House of Assembly: Vol39 - WEDNESDAY 24 MAY 1972
REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS
Report presented.
FIRST READING OF BILLS
The following Bills were read a First Time:
Finance Bill.
General Law Amendment Bill.
Railway Construction Bill.
Copyright Amendment Bill.
Financial Institutions Amendment Bill.
SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ANDSTATE SECURITY COUNCIL BILL
Mr. Speaker, I move—
The Bill of which I am now moving the Second Reading is a short and clear Bill. Accordingly it is not necessary to say a great deal about it. In any case, Sir, while on the one hand, this Bill deals with an extremely important aspect of our life in South Africa—I want to go so far as to say a vitally important aspect of it—it is, not only in South Africa, but throughout the world, an aspect, however important it may be, which is not talked about a great deal. Nor is it necessary to explain to hon. members why it is a matter which is not talked about a great deal.
As far as the background to this Bill is concerned, we have, of course, the Potgieter Report. I wish to avail myself of this opportunity once again to convey my thanks and appreciation to Appeal Judge Potgieter, not only for the study and recommendations he made in regard to our own intelligence set-up, but also for the very thorough and penetrating study he made of comparable security systems elsewhere in the world, and for the fact that we can have the benefit of that study of his. He has given us a useful document, and I think I am speaking on behalf of all on both sides of this House in saying that in this regard the Commissioner has done very good work for us.
Now, for the purposes of the background to the matter as a whole, and to the Bill in particular, I just want to refer to a few aspects of this report as put by the hon. Judge. But before I come to that, it is necessary for the purposes of the record that I should just in passing refer to certain aspects of the terms of reference which the Judge had to carry out. He had to inquire into and submit recommendations and a report on, inter alia, the following:
1. Whether the State Departments concerned in security function properly and act in a co-ordinated manner so as to ensure the greatest measure of efficiency, and to what extent each State Department concerned plays a necessary and an efficient part.
2. Any matter which, in the opinion of the Commission, constitutes a threat to the efficient functioning of the security organizations, the harmful effects, if any, which their activities might have on the State or its citizens and the anomalies which might possibly arise as a result of the operations of any of the said organizations or the actions of persons attached to or in control of them.
3. Any further aspect concerning the security structure of the State.
4. Whether, and to what extent, present legislation, or portions thereof, concerning the Bureau for State Security should be amended in the light of the recommendations and report on the above-mentioned matters.
You will therefore see from this, Sir, that we did not entrust only the security set-up to the Judge. In view of many things said at that time either out of ignorance or out of malice, I did not submit only the set-up as such to the Judge. The individuals concerned in it, their personalities and the discharge of the duties attaching to their offices were also relevant, for anyone to submit evidence in regard to them. It is important that one should bear this in mind.
Then I should like to refer to four paragraphs from this report. The first is paragraph 159 on page 43. There the hon. Judge says—
I want to make it very clear to this House that, since I am primarily responsible for this particular security set-up, it has at all times been my object and my endeavour, in view of, as I have said, the vital importance of this matter to South Africa, to give South Africa only the best, regardless of what Government is in power and regardless of what person occupies the office in which I find myself today. But, Sir, it has been my object not only to establish the best security set-up, but also to find the best available persons for that set-up. I want to say here that most of the persons concerned in that set-up, from Gen. Van den Bergh downwards, I have known for many years. I knew them in the time when South Africa was faced with the biggest internal threat it has ever been faced with in its history. In other words, I have in fact been through the mill with those persons. I was aware of their potential; I was aware of what they had done, and it is not necessary for me to say more than this, that what was done in those years by these persons I have mentioned, deserves the thanks and appreciation of everybody in South Africa, regardless of his party affiliations. Sir, I shall now proceed to read paragraph 161 to you—
Those people who indulged in so much gossiping in respect of that matter must now decide for themselves what motives inspired them when they did that—
Sir, I refrain from making any further comment. I now go on to refer to paragraph 215—
He further states in paragraph 216—
Sir, I leave the Potgieter report there. As I have said, as one who has been intimately concerned with the security set-up of South Africa since 1961 and who therefore possesses 12 years’ experience of this matter, I have no hesitation in telling the House that I should like very heartily to recommend this set-up, as embodied in legislation, to this House. It is my considered opinion that in the past South Africa has been served well by its officials in the various departments—Defence, Police and the Bureau—which are primarily concerned with security, and it is my considered opinion that after this Bill has been passed, it will be possible for South Africa to be served even better, because we shall have a firm basis and because I believe, and have reason to believe—and am grateful for this—that all misunderstanding, whether it was bona fide or otherwise, has now been eliminated as a result of this report. Sir, every country in the world must have a security set-up. It is not necessary for me to argue about the necessity of that. Over the years, of course, there has been a complete change in this sphere. In earlier years, as hon. members will remember, the security set-up of every country was directed primarily at foreign countries and, in fact, at potential enemies, because of a conventional declaration of war and the fact that an attack could be expected. Hon. members will agree with me that in the past one could see fairly long before the time that a war was coming; one could see how matters were working up to that climax, and as a result it was easier for countries to prepare for an attack or for a war. What is more, war was always preceded by a formal declaration of war by a state. All those things have changed in recent times. One can accept, as it were, that a formal declaration of war is as outmoded today as the clothes of ten years ago are. The situation has changed gradually, and instead of a formal declaration of war as one had at a certain stage in the past, a new element has crept in over the years, i.e. the element of softening up the country one wants to attack. Naturally, that softening-up process has various facets. War is not declare immediately, but a country is first softened up in various ways, so that when actual warfare is eventually proceeded to, one can very easily subject that country and render it powerless. If one looks at the various forms which that softening-up process assumes, it becomes clear how much more is expected of one’s security set-up today than years ago when circumstances were different. I shall just mention a few of those things in passing. In the first place, there is the revolutionary undermining of the authority structure of the state, and in this respect, of course, Western democracies have a tremendous backlog in relation to communist states. The Western democracies do not have front organizations behind iron and other curtains. But it is a well-known fact and one which has to be taken into account that communism most definitely has front organizations in all Western democracies or is doing its best to establish front organizations in those countries, in order to make it easy for itself, of course, to be able to carry out that softening process successfully.
In the second place, we know from experience that the enemy makes use of people who commit sabotage, of people who terrorize by committing all sorts of deeds, of people who do not hesitate to commit political murders or political hijackings of people. But apart from these things, and we have experience of this as well, there is the way in which terrorists are not only trained and armed, but also assisted and sent into countries which are eventually regarded as enemies. But physical violence is not all that is involved. Another aspect—and of this South Africa also has experience—which presents itself in that regard and of which careful note should be taken, is the casting of suspicion on and boycotting of a country on every possible front so as to isolate that country from possible friends which can render it assistance if it is eventually attacked, and by means of isolation to deprive it of any assistance which friendly countries might otherwise have given it. To an increasing extent this is becoming a powerful weapon in the hands of hostile states, and in South Africa’s case it is most definitely a weapon which we are taking into account. But in the case of South Africa, considering its strategic position as far as the Cape sea route is concerned and its strategic situation in relation to Africa, as well as its natural resources, it has also become increasingly important for South Africa to take cognizance of the procurement and organization of advanced bases or bridgeheads from where the country may eventually be attacked. This also places a very large burden on the intelligence set-up. Then, of course, there is the most recent development of which we also have to take cognisance, namely the stealing of processes concerning strategic matters, such as, to mention only one in passing, nuclear power, which plays a very important role in that regard. This, as I have said, is an indication of the importance of these various set-ups.
As far as the Bill itself is concerned, it must be realized very clearly that we are not concerned here with a substitution of the set-ups of both the Police and Defence which are necessary for their own purposes. This has nothing to do with that at all. We are concerned here with a security set-up whose task and function it is to gather such information as is necessary for combating these phenomenon I have mentioned in passing, as well as to evaluate that information, because good evaluation of information is perhaps in many respects more necessary than the gathering of information itself, because if one reacts to wrong information, hon. members can appreciate what tremendous blunders one can make in that regard. Then, of course, there is also the coordination of that information and the care which must be exercised to ensure that everybody is co-operating properly in that regard. Furthermore, I want to make it very clear that this set-up has nothing to do with the actual combating of any threats as such. The primary functions of this set-up are to determine and evaluate threats, but the actual combating of those threats are. of course, the task of the Police on the one hand or the task of the Defence Force on the other, depending in which sphere they occur. I am grateful to know that if and when it becomes necessary for both those two branches of the Service to act in their spheres, they will be able to do so most effectively.
Therefore, to sum up. if we have a proper security set-up, which this legislation gives us, a set-up which has also proved itself to be reliable and of the greatest use and service to South Africa without this legislation, and if. in conjunction with that set-up, we consider the striking arms of South Africa, namely the Police on the one hand and the Defence Force on the other, I believe that we have established a good set-up for South Africa in that sphere and that, considering our small size and the means at our disposal, we have given South Africa the maximum striking power to deal with possible enemy action. Of course, the recommendation of the set-up goes to the State Security Council, which is referred to in clause 4 of this Bill, and in respect of which I do not want to say anything further. In view of the report, what I have said here, and our past experience in this regard, I have no hesitation in recommending this Bill to hon. members.
We, on this side of the House, intend supporting this legislation, and in doing so we wish to associate ourselves with the words of thanks and congratulation that have come from the hon. the Prime Minister for Judge Potgieter and the work he did in the report he submitted and on which this legislation is based. The hon. the Prime Minister has said that this deals with an aspect of life which is vitally important but not much talked about. Because it is not much talked about, there are difficulties in controlling it and there are sometimes dangers in the type of control that has to be exercised.
This Bill starts by dealing with national security intelligence and departmental intelligence and the functions of the Bureau in regard to those types of intelligence. National security intelligence is information which relates to, or may be relevant to, any threat or potential threat to the security of the Republic. It is noticeable that in the report the Judge, Mr. Potgieter, poses the question as to whether the functions or the aims of the Bureau, as outlined by him and as set out in the Bill, accord with the basic principles of intelligence and with the intelligence needs of the Republic. After an exhaustive survey, he comes to the conclusion that those deeds are met and recommends that the proposals he makes should be accepted by the Government. Quite obviously, what constitutes a threat or potential threat to the security of the Republic, is and must remain a matter of opinion; it can lead to various interpretations which will of course determine the scope of the activities of the Bureau and the work which it does.
