewhere committed an act or attempted to commit an act to endanger law and order, and that they had conspired with other persons to aid the commission of this act, etc. This is definitely covered by the definition in the Act.

It was a tribal faction fight.

Yes, it eventually turned out to be a tribal faction fight, but initially there was no reason to suspect that it was merely a tribal matter.

That is my reply to the hon. member. Sir, I think that I have with that replied to all the questions put so far.

What about the two men held under exchange control regulations?

Unfortunately I do not have the particulars at hand at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss a different subject now, and that is bilingualism and the use of Afrikaans in hotels. [Interjections.] Those hon. members should not start fluttering so soon. I shall come to them. The standpoint of the National Party is very clear as far as this matter is concerned. Its standpoint is that there need be no sacrifice of identity in respect of language in South Africa. It has been stated very clearly that bilingualism should obtain in our country. An appeal in this regard has been made by the Prime Minister, this Minister and other leaders to the effect that everyone must co-operate in maintaining bilingualism in our country. This does not mean that either of the two language groups or any member of those groups is not entitled to use his own language exclusively. The hon. the Minister of Justice issued a press statement two years ago in connection with the use of the official languages on premises with liquor licences. He pointed out that language requirements in respect of each of the two official languages had to be met. He also said in his press statement, “Those who refuse to co-operate voluntarily should expect to be forced to do so within the ambit of the Liquor Act in the near future”. This provision has been made a requirement for classification, too, but it is obviously not being met. It often happens that when a guest announces himself at an hotel desk, he cannot be served in Afrikaans. Sometimes, but not always, it happens that any employee, white or non-white, whether he scrubs the floors or whatever his job may be, is called to the desk to interpret. At times it happens that such a person adopts a disparaging tone of voice and a spiteful attitude. Let us now consider the actions of two senior public figures in South Africa, i.e. the Commissioner-General of the Transkei, Mr. Hans Abraham, and the Minister of Planning, Mr. Jan Loots. They requested to be served in their own language by an establishment legally obliged to do so. That caused a section of the English-language press to make cutting remarks about anyone insisting to be served in his own language. I do not accept for a moment that Mr. Abraham acted in a rude manner. For that I know him too well. But I must concede that he definitely was entitled to get hot under the collar. But what reports were published in the newspapers? The Daily Despatch of 18th July of this year wrote one of the most vicious, most derogatory, most personal and insulting editorials probably ever published and said, inter alia, the following—

This is insulting. In addition he was caricatured in a further disparaging fashion in a cartoon. [Interjections.] The hon. member tor Berea must wait; I shall come to him in a moment. The Sunday Times published the following with reference to this matter—

Then we also have The Star. What we are concerned with here is an establishment in which, by law, bilingualism must be maintained. The unfriendliness of The Star of 20th August, which hon. members on the opposite side enjoy so much, reads as follows—

Subsequently it appeared that the purport of this report was completely false. The hon. the Minister did not act in this way at all. [Interjections.] The Sunday Express also published a report on the incident concerning the hon. the Minister of Planning. The hon. members on the opposite side ought to be ashamed of themselves. I quote—

If he did not deal with receptionists as if he were dealing with family …

This House will remember that the hon. the Minister said how decently he had behaved towards the woman—

I repeat “one of the touchy defenders of Afrikaans”.

At this stage I want to convey the thanks of this House to the Afrikaans-speaking press for the positive attitude it adopts with regard to this matter and for its appeal to Afrikaners to use their own language.

I said I was going to comment on the hon. member for Berea. I am sorry that he is not present; he probably did not hear I was going to do so. And what is he attitude of the United Party with regard to this matter? Senator Bill Horak also made an attack on Mr. Hans Abraham at the Second Reading of a Bill where it was completely misplaced to do so. He launched that attack more or less on the basis of what Mr. Abraham had done. This matter can still be debated. The other day during the debate on Tourism the hon. member for Berea said the following about their arrival at a number of different hotels during their journey—

In other words, the hon. member for Berea insinuated that if any Afrikaner on that tour were to have insisted on being served in Afrikaans by any of those employees, he would have been “someone with the mentality …” This is a speech which was made in this House. Now hon. members on the opposite side should laugh!

How petty can one be?

Let hon. members on the opposite side laugh now!

They who all of a sudden are so fond of speaking Afrikaans!

This is the kind of insult one has to endure—how petty can one be!—if one asks people to use one’s own language. But that hon. member can reply to this.

He ought to be ashamed of himself.

Sir, it is clear that this classification requirement embodied in the Act is not being enforced; it appears very clearly from a letter written by one Mr. P. R. Botha in Die Transvaler of 26th August. He clearly stated what his experience in this regard had been and he mentioned several of our most well-known hotels situated all over South Africa. At this stage I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether any other cases of contempt of Afrikaans in hotels which are licensed premises in terms of the Act, have been brought to his attention? Sir, the standpoint of the Government and the Minister is very clear, and the hotel industry and the English-language press should take cognisance of the fact that the Afrikaner is not prepared to go about in his own country with his hat in his hand asking that his language should kindly be used. With regard to this serious matter I want to express the hope here that all Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa will see it as their task in the future to use their language in the first instance, as I know all of them will do, and to request that their language be used. I know that they will all do so as educated people. But I want to ask that they should, in the first instance, regard it as their task to request in their own language to be served at licensed premises so that the people can be forced in that way to have regard to the fact that such a classification requirement does exist. If in that case further complaints of this nature were to be lodged and were to come to our attention in this way, I wonder whether the time would not have arrived for the hon. the Minister to cancel, for a change, one of these licences in respect of which these conditions are not being met; in that case I think we shall in future not hear this kind of complaint again.

Sir, may I claim the privilege of the second half-hour? I think we have reached a stage in our history when we are all South Africans; when we all believe that we should all become bilingual.

Some are good South Africans and some are not.

But what I want to say is that when speeches are made like the speech just made by the hon. member for Potchefstroom it does not help at all. Sir, listen to what the hon. gentleman said. He said that no Afrikaans-speaking person is going to go cap in hand and ask that his language should be spoken. Nor should it ever be necessary for an English-speaking South African to have to do so. But when hon. members make speeches which are deliberately provocative then it does not help this spirit that is abroad, and the spirit is there. Our policy is exactly that; obviously it is desireable that everyone should be bilingual. But, Sir, I do not want to pursue this except to say that we believe that tolerance will produce the right spirit.

Tolerance at everybody else’s expense.

Sir, listen to that representative of the English-speaking section in the Cabinet talking.

No, I am not; I am an English-speaking Nationalist.

You are a useless Afrikaner.

You are a jingo.

Sir, the hon. the Minister of Justice said that I was not my usual self and that he was not clear on what I wanted. Well, if I may say so, the hon. the Minister in his reply was not his usual self either; it is quite clear that he has not given me the answers for which I asked. The hon. the Minister dealt with the Terrorism Bill, when it was introduced in this House. He quoted what he had said and then he quoted what the hon. member for Transkei had said and what I had said. In quoting what I had said, he began his quotation at this stage—

What he did not read was what I said before that. In the paragraph before what I said was this—

What about the Third Reading?

The Bill at Third Reading was the same as it was at Second Reading. In the Committee Stage we fought it tooth and nail and I came back to it, and the Bill was the same; the principle of the Bill was the same at Third Reading as it was at Second Reading. The hon. the Minister was a former Deputy Speaker and he knows that. The principle of an unaltered Bill at Third Reading is obviously exactly the same as it was in the Second Reading. But the Minister dealt with the recent trial of the so-called terrorists and said no one asked a question when they were acquitted. But what has happened since then? That is the point. Then they were re-arrested. Sir, does the hon. the Minister realize what damage that did to our esteem overseas and to our esteem here? Does he appreciate and has he any idea of that? Perhaps he will indicate to us why the Attorney-General in fact threw his hand in? Is it possible that because of the detention in that manner of the witnesses they were completely unreliable? Is that not possible? I would like to hear whether it is so or not. The Minister says they were not acquited; they were entitled to be acquitted. They were found not guilty and discharged, as they were entitled to be because the Attorney-General was not prepared to carry on with the case. That is a very fine technical distinction the Minister has drawn. This is my difficulty. The Minister says he did not quite understand what I was getting at last might. He said he was not the Minister of Police and one must be aware of what is going on. He is not the Minister of Police. Precisely, but he is the supervisor of the Police inasmuch as they exercise any power in terms of clause 6 of the Terrorism Act. He is the supervisor and in that respect he is the guardian of our system of justice and the guardian of our good name in terms of that Act. That is his responsibility and the responsibility of no one else. What I wanted to know last night and want to know again to-day is this: Does the hon. the Minister, when anyone is arrested in terms of section 6, act the role of the Attorney-General; in other words, does he say: All right, you have these people here; what is the case, who are the accused and who will be the witnesses, and I want you to get on with the job? I want to know whether he does that or not. That is what we wanted to know, and the Minister has not answered. Does he do it? Because the impression one gets is that he does not do it. This impression one gets from the statement he issued immediately afterwards is when he said: “I am now able to announce that the further investigations instituted by the Police have reached the stage where the State case can again within a few days be submitted to the Attorney-General”. This is what we want to know.

The hon. the Minister had a whole lot of cuttings about terrorism. We agree. It illustrates exactly our point why we voted for the principle of the Terrorism Bill. which is now an Act and which is. according to the long title, a Bill “to prohibit terroristic activities” and to amend the law in relation to criminal procedure. I do not know why the Minister took the trouble to mention it. What I do want to know as well, is the following, and this is what the Minister was asked last night, and if he did not understand it, let me make it quite clear. In 1966 the Minister introduced a Bill to which we gave our support. That Bill provided for the interrogation of people in respect of sabotage and terrorism and after 14 days they had to be taken before a judge and the judge was to lay down the terms of their detention. The Minister himself introduced it and we accepted it. Then when the Terrorism Act came and we opposed the interrogation clause, we said that we thought we had got on to the right track last year and cannot you have this, and the reply, not of this hon. Minister but of the present Minister of Police who dealt with the matter in the Committee Stage, was that the situation on our borders was such that 14 days was impossible. It was impossible to get them before a judge in that time. All right, he might have an argument there that 14 days was not enough, but this was a trial in Johannesburg where surely they could have been brought before a judge in 14 days. What I want to know is why where they not interrogated in terms of the 1966 Act.

He has not answered the question about the 180 days. I am pleased to have his assurance that there is no interrogation done in terms of that measure. But why is it that the Minister of Police answered questions about this matter in this House earlier this year which were put by the hon. member for Houghton? [Interjection.] So much for the Minister and I hope in fact he will reply to this.

I would also like to deal, while I am on my feet, with the hon. member for Houghton. I will come back to the Minister’s Department. The hon. member for Houghton seems to have clothed herself in the robes of the Saint of Justice in South Africa. She is the only opposition and she maintains this attitude, and what worries me is that she appears to be beginning to believe it herself. She had a few snide asides at us, as she always does. She talked, for example, about the Immorality Act. She said we did not say this when the Bill came before the House. But of course what the hon. member for South Coast said was that this matter should go to a Select Committee because it was a Bill and we could not in terms of the procedure send it to a judicial commission. That is what the hon. member said, but let us not try to be as technical as that. [Interjection.] The hon. member is being terribly small-minded about it. She attacks us and she herself uses parliamentary procedure and the lack of knowledge of parliamentary procedure outside this House in order to try to reinforce the arguments she puts up, which are totally untrue, when she tries to give the impression that we were in favour of these provisions of detention without recourse to the courts. I shall demonstrate that that is so, but she leans very heavily on parliamentary procedure in trying to do it, and if I may say so, she leans very heavily on her imagination when it comes to the facts.

[Inaudible.]

She never stops talking.