The Commissioner himself was very conscious of this problem and he deals with it at length in trying to determine exactly what is the security of the State. I think we have to accept that unless the Bureau is going to work entirely in public, and thus defeat the very object of its existence, we have to take a great deal by way of acceptance on good faith and trust as there is no way in which it can be controlled. It is interesting that the Commissioner himself says at one stage of his report—
In other words, Sir, when powers are granted to a bureau of this kind, there are risks, obvious risks. I believe that these are risks that have to be taken in the light of the dangers to which the State is exposed at the present time. These are risks that have to be taken by any civilized state that wants to protect itself in this way. I believe that the control as it exists at the moment, which is virtually control by the Prime Minister of the day in charge of the Bureau, must be presumed to be the best we can afford in the circumstances.
There is another matter which arises from this Bill which concerns the collection of covert information—covert departmental intelligence. It is quite clear that as from the passing of this Bill the collection of covert information, covert intelligence, becomes a monopoly of the Bureau except in certain exceptional cases. That applies both inside and outside South Africa. The Bill in doing this, in a sense removes an anomaly which existed because of the powers under the Police Act which gave the Security Police certain powers concerning which it was uncertain whether the Bureau enjoyed them to the same extent. It is interesting to note also the exceptions because they seem so well founded. The exceptions will be the Defence Force in time of war, the Defence Force in carrying out counter-intelligence activity or responsibilities with the consent of the Bureau and the Police Force when investigating an offence or performing a function in regard to the security of the Republic. But such collection of covert information must always be in a lawful manner. The report of the Commissioner makes it clear that there is no recommendation that the Bureau will have power to obtain information in such a way as to violate or affect the rights of third parties, e.g. entering and searching of premises in order to obtain information or intercepting of post or telephone conversations. “This would require an Act of Parliament”, the Commissioner said.
The Prime Minister, of course, knows my views on this particular aspect. He also knows that I will not be satisfied until this aspect of our intelligence is covered by adequate legislative enactments as he has indicated it is his intention to lay before the House in due course.
It will be done this Session.
I hope so and I am grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister for mentioning that. There is a third aspect which interests me, namely that this legislation represents to an extent the end of a lengthy argument, referred to in the Commissioner’s report, as to what part should be played by the Security Police on the one side and the Bureau on the other in the intelligence community and why both bodies—the one to the exclusion of the other, as the Commissioner says—should operate in the field of intelligence in order to maintain and promote the interests of State security.
In the result we have accepted the Commissioner’s recommendations in this Bill and we have decided in fact to put all our eggs into one basket, perhaps as never before, and to adopt a blue-print for our intelligence set-up different from those accepted in some other countries of the world while acceptable again in others. We are also sacrificing the safeguard of a double check by another independent intelligence organization in our country and perhaps limiting the possibilities of a wider field of training which might be of use to us in difficult times.
I fully appreciate that this is an expensive business and I must confess that I am impressed by the arguments of the Commissioner as set out in paragraphs 199 and 200 of his report, namely that it is probably wiser to have one body than two bodies. The reasons he gives are the difficulty of planning and co-ordinating the collection of intelligence if there is more than one agency, the difficulty of settling differences between divisions not in one agency, the possibility that departmental priorities may differ from national priorities and the desirability of the evaluator having authority over the collector of intelligence. He also raises the possibility of sabotage, where there is not proper control by the evaluator of the collector because they are not in the same agency. While I accept the cogency of his argument and while I accept that the set-up recommended is the best we can have, I am conscious of the possibility that one body established to preserve the security of the State from the intelligence point of view, might itself, if not properly controlled, pose a threat to the security of the State. I appreciate that the danger is minimal where that body has no executive powers, as is the case with the Bureau and as is the case in the course that we have adopted. I also appreciate that the course we have adopted is perhaps necessary because of the unique threats to the security of the Republic and because of the unique necessity for adequate intelligence in the present circumstances. Nevertheless, the course we have adopted lays a very great responsibility upon the Prime Minister of the day and his Security Council, because of the fact that there is only one body through which they will work.
There is one last aspect to which I wish to draw attention, namely that the State Security Council, as the Prime Minister has told us, is already in existence and already active. It has no statutory recognition as yet, but the hon. gentleman told us some considerable time ago in this House, that he had already appointed such a council.
The Defence Cabinet Committee.
The Prime Minister says it is the Defence Cabinet Committee. Why then the necessity for statutory recognition? The Commissioner deals with that. He thinks it is necessary to demarcate clearly the powers, the functions and the duties of a security council as opposed to the Bureau. He thinks it is necessary not only because of a lack of knowledge and understanding by the public and some civil servants, but he couples it with the necessity of legislation to give the Bureau greater powers of collecting intelligence. I think these reasons are cogent enough to justify legislation and this is one of the reasons why it has our support. Some countries, of course, get on quite well without legislation. I believe there is no legislation in England and I do not believe there is any in Holland, France or in Rhodesia. In America, Australia and New Zealand they have legislation of a kind, but not exhaustive legislation. When one looks at this legislation, one wants to be sure that what we are doing is providing the best machine and having it working most efficiently. One clause of the Bill interested me, namely clause 5 (b) where it says that it shall be the function of the council on the recommendation of the Bureau to determine intelligence priorities. This seems to indicate to me, if those words have any meaning at all, that the determination of priorities can only be undertaken after the recommendation of the Bureau or on the recommendation of the Bureau.
It is badly worded, I agree with you.
I accept that. I shall move the necessary amendment or perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister will move such an amendment. I am sure that it will then be a more satisfactory provision.
I want to say, lastly, that I know that the hon. the Prime Minister has emphasized that the Bureau has no executive powers and that none is envisaged for it, that all it will do is collect, handle, collate and evaluate intelligence and that the operational action following upon those recommendations or findings will be left to the statutory organs of the State whose responsibility this is. I may say that I think that this is a happy solution.
We on this side of the House have pleasure in supporting this Bill. What we need is the best possible intelligence setup which is possible for us to get. In supporting the Bill I want to offer on behalf of this side of the House, our best wishes for successful operations for all those connected with this aspect of our public life.
Mr. Speaker, there is not much that I wish to add to what has been said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as far as this Bill is concerned. I intend to support this Bill. I do not think that it introduces any new principle really. We already have a Bureau. It does not set up the Bureau; the Bureau is there already. This, in fact, was done by the State President in 1969 in terms of our Constitution Act. What the Bill does do, of course, is to define the functions of the Bureau. It does not either, I might say, set up a new council, for, as the hon. the Prime Minister has said, we already have a council albeit called by a different name. But now we have a council being set up in terms of this particular Bill, that is, by legislation.
The functions of the Bureau, as I see it, seem to me to be narrower than the ones which were originally set out in the Gazette that established the Bureau. It can now only collect, evaluate, correlate and interpret and previously, it could also investigate. It seems to me, therefore, that to some extent the powers of the Bureau have been somewhat narrowed.
As far as the Potgieter Report is concerned, it asks that the Bureau must not concern itself with the conduct or views of individuals although it did have difficulty in defining the security of the State. The Bureau, in terms of the Bill, can collect departmental intelligence only at the request of the department. As it was before, it seemed to me that it could collect it off its own bat. It did not require to have the invitation of any department. The Bureau, of course, is committed at all times when dealing with security to collect intelligence in a covert manner. It is very difficult. I think, to confine the word “covert”, although, I think, it would have been rather desirable. I would have wished that in some way or other paragraph 293 of the report could have been incorporated into this Bill. That is the paragraph which reads—
One can only hope that the Bureau at least will take cognizance of the views expressed by Judge Potgieter in this regard.
There is one thing the hon. Prime Minister omitted to mention in his historical introduction, and that is what led to the appointment of the Potgieter Commission in the first place. It was as a result of the considerable public anxiety and suspicion which came about not because of the actual creation of Boss—that issue passed through this House without opposition in 1969 when it was created by virtue of the amendments to the Public Service Act— but because of the fact that a few weeks later two clauses were introduced in the General Laws Amendment Bill which apparently gave much wider powers than one had anticipated to this Bureau. The two sections, sections 10 and 29, created the consternation—one had to do with the presentation of evidence and the other with the releasing of any news or information which might be deemed to come within the orbit of State security. I think it was largely as a result of this consternation and the outcry against the seemingly very wide powers indeed of the Bureau that the Potgieter Commission was appointed. I see that we have another General Laws Amendment Bill coming up any minute to be introduced by the hon. Minister of Justice. To me it seems a pity that we did not have that Bill before us before we discussed this Bill. Again one has to rather take on trust that there will be no further clauses which will cause further consternation.
It will be tabled tomorrow.
Exactly, it is rather a pity that it was not yesterday. I wish we could have seen it yesterday or today. I am rather hoping that those amendments will include the recommendations of the Potgieter Report in this regard.
Order! That is a different matter.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, except that these clauses are mentioned in the Potgieter Report. I am simply mentioning that I express the hope that the latter part of the Potgieter Report will in fact also come before this House as the earlier part has.
For the reasons I have mentioned, I support this Bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for his support of this Bill. I was interested to hear his views on various matters. It is, as the Leader of the Opposition said, not easy to define precisely “what constitutes a threat to security”. Sometimes it will be difficult and at other times it will of course be easier. As regards the more difficult matters one can, although one cannot say this conclusively, indicate by way of broad guidelines what threatens the security of the State and what does not. One of the guidelines one can indicate in this regard is that in a democratic state, as we are, a change of government only takes place after a lawful election. Any organization or set-up calculated at taking over the government without that process, which is known to all of us, naturally constitutes a threat to the security of the state. If one keeps that in mind, one cannot go too far wrong.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred to one deficiency, a deficiency which is caused by having one organization, a unitary organization, and that is that the element of having a double-check is absent in that case. It is well known that in security circles it is always said that “an overlap is better than a gap”. There is a great deal to be said for that overlap arising from that. But, having regard to South Africa’s manpower position, the funds at its disposal, and the difficulties other countries have already had with double-check organizations, I want to agree with the Leader of the Opposition that, although on the one hand one feels sorry about this deficiency, it nevertheless is best, as the hon. Judge recommended, to accept the set-up as we have it here. I have already given my standpoint on clause 5 (d) by way of interjection, and we can profitably take another look at it in the Committee Stage. We can then effect an amendment, in so far as it may be necessary, to achieve the same purpose. But the present wording gives a wrong impression of what one actually wants in this regard.
The hon. member for Houghton is apparently concerned that she will be the subject of interest. I want to tell the hon. member that I am not at all interested in her in this respect, nor in other respects. I may tell the hon. member in passing, that we have already announced previously that we accept the recommendations of the Potgieter Report. As regards clauses 10 and 29 we accept the recommendations of the Potgieter Report. These are contained in the Bill of which the hon. the Minister of Justice has given notice. If she wants to discuss this further, she will find a willing debating partner in my hon. colleague in this regard.
Motion put and agreed to.
Bill read a Second Time.
Mr. Speaker, I move—
The Bill I am laying before this hon. House today is not of a contentious nature, and by and large it seeks to promote our wine exports, in so far as technical control of quality are concerned. The legislation was drafted in close consultation with the K.W.V. and the liquor trade. During the latter half of April, 1972, urgent discussions were conducted by experts of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services with the wine division of the European Community in Brussels. Officials of the K.W.V. attended the discussions as observers. Before I proceed to giving an explanation of the Bill in broad outline, I must mention that the earlier entry of the United Kingdom into the EEC has precipitated this legislation to such an extent that the Republic has to submit the necessary application documents supported by adequate legislation, prior to 15th June, 1972. For the sake of the wine farmers of our country, this consequently is a matter of urgent importance.
Because of the regulation and the ordering of the wine market within the EEC and the legislation drafted by the EEC in this regard, it has become essential for countries exporting wine to the EEC either to enter into an undertaking that they will submit to the reference prices fixed by the EEC for ordinary wines and liqueur wines (sherries and port) or to furnish proof of a recognized system for the controlled production and marketing of quality wines from particular areas. In the case of the first mentioned the agreement in respect of submitting to the reference price is not necessary as the fixed reference price in the EEC for liqueur-wines (sherries and port) is prohibitively high. Other countries, for example Spain and Portugal, have had their wines recognized in the EEC as protected origin wines, and consequently these countries are able to market their products at a much more favourable and much lower price.
Consequently it has been necessary to introduce as a matter of urgency a system of demarcation in the Republic which will be acceptable locally as well as in the EEC. Over the past 18 months such a system has been developed which may be applicable in the Republic without any serious local disruption. According to recent discussions with wine experts of the EEC the system will possibly be acceptable there as well. Clauses 7 and 8 will legalize the system.
During the recent discussions with the wine experts of the EEC they were kind enough to point out certain shortcomings in the principal Act which could complicate further negotiations with the EEC Commissions. The shortcomings mainly concerned defective definitions in our legislation of the South African varieties of wine being exported at present. Consequently urgent amendments to the Act have to be effected, and clauses 1 to 5 seek to effect these.
While the aforementioned negotiations were in progress representations were received from the wine farmers in the Western Cape for statutory protection to be given to the production and marketing of wines produced and made ready for the market by the farmers themselves on their farms and marketed as such by the farmers as estate wines. As these so-called estate wines were abused to an increasing extent in the past, the representations of the farmers enjoy strong support. The farmers’ needs have been taken into account in the demarcation system, which ought to suit them extremely well.
Provision is being made for making particular sections of the principal Act applicable in South-West Africa by proclamation in the Government Gazette in order to avoid having to effect special amendments to the Act at a later stage when it may become necessary to do so. At present the Department of Customs and Excise is experiencing problems in the application of its legislation as more vineyards are being planted and the production of wine and spirits will shortly be realized. Said department will undoubtedly need the support of the principal Act.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a word of thanks to all those concerned in this export product for their co-operation. We know that there will be a considerable number of problems and that we shall constantly have to make adjustments in order to bring our house in order. I should like to point out that although there was very close liaison and consultation with the interested parties at the time of drafting the legislation, there is some uncertainty as to what the regulations will contain. I want to say in anticipation that the usual consultation will again take place before the regulations are published. Since we are concerned here with a particularly involved problem, existing practices and vested interests will duly be taken into account, and what will be done, will be done for the sake of or in the interest of the industry as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House I should like to support the Second Reading of this Bill. It is refreshing to find in this instance that the industry has taken the initiative in giving the consumer the guarantees and safeguards regarding the origin and quality of the product, which he ought to have. What is envisaged in this legislation is just honesty of description and that is very necessary. Much has been said and written about consumerism today. Consumerism is nothing other than the unwillingness of the man in the street to be misled by the description of the manufacturer of the produce he wants to sell. At one time it was fashionable to say: “Beware, the buyer”, but today, with the advent of consumerism, it is more fashionable, correct and valid to say: “Caveat vendor” (Beware the seller). Legislation all too often follows far too slowly in the wake of public need and wish, and usually, when it is presented, it is opposed by every means, and for lack of a better word, and for the sake of courtesy, we have to call it, by vested interests.
Order! Is the hon. member reading his speech?
No, Sir, I am following the line of the Deputy Minister. In view of the fact that this concerns wine, of which certain people have very little knowledge, and in view of the fact that only experts have this knowledge, you will realize, of course, that I have to be very careful to refresh my memory occasionally, in order to convey to non-consumers exactly what all this means. So, Sir, I say that the importance of this particular legislation is that for the first time we have here honesty of description. Not only do we have that, but we also have protection for the consumer. From now onwards the consumer will know that wine made from a certain grape will in fact be made from that grape, and that wine produced in a certain area will in fact be produced from grapes grown in that particular area. Above all, we are not dealing only with the protection given to the consumer. With this legislation we hope to retain the old markets we enjoyed for so many years overseas. With the description of concepts such as vintage years, areas of production and the types and quality of wines, a set pattern, to a very large extent, has been followed by the older countries, particularly in Europe. I am pleased to be able to say that both the producers and the manufacturers are agreed—although I suppose they have had to make certain sacrifices—that this legislation is necessary. For that reason we support this Bill and we wish the industry well.
Motion put and agreed to.
Bill read a Second Time.
Bill read a First Time.
Mr. Speaker, I move—
Time.
The proposed amendments to the Marketing Bill as set out in the Bill arise for the most part from the request submitted to me by the National Woolgrowers’ Association of South Africa for the introduction of a new wool marketing system.
It is generally known that the wool market recently reached a low ebb. A variety of factors, such as high rates of interest, uncertain economic conditions in manufacturing countries and increasing production of synthetic fibre, undoubtedly contributed to this state of affairs. Although an improvement in price levels has recently been experienced, particularly after adjustments in rates of exchange, it has been evident for some time that the wool marketing system as it has been understood and applied up to now, would have to be given a thorough overhaul. Competition on the part of synthetic fibre remains a threat to the economic survival of the wool industry which makes the acceptance of effective marketing techniques even more necessary.
With the appointment of a committee of inquiry in 1970 by the South African Wool Commission the existing wool marketing system was closely scrutinized. This matter has since been thoroughly thrashed out at congress and managerial level by the National Woolgrowers’ Association, the S.A. Wool Board and S.A. Wool Commission, so much so—and I am pleased to be able to say this—that the marketing system which is now proposed in the place of the existing system has the support of virtually all producers.
The wool industry is at present being served by two separate statutory bodies, each with its own Act and its own specified responsibility. On the one hand we have the S.A. Wool Commission which is responsible for the marketing of raw wool. On the other hand, the S.A. Wool Board deals with matters such as research and the promotion of wool products. Although sound reasons existed at the time for establishing two control bodies, the wool industry can no longer afford the luxury of two separate statutory boards. In fact, when the advantages and disadvantages are weighed up, it is evident, apart from considerations of cost, that the amalgamation of the two boards is a positive step in every respect. The Bill therefore seeks to amalgamate the Wool Board and the Wool Commission into a single control body under the Marketing Act. This entails that both the Wool Commission and the Wool Amendment Act, 1960, and the Wool Act, 1967, be repealed and replaced by a scheme to be promulgated under the Marketing Act. The new control board will be established under the scheme and will be the successor in title to the Wool Board and the Wool Commission.
The proposed scheme is at present in the process of being prepared but it is envisaged to make provision in it for a support price scheme similar to the one at present being administered by the Wool Commission. Provision is also being made for a one-channel pool scheme if such a step should prove to be desirable.
The control board then manages a pool for the sale of the wool supplied to it and divides the proceeds of the wool equally among the participating producers. The producer receives an advance on supplying his wool to the board. Certain aspects of the proposed scheme are not quite reconcilable with the present context of the Marketing Act, and it is consequently proposed that the shortcomings be rectified. For example, it is proposed to extend the provisions in regard to assistance rendered by a control board to certain undertakings and research work in regard to a controlled product and the promotion of the demand for such a product so that these functions may also be carried out in respect of sheep or wool textile goods. In addition, it is envisaged to authorize the board to withdraw wool from the pool for its own account at a price determined by the board on a basis approved by the Minister.
Since the supply of small quantities of wool by producers directly to the control board is not practical, it is proposed to allow the existing practice to continue according to which country shopkeepers buy and collect different types of wool which they subsequently trade in saleable quantities for their own account. However, such shopkeepers will be compelled to sell the wool they collect in this way through the control board only, and the Bill therefore contains the necessary provision in this regard.
To enable the new control board to obtain the services of wool marketing and textile industry experts as full-fledged members of the board, it is being proposed that provision be included in the Act for the appointment of persons as members of a control board by virtue of their special knowledge of a subject mentioned in the scheme. These members will, therefore, not represent some or other branch of the relevant industry in the board or be nominated by some or other body for appointment to the board.
So much then as far as wool matters are concerned. The economic establishment and multiplication of virus-free plant material required by producers for production purposes, cannot always be offered on a commercial basis. It has therefore become necessary for control boards to be given authority to undertake this service themselves and to obtain, develop and multiply such plant material and make it available to nurseries and producers.
It is also deemed necessary to bring the Marketing Act more up to date in certain respects and to eliminate certain deficiencies. The provisions in regard to the funds of control boards have been revised in this regard and brought into line with what is being done in practice. Furthermore, certain simplifications in the procedure in regard to the continuation of appeals are being proposed, while the proposal to authorize the Minister, in the place of the State President, to make regulations in terms of the Act is aimed at simplifying the administrative procedure.