On a point of order, Sir, may the hon. member for Durban (North) have the floor to himself? The hon. member for Houghton is making a speech at the same time.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Now let us examine what the hon. member for Houghton said. The hon. member says we voted for this provision and for this Act in one year and the next year we voted against the next Act and the next year we voted for that Act and the, next year against that Act or that law. Now what are these laws she talks about, and what is the principle you adopt in parliamentary procedure? At the Second Reading you determine what is the principle and determine whether you will vote for it or whether you will not, and if you vote against it at the Second Reading it means you do not want any part of it at all. When you come to deal with the actual provision itself, let us examine our attitude. Let us not talk vaguely about laws; let us say what was the United Party’s attitude and what was the Progressive Party’s attitude towards each and every provision itself. Let us start in 1962. Then we had the so-called Sabotage Act. This was opposed at the Second Reading by this side of the House because it provided for house arrest and various other Draconian restriction powers to be given to the hon. the Minister with no recourse whatsoever to any court of law. We opposed that at the Second Reading. The hon. member for Houghton was quite correct in that respect.

Then Rivonia came afterwards.

Never mind about that; the hon. member for Prinshof should listen to this, because he has already displayed such an abysmal lack of knowledge of parliamentary procedure. In 1963 there was the General Laws Amendment Act or the so-called 90-day Act which was properly called the Poqo Act. The hon. member for Houghton has been going around the country saying that we voted in favour of the 90-days law. What was the 90-days law? It was the General Law Amendment Act. Does that hon. member realize how that Bill came before this House? There had been a judicial commission of inquiry which had been instituted, and I may say that the hon. Leader of the Opposition had asked for it before, into the riots which had taken place at Paarl. That judicial commission headed by Mr. Justice Snyman brought in an urgent interim report and in that report he said that legislation should immediately be introduced to deal with the state of affairs he found in respect of the unlawful organization called Poqo, which was a many-headed Hydra. This organization kept popping up all over the country and he said that this had to be done urgently. That was incorporated in that Bill. Can any responsible person in this country refuse to pass a Bill which in the first place deals with that matter and when a Judge who has investigated says that we will lose control over these people to an organization like Poqo? Therefore, with this state of affairs we decided that we had to vote for the Second Reading of that Bill. Otherwise, it would have meant that we would have refused to pass a law to deal with Poqo and its many other manifestations. This organization was a terrorist organization which was terrorizing the Bantu in the townships. Unless that legislation was introduced, according to the Judge, the State would lose complete control.

One of the clauses of that Bill was the 90-day provision. We fought that provision and we fought it tooth and nail. At the Second Reading the hon. Leader of the Opposition said (having said that we would support the Second Reading for the reasons I have mentioned);

When we came to dealing with that actual clause, we opposed it tooth and nail. Now this hon. member comes and says that we supported it. If that is a fair thing to say, is it not also fair to say to her and to her party that she and her party were against the implementation of Justice Snyman’s report and they were quite prepared to allow Poqo and its other organizations to carry on with its activities? Is it not just as fair to say that?

That is exactly what you have said.

That is the factual position. The hon. member cannot have it both ways. She must explain why She voted against that particular provision.

Every newspaper in the country supported us.

Order! The hon. member for Houghton will have an opportunity to address this Committee.

This is the hon. member’s trouble, She says that every newspaper in this country supported her. That is all she is concerned with. Nowadays she is more concerned with what the newspapers outside the country, the overseas papers, say about her. She is very keen to become a sort of international figure, so that when she appears on television it must be quite a treat for the hon. member …

A very well used half hour.

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must stop her interjections now.

The television people then tell her what a great privilege it is to have her, the great Opposition member on their programme, and she loves it. What she said about the U.P. is then patently false. Let me say to the hon. member for Houghton who feels that she is the guardian of justice in this country, that I would like to know what her attitude was in respect of persons who trained for sabotage overseas. She did not want the death penalty being imposed on them. We on this side agreed that the death penalty could be imposed on that kind of person. If they go outside the country to receive training for sabotage and come back to perpetrate these acts here, they deserve to receive the death penalty. The hon. member for Houghton, however, did not want this. We supported the provision that the law should be retrospective in this case. Normally we do not. What does a responsible party do if the hon. the Minister tells us that he has caught a number of these people coming back with bombs and having received weapon training. He said: Do I let them free, or do I deal with them? We then said that the hon. the Minister must take measures to deal with them. The hon. member for Houghton, however, said that it is fine and that they can go free. She could not care, because she has some notion that justice has nothing to do whatsoever with dealing in this Parliament with the realities of life and the responsibilities of life. [Interjections.]

Order! This is now my final warning to the hon. member for Houghton to stop making interjections.

Then we had the so-called 180-days provision. Here the hon. member is quite right. We on this side opposed that measure. We fought that particular clause because there was no access to a court in any form whatsoever.

And now we come to 1966. In 1966 a Bill was introduced by the hon. the Minister of Justice to provide for the interrogation of suspected terrorists and saboteurs. The Police had to go to a Judge within 14 days of arrest and he could lay down the conditions of that detention. The Judge could also refuse to allow a person to be detained. We supported that measure for the reason that it implemented what we had been arguing and pressing for for years, namely that a court should come into the picture. But the hon. member for Houghton opposed this measure. One finds oneself in some difficulty to understand just how she could have done it.

Then came the Terrorism Bill of 1967. Here again the hon. member for Houghton came with her old 90-days story. She said that we on this side of the House voted in favour of the interrogation clause. I have already read what we said earlier. The principle of that Bill was that a new offence of terrorism should be created and that the existing law did not cover it sufficiently. We thought that it should in fact operate in these areas and there should be a wider form and a wider net of procedure to deal with this particular problem of terrorism where we were in a state of war on our borders. We agreed that the death penalty should be allowed for an offence in this regard at the discretion of a Judge. On those principles we said that we could not vote against that Bill at the Second Reading because it would then mean that we would want to reject the motion of having a special offence of terrorism, and procedures to deal with terrorists more quickly and a discretionary death sentence if they are found guilty. As I have already read from Hansard, we indicated clearly that our support at that stage could not and must not be construed as support for clause 6, namely the interrogation clause. What one does at the Second Reading is a procedural matter. When one considers what the attitude of the United Party was, it is quite clear.

The United Party’s attitude was, as far as the principle of fighting terrorism is concerned, namely enlarging the offence and providing for the death penalty, that we were in favour of it. We wanted it stamped out root and branch. But we fought the interrogation clause. Now the hon. member for Houghton complains that we go around, saying that she is in favour of terrorism. But if the hon. member for Houghton is entitled to say that we voted for the interrogation clause and the Terrorism Act, we are likewise entitled to say that she voted against providing for a proper offence for terrorism. In other words, if the hon. member for Houghton can say that we were in favour of this interrogation clause, we likewise could say that she was in favour of terrorism. Either statement is too ludicrous for words.

I hope the hon. member will try not to be so naïve and try to get across to people, through a misinterpretation of parliamentary procedure, what in fact did not happen. She makes up her own rules when she goes out of this House.

We then come to 1969, to the sole opposition to this Government, this angel of justice. What do we find in 1969? In 1969 we had a provision, the so-called BOSS Act. under which any Minister, and the Prime Minister in certain special events, can sign a certificate and preclude any evidence being given in a court of law. We fought that. When it came to the Committee Stage, we fought that particular section tooth and nail. Where was the hon. member for Houghton? She voted against it, Sir, but she did not say one word during the discussion of that clause.

One fact is quite clear. An examination of any of these statutes, indicates one fact, namely that there is golden thread that goes right through. On every occasion when it is necessary to be responsible and when there is a crisis, an emergency, a situation that arises, such as Poqo, terrorism on our borders, or terrorism anywhere else, this Government and every one knows that the United Party can be relied upon to be responsible. The other thread that goes right through the fabric of our laws is that we have consistently and always opposed the principle that there can be detention or deprivation of rights by the Executive without any recourse to a court of law. Those two threads run right through our history as regards this matter. They are there for everyone to see. I hope that the hon. member for Houghton, when she goes back to the hustings, will try to put things a little more correctly.

Are you now turning to the other members?

Yes, I shall come back to the hon. the Minister of Justice. I mentioned the question of statistics yesterday to the hon. the Minister. He said in reply today that the statistics which I asked for were not necessary. What is happening here, is that we have a tremendous crime rate increase, to which the hon. Minister will agree. We have a situation where the Police complained in 1968 that prisons were letting the prisoners out too soon. Then his Lordship, Mr. Justice Beyers, also complained that he had a habitual criminal who had been one for goodness knows how long. He had sentenced him a little while before, and suddenly he was back in court. In other words, the Prisons Department is letting these people out too soon. They are apparently dangerous people. In the latest Police report there is a most remarkable statement, which I can only construe, if it means what it says, as meaning the same thing. I quote—

“After serving their sentences” one presumes is in accordance with whatever the regulations are. If this is true, how does the hon. the Minister know whether in fact the increase in the crime rate is caused by the fact that there are too many people being released, either on parole or otherwise, long before their time?

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry that the hon. member for Durban (North) is not present in the Chamber at the moment, but I do think it is essential for me to come back for a moment to his reaction to what was said by the hon. member for Potchefstroom. I expected, as a result of the speech of the hon. member for Potchefstroom, that the hon. member for Durban (North) would have said he agreed wholeheartedly. What the hon. member for Potchefstroom said is a true reflection of the policy of the National Party with regard to national unity, and that is that there must be respect for the various language groups and the exercising by them of their language rights in this country. But what did the hon. member for Durban (North) do? He made very sneering remarks in this regard.

Ths evening I want to tell the hon. member for Durban (North) this: I invite him to visit my constituency at any time and to walk into any hotel in that predominantly Afrikaans-speaking community. There will not be a single case where he will not be served in his own language. I think it is essential that we state once again that we as Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa are not prepared to accept any further this question of justice not being done to our language. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (North) this evening what his attitude would be if the hon. the Minister were to find it necessary to state in terms of the Act with regard to the classification of an hotel, which did not recognize language rights, that that classification should be cancelled. I wonder what the hon. member would say in that case. I want to emphasize that the attitude of the hon. member for Durban (North) will not pass the electorate of South Africa unnoticed. It is of absolute importance for us to give attention to that this evening. I do not want to deal with the hon. member for Durban (North) any further. In the coming provincial elections I shall know what use to make of his attitude.

What misuse.

No, it is not a question of misuse. If that hon. member wants to make remarks he should return to his own seat. If he does so, I shall talk to him. Sir, I want to proceed. In a way I have been feeling inclined to address the hon. member for Durban (North) as “my learned friend”, as is the practice in courts, but after his argumentation of to-day I unfortunately cannot call him “my learned friend”. I shall have to call him “the hon. member”, because after having listened to two half-hour speeches by him I still do not know what he wanted to say. It is very interesting, however, that the Vote of the Minister of Justice had to be used by the hon. member for settling the differences between his party and the party of the hon. member for Houghton.

Only one point became very clear. The hon. member for Durban (North) mentioned three points on which he wanted to attack the Minister. These were the so-called detention of terrorists, the weakness of the administration of the Department of Justice and the method being followed in the application of the Immorality Act. These are the points which the hon. member stated here yesterday, but what did he do this afternoon? The hon. member had to go back to 1962, and even further back than that, simply to show to the English Press that he was not as far away as the Press thought him to be. The hon. member had to use this debate for currying favour with the English Press, as the English Press is beginning to support the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Houghton was 100 per cent correct.

As a matter of fact, the hon. the Minister also emphasized this in his quotation from Hansard regarding the standpoint adopted by the Opposition to certain laws. As far as I am concerned, that was an interestng tête-à-tête. That tête-à-tête is another one of those things we have come to know about in the course of this Session up to the present time. But I am not yet through with the hon. member for Durban (North). Last night he mentioned a certain document in his reference to detention in terms of the Terrorism Act. I have with me a copy of that document. That hon. member is a lawyer. He said this document was prima facie true and he used it as thought it was in fact prima facie true.