Sir, it is a pleasure to us on this side of the House to support this Bill. In the first part of his speech the hon. the Minister mainly confined himself to amendments affecting the wool industry, and proceeded to refer to the powers which are now being given to the other control boards in this Bill. I want to say in the first place that we support the powers which are being given to the other control boards. As far as the wool industry as such is concerned and the amendments effected in the Marketing Act to comply with the request of the National Wool Growers’ Association and the organized wool growers in the country in regard to certain matters pertaining to the marketing of wool, I should just like to deal briefly with some of the aspects. I notice in clause 1 (f) that “wool” is not defined, and I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will give his attention to that matter. Wool is, in fact, defined in the marketing scheme, but the marketing scheme is not the Marketing Act.
I want to confine myself for the most part to clause 18, which deals with the wool industry. As I have done on previous occasions at wool growers’ meetings, I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that wool as a primary product is quite unique in that 85 per cent of our wool is sold on overseas markets, where the price is determined on the basis of demand and supply on an entirely open market. This is quite different from the position of any of the other primary products which fall under the Marketing Act at this stage. Sir, with some of us it is quite an open question to what extent the Marketing Act and a scheme under the Marketing Act will comply with the marketing requirements of a product which differs so greatly from any other primary product and which is quite unique in that respect. One of the most important reasons which motivated the leaders of the industry to ask for a change in the marketing system is the fact that wool has to compete with synthetic fibres, as was mentioned here by the hon. the Minister. Since the consumer has, for as long as a whole year and sometimes for an even longer period, to pay a fixed price for synthetic fibres and the consumer is therefore in a position to know from time to time the exact price he has to pay for synthetic fibre, it was the intention of the wool industry to bring about this very same certainty as far as wool prices are concerned; in other words, to make it possible for the consumer, the manufacturer, or whoever it may be, to be able to buy wool at a fixed price for the whole year. Sir, I want to mention certain matters which make this matter very difficult. One of them is that this is a product which is sold on an open world market on the basis of supply and demand; and when one sells wool at a fixed price and there is a shortage of supplies one faces the problem of the allocation of wool to the consumers in the various countries who want to buy that wool. This is one of the virtually insurmountable problems in this connection. The intention was that the three wool producing countries in the Southern Hemisphere, viz., Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, should co-operate to establish a scheme for the better marketing of wool in terms of which countries which want to buy wool would know at what fixed price they can buy their wool. I want to suggest that neither Australia nor New Zealand is at this stage ready to accept a scheme of this nature and that, under those circumstances, we will simply have to continue as we have done in the past.
Another matter of importance, Sir, is that we had two boards under the old dispensation, viz., one board which had to do with the promotion of the product and with research and which had—and still has—offices in 28 or 29 countries throughout the world. Those offices appealed to those countries by virtue of the fact that they had nothing to do with marketing. They were purely research and promotional institutions established as information offices and accepted in a good spirit throughout the world. This situation would change considerably if there is only one board dealing not only with research and the promotion of wool, but also with the marketing of the product. This is an aspect which is of particular importance to us because wool is a fibre which has to endure immense competition not only on the part of synthetic fibres but also from other types of fibres. Research as well as the promotion of the product is therefore a particularly important aspect of the industry. We should like to have access to as many countries as possible in the world, without this problem of marketing and the competition which accompanies it. However, these amendments were asked for by the organized wool farmers. Sir, I trust that the hon. the Minister will give his attention to the few aspects I have mentioned here. It is a pleasure for us on this side of the House to give our support to these amendments to the Marketing Act.
The hon. member for East London City mentioned a few minor matters here which I want to respond to briefly. The hon. member referred to the new marketing system as if it were a supply scheme establishing direct sales. I want to make it quite clear here today that the present system of selling wool, both internationally and here in South Africa, will remain—this has been stated quite clearly and plainly—as long as it is in the interests of the producer. In other words, the present system of auctions will continue as long as it is in the interests of the producer and as long as it is the best way in which to serve the industry as such.
Another aspect raised by the hon. member and with which I want to deal briefly, is the fact that the Wool Board and, through the Wool Board, also the International Wool Secretariat, are only concerned with advertising and research. I do not want to predict what is going to happen in the future, but this is one of the main reasons why developments are taking place in all three of the member countries in regard to new marketing schemes. Probably the deficiency in the past was that people, both internationally and internally, were handicapped in this respect, that they have been promoting a certain product by means of advertising, that they have carried out research in regard thereto, but that they have never been in a position to offer the manufacturer the real raw product he has to have. However, I do not want to deal with this matter at any great length now, because this is something one may consider in future. I am very pleased that the Opposition supports this Bill. I think that, since we are enacting such a drastic Bill in regard to the future marketing of wool, it is necessary for us to reach agreement in regard thereto and I am, therefore, very pleased that this Bill has the support of the Opposition. On this occasion I should also like to place on record my appreciation of the value of the Marketing Act since this legislation establishes the 21st marketing scheme under that Act; in other words, that that set-up, through this new scheme, attains its majority. The measure before us recognizes the new wool marketing scheme. Since I have been closely connected with developments in this regard, you, Sir, will allow me to deal at some length with the history of this matter.
The marketing system of raw wool in South Africa, as well as in other wool producing countries, was subject to close scrutiny in recent times. The instability and the low prices, particularly over the last few years, were perhaps the main reason for this. A further reason was the sharp increase in the marketing cost of wool, particularly in the last number of years. On the recommendation of the National Wool Growers’ Association the Minister of Agriculture, in 1971, appointed a committee of inquiry to go into all the aspects of the marketing of wool. This committee published its report in record time, in April 1971. The main recommendation contained in this report is to the effect that the Wool Commission should be given powers to take over and market the South African clip. There are three main reasons why the commission came to this conclusion. The first and probably the most important reason is the instability in the wool prices over the past number of decades and in particular the serious recession during the past few years. I want to illustrate briefly in which way this fluctuation took place over the last number of years. If we take 1947-’48 as basis and fix an index of 82 there, we see—I am now going to read to you some of the figures to illustrate how this varies— that it increased to 92 the following year. In 1948-’50 it increased to 126. In 1950-’51, the boom year, it increased to 272. Then, in 1951-’52, it dropped to 132 and increased to 164 in 1952-’53. The next year it was fairly stable but in 1954-’55 it dropped once more alarmingly to 137; in 1955-’56 there was a further drop to 122 and then there was a sharp increase to 160 in 1956-’57 and once more a drop to 121 in 1957-’58. In 1958-’59 it dropped to 95, almost to the starting figure, and in 1959-’60 it increased once more to 114, and so it goes on until it reaches an index figure of 98 in 1970-’71. But if we deduct the supplementary price paid by the Wool Commission, we shall see that the real index without the supplementary price comes to 80, which is really less than what it was in 1947-’48. I say this is probably the main reason why the committee came to this conclusion. In other words, I would say that the Wool Commission, through the arrangement to obtain the wool and to market it itself, may probably succeed in eliminating this instability in course of time. But the second and also very important reason is probably the outdated marketing system. I just want to read to you, Sir, what the finding of the Committee is in this regard. This is what it says in its survey on the marketing of wool (translation)—
The National Wool Growers go further as far as this specific aspect is concerned and ask the South African Wool Board to make a further study, through its economic divisions of the economy of the sheep and wool industry. Economists who went into this matter, put it briefly as follows (translation)—
Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest that this statement is absolutely correct. As a result of various factors we have probably become stagnated in our approach. We did not bring our marketing up to date and we did not move with the times. A further reason why the committee came to this conclusion, is that our seasonal marketing and irregular supply of certain types are definitely not conducive to orderly consumption. One final and very important aspect for this finding, is because we are convinced that savings may be effected at the selling points. All five provincial congresses as well as the central congress of the National Wool Growers’ Association in September, 1971, accepted this key recommendation of the committee of inquiry. They instructed the Wool Commission and the Wool Board to give effect to this recommendation as soon as possible. Both these bodies went to work immediately to formulate a new scheme. On this occasion I should like to express my heartfelt thanks to the Marketing Council for the particular assistance they have rendered through particularly Mr. van Rensburg to provide us with a new scheme so quickly and efficiently. I will also fail in my duty if I do not express our gratitude and appreciation to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for his assistance in regard to this new scheme. I should like to put one matter right. In some quarters it was suggested that the Minister of Agriculture brought pressure to bear to force this measure, which is before us today, on the National Wool Growers’ Association. I want to say without fear of contradiction that at no time was pressure brought to bear, that the Minister did not at any time tell us what such a scheme should look like. With his wide experience he gave us positive guidance in this matter, and I shall come back to this later. During the whole of this period two other very important aspects emerged. These were, in the first place, whether a scheme should be established under the Wool Act or whether a scheme should be established under the Marketing Act. Also in this case, after protracted discussions with the hon. the Minister, both the Wool Board and the Wool Commission was of the unanimous opinion that, in view of the circumstances, it would definitely be better to operate under the Marketing Act. I want to say immediately that our member countries in the International Wool Secretariat envy South Africa its Marketing Act because one can introduce virtually any scheme by means of this umbrella measure. The Minister recommended to us that it would definitely be much better for him as well as for the industry if we would operate under the Marketing Act particularly in view of the fact that this is a new scheme and teething troubles may arise. If any changes have to be introduced it would be much easier to introduce them under the Marketing Act than under any separate Act, since it then has to be done by means of an amendment which has to be approved by this Parliament. However, if this is done under the Marketing Act it can be done by way of regulation. Another aspect which emerged quite clearly during this time, is whether it was still essential to have a separate Wool Commission and a separate Wool Board. Also in this respect we had a unanimous recommendation from both these boards to the effect that it was time these two organizations amalgamated, as is embodied in this measure before us. In the course of his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister said that we could definitely no longer afford the above that there is also the fact that since we maintain such close links with other countries in the international sphere and since we have an organization such as the International Wool Secretariat matters have always been made very difficult particularly for the International Wool Secretariat, because it liaises through the Wool Board. As soon as it mentions marketing it has no liaison any more because the Wool Board has no functions in this regard. It then has to be done through the Wool Commission. This is a dual purpose system which has probably worked well initially but which has definitely become superfluous and not only superfluous but it also created problems as far as liaison is concerned. On 6th December the draft scheme was submitted to the central executive of the National Wool Growers’ Association. by whom it was approved except for a few changes. Furthermore, the executive committee of the National Wool Growers’ Association was instructed to finalize the scheme, which was officially submitted to the hon. the Minister on 4th February, 1972. In order to indicate the member countries I should like to quote what happens in the other countries of the International Wool Secretariat. In the first place, in respect of Australia—
In other words, the same as what we are doing here. Their Wool Commission and Wool Board are amalgamating and they are making arrangements to bring about a complete take-over of their wool clip. Unfortunately they are not in the fortunate position in which South Africa finds herself. Legislation of this nature has to be approved by all their provincial parliaments before it can be submitted to the Federal Government to be approved there by means of legislation. There is a great deal of concern among the producers of Australia because of the fact that it takes such a long time to have this legislation approved. In regard to New Zealand, the following is stated—
In other words, there was definite co-ordination during the whole of this period. There was close liaison between all three member countries and particularly between the two fine wool producing countries of the world. We act in concord in this regard.