Now it is very interesting to see, particularly in view of the fact that the hon. member for Durban (North) is a lawyer, who his authorities are who drew up this document. This document, as stated on page 6, was drawn up “for the Civil Rights League, Box 3807, Cape Town”. If one examines the question of who provided the information, one sees that the information was obtained, inter alia, from a speech by Mr. J. Hamilton Russel and from certain Hansard columns. Incidentally, the quotation from Hansard is the only thing that is correct. In addition information was obtained from “Survey of Race Relations, 1966”. from a few editions of the Cape Times and Sunday Times. I can proceed in this way to mention the sources of information, their authorities. The hon. member for Durban (North) is a qualified lawyer. If he wants to prove something in South Africa, he has to refer to something which has been proved.

That is why he said prima facie.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Florida that he does not have the foggiest notion what prima facie means. He qualified at a time when Latin was no longer required as a subject for qualifying oneself as an attorney’s clerk or prosecutor.:

That will be the day.

On the front page of this document, to which the hon. member for Durban (North) referred, one reads: “If you know that people are dragooned and bullied and tortured and you do nothing about it, you are as guilty as those who do it.” What we are dealing with here now, is the three points the hon. member for Durban (North) mentioned in his attack when he opened the discussion of this Vote. Those points concerned the question of terrorism, the question of the administration of the Department of the hon. the Minister and the application of the Immorality Act.

The hon. the Minister indicated in all seriousness here to-day what people we were dealing with when we were dealing with terrorists. The hon. member tried to find a hundred and one excuses or to rake up proof that they had not subscribed to the Act concerned. It is very clear that at the time they probably were sympathetic towards the Act. But it is also very clear that that sympathy which they had with the Act at that stage has caused them some embarrassment. The hon. member for Houghton has had no problems as regards this matter in the meantime. She has been consistent in her standpoint, throughout. Although I radically differ from her in the standpoint she adopts, one has to appreciate the fact that she has been consistent in her standpoint throughout. But now the hon. member for Durban (North), in the dilemma in which the United Party finds itself, wants to take advantage of this matter. The view I take in this regard is that when we are dealing with terrorists and communists, we are dealing with drastic things, as the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech at that time. But that hon. member is prepared to be actuated by the English-language Press in his attacks. Sir, I now want to quote to you from Hoofstad of 7th September, 1970.

The verkrampte newspaper?

No, Hoofstad is not at all such a verkrampte newspaper as the hon. member thinks it is.

What about the editor?

The editor is Dr. Andries Treurnicht and he is more of a patriot than any of the members on that side of this House. [Time expired.]

Sir, I want to say immediately that I was very flattered indeed by the hon. member for Durban (North) devoting almost his entire second half hour to me. Frankly, I almost felt like asking the hon. the Minister to shift over because I rather felt that it was my Vote that was under discussion. Sir, unfortunately I only have ten minutes at my disposal and I do not want to waste any time on the hon. member for Durban (North), except to put the record straight in one important respect where he is completely incorrect, as he very well knows. He stated that I took no part in the discussions on the Boss Bill.

I said that you did not take part in the Committee Stage.

Yes, but the hon. member did not add that at the Second Reading I moved “that the Bill be read this day six months” which, as far as I know, is the most far-reaching form of paliamentary opposition.

I stated when I spoke in the Second-Reading debate that section 29, which is the Boss clause, was one of the main reasons why I did so. I just want to put the record straight.

Why did you not speak on the clause?

Sir, you do not have to speak on everything. Why did the hon. member’s Leader not speak on this clause? I leave the hon. member for Durban (North) to his own guilty conscience; let him enjoy himself.

I want to come back to the hon. the Minister and I want to raise the case of Sobukwe. Sir, the case of Sobukwe is known all over the world. He served three years in prison for incitement against the pass laws. That was the sentence that was passed and that was the crime of which he was found guilty. He subsequently served almost another six years in detention on Robben Island under the section of the Suppression of Communism Act which allows the hon. the Minister to do so. He was released last year and since then he has been living at Kimberley; he is in fact restricted to the magisterial district of Kimberley. The allowance which the Government paid him has been stopped and I believe that it has been stopped due to pressure from the Herstigtes who were asking why the Government was paying this dangerous enemy of South Africa an allowance. He is now attempting to earn some sort of living, I believe, by doing his articles. I think he is working for a lawyer; that is my latest information. But my information also is that this man applied for an exit permit. Because the hon. the Minister—although I am sure that it was the Department of the Interior as well— would not allow him to move from the magisterial district of Kimberley, he was unable to leave South Africa to take up a research grant which had been given to him in the United States. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is his intention to keep Sobukwe forever in South Africa under these conditions, or is he at some stage going to allow this man to live a normal life again? I think this is a fair question. This man has now virtually served nine years’ imprisonment for incitement against the pass laws, and I think the time has come for the hon. the Minister to give us some assurance that at some stage at any rate, he is going to consider the question of at least allowing this man to leave the country and to lead a normal life again with his wife and children. Surely, you cannot punish him in perpetuity because that was not the sentence passed on him by the courts of law.

Now I want to raise with the hon. the Minister the important matter of the growing average daily prison population in South Africa. It has reached an all-high of over 80,000, which I think is three times the figure of Great Britain with a population of 50 million. I have suggested that a large number of these cases are short-term cases serving sentences under the pass laws. I have suggested to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration that he should do something to clear up and ambiguity that exists in the pass laws, as to whether or not an African can be arrested for non-production of documents on demand. As you know, Sir, there was a recent ruling in Natal where the Judge held that non-production on demand was not in fact a contravention of the law. But nevertheless people are arrested every day because of this particular ambiguity, although I do know that senior police officials have issued instructions that policemen are to use their discretion and that they are not simply to arrest a man where he cannot produce his documents on demand when it is possible that he will be able to produce them within a short time. Unfortunately these instructions are not always carried out. It is absolutely beyond the power of the senior officials to see that this instruction is religiously carried out. I think the time has come for some sort of revision to clear up the ambiguity and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister, in view of the enormous number of people who clutter up the gaols as statutory criminals under the pass laws, many thousands of whom fall under this particular section, whether he will not refer the whole matter to the Law Revision Committee to see whether something cannot be worked out so that Africans do not go to gaol for the simple nonproduction of documents on demand. I also want to ask him whether he cannot go a step forward and get back to a situation that existed in 1960, after the emergency period— this was recommended by one of the large daily newspapers (I think The Star)—where the police do not accost an African unless they believe him to be committing a crime or that he is about to commit a crime other than the crime of not being able to produce his pass. This will enormously reduce the number of arrests. I think this is a matter which should particularly disturb the hon. the Minister because he, after all, is in charge of prisons, and those prisons which cater for African pass offenders are grossly over-crowded. There are many model prisons in South Africa to-day, Sir, but you cannot number among them the prisons that harbour the African offenders arrested under the pass laws. It is physically impossible to cope with the enormous number of persons—something like 2,000 every single day of the year—who are actually convicted under the laws dealing with influx control, the production of documents, taxation and so on. I hope very much that the hon. the Minister will do something about this important matter.

Sir, there is another matter that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister and that is the question of legal aid. It is very disappointing to notice the snail’s pace at which the provision of effective legal aid is going in South Africa. We passed an Act in 1969 and we are still waiting for the provision of legal aid. Many hundreds of accused must be going without proper legal representation in the courts simply because the system is not yet functioning. We have provided for a very paltry amount in the Estimates to cope with the Legal Aid Board which is to be set up. I notice that there has been a lot of discussion between the law societies and the Minister’s Department, but the time has come when this Legal Aid Bureau or Board, or whatever it is called, should start functioning properly. We have only allowed an amount of R150,000 on the Estimates. That is a very small amount indeed for the thousands of cases which come up, particularly with our sort of population where a large percentage, the non-white section, is very poor indeed. I think it is absolutely essential, if the law is to be carried out with any basic justice, that these people should have representation. I should like to quote Mr. Justice Steyn in this regard in his address to the Association of Law Societies in May, 1970, where he said—

Although I must say, listening to some of the legal representatives in this House, that I am not sure that I would not do better on my own. He went on—

I would like to take this opportunity of asking the hon. the Minister whether we are going to have to wait very much longer before we have an efficient system of legal aid in order to provide proper representation for accused persons who cannot afford to brief counsel.

The hon. member for Houghton dealt with short-term prisoners. I should like to deal with the long-term prisoners. I want to refer to a branch of the work of prisons in respect of which a great deal of progress has been made, especially in recent times. But before doing so, I should like to make a few general remarks.

It is a fact that society yields its failures, and it is a fact that there are people who are born with certain defects, intellectual, mental and physical defects. Circumstances prevailing in the community sometimes cause them to come into conflict with the law. It is true that social factors, the family, the school, the church and religion also produce their victims and failures. We in this Parliament legislate. People come into conflict with the law. The police arrest them, they are tried, convicted and sentenced by the courts, and only then do those people who have come into conflict with the law land in prison. Now it is the position that these people land in prison, some for a short period and others for a long period, to undergo punishment. Punishment is the main reason why people are sent to prison. They are sent to prison so that society may be protected from them and they are sent to prison to serve their sentences. It is in this process that the Prisons Department is experiencing problems, particularly with the long-term prisoners. This year we are budgeting for nearly R30 million and if the Prisons Department does not return to the community for us people who have benefited from their periods of detention, all that money would have been wasted.

It is against this background that I have the greatest appreciation for one particular branch of the Department, i.e. the extension of its professional services. In recent times the Department created four specific posts, to each of which the rank of colonel attaches, i.e. that of a social worker, a spiritual worker, an educationist and a clinical psychologist. Three of these posts have been filled and these posts are occupied by people truly academically equipped for doing these jobs. At the top, as co-ordinating officer, is a colonel who also has special academic qualifications for this particular job. This colonel has a master’s degree and is furthering his studies. But I want to tell you, Sir, knowing the Department and its officers as we do, that these things have become reality merely because of the really strong initiative and guidance which emanated from our Ministers, but also in particular from our Commissioner and his senior assistants. These people have qualified themselves academically to be able to perform this work in their everyday routine and to apply their academic knowledge. I want to tell these officers this evening that this Committee salutes them for the progress of the past three or four years, especially in this particular field.

But because this in indeed the case, I must say that in my opinion a few shortcomings exist to which I think we should give consideration. At present it is the case that the Department has 23 trained social workers who co-operate with the professional officers to whom I have just referred. They are doing important work, especially in connection with the people who have to serve terms of imprisonment of two years and more. When these people return to the community, we feel that a shortcoming does exist in that the essential after-care which ought to be given is lacking. The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is doing a very important task, but just as the Department of Prisons cannot send its professional officers into the field to undertake family care, so the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions cannot send its professional officers to perform professional social and psychological services in the prisons. In this process of transition I feel that more use should be made of the voluntary organizations. By way of illustration I want to mention two institutions which are rendering a particularly important service in connection with released prisoners. In the first place I should like to refer to the society which is known as Social Services and which is celebrating its 60th anniversary this year. This organization has in its employ a large number of social workers throughout the country and they are co-operating very closely with the Department. We appreciate the great, meritorious job of work they are doing. In the second place I want to mention the work being done by the Dutch Reformed Church. In recent years the Dutch Reformed Church designated two white Ministers for service in this field and they are doing not only theological work but are, in fact, well-equipped for doing social and psychological work in prisons. In addition the church designated another white Minister and two Bantu Ministers to that division. A close liaison exists between those people who are working in close contact with the Prisons Department and the 170 social workers of the Church who are providing family care outside the prisons and are in a position to provide after-care in this regard. But all these people bear testimony to one major problem. One of the officers of the Social Services society said the other day that in the 60 years of their existence they have been experiencing one major problem and that is that they have never experienced the whole-hearted co-operation of the public to enable them to provide proper after-care.

From the nature of the case our people fear a criminal and from the nature of the case they fear a person who has been released from prison. This is the case as some of these people have been imprisoned because they have committed very serious crimes. Some of them have been imprisoned because they have disrupted society to a certain extent. The community fears that these people will return and continue what has originally landed them in difficulties. Now I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. I do not know whether the Department of the Minister should take the initiative or whether the initiative should come from other persons and bodies, but I nevertheless want to ask his Department, which is spending millions of rand on rehabilitation and which is very actively engaged in rehabilitating these people so as to enable them to return to the community as useful members, should form an important link between the Department of Social Welfare on the one hand and the voluntary organizations on the other hand. They should liaise with these organizations so as to make our public conscious of the fact that if such a person has been in a prison for two years or more he has been rehabilitated and that he is returning to the community with new ideals. This must be done so that the community will then be prepared to absorb him. At the moment, however, the community is still afraid to do so. A great deal of educational work still has to be done to make the community realize that the millions of rand which the Government is prepared to plough into the prison services every year and the sacrifices Which our officers in the Prisons Department are making to equip themselves academically, go to give the prisoner the necessary social, religious and spiritual equipment to enable him to take up his place in the community. Everything possible must be done to receive and to assist those people.

Mr. Chairman, this evening I just want to say a few words in connection with the question of bilingualism and the use of Afrikaans which was raised in this House.

I want to associate myself fully with the excellent speech made by the hon. member for Potchefstroom. I want to compliment him on the controlled way in which he put forward his case. I want to say that the way in which he put forward his case in this House to-day is indeed worthy of the use of Afrikaans. I want to express my disappointment, however, with the reaction of the hon. member for Durban (North) to it, and I really mean this. The attitude which the hon. member for Durban (North) adopted towards Afrikaans is one which we, in this bilingual country of ours, must condemn most strongly. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban (North) that I had expected him to get up and say that he fully supported the speech and the appeal made by the hon. member for Potchefstroom. I now want to place on record that if the hon. member for Durban (North) or other English-speaking person in this House were to make the same speech with regard to the use of English, I would give my fullest support to it. The attitude I adopt with regard to the use of English is a far better one than that of that side of the House with regard to the use of Afrikaans.

I want to say a few words in connection with prisoners. The size of our prison population is a matter which, to my mind, ought to be divorced from party politics. We must be very honest with ourselves and with each other in this regard and we may safely admit that the prison population is too large. We may also say, and the facts clearly bear this out, that it is alarming that over the past decade the rate at which the prison population has been increasing has been faster than the rate at which the country’s population has been increasing. In saying that it should be our endeavour to keep the daily number of our prison population down to as low a figure as possible, I feel I am expressing the opinion of all upright people in this country.

The total prison population as at 30th June, 1969, was 88,835. For the purposes of my argument I want to divide this number into three specific groups.

In the first place, there are the unsentenced or awaiting trial prisoners who made up a total of 14,435, or 16 per cent of the total daily population. If we want to reduce this number, we must expedite the disposal of court cases. It is with great appreciation that we can take note to-day of the six points mentioned in this regard in the report of the Secretary for Justice. At present this matter is therefore being considered by a judicial commission under the chairmanship of the hon. Mr. Justice Botha. We hope that this commission will be able to find a procedure of reducing the period which elapses between the time of arrest and the date when judgment is given in the case. I may perhaps mention in passing that the proposals made by the hon. Mr. Justice Hiemstra in this regard appear to be of possibly great value.

The second group of prisoners is that group who have to serve a term of imprisonment of more than two years. At the particular date I mentioned, they constituted 42,400 of the total, or 48 per cent of the total daily prison population. As an element of imprisonment there is not only the matter of punishment, which is, of course, very important on its own, but also the matter of rehabilitation and reform, which to my mind is more important. The prisoner goes through observation centres where his social background is analyzed and in the end a decision is taken as to the treatment which will be appropriate in his case for rehabilitating him. Subsequently he is regularly seen by the Prisons Board, consisting of various experts. I think this advanced and scientific rehabilitation system for prisoners which we have today, can hardly be improved upon as far as this group of people is concerned. I must say that we should congratulate the Prisons Department with the work they are doing in this field, which is absolutely of world class.

There is a third group of prisoners, i.e. those serving a term of imprisonment of less than two years. They constitute approximately 32,400, or 36 per cent, of the total daily prison population. In passing I should like to point out that the hon. member for Houghton is somewhat confused as regards her facts if she is of the opinion that the prison population is large because passbook and influx control offenders constitute the largest part of the prison population. She is wrong, because persons sentenced to imprisonment for periods of up to four months are placed on parole very shortly after being imprisoned. Such people are not included in the figures reflecting our daily prison population. The existing apartheid measures therefore play only a minor role in this matter. But there are, of course, cases where parole is not considered for some people who have to serve terms of imprisonment of up to four months. I should like to see parole considered in all cases from the point of view of the person and not the offence. I do make one exception, however, i.e. an offence in respect of State security.

This evening I am posing the question whether this imprisonment for a period of less than two years serves any purpose whatsoever. In order to be able to form an opinion as to this imprisonment, we must have regard to the fact that, owing to the short stay of the prisoner in prison, there is no real opportunity for putting into operation any scientifically based rehabilitation procedure. This is the case not only in South Africa but throughout the world. All that remains in respect of those people is the element of punishment. The rehabilitation aspect has fallen away altogether. The solution I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister for his consideration is that imprisonment in the case of an offender who is sentenced to a period of less than two years, should be suspended and that he should be given a suspended sentence of imprisonment each time he is so sentenced until such time as he has built up a record of two years’ imprisonment he has to serve. Only then should he be imprisoned. If he does not commit a second offence, he will never be imprisoned. Such a suspended sentence of imprisonment will be of great value as it will provide a strong stimulus for the offender to rehabilitate himself, and self-rehabilitation is, after all, the best form of rehabilitation. Moreover, family ties will be retained and will be disrupted only in the case of a person who is in fact not able to rehabilitate himself.

I feel that this idea, if it is to be put into practice, will lead to a drastic reduction in the daily prison population. That will also enable us to improve the image of our country abroad. In this way we can preserve the social and family ties of offenders, with the clear advantage which this holds for society as a whole.

Let us imprison only those people who have committed really serious offences and have to serve terms of imprisonment of more than two years, as well as those people who have committed less serious offences, but who are not able to rehabilitate themselves. Let us rehabilitate them than.

In the eight years that I have had the privilege of serving in this building here and elsewhere, I had begun to feel that over that time there was a growing awareness and appreciation of a national unity growing up between the persons representative of the various language groups in this Parliament. But nothing has dismayed me more than the speeches I have had to listen to this evening from the hon. member for Potchefstroom, the hon. member for Christiana and the hon. member for Pretoria (Central). They are not just any members, but three of the more articulate members of this House.

Did you hear the speeches they made?

You will notice, Mr. Chairman, that I did not refer to the hon. the Minister of Sport. I was referring to the more articulate members of this House. These three hon. members I mentioned to begin with unanimously condemned the speech made by the hon. member for Durban (North). The plea of the hon. member for Durban (North) was for the implementation of the ideal of full bilingualism in South Africa and for a spirit of tolerance towards that ideal. What could be more unexceptionable than that to anyone who believes truly in the attainment of those ideals together with the ideal of national unity? It arises here, Sir, out of the question of the hon. the Minister’s responsibility for the conduct of licensed premises. What is the position in South Africa? This question has arisen out of the unbilingualism of an immigrant hotel receptionist. Is it the policy of this Government to bring in immigrants or not? If it is the policy to bring in immigrants, are they expected to be fully bilingual when they arrive here? Or do we expect them over a period of time, gradually to acquire the use and understanding of both official languages? Anyone who has the slightest experience of the hotel trade will know that staff in that industry is one of the most difficult things to acquire at this time. Two of the categories of employment that are most easily filled by immigrants are shop assistants and hotel receptionists. Anyone who has the slightest experience of the large towns of this country which are the main repositories of the immigrants, will know that those are the spheres in which they are employed.

But this thing works both ways and I may say that I was horrified at the invitation by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) that any English-speaking South Africans who made the same sort of speech as the hon. member for Potchefstroom did, would receive his praise. Would receive his praise, Sir? Let me tell the hon. gentleman about a small experience I have had a year ago, whilst I was still in legal practice, as I think these three gentlemen are. Legal practice normally gives one a sense of balance, I like to think, in the affairs of South Africa, but not when one hears speeches such as this. During that time I had to conduct a case in Kroonstad in the Free State. I had to go to the circuit court there, which was situated in a magistrate’s court building. Being a stranger to that particular town, I went to the Post Office to enquire where the magistrate’s court building was. I addressed two young ladies behind the counter, in English. It had not occurred to me to speak Afrikaans. I asked them to show me where the magistrate’s court building was. I noticed a degree of concern between the two young ladies. It puzzled me that they, being inhabitants of a not very large town, did not know where the main building, the magistrate’s court building of the town was until it occurred to me that they were perhaps in difficulty with the question of language. I immediately changed and I asked these two young ladies, who were most attractive young women, in Afrikaans where the magistrate’s court building was. Immediately I received a willing reply in the most detailed fashion as to where this building was. It would never in my wildest dreams have occurred to me to come to this House to make a complaint in a major speech that these two young ladies were not able to reply to me in English. Mr. Chairman, what are the realities of South Africa when it comes to the catering trade? There are areas in this country which are largely Afrikaans-speaking. So there are areas which are largely English-speaking. So far as the European staff is concerned, I am sure that most hoteliers try to have at least one member at the reception desk who is bilingual. We do not know where the girl in the East London hotel came from. She may have come from Scandinavia or any other European country which is not English-speaking. But the point is that if we are to give work to these people and if we are to staff our hotels, we must have a measure of tolerance towards the immigrant.

I wish to raise another point. Let us take the non-European staff of our hotels. It is the custom in the northern provinces for the Bantu people to speak Afrikaans. It is the cus om in Natal for the Bantu people to speak Zulu, and neither of the official languages, English or Afrikaans. Only recently have the more sophisticated Zulu in Natal learned by and large English because the white people they came in contact with, for the most part in the southern parts where the hotels of the tourist trade are, were English-speaking. The Indian, who is the principal waiter in most of the hotels in Natal, a large part of the tourist industry, is from Durban and he has learned only English, because until quite recently, Afrikaans was not generally heard in Durban. What is the hotelier to do if in the Transvaal and the Free State his Native staff by and large are Afrikaans-speaking and not English-speaking and if in the coastal areas of Natal his Native and Indian staff are either Zuluspeaking or if they have learned any of the official languages, it is English only?

These are the realities of South Africa today. If we want to make the system work, if we are to demand efficient service in the hotels, which means that we are to use the staff that is available to the hoteliers, if we are genuine in our acceptance of the immigrant wherever he may come from and if we are honest towards ourselves in our desire for national unity, then we will have the spirit of tolerance of this question of bilingualism which was pleaded for by the hon. member for Durban (North). This spirit was notably lacking in the speeches made by the three hon. gentlemen on the Nationalist side of this House. I do not wish to dwell on this point any more, but I may say that not 1,000 miles from where I stand to-day, every single day of this session a number of people have addressed me and greeted me in one of the official languages only and that language is not my own. But I appreciate, and I make no complaint in that regard, that there are people who find it easier to speak one language and that there are people who find it easier to Speak the other. But provided we are all motivated by a genuine desire to bridge the gap between the unilingualism of the one and the unilingualism of the other, then we can get somewhere. And let us remember that unilingualism these days is not only on the one side. It is on both sides.

Let me come to the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Houghton revealed, I believe, an inflated idea of her own importance. She should know better than to suggest that the hon. member for Durban (North) had spent the whole of his second half-hour in dealing with the hon. member for Houghton. Of course he has done no such thing. He dealt only in the last part of his speech with the hon. member for Houghton. What he did was to raise an important point. That was to press home in the public mind the fact that in almost every one of these Bills that we have had to deal with at the Second Reading it has not been a case of one principle, but it has been a case of an omnibus Bill with half dozen principles contained in it. [Time expired.]

Sir, I do not wish to dwell on the question of bilingualism, to which I referred in my speech earlier on to-night. I just want to tell the hon. member who has now resumed his seat, that the National Party has always stood for immigration and controlled immigration. I want to tell that hon. member that we are dealing here with the Vote of the Minister of Justice, and that his reference to his visit to Kroonstad in regard to two ladies in the employ of the Post Office, has nothing to do with this Vote; he should have raised that matter with the Minister of Posts of Telegraphs. We are dealing here with an Act which provides that there shall be present on the premises a person who can speak either of the two official languages. [Interjections.] He should be able to speak both languages, and if a receptionist who is an immigrant is appointed at a hotel, it is no concern of ours. But the Act provides that there has to be person who can speak both languages, and what I should like to see in future is that it will not be necessary for such a receptionist to call somebody from the back in order that that person may interpret for her what is being said in Afrikaans. I should like to see that there is somebody on the spot who can speak Afrikaans.