There are various people who have expressed their concern as to what the feelings of commerce would be about these arrangements we are making now. I just want to quote to the House what happened last year at the congress of the International Wool Textile Organization—
In other words, not only did we have the approval of our member countries in this matter, but also that of the International Wool Textile Organization, who are actually the people who have to buy our wool. As I have indicated, they are quite in favour of this measure.
I want to say in conclusion that one does not want to go into the detail of this scheme. Various measures of drastic nature have been taken. I believe that the wool industry of South Africa as well as perhaps the wool industry of the world will enter a new era with this measure and the measures taken in other countries. It is my personal wish, and I know also that of our hon. the Minister, that an attempt will be made through these measures to negotiate a better dispensation for the wool industry. We want to assure all the wool producers in South Africa that we have not considered these matters lightly and that decisions have not been taken lightly, but that these were done with the necessary sense of responsibility towards a major industry such as this one which has earned South Africa a great deal of foreign exchange over the years. We want to express the hope that our wool farmers will only meet with success in the international sphere with this new dispensation.
Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the hon. member for East London City, we on this side of this House naturally welcome this legislation in terms of which wool will be placed under the control of a controlling body. That controlling body will have the entire clip under its control and will then sell it. The farmers have requested this. Furthermore, it is necessary that we have such a scheme, because until now wool has never been marketed. We have the best fibre in the world and we have simply been selling it on an auction system. We have had to accept the price which the purchaser was prepared to pay. In later years, of course, there was a propping-up scheme. I want to pay tribute to the hon. member for East London City for that today. Hon. members opposite will not take it amiss of me if I do so, because although we differ from one another politically, it is probably right to pay tribute to someone who has served an industry as the hon. member for East London City has served the wool industry.
As I have said, we have not marketed wool, but have put it up for auction and have then had to be satisfied with the price it fetched. Now, I want to say to this House that if Rex Trueform were to put up all its suits for auction tomorrow, those suits would not realize 1s. 6d. If Edgars were to put up all its shoes for auction, those shoes would not realize 1s. 6d. either. One cannot sell these product at an auction; they must be traded with. This legislation makes provision for that. It authorizes the controlling body to sell wool. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet said they would retain the auction system as long as it was in the interests of South Africa. He is right. I know what difficulties are involved in that. As far back as 1936, when the International Wool Secretariat, with Australia, New Zealand and South Africa as members, met for the first time, their aim was to fix the price of wool. Those three countries control wool and can therefore fix the price. Wool is not a perishable product; it is an easy product to control. It can be re-sold; it can be traded with. Contracts can be concluded with manufacturers so that they may buy it directly from one. If necessary, the necessary credit facilities can be granted. I am aware of the difficulties attached to the industry. The hon. member for East London City also pointed them out. Subsequently the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet also referred to them, and he is well acquainted with the wool industry. We respect his views in that regard. This legislation is enabling legislation, and provides the authority for this to be done. I therefore hope they will work in that direction, because I believe it will be the eventual and only direction in which the wool industry can in fact be placed on the right basis. The price must be fixed, but it must not be unreasonable, and even less can it be uneconomic. If, then, there is no demand at a price which is profitable for the farmer, we must eventually stop producing wool. It is no use producing it at a price level which is not profitable for the farmer. I believe this will be the outcome of the scheme. I hope that the boards of control in charge here will work in such a direction.
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to be able to participate in this debate this afternoon. What has struck me is that every speaker, including the hon. the Minister, has been closely associated with this industry for many a long year. I cannot think of our past, and I imagine it is the same with every member who has participated in this debate, without thinking of the close link we have had with the Merino sheep in South Africa. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, referred to the tremendous price fluctuations that had occurred over the years in respect of this fibre. For the past 50 years, most of us have had close contact with all the problems with which this industry has had to contend. We have great appreciation for everyone, including the hon. member for East London City, from Mr. Orpen and his successors who have been serving this industry from as far back as 1926. In recent years we experienced difficulties in this industry which made South Africa suffer a setback. That is why we appreciate the standpoint adopted by the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government, in the person of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. We particularly appreciate what the hon. the Prime Minister once said, i.e. that under these difficult circumstances, the Government was going to be an ally of the wool farmer in South Africa. We are very grateful because they did in fact do so. We are pleased about the improvement which has come about in this industry recently. We do not want to detain hon. members long, but we want to avail ourselves of the opportunity this afternoon to warn our fellow wool farmers that everything is not right in the industry. We want to warn people not to gain the impression that everything is fine once again as a result of the improvement in the position. We want to avail ourselves of the opportunity to bring just a few of these important facts to their attention.
The first is that they are thankful for the legislation which has been introduced, because we believe we shall now be able to effect these rectifications. The weaknesses in respect of the marketing system of wool, still remain. For that reason, we want to express the hope that the people who will exercise control over the industry in future, will eliminate these weaknesses.
The first one I want to mention is the bad service which the wool producer offers the textile industrialist today. What I mean by that, is that we should remember that the wool industry is an old one. In countries where the textile industry is established and where wool is processed, the factories have become outdated. These industrialists had to proceed to erect modern factories at great expense. The expenditure was tremendously high, and now those people are in a difficult position that they are experiencing difficulty in financing their wool purchases for processing. Finance is not readily obtainable today. It is expensive. Under the most difficult circumstances, these textile industrialists now have to do their own financing at tremendous expense.
The artificial fibre industry is on a completely different basis as far as this matter is concerned. Artificial fibre can be delivered on demand. If a manufacturer wants a certain tonnage of artificial fibre in a fortnight’s time, he need only place an order. It is delivered to him at a price determined in advance for 12 months or possibly longer. The artificial fibre manufacturer has no trouble when he has to pay, because it is always available.
Yes, but that point has already been made.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, but the point I want to make, is that the position is different as far as wool is concerned. I want to come to the point now. Wool is a seasonal product.
But that point, too, has already been made.
Mr.
Speaker, then I just want to say to you: If this point has already been made, you have understood what the position is in this regard. That is why I want to propose now that in years to come we should get a scheme under which all wool would be possessed by one single body. Not only should this body possess the wool, but it should also be able to make this wool available to industrialists at all times. This body should be able to attend to the financing of a large proportion, if not of all. This central body should carry the supplies throughout—as the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet pointed out—at a price of which the industrialist may be informed even up to 12 months in advance.
Something was said here about the auction system. Sir, I do not want to repeat it, except that I want to make only one important point. We should remember that in past years, we had competition at our auctions among countries such as England, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium and others. We should not forget that since then, the European Common Market has come into existence. At the end of this year, England will be entering that market. Then virtually all competition at our auctions would be eliminated. That is why I want to agree with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet when he said we should retain the system as long as it was practicable.
Sir, I come to the last point. In anticipation I want to apologize to those hon. members sitting here who will differ with me. The first point I want to make is that it has been scientifically established that in order to establish a profitable wool complex for the marketing of wool, at least between half a million and three-quarter million bales of wool should be handled. If we could reach such a position, the handling of that wool-clip could take place in the cheapest way. A position has developed here with us which is causing concern. I come now to the first fact I want to state in this regard. In the case of a ship which transports wool, for example, from Australia to England, the tariff is R4,50 per ton per 1 000 miles. As far as South Africa is concerned, this tariff is R8,50 per ton per 1 000 miles. We want to ask why this is the position. The reason for this is that a ship sailing from England to Australia and back to England, is able to complete the journey in a shorter period than it takes a ship to sail from England to South Africa and back. Why is this so? Because, in the case of South Africa, the ship must call at Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London and Durban. The wool-clip of the whole of South Africa is approximately 800 000 bales at present. For that reason I want to say today that for the benefit of the wool industry we should give the utmost consideration to the possibility of exporting our wool through a single harbour in years to come.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Smithfield and the other members who have spoken on this Bill, and I must say the hon. the Minister as well, confined themselves entirely to the wool industry. Much as this Bill deals with the wool industry and as important as that industry is, I want to say a few words about the rest of the Bill. I submit that this Bill is the manifestation of the fact that at last common sense has prevailed in the Government. At last this significant point has got through to the Government and to organized agriculture generally, because I believe that this Bill is a manifestation of the fact that the agricultural industry has at last realized that they have to market their product. Up till now the agricultural industry has produced a product and has placed it on the market and has said to the people: “There it is; take it or leave it; buy it on our terms”. They have, however, not bothered to market their product at all. In this regard I want to claim at least a share in the parenthood of this legislation. The hon. the Deputy Minister and the Minister himself know for how long I have pleaded for just this type of power to be given to the control boards of our dairy products in this country. It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to shake his head and to laugh, but he knows for how long, particularly with regard to the Dairy Board, I have suggested that they must do exactly what is being done here. Have I not asked him to appoint to the Dairy Board a marketing consultant, an expert in marketing who would conduct the necessary research and find out what the housewife wants? Now, Sir, he is quiet; now he acknowledges the fact that I have done so.
I said they have the power under the Act.
But they could not do so under the old Act; that is why it is being done now.
Must they sell it?
Of course they must sell it, because of the competition which they are now facing.
May I ask the hon. member a question?
Yes, but my time has been limited.
Do you want the boards to sell all dairy products in this country? Do you want to prevent private individuals selling dairy products and have it all sold through the boards?