You should speak to your own people as well; there are hundreds of them throughout the country who do not want to speak English.

I appreciate what the hon. member said in regard to what he called “the spirit of tolerance”. We have a great deal of appreciation for such a standpoint. That is the attitude adopted by this side of the House, and it has always been the attitude adopted by this side of the House. I cannot see why the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, should feel unhappy about this matter.

But, Sir, my fight with the hon. member for Durban (North) is not over yet, and I want to come back to it for a while. The hon. member said in his speech last night that the detention of people without trial and everything that went with it, created a poor image of South Africa abroad. He quoted from the document from which I, too, quoted here earlier to-night. But the hon. member does not take the trouble to look at the positive side as well. The hon. member said that it did not do our image any good to have such a procedure, but he did not adduce any proof. In any case, if he did have any proof, he did not adduce it. Sir, I want to quote to hon. members to-night what was said by a prominent lawyer in the Netherlands in regard to this matter. I think we all know that the Netherlands are definitely not very sympathetic towards us. I shall quote once again from Die Hoofstad of Monday, 7th September, in which a report was published on what was said by this particular Dutch lawyer. The report read as follows (translation)—

This is a reference to the legislation which was mentioned in the speech made by the hon. member for Durban (North)—

Sir, I just want to say this in passing: Here we have a man from outside Who is prepared to admit that there is a world-wide conspiracy against South Africa, but, purely for political reasons, the hon. member for Durban (North) now has to cut these capers here. Continuing, he said—

[Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon. member for Albany please restrain himself.

If there is one thing I do not want the hon. member to do, it is to interrupt me. I want to proceed—

But the hon. member is not interested in that. The only thing he is interested in doing, is to hold up to us an unidentified and unauthorized document, which, in any case, is based purely on quotations taken from English-language press reports, as being something which damages the image of South Africa. I want to tell this Committee now that if that hon. member identifies himself with that, he is a party to damaging the image of South Africa as far as that matter is concerned.

I should like to come to another matter, about which I am very much in earnest. There is one matter which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister of Justice to-night, and it is as follows: We have a great deal of appreciation for what the Department of Justice is doing, and we are most appreciative of what our magistrates are doing in the rural areas. The hon. member for Innesdal has already referred to the kinds of work which has to be done there for other Government Departments by the Department of Justice and the magistrates’ offices. I remember that a few years ago the Secretary for Justice asked in his annual report whether an investigation could not be carried out into the advisability of separating the judicial work and the administrative work being done in our magistrates’ offices. I cannot speak for all rural magistrates’ offices, but I can speak for all of these situated in the Western Transvaal and, in particular, for those situated in my own constituency, where those magistrates do not consider time to be of any importance when they are engaged in the performance of their tasks. I can submit to this House evidence to the effect that I have found some of those magistrates at their offices at 5.30 and even 6 o’clock in the morning, and even up to 12 o’clock at night. Those persons are working in the Department of Justice with a great deal of dedication, but the question which has occured to me is whether, in view of our having such decentralized work which has to be done in the rural areas, the time has not arrived for us to find different methods whereby that work may be done, a combination of all the administrative work which is not judicial work, which does not fall exclusively into the province of the magistrate and the Department of Justice. For this has the disadvantage that staff are allocated to magistrates’ offices in the rural areas, and that staff have to deal immediately with a large amount of administrative work, everything but judicial work. Interest is blunted and we lose some of those promising young people who are interested in the Department and its activities. The instructions is issued by the various departments, renuire a great deal of study on the part of those magistrates in the rural areas. The hon. member for Florida referred to the staff shortage. As regards the staff shortage I just want to say that it is not only the Department of Justice which is experiencing that problem, but we also know that that administrative part of the work which is being done, can be dealt with just as effectively by other bodies, or a joint office of Government Departments which have nothing to do with the Department of Justice.

We have the added problem that, in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act for example, such a magistrate acts as the chairman of the local agricultural credit committee. In his capacity as the magistrate he is implicated in cases where he acts as the chairman of that local agricultural credit committee. That is not the judicial function of a magistrate. We are getting concerned about the long hours which magistrates have to work. The reason why we are getting concerned is that if it has to go on this way. it will be the judicial part of the work, and not the administrative part, which will suffer. For that reason I want to conclude by asking the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to follow up the suggestion contained in a previous report of the Secretary for Justice and to look into this matter.

The hon. member for Zululand definitely tried to participate dispassionately and objectively in this debate, in which I made a few introductory comments earlier on to-night. But before I go any further I just want to say that it amazes one to-night to see how sensitive some people are—I am not referring to the hon. member for Zululand now—when an Afrikaner rises in this House and says: All I ask is that my language be upheld on a premises in respect of which it is statutorily required that bilingualism be upheld. [Interjections.] That hon. member for North Rand is the most sensitive of all.

You are impossible. You ought to be ashamed of your self.

Order! I am warning the hon. member for North Rand.

The hon. member is ashamed of upholding his own language. The hon. member must not point his finger at me. I think I should just refer the hon. members once again to the Press statement which the hon. the Minister was obliged to issue two years ago and which forms part of the records of this House. In that statement the hon. the Minister said the following—

Continuing, he said—

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) and his friend who is sitting next to him and is so rowdy at the moment, may as well listen to this appeal that was made by the Minister of Justice, i.e. that in every respect attempts should be made to comply with this request. This is the request which was made and which was not complied with. At a later stage this was made a classification requirement for hotel liquor licences and, in addition, this concession was made, i.e. that there had to be a person available for the maintenance of bilingualism. But now this availability is being abused. The person in the reception office is unilingual and the availability of the second language does not exist, and in order to make that second language available, the man who is scrubbing the floors is summoned to interpret what a person wants. I have had the experience of walking into a hotel in Johannesburg and announcing myself in Afrikaans by saying that I was Mr. So and So and that I had made a reservation and wanted to know whether everything was in order, and then I was very clearly told that they did not have a reservation for such a person, and the reply to me was in English. Then I would switch over to English and say that I was Mr. So and So, that I came from this or that place and wanted to know whether my accommodation had been reserved. On repeating this in English, it was immediately possible to determine that accommodation had been reserved for me. It is this kind of behaviour that causes ill-feeling. All of us are familiar with the problems being experienced by the hotel trade in regard to staff. What the hon. member for Zululand said, is quite correct, and it is true that a large percentage of immigrants do this kind of work. However, we should not hide behind the problem of our immigrants and the language. These factors are being abused. We can make surveys from hotel to hotel, and especially at our best known hotels in our urban areas and in our holiday resort areas. Then we have to be satisfied with this excuse all the time. It is always a case of an immigrant lady who has been in the country for five or six months and the newspapers are very quick to report that such persons have only been in the country for a few months. Surveys are being made in regard to these problems, and, in fact, earlier to-night I furnished particulars in this regard; these revealed that the manager of the specific hotel could not even speak a second language, and that the receptionist could not speak a second language either, in fact, nobody who had dealings with the public there, could speak a second language. This is no way to comply with the requirements of bilingualism.

Have you ever found a hotel where no English is spoken?

That is not the point at all. If hon. members on the other side of the House want to carry this matter to such absurdities, I do not want to take part in their debate. The point is merely that it is being asked that bilingualism be upheld on premises which have been licensed to sell liquor and where this is compulsory by law. We are quite entitled to expect bilingualism from them, but bilingualism does not mean English unilingualism at all. However, this is what is found in practice and this is what is being objected to. I can give hon. members opposite the assurance that in regard to this problem a great measure of patience has to be exercised by the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population. The greatest measure of contemnt being expreienced by the Afrikaans-speaking section—I am not saying that this comes from the English-speaking section only; it may be in accordance with the particular population set-up. I do not want to comment on that, but the hon. member for Zululand requested that the greatest measure of patience be displayed, and this is being done. However, the greatest measure of patience can be carried too far, and that is our complaint. It is being asked that patience be carried too far. Then one also finds senior public figures in South Africa who have to endure the insults which the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Commissioner-General and others have had to endure. Then we are being asked here to display patience, and that is why I am saying that patience is being carried too far. That is what the complaint involves, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to comment on this topic in the course of this debate.

Mr. Chairman, recently in this House we heard a plea by a new hon. member that the Nationalist Party Government should consider subscribing to the Declaration of Human Rights. When I heard that I thought I had heard everything. However, when I heard to-night another backbencher of the Nationalist Party, another new member, say that the Nationalist Party had always stood for immigration and still stands for immigration, I realized that I certainly had not heard everything. Obviously he has been so conditioned by his years as a youth member of the Nationalist Party that he has forgotten that one of the first things which the late Dr. Dönges did when he became Minister in this House of the Malan Nationalist Party Government, was set aside all the existing machinery for bringing in immigrants from our mother countries overseas. This applied to immigrants from Europe and immigrants from the United Kingdom. As a result of that shortsightedness South Africa has never been able to recover from the blow which she suffered at that time.

In regard to the question of bilingualism, I am one of the first to admit, and we on this side of the House freely admit that this is a very ticklish problem. This is one that cannot be easily overcome and which most certainly cannot be dealt with in any spirit of intolerance. That is why I think the hon. member for Zululand has made a very tolerant and a very reasonable speech to-night in answer to speeches from the other side of the House. I believe that it exuded the spirit of tolerance. I think it behoves us on this side of the House and members on the other side of the House, to make it our duty to convey that same spirit of tolerance and understanding not only in this House, but also in our public lives out of this House. I believe it is our duty as public representatives to encourage and to foster bilingualism in every circle in which we move. I believe that that is the spirit that will meet with the support of members on the other side of the House and is the very epitomé of the spirit of this side of the House.

Now I would like to direct the attention of the hon. the Minister to a most appalling incident which took place in Cape Town last year. I refer to the arrest and detention for six days in one of our jails of a very prominent citizen in Cape Town. He was an area manager of a pharmaceutical company, a company which in turn was the agent for a very well-known German company, also the makers of pharmaceutical products. The charge under which he ultimately appeared in court was in terms of section 17 of Act 44 of 1969. The relevant provision of that Act reads that “no person shall possess potentially harmful drugs unless he has acquired such drugs in pursuance of a sale or supply which is permitted in terms of the Act”. I want to deal with this matter under two headings. First of all, the State’s opposition to bail and, secondly, the fact that he was denied the opportunity of consulting his attorneys.

As regards the opposition to bail, I must assume that after the passing of this Act last year, the Department of Justice must have circulated the various Government Departments as to the contents of this Act. I must also assume that the Department was aware of an uncertainty that existed about the actual meaning of the subsection that I have read out, uncertainty that was expressed here in this House and subsequently in the Press where various pharmaceutical firms raised certain misgivings. Because of the uncertainty the company concerned took several steps to instruct its area manager and his representatives to collect the drugs, which were really medical samples and which had no commercial value whatever, and to keep them in a place of safety. On the 2nd July last year this area manager, a prominent man in Cape Town, was visited by a detective-sergeant and four other policemen. He pointed out to the investigating officer the drugs which were kept in eight large sealed cartons which he kept in his garage under lock and key. Two further cartons were partially opened. He not only did that, but he described the contents of each and every carton to the investigating officer. That same morning the samples were removed by the police in a van to Harrington Street, the detective’s offices where they were sorted and counted with the assistance of the accused because of his technical knowledge. He gave the name of his company to the investigating officer, with their addresses in Cape Town and in Johannesburg and also their telephone numbers. Two days later he appeared in court under the charge to which I have referred. In court he gave to the magistrate his area-manager card to prove his identity and, what is more, he handed in to the court a price list of the drugs he had in his possession. Bail was opposed by the same detective-sergeant. This man was then first kept in the Caledon Square cells and thereafter in Roeland Street for up to six days. Application for bail was made the following week to the Supreme Court and Judge Corbett said in the Supreme Court that he was amazed at the opposition by the State in the magistrate’s court to the bail application. Further, and I am quoting from the Cape Times of the 8th July, he said “I am amazed that the State took this attitude in the magistrate’s court. I am somewhat shocked by it.”