Sir, I have given up a few moments of my valuable time only to have such a stupid question come from the hon. the Minister. He obviously has not understood, or else he wilfully does not understand, what I am trying to say to him. What I am asking him to do is to promote the product, to market the product, not to sell it.
But who must market it? The board?
I do not expect the board to be the selling agent; of course not. If he wants to be so ridiculous, then he must tell the people of South Africa and all the traders that he wants to do this, because this is not what I am asking for. It is no good the Minister being deliberately obtuse. He is being deliberately obtuse because he is not prepared to give credit where credit is due. That is the only reason why he is being like this, Sir, The whole object of this Bill is to help the marketing boards to go ahead and market their products. We need these powers, Sir, I could deal with a number of the individual powers, but I think they can best be dealt with in the Committee Stage. I do, however, want to put one pertinent question to the hon. the Minister, so that he can give us an answer now or, if he is unable to do so, he can have time to think about this matter before we come to the Committee Stage. I refer to clause 1 (c) which gives us a new definition of “plant material”. It reads as follows—
In this connection I also wish to refer to the new section 56 (1) (f), which is added by clause 7 (c) of the Bill. In terms of this new paragraph, on such conditions as the Minister may approve, a board may acquire or develop any plant material, or multiply or improve such plant material, or finance out of its funds such development, improvement or multiplication of plant material, which is used in the production of its particular defined product. Why does the hon. the Minister restrict this only to plant material? Why has he not extended this provision to livestock? The Wool Board which we have just heard so much about, surely would have a stake in the development of sheep? The Meat Industry Control Board would also have an interest in the development of sheep, as well as cattle. The Dairy Board would have an interest in the development of cattle, and the Egg Board obviously would have an interest in the development of poultry. So why is it limited only to plant material?
Unfortunately, Sir, my time has been limited, but I must say that we do welcome this Bill. We believe that this is a step forward; we are not only bringing the wool industry in this country under the purview of this Act but we are now also giving these powers to other control boards as well, and this is something which we accept.
Mr. Speaker, I think the only discordant note in regard to the proposed legislation, was some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg. He said “at last common sense has prevailed”. This was an uncalled-for remark which introduced a discordant note in regard to this legislation. This legislation is accepted and praised by the entire wool industry. The sheep farmers and the producers are in fact very grateful to the Government for the legislation because it is this very Government which, with the measures it has introduced in order to render assistance, and again with this legislation, has enabled the producers to meet the heavy demands which have been put to them in recent times. In a nutshell the fundamental idea of the legislation is in fact this: It safeguards the producer against collapse. In other words, it ensures what is necessary, and that is stability and more stability in the wool industry. Secondly, it ensures the creation of a bargaining power in favour of the producer which he hardly had in the past. In this regard we may ask ourselves what the position would have been if the Wool Commission did not have the funds which it in fact had, and if the Wool Commission did not receive the assistance from the Government which it had received in recent times. If this had been otherwise, the entire wool industry would have been completely destroyed, and there would have been total chaos. Sir, this underlines the fact that machinery should be created on a more permanent basis, in terms of which the producer may acquire bargaining powers. This is essential, because of the facts already mentioned here and which I want to repeat briefly, namely the elimination of competition by member countries of the EEC, such as France. England and others; secondly, the progressive competition which is going to exist on a long term with artificial fibres—and this is an onslaught, Sir, which is not going to decrease, but which is in fact going to increase—and, thirdly, the necessity of arresting the decrease (of 20 per cent) in production in the past season, as compared to the previous season, otherwise it can only be extremely harmful to our wool industry. Sir, in my opinion these requirements of stability and of bargaining power are soundly incorporated in the Bill we have before us. The new Wool Board is being given wider powers which will enable it to eliminate overlapping, and to do everything necessary, i.e. research, advertising, marketing and everything needed in this regard and, in conjunction with that, to undertake strengthening the wool industry further under the protection of the Marketing Act, under the protection of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, and eventually under the protection of the Minister as such. Sir, this ensures and strengthens the position of the wool producer as never before. This scheme, as it will be incorporated under the Marketing Act, will mean that purposeful assistance will be rendered, and not on an ad hoc basis; it will bring about the effective regimentation and disciplining of the wool producers, and a decrease in costs— things which will all create confidence and stability. Sir, the Bill provides mainly for the creation of a control board which is an amalgamation of the two existing boards, i.e. the Wool Commission and the Wool Board. Furthermore, the functions of the control board are defined, and for the rest the Bill makes provision for the creation of marketing facilities. I do not want to anticipate the effect of this measure, but to me it seems as though the once-channel pool scheme for which the Bill makes provision will give our wool producers more stability and be of greater value to them.
Sir, I want to thank hon. members on both sides of this House for their support of this measure. It is, of course, a measure which is supported by most wool producers in South Africa and their organizations.
Sir, I just want to ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District whether it is necessary for him to fall into a trap every time he rises to speak here. We should like to know what his standpoint and that of his party is. By means of research we are establishing virus-free plant material. It is impossible to let individual farmers increase that plant material, and that is why we are enabling the board to increase that plant material, in the form of trees, and to make it available to growers or farmers in reasonable quantities. Because we are doing this, the hon. member launched an attack. He wanted to know why we did not extend this scheme; why we did not apply it to cattle, sheep and pigs.
It was not an attack.
Reply to the question.
I shall reply to it. I want to ask the hon. member this: If the Wool Control Board started breeding rams, what would the hon. member for King William’s Town and the hon. member for East London City say about it? I want to ask the hon. member for East London City: Is he in favour of the Wool Board breeding selected rams and making them available to the farmers of South Africa? It is a simple question. [Interjections.] Why did the hon. member not tell that baboon behind him not to ask that question?
Order!
I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.
I want to go further. Take the milk industry and the beef industry. Must the Meat Board or the Dairy Board breed cattle in order to make better material available to the producer in South Africa? Is that the policy of the United Party? But I want to go even further now. The hon. member attacked me and said the control boards should have been given the marketing function a long time ago. But they have it; they have the marketing function. The Citrus Board and the Deciduous Fruit Board have the full marketing of the products under their control.
Why have they not done it?
But surely they are doing it.
What about this amendment?
But they are doing it. They have the same powers. We are only giving something more in the case of wool. We are giving them the opportunity of combining certain types of wool in that marketing process and of selling quantities of it, because it is essential to give them that power. Now the hon. member wants to make a big story of this situation. Does the hon. member want the Wheat Board or the Mealie Board to market their own products physically, from the mill to the bread?
No, you must not be stupid.
Then the hon. member should not make such silly remarks.
May I ask a question? I should like to know from the Minister whether it is not possible to authorize a board to import the semen of certain animals and to distribute it among his producers?
If the hon. member for East London City agrees with the principle of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, I find no fault with him. But I want to ask whether the hon. member for King William’s Town agrees with that principle, namely that the Wool Board should breed rams and ewes and make them available to farmers and breeders for wool production. Does the hon. member agree with that? That is what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District asked. That is why I say the hon. member does not realize what he asks. The Marketing Act was introduced in order to disturb the normal operation of trade, manufacturing and marketing as little as possible. But situations do arise when they must be disturbed, and when one disturbs them, one should not put the board completely in charge of the situation; and when there is any need for one to disturb them as little as possible, one does so. Take the case of wool. Even there one disturbs them as little as possible, but if it is essential, one must disturb them in order to put the Wool Board in a position in which private producers do not find themselves, and that is to unite groups. But the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District should first give some thought to the matter before he comes and accuses the Minister here of all sorts of stupidities and incompetence. His own members on the opposite side do not agree with him, and his greatest supporters inside and outside South Africa, i.e. trade and industry, which supports that party to a large extent, would have his head if they knew that he adopted this standpoint.
Motion put and agreed to.
Bill read a Second Time.
Clause 1:
I am sorry that we should have to start a defence measure of this nature with a disagreement, but we are in a situation where the Government and this side of the House are at odds on basic and delicate ground and I immediately want to put the view of this side of the House. We have before us a clause which amends the present Act to make possible the secondment of persons subject to military service in two categories in non-Defence capacities. One group is that of professionally qualified members not required for their musterings who may be sent to do equivalent service in other Government departments. The other is that seconded to the service of the Armaments Board or Corporation or any of its subsidiaries. Here we are making provision for persons to serve outside the Defence Force itself. We know, and the hon. the Minister knows, that there are those who, because of their sincerely held religious beliefs, are opposed to serving in the military services. It seems to us such a simple thing; by removing two words in this provision, namely the words “professionally qualified”, it would be within the power of the department—not mandatory or compulsory, but permissive only—to use this provision to attach people as is done now, for instance, in the case of fire stations. National servicemen today are attached to a fire station to do a large portion of their service.
I therefore wish to move as an amendment—
This amendment makes it possible for the Defence Force to bring together these two elements, the one being people who hold fundamental beliefs and who do not wish to serve in a military force on account of such religious beliefs, and the other the opportunity of performing service for the Government, the State and the country in a capacity which does not conflict with conscience. I believe that the hon. the Minister and his department could handle this without embarrassment and that they are big enough to handle this without embarrassment. Unfortunately there appears to be a basic difference in approach. The Government appears to be blinded by one sect, that of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This sect is blind in their opposition to anything whatsoever to do with defence, or even as an alternative to defence. This group is dealt with under another clause in this Bill. I want to deal not with the law-breakers, but with law-abiding young men, men who because they co-operate with the law have their beliefs brushed aside almost with contempt. I don’t believe that proper study has been made, or that proper consultation has taken place with those who, unlike the Jehovah’s Witnesses, do not refuse to accept the law but who act with hurt feelings and against their inner beliefs. I refer to the Christadelphians and the Quakers, the Society of Friends, and groups such as these who do not break the law and who want to serve, but who hold deeply-ingrained religious beliefs. Those who break the law will be dealt with by the law. I will deal with that later. I do not believe that we should say that we do not recognize inner beliefs held sincerely by people. I believe that people can hold such beliefs, hold them sincerely and not be unpatriotic. I have known others to refuse to serve their country for beliefs that were certainly not deep-grained or religious beliefs. I have no time whatsoever for those who wish to use other issues such as political considerations in an effort to avoid service. I want to make that quite clear. To those organizations which have submitted memoranda, etc., seeking exclusion on grounds other than religious beliefs, we could give no support whatsoever. One day the hon. the Minister will face his Maker and I hope he will not then have to say that in his consideration of the way a man worshipped his God he was as intolerant as he is of political opposition in the field of government. This is a matter of tolerance for deeply held beliefs of people.
But you are saying unnecessary things now, man. Who asked for that?
I am making this speech. Some of us feel strongly on these issues. There are some of us who have respect for other peoples* views and we are tired of being trampled on and being treated like dirt. When I make a sincere statement there is an immediate hue and cry from the Government benches. Is there a monopoly for saying things that people do not like?
Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.
I am trying to deal with the clause. I am trying to move an amendment which will meet the needs of people who hold certain beliefs. I have moved an amendment which will achieve that and I am motivating it. I am trying to show how, by doing this small thing, we could make it possible to meet fellow-South Africans who have a difficulty, a difficulty they are not prepared to turn into a conflict with the State. In other words, they accept the law. But it would meet their views and their beliefs if we were to enable them to do service to their country in a field which did not conflict with their consciences. I believe that we are a big enough country and that we have a strong enough army to be able to handle perhaps 200 or 300 people, if that, who would be affected. There are only a small number of these people. But must we ignore them because their number is small? Must we ignore them and say that because they are not causing us any trouble now we must not worry about them? If this were done there would be no cause for any man to attempt to evade his obligations to his country. There would be no excuse for him, because there would be an opportunity for him. In our view it would be an opportunity which should involve a longer and bigger contribution in time and effort than that required from the normal boy. There would be an opportunity for him to give service and yet not to offend against his own conscience. As it is we can only here attack a small group of professionally qualified people for other Government service. We can second them, as I have mentioned is done in regard to firemen, where they are seconded to a fire station. The only difference is that they are seconded as soldiers. If you are going to send 16 men to the Cape Town fire station to serve there and you have 16 men who hold religious convictions, why not send the 16 men who hold those convictions to serve their time in a fire station? There are such people who would prefer to do that sort of service. Why then take men who have no objection to normal military service and send them to do such work instead of people to whom it would mean a great deal? [Time expired.]
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the hon. member for Durban Point, who also served on the Select Committee on this legislation, is now persevering in this point of view. During the discussions of the Committee the hon. member had the opportunity, together with the other members of this Committee, to argue the matter which he has now pleaded, not only with members of the Committee, but also with officers of the Defence Force who were present.
He was silent then.
No, he was not silent. He argued, and I want to concede that. But I am really surprised that the hon. member comes along with this proposal again this afternoon. He still does not understand what it is all about. He now wants to open the door so wide as to allow people other than the group of professionally qualified people who join the Defence Force under the national service system every year and whom the Defence Force itself cannot accommodate in a professional capacity, and who are then attached to other State institutions, to be dealt with in this way as well. He referred to people who have religious scruples, as he says, and who, as other people say, also have moral objections to doing military service. The hon. member for Durban Point knows, after all, that provision has already been made in the national service system for people who have religious and moral objections, for them to be occupied in a non-combatant capacity, for example. The hon. member knows this, after all. But now the hon. member argues and says that he is not in fact talking about the isolated group of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are a category on their own. But the hon. member should accept now, after all, that even if this door which he wants to open were to be opened … I hope the hon. member will listen to me now. That hon. member is …
Of minor importance.
I hope the hon. member will understand that even if such a door were to be opened to categories other than the professionally trained and qualified people, they would also have to undergo some basic training before being placed in a non-combatant capacity. I hope the hon. member understands this. If such a person does in fact have to parade in a uniform for a few weeks, and do other things as well, I cannot see that his religious or moral objections will allow him to do this as long as he can go where he wants to after a few weeks and not where the Defence Force needs him and wants to send him. I think the hon. member should get this matter clear in his own mind. He should return to the basic concept that what national service involves is that the Defence Force commands the services and life of every young man in this country for a certain period of time. If we were to open the doors and allow everyone to go where he wants to, we would have chaos, after all. The hon. member said that it would affect approximately two to three hundred people at most, not including the Jehovah’s Witnesses. But we must be guided, after all, by the knowledge and experience of Defence Forces in other Western countries as well. There is no secret about what happened in some cases where attempts were made to do what the hon. member now wants to do, namely that the small number of 200 to 300 eventually increased to several thousands. The hon. member must realize that the system with which we are dealing here is based on the utilization and the consolidation of all our young men for the Defence Force under the system of national service. When doors are opened in the way in which the hon. member now wants to open them, one must expect chaos and undermining of the discipline which there must be. I believe that all groups who really have religious objections to military service are satisfactorily accommodated by the Defence Force today. Consequently I can see no reason to accept this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words about what was said by the hon. member for Stellenbosch. The hon. member alleged that the hon. member for Durban Point does not know what it is all about. I want to assure him that I do in fact know what it is about. He also alleged that a door was being opened here which would create difficulties for the department in regard to this matter. No door will be opened by the omission of these two words. If this clause were to be passed as it reads at the moment, it would not even open the door to the professionally qualified people, because the department would still have the right to have those professionally qualified people trained in whichever unit it deems fit. It does not leave those people a choice. If these words were to be omitted, it would not leave the national serviceman any choice either; to my mind it would only make it easier for the department to allow the people to undergo their training in the most suitable place.
It continues to be the aim of the Department of Defence to train every national serviceman in that arm of the Defence Force where his services can be put to the best use, in that arm where his qualifications can be put to the best use. This clause now makes it possible for the Defence Force to attach qualified people either to other departments or to the armaments organization. We give this principle our full support. We do not agree that people would have a choice if these words were to be omitted. The choice continues to rest with the department. I do not want to go into the aspect of the people who have religious objections, because there is another clause which deals with this. When we come to that we can talk about this matter. It seems to me as if the legal experts who drafted this clause are conjuring up spectres unnecessarily as far as this matter of admission is concerned. I believe in spectres, but I really cannot see any spectre in this. I can only see that it is going to be easier for the department to place the persons where it wants to. For this reason I support the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point.
Mr. Chairman, I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point. This matter was before the Select Committee and the Select Committee had every opportunity to deliberate on it. The Select Committee also had the opportunity to interview people in connection with these matters and according to its report it received certain memoranda, and all these memoranda were considered. In this connection I want to be guided by what was decided by the Committee. This is my first reply. The second reply to the hon. member is that facilities already exist for people with conscientious and religious objections. See how reasonable we are. In the first place a man can go and work in a hospital. The hon. member is so concerned about my conscience when I face my Maker. Let me tell him that he need not be concerned about me when I face my Maker. I think each of us should feel concerned about the way we will face our Maker one day. Now leave this out of the political conflict. Each of us will just have to account for this for himself. In the first place such a person can go and serve in a hospital, where he can go and help to relieve human suffering.
Military hospitals.
Yes, but one finds human suffering there as well. There are not only soldiers there, but soldiers’ dependants as well. He can help to relieve human suffering there as well. He can also be trained in fire-fighting. If he gives the slightest indication of wanting to be trained in fire-fighting, we shall do it for him under the system of civil defence services which already exists. There he can serve the cause of civil defence. This is in fact possible in terms of the provisions of the existing Defence Act. If a boy tells us that he has conscientious objections to doing something else and that he wants to be trained in fire-fighting, he can do so. This possibility already exists. In the third place I want to say that where we had difficulties initially with some of these organizations and denominations to which the hon. member referred, the position at the moment is that the best understanding exists between the Administration of the South African Defence Force and these particular organizations. For quite some time now we have not had a single conscientious objector from one of these organizations, except from a certain type of organization, and that is the Jehovah’s Witnesses. We do not have trouble with the other people any more.
Why have they made requests again?
But of course, Sir! They sent in requests, and the Select Committee had the opportunity to consider them, after all. In his report the Select Committee says that we should keep to the stipulations of the department. There are no objectors to military service because of conscientious or religious objections. There are objectors who are Jehovah’s Witnesses. Sir, I am sorry, but I am not giving in to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I have made concessions to them. We shall come to that later on. I have personally made concessions to them.
There I agree.
The hon. member for Stellenbosch rightly pointed out here to the hon. members for Durban Point and North Rand that if you were to open this door and place the burden on the department, it would not be the right thing to do to your department, after all. Why should this Parliament want to burden the department with the decision in connection with these matters? Why do we not accept the responsibility? No, Sir, we are the lawgivers. Let us take the responsibility. It is a matter of principle. Why should we now want to pass the responsibility on to a department? To what pressure are we going to subject this department? To the same pressure as that to which Defence Forces in Europe have been subjected. Where they originally provided for 10 000 vacancies in other departments of the State and with companies, these have now increased to 25 000.
In one particular country they are at their wit’s end. I have told hon. members over and over again that I have not only studied this matter from documents which are available, but also discussed it with people. I am now telling hon. members: The plan which they are suggesting here is not a solution. It has been tried by other countries and it is not a solution. Why must we now create the impression that I am hard-hearted?
Surely, Sir, this is not so. We have introduced a system of national service; it is not only military service; it is more than military service. National service, as we are implementing it in this country today, with all the activities related to it, is much more than just military service. But apart from that, even if it were only military service, we have made it compulsory for young people to serve. Now hon. members want me to open a door by which I should strike at the root of the tree and create an opportunity for the undermining of the principle of national service. I know the hon. member for North Rand agrees with me in his heart. I think he agrees with me, for he is a military man himself, and I am talking the language of the Defence Force here. I am not talking my language; I am talking the language of the Defence Force; I am talking the language of people who are doing their service today, voluntarily or because they are forced to do so, or as professional soldiers, and who want no concessions on this point. I know what I am talking about. The hon. member knows this. He knows that he agrees with me.
May I put a question? May I ask the hon. the Minister to make it quite clear whether the Government accepts the possible genuiness of conscientious objectors?
Of course I do, and we make provision for them. There are existing provisions in the Act. Let me repeat, he can do his service in a hospital; he can do it in the administration of the department.
Under military control?