Now I come to the issue concerning his consulting his attorney. This prominent man, after the samples were investigated in the detectives’ offices and after he had helped to sort the samples and to make a stocklist of them, was taken into custody in Caledon Square. His tie, money, watch and his briefcase were removed and he was put in a cell. At “lunch” of the same day that he was taken into custody, he asked the warder who served him with lunch, if he could see his attorney, but he was refused. When “dinner” was served in Caledon Square at 3.30 in the afternoon, he again asked if he could see his attorney and he was told that it was not possible. The next day his wife called at Caledon Square and also his attorney who asked to see him. His wife and the attorney were denied the right to see the accused. The following afternoon, the 4th July, he appeared in the magistrate’s court under the charge that I have mentioned. After his court appearance where bail was successfully opposed by the State he was fingerprinted, put into a cell with convicted men, and was afterwards taken to Roeland Street in a “Black Maria”.

For the first time that afternoon, on the 4th July, was he allowed to see his attorney in Roeland Street. I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to what happened to this man when he was in Roeland Street gaol. He was escorted into a large office and his particulars were noted in a book. After an hour he was led into another large room together with other prisoners. Several warders were present. He was told to strip completely. Apart from searching his clothing very carefully, the warder also searched the naked men, even to the point of lifting their genitals to search for hidden objects. He states:

I have a full statement here from him which I would like to hand over to the Minister.

But let us come to the next day, which was Saturday. On Saturday he was kept in a cell. The following day was Sunday, and that morning there was a church parade. Each day, at breakfast, an announcement was broadcast that anyone wanting medicine, could obtain it by queueing at the iron gate which closes off the open end of the remand yard. Of course he was curious and applied for medicine. Do hon. members know what happened to this man who had potentially harmful drugs in his possession as an area manager of his company for which he was charged. On the one side of the gate was a biggish man in a convict’s uniform. The accused was later told that he was a long-term prisoner. His pockets were bulging with bottles of pills of various types. The man in front of him asked for and received a few lubrium without specifying his complaint. He, in turn like manner, requested phenobarbitone, which is a very addicting drug, which was given to him. There was no doctor present or any type of examination performed. To the best of his knowledge, the convict doing the distribution had no training in the use of these drugs whatsoever. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am rising in order to reply at once to the hon. member for Simonstown. My Department is only implicated in this case as regards the fact that bail was not granted. This is completely within the discretion of the presiding judicial officer. The accused followed the correct course in appealing to the Supreme Court. His application to the Supreme Court was a lawful one.

A week later.

Yes, that is the course of justice. One cannot do anything about it. It is within the discretion of the presiding judicial officer to grant bail when an appeal is made against the judgment. As regards the question at the prison itself, this is something I should like to investigate if the hon. member would just furnish me with the particulars. Other than that my two Departments are not concerned with the case at all.

A very interesting discussion took place here to-night. If it had not been for the fact that it was getting late, I would have wanted to sit back to see how the matter would develop further. The question at issue is bilingualism in hotels. For the very reason that I appreciate that the hotel trade is experiencing great difficulty in obtaining competent and bilingual people at all times, I made the concession to them that a bilingual person did not necessarily have to be present in the reception hall; they merely had to ensure that there was on the premises a person who could be called at any time to attend to any person insisting on being served in either English or Afrikaans. I want to point out that I receive many complaints, which I then refer to the National Liquor Board of inquiry. The complaints are not so much that hotels do not have a bilingual person at the desk. The complaints I received, arise when an Afrikaans-speaking person enters an hotel and insists on being served in Afrikaans. This is something I cannot take amiss of such a person. If he wants to do this, he is entitled to do so. This is a bilingual country. But when an Afrikaans-speaking person does this, he is looked at as though he was dragged in by a cat. The appeal I want to make, is that when a person arrives at a hotel and insists on being served in Afrikaans, and an immigrant lady or an English-speaking lady is on duty at the desk, she should then, in as courteous manner, ask that somebody else be sent to attend to that person. The visitor should not be treated in such a way as though he is not entitled to it. I think this is fair. Furthermore, I want to say that I recently read a circular that was sent out by Fedhasa to all their members. In that circular this requirement for classification was very pointedly brought to their notice. I hope and trust that in future there will not be any cause for complaints again.

The hon. member for Houghton asked me a few questions. I shall deal with the question of legal aid first. The Legal Aid Board was established last year already. A director was appointed and agreement was reached on a scheme. At the moment the director is engaged in arranging legal aid in the various centres. There is every reason to believe that the scheme will be put into operation shortly. Last year R50,000 was appropriated for this purpose, because we realized that it would not be possible for the scheme to come into operation immediately. The whole amount of R50,000 was not used; part of it was not spent. This is now being added to the R150,000 which is being appropriated this year. That is how the matter stands at the moment.

As regards Sobukwe, I want to say that we have restricted him in Kimberley. He was granted a house in Kimberley and an allowance of R100 per month until such time as he could earn his own keep again. We realized that we could not put him in a place where he did not want to be and then simply leave him there, without some means of gaining a livelihood or an income. After he had received the allowance of R100 for three months, he was offered employment at R60 a month. He turned up his nose at that and was not prepared to accept the position at R60 a month. It was not, as the hon. member said, the Hertzog Party which forced me to do this, but it was because he did not want to accept this employment that I reduced his allowance by R60 a month. For three months this was the position, and then an offer of R1,200 a year was made to him. That he declined as well, and then we decided to take away his allowance completely. Subsequent to that he registered with an attorney, and my information is that financially the attorney was not in a position to pay him. Very recently he applied for assistance once again, and we immediately made two offers to him. There was one position with a salary of R1,200 a year, and a fortnight later another position with a salary of R1,380 a year was offered to him.

What sort of job was that?

This position is in the Department of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The hon. member also wanted to know from me whether we were going to detain him like that for ever. I cannot give the hon. member a reply to that, except that I can tell her that we cannot release him or lift the restriction on him as long as there is no change of heart on his part. That is certain. And that is a reply which I gave the hon. member over the years when he was still being detained on Robben Island. As long as Sobukwe persists in holding the convictions he does, we simply cannot allow him to be set free altogether.

How are you going to decide?

I am sorry, but I cannot give the hon. member a reply. However, we are in contact with him. Then I just want to refer to the two Indians to whom the hon. member referred earlier on and whom I could not call to mind immediately. If my memory serves me orrectly, the one was called Chothia; I cannot remember the other one’s name. During the interrogation of Imam Haron it appeared that large amounts of money were leaving the country for the purpose of training terrorists. It appeared that this person and the person who was being detained along with him, could quite possibly have been involved in this matter. For that reason they were detained in terms of the Terrorism Act. However, when the matter was examined more closely, the Police were faced with the difficulty that they could not bring the witnesses here from countries abroad in order to prosecute them in terms of that Act. Subsequently he was arraigned in terms of the exchange control regulations.

The hon. member for Durban (North) wanted to know from me whether I was now acting as the Attorney-General in so far as the Terrorism Act was concerned. The reply to that is: “No, I do not.”

Why not?

Because I do not have the power to act as the Attorney-General.

That is your duty.

No, it is not. In terms of the Terrorism Act the Commissioner of Police has certain powers. I, too, have a power in terms of that Act, i.e. that I may release people. However, by no manner of means does this mean that I may act as the Attorney-General. If it appears that a person has to be detained, the Commissioner of Police has every right to do so. I cannot query that. However, he is obliged to notify me immediately of the detention of such a person and the reasons for the detention of that person. This he does. He tells me what he presumes to have happened and that he needs the person for further interrogation. The local magistrate is notified on the same day. The magistrate has to visit that person every fortnight. Hon. members will perhaps not believe me, but since this Act came into operation there has not been one single case where a person was detained and then appealed to me to be released because he was being detained innocently. This may sound strange, but it is true. Of course, if the detention goes on for too long a time or the reason for the detention appears to be rather flimsy, discussions take place. Should it then appear to be necessary, the detainee will be released or otherwise legal proceedings will be instituted against him. This is the normal course of events. I think it is very reasonable. The hon. member asked me why I had not caused the 44 persons to be questioned in terms of the 1966 Act, in which provision is being made for the 14 days’ detention and for the judge to issue further instructions subsequent to that. We simply could not do that. When the Terrorism Act was piloted through this Parliament, I made it clear to the hon. member that it was not possible to build up within fourteen days from the first day of detention an adequate case to present to the judge. I explained to hon. members this afternoon how difficult it is to crack these people; they have been taught to offer resistance, and for that reason they were originally detained under section 6 of the Terrorism Act and not under the Act of 1966.

But where were they caught?

They were caught all over, but they were detained in Johannesburg.

The hon. member was referring to prisoners who were sentenced to long-term imprisonment, who were then released and subsequently came back again, and pointed out that Judge President Beyers had commented on that on a certain occasion. I want to say, Sir, that he commented on that on two occasions. As regards one of these occasions, I furnished the hon. member for Transkei with full particulars. Hon. members will find the hon. member’s question in the Hansard of 1968, column 6799, and my reply in columns 6812 and 6813. This is as far as the one case is concerned. As far as the other case is concerned, I wrote a personal letter to the judge, in which I set out the particulars.

Then the hon. member asked me why the Minister of Police had replied.

I want to thank the hon. member for Westdene for the thoughts he expressed here. The Department has, as he knows, a channelling section for making contact with the public outside after the release of the prisoner with a view to the necessary rehabilitation and employment of the ex-convict. In more than one case of a prisoner being released, where I saw that the person concerned was making excellent progress on the way to rehabilitation, I have already insisted that he should not be released on parole until such time as he has received an offer of permanent, good employment.

I think the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) for the thoughts he expressed here. I am not so sure that his suggestion is quite practicable. To a lesser extent this is, of course, being used in the case of shortterm prisoners; the sentence of the person concerned is suspended, and in this way he is afforded the opportunity of rehabilitating himself.

The hon. member for Zululand spoke about the language question, into which I do not want to go at the moment.

As regards the question of magistrates in the rural areas, which was raised here by the hon. member for Christiana, we know that the poor magistrate in the rural areas has a difficult task to perform. He represents virtually every department. This is a matter which is regularly being discussed at magistrates’ conferences in order to see what can be done about it. Of course, in cases where too much is being loaded on to such an office, the magistrate is always free to apply to the head office for assistance. The Department feels that the various types of work with which the magistrate in the rural areas have to deal, provides him with valuable experience. But I agree with the hon. member that the judicial work should not suffer as a result.

Sir, I think I have now replied to all the matters that were raised here.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 35.—“Radio Services”, R2,750,000, Loan Vote R.—“Radio Services”, R2,500,000 and S.W.A. Vote No. 17.—“Radio Services”, R90,000.

Sir, in all three these Votes, the person who must account for the spending of the amounts requested is the Postmaster-General, and I hope the hon. the Minister will not take it amiss of me if I should perhaps anticipate him, but I feel that we should, on behalf of our side of the House, like to welcome the new Postmaster-General to his post and wish him everything of the best. He has a tremendously difficult task, because great challenges are presented to him in the Post Office, and we should like to wish him every success in the implementation of his task.

Sir, there are three Votes here for which money is being requested. The first one makes provision for approximately R2.6 million for the external service of Radio South Africa; the other makes provision for R900,000 for services for, as is stated here, the natives of South-West Africa; and the third is a loan to the S. A. Broadcasting Corporation for the F.M. System for expansions at a cost of approximately R2 million. Let me say at once that we on this side do not object in principle to the objective for which these amounts are being requested. What we do in fact object to is the way in which this money can be applied, and we have strong misgivings about the almost unlimited control which is being given to the S. A. Broadcasting Corporation in regard to the application of those amounts.

Sir, before I come to that, there are one or two minor matters I want to raise in regard to these Votes. The first is this: Why is there an amount of R21,000 for a film news unit for Radio South Africa? This amount was spent in the previous financial year, and I accept that it will again be spent this year. Why must there be a film news unit to make films for Radio South Africa which is after all broadcasting on the shortwave radio from South Africa? Perhaps the hon. the Minister could explain that to us. I hope Radio South Africa is not making television films for broadcast and for exhibition in other countries of the world. It would indeed be very strange if the Government were making television films or films which could possibly be used for television. We may not see television, while television films may be distributed by Radio South Africa. I am not saying that my interpretation is correct, but I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether it is in fact so.

Then, just one more minor matter: why is mention made in this specific Vote of a F.M. service for the “natives” of South-West Africa? We know that the customary terms are “non-Whites” or “inhabitants”, but in this case reference is made to “natives”. I am not in any way saying this in a derogatory sense, but it would seem to me as if the word “native” includes Whites as well as non-Whites. I am not saying this in a derogatory sense, because one does speak of “a native of England” or “a native of Germany” if one is referring to people who were born there. I should just like to hear whether this is the interpretation which should be attached to these terms?

I want to come now to a number of objections, objections which are not so strong that we are going to vote against these proposed appropriations, but which we do nevertheless want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The first is this: Here a considerable amount of money is being requested, i.e. between R5 million and R6 million, and as far as the bulk of that money is concerned, the Auditor-General is not going to account to Parliament for it. Sir, we are the sovereign Parliament of South Africa. We are being asked here to-night for R6 million, but nobody knows how this money is going to be spent. The hon. the Minister in reply to a question, informed me that he was going to appoint two auditors. At best, they will report to him. Can I request the hon. the Minister to consider laying those reports of the auditors whom he has appointed on the Table here as well? We will not take advantage of them. We should just like to know, we as people who are to-night going to vote this R6 million, primarily to the S.A.B.C., how that money is going to be used.

The second matter in regard to which we have misgivings, and which I raised under the Vote “Foreign Affairs”, is that apparently, according to one of the reports of the S.A.B.C. dealing with the external services, a special service for our diplomatic corps overseas is going to be established by the S.A.B.C. I am quoting from the report—

What annual report is that?

It is the 1968 annual report. I take it that this also applies for this year, but I do not know whether this is the case. The annual reports, as the hon. the Minister knows, are usually a little late. Up to now we only have the 1969 annual report here. Sir, this seems very strange to me. We are being asked here to vote millions of rands for Radio South Africa, and we are entitled to ask what is meant here by making special mention of the fact that Radio South Africa is also being used to send broadcasts to the Diplomatic Missions of South Africa abroad. I should just like to know why Diplomatic Missions are being singled out. If we wanted to mention particular services, we could just as well have mentioned our information attaches or our information service overseas; and we could also have mentioned our trade representatives overseas. Why are the Diplomatic Missions being singled out here, and why is it so that Radio South Africa is sending news comment—not only ordinary news, but news and comment-—to our Diplomatic Missions in a special daily broadcast lasting a quarter of an hour every day? This is apparently not the normal news comment which is broadcast every day. Radio South Africa broadcasts 31 comment broadcasts a day to the rest of the world, and I have no objection to that, but why is the impression being created here in this report that the S. A. Broadcasting corporation must in fact inform our Diplomatic Missions overseas of what is happening here in South Africa? Why should they make any comment or, as it were, try to furnish guidance to the Diplomatic Missions? Surely our diplomats in South Africa are quite capable of contacting their own missions overseas and telling them what is going on and furnishing the correct comment? I should like to know what is included in this quarter hour comment which is specially being broadcast for the Diplomatic Missions every day. Is it a “Current Affairs”. Was it the overseas comment of an A. M. van Schoor? It seems ridiculousto me that there should be special broadcasts for our Diplomatic Missions abroad.

It is the same as the 9 o’clock news comment.

Why is it then mentioned as broadcasts for the Diplomatic Missions? Why is it not also described as news for our trade attaches and our information officers overseas? I want to know why the Diplomatic Missions should have been singled out.

Sir, we have misgivings about the appropriation of this money, although we are going to do so, because we cannot get sufficient information from the hon. the Minister in regard to the administrative matters of the S.A. B.C. Listeners pay R8 million in licence fees every year. The total costs of the Broadcasting Corporation amounts to R17 million per year. But, Sir, put a question in this House of Assembly to the hon. the Minister, and it is almost as if you are dealing with a second Albert Hertzog here. He does not want to tell you; he is zipped in regard to this matter. Sir, this money we are being asked to vote, is going to be administered by the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation. Recently, as you know, there was almost a complete reversal in the higher post structure in the S.A.B.C. when a large number of promotions were made, almost exclusively of Afrikaans-speaking persons. I think we have the right to ask why the good, fair principle of 50-50 is not being applied in this connection. I want the hon. member for Potchefstroom, who is so concerned about the 50-50 principle, to support me in this connection, and I should like to ascertain from the Minister precisely what is happening here. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Grange Grove has just put a few questions to the hon. the Minister. I do not want to react to those questions now, except to say to that hon. member that, in my opinion, there is nothing sinister in the newscasts and commentary to our diplomatic service. Anyone in South Africa with a radio can receive those broadcasts and listen to them. It is surely a good thing that people who are away from their fatherland for quite a time, should have the privilege of being able to listen to domestic newscasts and commentary broadcast here about a diversity of events. There is nothing sinister in it. Heaven alone knows what the hon. member has on his conscience. But I can see no reason for him to be perturbed.

I want to express a few ideas here about the six programme services broadcasting advertisements, i.e. Springbok Radio, Radio Bantu, Radio Highveld. Radio Good Hope, Radio Port Natal and the all-night service of Radio South Africa. As a result of the intimate and personal contact with listeners, the radio is a particularly strong advertising medium, and according to observers this advertising medium has a wonderful impact. I want to make a very strange request to the S.A.B.C., i.e. that they immediately put a stop to advertisements in which any kind of cigarette or tobacco is advertised. My reason for mentioning this is that, according to researchers, the use of this plant product is very detrimental to human health. Of course, now that I am asking for these advertisements to be stopped, smokers will say that I am talking nonsense. Well, cigarettes are made of tobacco, after all, but I want to tell them that their arguments are not worth a plug of tobacco if they argue along those lines. I have now ventured onto dangerous ground, because the hon. the Minister also smokes. In America the broadcasting of cigarette advertisements has been prohibited or cancelled, and this was done after a great deal of research and investigation. It was found that there is a very good reason why the use of cigarettes should no longer be given space on the advertising media. I think it is definitely a very good step the Americans took in prohibiting this. It is, therefore, my request to the S.A.B.C. that, in the interests of health in South Africa, and in the light of facts brought forward by researchers, they also stop advertisements about this aforementioned pleasant habit. I know they will argue that it will be a financial loss for the S.A.B.C., but according to this S.A.B.C. report there is so much interest in the advertisements on these F.M. services and the various broadcasts they have, and so great a demand for them, that they could easily supplement this by advertising something beneficial to human health.

Do you think the newspapers ought to refuse them as well? And what about liquor advertisements?

I am not so concerned about liquor, because then I would come into conflict with the hon. member again, and I do not want to clash with him about the use of a certain liquid that one sometimes adds very little water to. [Interjection]. There has just been an interjection to the effect that liquor is not healthy. I leave the matter at that. There are better judges than myself on that score. I am speaking only of this particular item.

Order! I want the hon. member to look at sub-heads A and B. I cannot understand why he is speaking about tobacco.

I am speaking about advertisements.

They are not relevant.

Then I shall leave the advertisements. I just want to say further that we have this short-wave service on radio R.S.A., and this service must supply impartial world news and local news. That is also why this money is being made available.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that the running expenses of the external radio service, and the running expenses of the F.M. radio service for the Natives of South-West Africa, are the two items he may discuss.

And also, with respect, about the extension of the F.M. services in South Africa.

No funds are being voted here for that purpose. The hon. member may continue.

With all respect my submission to you is that this amount being made available under this Vote is for radio services and, as the previous Opposition speakers put it, for the purposes you mentioned, and these various services that are being supplied are not limited to a certain specific group alone. I put it to you, Sir, that this extension to these services if for the furnishing of all these services of the S.A.B.C., and not only for the furnishing of a specific service. I am therefore grateful to you for saying that I may now continue. I want to say that one of the tasks of the external radio service is, in my opinion, the very important task of correcting the distorted image of the Republic. One of the complaints of the previous speaker was that transmissions are being made to our diplomatic service, and you know that there are other channels through which news reaches them. I believe that it is Radio South Africa’s task to correct that distorted image. Here we have a virulent English language Press, and there are journalists who are continually discrediting South Africa’s image, and that is why Radio South Africa can be used for that particular purpose. I am not referring here to the political image: I am referring specifically to the image of South Africa, and that this is one of the services that must enjoy precedence in order to correct that image of South Africa.

These radio services, for which we are voting this money, are also compelled, in my opinion, to broadcast South Africa’s scientific and technical progress to the world, and to present this to the listeners overseas. I am referring, in particular, to the latest scientific achievement, the enrichment of uranium. It is to South Africa’s advantage that these amounts be employed for this service, so that this may be achieved. The development in commerce and industry must also be made known to the world, because this is to the benefit of South Africa, and in my opinion this is one of the important tasks of this service.

Another task is to convey, clearly and unambiguously, our country’s standpoint and opinion in respect of our nationally and internationally important questions, to reflect our country’s way of life, its culture and development. It is a big task that rests on the shoulders of the S.A.B.C. Thus far the S.A.B.C. has supplied the Republic of South Africa with a service and furnished pleasure in every sphere. That is why I am convinced that the amount of R2,750,000, which is being made available under this Vote, is an excellent investment.

The Votes we are discussing here this evening actually fall into two categories. The one is, of course, the expansion of the external service, and the other concerns the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation, inasmuch as it is an extention of the F.M. services, which are actually domestic services. It is late in the evening, and I think we can now speak calmly about matters. I think that if we try to compare the external and domestic services, we shall perhaps find, in this comparison, a crystallization which is actually going to be worth a lot to us in respect of a point of difference that apparently exists between the attitude of ourselves on this side of the House and the hon. members on the other side. I am referring here, of course, to the role that radio can play in the lives of a country’s people. The specific point of difference, about which I think we could possibly obtain greater clarity, is one that has already been quoted repeatedly in this hon. House, and I do not think that it is to our credit to always be speaking about the same point. We have discussed this on a previous occasion, i.e. the political role played by radio.

That does not fall under one of the items.

I want to speak about the external service, Radio South Africa. The short-wave service of Radio South Africa— and that is what I am going to pay special attention to—is chiefly an information service, and as an external service it tries to give information and transmit knowledge about South Africa. They way in which this shortwave service which, as I have said, is primarily an information service, tries to do this, is in the first place by transmitting sound pictures, in the second place by means of news reports, and as we also heard from the hon. member for Orange Grove it transmits commentary. If we examine the external service report we also find that it is very clearly mentioned that endeavours to build up a circle of listeners are successful inasmuch as information with entertainment are presented together. Consequently we find that on page 33 specific mention is made under “External Services”, where this is discussed, of the fact that as a result of endeavours to present entertainment and information simultaneously, a larger circle of listeners is being built up. The question now arises, and in this case we come back to the problem I mentioned at the beginning, and which I say could, in fact, have a bearing on the domestic service. I am not going to say that they do so, but supposing this external service and the short-wave transmission station were to make themselves guilty of blatant political propaganda, what would our attitude be? I would in the first place regard it as a disservice, since it is an external service which is trying to build up a circle of listeners. In the report itself it is acknowledged that information and entertainment actually create a larger circle of listeners. That is why I would say that it is undesirable, and it would be detrimental to the objective of building up this circle of listeners. In the second place I believe, of course, that if they were to take such a step, it would be a sad thing for South Africa. But now comes the big question, and this question deals with this specific case. Supposing programmes or commentary were presented on the external service, commentary which could be proved to be of a political nature. I could then, to some extent, perhaps comprehend the standpoint which the hon. the Minister advanced a while ago under the Post Office Vote, i.e. that in such a case there could perhaps be correspondence between party politics and national politics, because this is merely an image being presented of South Africa as it is. In such a case we also realize that the Government in power is, in fact, a part of South Africa. I can then understand the hon. the Minister saying that if programmes are presented which, let us say, try to explain the basis of separate development, and try to do it subtly, he could, in his terms, classify this as being non-party politics. This brings us back to the domestic service. The point of difference arises when we want to apply that same standard to our domestic service. The point of difference is no longer merely about whether the South African Broadcasting Corporation is, in fact, playing a political role. The hon. the Minister acknowledged as much on a previous occasion. The point of difference concerns the question of whether it does, in fact, have a party political orientation. In the second place, this is concerned with whether it does, in fact, have a right to exist, since it is controlled by a board appointed by the Minister. In addition, it is a monopoly, and every listener is, to a certain extent, a shareholder. That is the reason for the question I want to put to the hon. the Minister. That is why I told the hon. the Minister that, as far as the external service is concerned, I can, in fact, comprehend his standpoint, although I am convinced that if we followed this slavishly it would be to the detriment of South Africa. I now want to put this question to the Minister. On what grounds is he also of the opinion that there cannot be any difference between party politics and national politics in the domestic services? As far as the external service is concerned, we accept that they are competing with transmissions from other countries, and that a stage is reached where they must reply, as a result of malicious attacks from other sources. It may happen that they then fall back on a political basis. I want to state clearly that I nevertheless regard it as undesirable. But when we consider the domestic service, we must accept the one fact that the object is not to build up a circle of listeners. It is a service directed at the interior. In the second place there are other media of information in South Africa, and one can therefore not use radio as an excuse for an information medium, since there are the other media, for example the newspapers, which make use of both languages. The most important aspect here is that, as far as the domestic service is concerned, the people themselves can judge.

One aspect of the external service that is mentioned, and that I believe could be of great value, is the transmission of Afrikaans lessons that are followed as far afield as North America and other countries. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell us whether these particular transmissions are specifically aimed at universities and schools. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, there is really not much for me to reply to. As far as the hon. member for Durban (Central) is concerned, I told him very clearly that we would always differ about what was politics and what was party politics. Although this is not, in my opinion, a matter which could, strictly speaking, be discussed under Radio Services, I shall react to it while the Chairman allows me to do so. On a previous occasion I told the hon. member for Durban (Central) that he and any other member were welcome to submit specific objections to me in writing. If they do so I shall investigate the matter thoroughly and give my findings.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. In my entire speech I specifically did not try to attack the hon. the Minister as to whether or not this or that was politically orientated. I just wanted to discuss the matter.

Order! The hon. member must ask his question and not explain it.

I understand the hon. member, but what he is saying brings us no further than we are. He made all kinds of suppositions about what the position would be if the external service perhaps broadcast politics and so on. It brings us no further. The hon. member should tell me specifically if he regards something as party politics, if in his opinion the radio is making party political propaganda for some political party or other. If it can be proved that political propaganda is being made for some political party or other, even if it is the governing party, I shall take action. The hon. member may be assured of that.

The hon. the Minister will nevertheless allow politics.

I shall allow national politics. I shall allow it in the interests of South Africa, just as hon. members opposite allowed national politics during the war years.

You had Zeesen.

We did not have control over Zeesen. What is the hon. member talking about now? Is he delirious or dreaming. The hon. member for Orange Grove put questions to me about the news film unit. The films are made and supplied to foreign news agencies and television stations. In 1969 55 such news films were shot as a result of direct requests from abroad. The demand for these films is such that all requests can hardly be met. I can tell the hon. member that all material is made available to these news agencies and television organizations at prevailing international rates.

When will we get to see them?

The hon. member for Orange Grove should not think I am caught so easily. He wants to know from me why reference is made to the Natives of South-West Africa. It is a slightly difficult question, but I take it that that was the tradition and custom in South-West Africa, perhaps because of the Germans who have been there from the beginning. They spoke about Natives. According to that tradition these people are still referred to as Natives, a term which includes the Bushmen, the Damara, the Ovanbo, the Nama and the Herero. All of them are in effect non-Whites. I think it is from this that the use of the term “Native” originates.

The hon. member put questions to me about a matter which he also discussed during the Foreign Affairs Vote. I do not know why the hon. member now wants to discuss it with me again, because the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs gave him a very clear reply. The hon. the Minister told him very definitely that there was no specific agreement between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the S.A.B.C. for the transmission of a special news commentary for the Diplomatic Corps abroad. The words which appeared in the 1968 report were not repeated in the following year’s report. This may perhaps not be put to that hon. member’s liking. This may perhaps be expressed incorrectly, but I find nothing strange ’ in this: “On August 1 a special daily broadcast of news and news commentary about South and Southern Africa was introduced for our diplomatic missions and South Africans abroad.”

A special broadcast.

Yes, what is wrong with that? This 15-minute broadcast is presented every day, except on Sundays.

May I ask the hon. the Minister why is it a special broadcast? There are 33 commentaries broadcast every day, and one of them is special.

This is possibly a summarizing commentary for their consumption and convenience.

Is it related to Current Affairs?

No, the hon. member need not be afraid of “Current Affairs”. This transmission is a summarizing news commentary. No special arrangements have been made. It is simply for the convenience of our people there, so that they may be well-informed of what is happening here in South Africa. It is indeed necessary that they be well-informed of events from day to day, as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs quite rightly told the hon. member. Does the hon. member not acknowledge that it is necessary for them to be well-informed of events here in South Africa?

The Post Office has a very good telex service for that purpose.

Oh no, now the hon. member just wants to argue about a matter that really is worth the trouble. He tried to rehash these arguments year after year with the previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Now he is trying it with me again. He knows what the provisions of the Broadcasting Act are in connection with the auditing of the South African Broadcasting Corporation. This is legislation that was passed by this Parliament in its wisdom. It is legislation that was not passed in the days of the National Party Government. It is legislation that was passed when the party on that side of the House was in power. That legislation provides that the books and the accounts of the South African Broadcasting Corporation shall not be controlled by the Controller and Auditor-General, but by two or more external auditors appointed by the Minister. The Act also provides that they shall not be submitted to Parliament, and that the internal management of the Broadcasting Corporation shall be carried out by a control board of directors. Why is the hon. member looking for an argument with me this evening about legislation passed when his party was in power? Could we not simply clear away that point of difference? I do want to be honest now and say that the hon. member asked me the other night what he should speak about.

I wanted to know whether I would be allowed to speak about the S.A.B.C.

No, I am not being very serious about this. If the hon. member does not have a matter which he wants to discuss seriously with me, he should kindly not make us argue every year about the old, boring stories concerning the auditing of the S.A.B. C.’s books. He could criticize me with every right if the administration of the S.A.B.C. were not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Then he is entitled to launch a vehement attack at me. But this side of the House and I are satisfied with what has been laid down in this legislation for administering the South African Broadcasting Corporation. We submit ourselves to that. The hon. member may, it is true, criticize that. But I do not think it is necessary for him to repeat it year after year ad nauseum.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 32.—“Mines”, R34,482,000, Loan Vote S.—“Mines,” R1,450,000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 16.—“Mines”, R315,000:

Mr. Chairman, may I firstly ask the hon. the Minister of Mines if at some stage during the time that is allotted for the Mines Vote, he will be good enough to give the House a statement of progress on what has been happening to the oil drilling operations that are taking place along our coast and inland. As hon. members know, we had great jubilation when the Glomar Sirte drilled and found gas which held great promise for an oil find. Soon after that the drill hole was plugged. Except for one statement that the hon. the Minister was good enough to give us last year, we have heard very little about the progress that has been made there. We do know from newspaper reports that an oil rig has arrived in the Port Elizabeth area. I am, however, not even sure about that. It may even be the Plettenberg Bay area. The rig was brought here with the purpose of drilling another hole in the vicinity of the first gas find. We should like to know whether that is continuing or whether the oil rig itself was damaged and is now unable to drill. We should also like to know what has been happening in regard to drilling operations inland.

The next point I want to raise is one which I dealt with under the Labour Vote. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration made it quite clear that as far as the homelands were concerned he would have no objection to Bantu labourers on the mines there having the same rights of advancement that are afforded to white workers in the white areas. He said also that there would be two bars to the advancement of Bantu labourers, if necessary.

Conditions.

Yes, they can be called conditions if the Minister so wishes. The first condition is that Africans should not be able to jump in from the top and fill top jobs immediately. The second condition was that the regulations concerning the safety of the miner would be carried out. In other words, the Minister wanted to retain the provisions of the Mines and Works Act in the homelands. Let us take the first method of advancement. The Minister said that the Bantu could not come in at the top level. Naturally he cannot. He has to be taught, and the only way he can be taught is to come in at a low level and work himself upwards. That would mean that he would have to be taught by a white man in the homelands. The white man would have to teach the Bantu to enable him to obtain an overseer’s certificate or a shift boss’s certificate, as the case may be. Separation is therefore immediately impossible, for the time being at any rate. You cannot have a totally Bantumanned mine in the Bantu areas. There will have to be a white staff and a Bantu staff. The Mineworkers’ Union has seen the hon. the Minister. We know that from newspaper reports. I do not know what transpired between them, but the Mineworkers’ Union made it quite clear in their statement that they would not allow the advancement of the Bantu worker beyond the stage he can at present attain in the mines of South Africa. They were apparently referring to those mines which are outside the homelands. We on this side of the House have made it clear what our stand is. We say that the homelands are part of South Africa. While they are part of South Africa, the Mines and Works Act applies to them. We have also made it clear that we shall negotiate with the workers’ unions if necessary. Together we shall come to a conclusion as to how best to give employment to the Bantu. Sometime this evening or tomorrow the Minister must tell this House and he must tell the Mine-workers’ Union as well, if he has not done so already, what the position is going to be to insure the successful operation of the mines in the homelands. I cannot for the life of me see how the Minister of Bantu Administration is going to separate the white miner from the Bantu miner. He knows quite well what is happening to-day in our present mines. He knows that for every white miner we have, we are employing the best part of 10 Bantu. Together that white miner and the 10 Bantu miners form a team which keeps the mine going. The hon. the Minister visualizes that eventually in the homelands—when it is going to be I do not know—there will be no white people at all. There will be a Bantu overseer, a Bantu shift boss with 10 other Bantu working under him. This will be the case if they are going to work according to the same methods used at present. I do not know how this is going to work, but it is a very serious problem which the Minister is facing. He must tell the mineworker what his position is. If the Mineworkers’ Unions are objecting to the advancement of the Bantu, then the Minister of Mines and the Minister of Bantu Administration must tell us how they are going to overcome this difficulty.

What would you do if they object?

I have made it quite clear that according to our view on this side of the House, the homelands are part of South Africa. In South Africa, as we see it, the Mines and Works Act will apply to the mines of the Witwatersrand, the mines in the Free State and the mines in the homelands. We see the mines in the homelands being operated by Whites and Bantu. If we find that there are not sufficient white people to do the job, we will then talk to the Mineworkers’ Union. I know that the Minister of Mines will now ask what will happen if the Mine-workers’ Union were to object to such a proposal.

Yes, what will you do if, after negotiation, they do not agree?

What are we going to do?

Yes.

We shall first see what you are going to do. [Interjections.] You are the Government. This is your baby. [Interjections.] The Minister of Bantu Administration said categorically exactly what the Minister of Labour said: “The sky is the limit. Go where you like.” That is what he said. The Minister of Bantu Administration then said that he would impose two qualifications. The first was that they would not be able to come in from the top, but that they would have to work themselves up from the bottom. The other qualification was that there must be safety regulations. Naturally there will be safety regulations. Naturally no mine owner would dare allow unskilled people to start at the top. I repeat that the only way in which the Bantu can learn is through the white man. He is the teacher, and you will never be able to separate them. [Time expired.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.