Yes, but in a non-combatant capacity. He can do it as a clerk in the administration; he can do it as a medical orderly; he can do it as a person who is being trained to perform fire-fighting services. There are various services they can perform. We do not have trouble with these people. There is no trouble between the Defence Force and conscientious objectors. Let me say this with the greatest decisiveness today. What is more, there is the best relationship between conscientious objectors and the Defence Force, with one exception, and that is the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
In respect of the Jehovah’s Witnesses hon. members must not take it amiss of me. but they are not a sect. They are not a denomination. They are just a lot of opstreperous people. They are not only opstreperous in respect of military service; they make a nuisance of themselves in every field. I am telling you now: We must not give them half a chance in South Africa. There are countries which have prohibited them; there are countries which are seriously considering prohibiting them. There are countries which are at their wit’s end with these people. I say they are not an ordinary denomination and they are not a sect. They are not a church association either. They are a lot of individual people, and everyone is his own minister. Everyone interprets the Bible in his own way and interprets his conscience in his own way. I have absolutely no time for these people, for I say they are the disciples of disorder. With the obligations imposed upon me by the Defence Act I can not yield here. Hon. members may accuse me of being hard-hearted, or whatever they like, but as long as I occupy this post I will not yield on this point. With the other people we have the most pleasant relations and understanding.
I just want to say this: I meet people from time to time who come and plead with me to take up the attitude which the hon. member over there is now taking up. I do not want to mention names now, but only this week I spoke to important people of this kind. I asked them this question: “Are you here in my office on behalf of the Jehovah’s Witnesses?” They said: “No.” Then I asked: “But on whose behalf are you coming to speak, for there are no other cases?” They still have not answered me on that. Now I am asking the hon. member today: If he is not taking the part of the Jehovah’s Witnesses—and I know he is not—on whose behalf is he speaking?
The Quakers, the Christadelphians …
Sir, let me now say this to the hon. member and also to the Quakers and the other very good people: You have the opportunity under the Defence Act to do service of a different nature, noble service. Let us club together and buy them that book which I mentioned here, “No guns on their shoulder”, and send it to them free of charge. I shall contribute, and the hon. member can do so too. We can send a copy of this book to each of these organizations, and then the whole story will be clear to them. Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is in connection with a change in the English text, in which certain words have been omitted by mistake. It reads as follows—
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily but I want to deal with two matters which the hon. the Minister has raised. He is quite correct when he says that the department is not having difficulty with these people.
*He said they were not having difficulty with these people. But what is difficulty, Sir? Do we only have difficulty when people clash head-on, or is there difficulty when people have to do things which hurt them? The fact remains that the Select Committee on this Bill received representations from the Quakers, and I just want to quote one part of them. They say—
That is all they are asking. They do not want to evade service. They want to serve in a capacity which does not violate their conscience.
May I ask a question? Will the hon. member explain to me how I am to provide for the Quakers in this Bill, but at the same time prevent a lot of Jehovah’s Witnesses from giving themselves out as Quakers?
Sir, we have put it very clearly. The proposal gives the power to the Defence Force exclusively, not only in respect of these people, but also in respect of the other people, such as those mentioned by the hon. member for North Rand.
Am I now to decide between the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Quakers?
It is very clear that they are organizations with written membership, with leaders, which are responsible bodies. They involve just a handful of people. But it goes much further. It concerns people who are not professionally qualified, but who can nevertheless be important to the Government or the Defence Force because of their specialized knowledge. They wil also fall under this. However, this is not a point on which I want to elaborate now. I have a letter here dated 18th May. It is a letter from the Western Province Council of Churches, a wide organization. This request was made six days ago, after the proceedings of the Select Committee had been concluded. In this they ask that an alternative should be considered.
I have met them and I do not want to speak about that now. I hope you are not going to quote from that letter, because then I shall also start talking about what we discussed.
I shall not go into greater detail. They are only asking for alternative ways in which they can do their service. Then one has the Christadelphians, which is also a very serious group. I do not believe that there has ever been an instance of subversion, of communism or of anti-South Africanism of any kind among this group. My point is that there are in fact people who feel this way. I should like to ask the hon. member for Stellenbosch, who was the chairman of this Select Committee, whether he has read any of these memoranda.
I have read them all.
The hon. member says he has read them all. How can he say then that there is no one who is not satisfied?
I did not say that.
I accept that, Sir, I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. member, but it is clear then. The Minister must accept then that there are people who are unhappy. All we are seeking is a solution which would not harm the Defence Force or the country, but which might contribute something in respect of a handful of people, in the interests of a better society. We obviously differ about this, however, and I do not believe that we shall get much further by continuing to debate the matter.
Mr. Chairman, I feel it is my duty just to set the hon. member right. I did not say in my speech that there are no people who are not satisfied. What I did say was that sufficient provision was being made, to the satisfaction of everyone who has objections, to serve in the Defence Force in a non-combatant capacity. That is what I said, and the hon. member knows that. I want to ask for the hon. member’s co-operation. The problem, it seems to me, is that there are certain quarters outside this House which do not grasp the situation. Now the hon. member for Durban Point reads out to us their memoranda and their views, based on ignorance, instead of going to those people and explaining what the actual position is. If he were to do that there would be satisfaction and there would be no reason for debates such as the one we are now conducting here.
I have spoken to them.
Mr. Chairman, when I spoke a short while ago, I said that I was looking at this clause and that I was forgetting all about people who have conscientious or religious objections as far as military service is concerned. I am looking at the clause exclusively from that point of view. Now the Minister says that I want to place the onus on his department to give these people a chance to get in. Sir, I am simply talking about the people who are outside that group. I am talking about the ordinary national serviceman who has to be trained. The Minister says that by omitting those words you are throwing open the door. I cannot agree with him, because if the clause remains as it is, it does not open the door to the professionally qualified people. The professionally qualified people still cannot tell the Minister and his department that they want to go here and there. The hon. the Minister agrees with me. What will the position be if these words are omitted? I repeat that I am not dealing with these people with conscientious objections at all; I am just thinking of the national serviceman who has to do national service. I am thinking, for example, of a man who received exemption from national service for four or five years. He wanted to become an electrical engineer, or whatever, but he fails in his final examination and he then comes forward to do his national service. Surely the department can put the services of that man to very good use in its armaments organization and if these words were to be omitted, it would give the department the power to use that man’s services there. If these words were to remain, however, the department would not be able to do this. I think this legislation would be better without these words. I am not placing the onus on the Defence Force; I just want to give the Defence Force the opportunity to put the services of national servicemen to better use.
The hon. member for North Rand has argued here that if these words were written into the Act, it would give the Defence Force the power to attach national servicemen to the categories to which they should be attached. But, Sir, the Defence Force has that power. It is not necessary to write it into the Act. If we were to write those words into the Act, we would be acknowledging the principle that people with conscientious objections may do their national service outside a Defence Force context. Sir, to this side of the House it is a principle that national service should be performed within a military context, not necessarily in a combatant capacity, but certainly within a military context. I think it is time that we cleared up this whole matter. As far as I am concerned, and I think also as far as the majority of hon. members on this side are concerned, this question of national service outside a military context, as it is being advocated here, is a smoke-screen. To me there is no difference whatsoever between a man who performs hospital service in the military hospital at Voortrekkerhoogte and a man who performs hospital service in the H. F. Verwoerd hospital in Pretoria; there just is no difference whatsoever. But, Sir, there is a further principle which applies here. The Defence Force is not the body which wages war; it is the State which wages war. In other words, these people are hiding behind a smoke-screen by wanting to allege that war is waged by an arm of the State, by the Defence Force, and this is not so. When war is declared—and the hon. the Prime Minister said here earlier this afternoon that we are in fact in a state of war —it is not declared by the Defence Force; it is declared by the State of South Africa. If the argument of hon. members on that side in this connection were to be accepted, they could argue that national servicemen can also refuse to serve in any State department which has anything to do with the struggle in which we are engaged, and we refuse to acknowledge that principle because that principle has no foundation. The principle which this side of the House upholds is that it is the duty of every citizen of this country to do his share in defending this country, no matter in what capacity. When for religious reasons a man has conscientious objections to doing military service, he is placed by the Defence Force in a category where he can perform that service in a non-combatant capacity. We need not give the Defence Force that authorization in legislation; it is an administrative arrangement. We refuse to accept that a man can do national service outside a Defence Force context. The Opposition must realize that this is the basic point of view of this side of the House and that it is no use arguing about it.
Surely, Sir, the hon. member for Cradock is completely out of order here.
Order!
He is not out of order, but he has completely missed the point. I am sorry, Sir, I used the wrong words. If he will read the Bill, he will find that what we are dealing with here is an amendment to allow the Defence Department to do precisely what the hon. member for Cradock says the Government will not allow it to do.
That is not true.
Sir, I wish the hon. member would be quiet for a moment and try to understand.
I said nothing of the sort.
The very purpose of this amendment is to allow the Defence Department to take certain national servicemen and to allow them to do their national service in a sphere other than a military sphere. [Interjections.] Sir, I think if hon. members want to conduct a reasonable debate in this House, they should pay attention.
Order! The hon. member must leave that to the Chair.
With respect, Sir, I do not think you can hear the noise over here. Perhaps I should read the amendment for them and then they might understand what I am saying. The effect of the amendment which is now before the Committee is that the Defence Force may provide for the attachment, on such conditions as may be prescribed, of any such member (that is to say, a member of the Defence Force) who belongs to any category of professionally qualified members whose services are not required in their mustering in that force, to a Government department. Sir, I submit that it is inherent in this that when they are attached to that Government department, they are relieved of the control of the Department of Defence.
Why do they want to be relieved of it?
Sir, let the hon. member exercise a little patience and listen to my argument. The whole effect of this is that the national serviceman thus transferred is removed from military control; he is no longer under military control. He then falls under the control of that particular department. Sir, in all fairness I must ask the hon. member for Stellenbosch …
Order! The hon. member must address the Chair; he must not turn his back to the Chair.
With respect, Sir, I abide by your ruling. When the hon. member for Stellenbosch says … [Interjections.]
Order!
Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that these hon. members are playing the fool with the Committee.
With you.
This is a serious matter. Look at the attitude that hon. members opposite adopt. I want to say with respect to the hon. member for Stellenbosch that he is completely wrong when he says that all these different religious societies are satisfied.
I never said that.
The hon. member did say that they were satisfied. All they want to do is to get away from military discipline and military control. Sir, that is exactly what they are trying to do. They have said that the alternative service to the country should not be under military control. I am not quoting now from any document which was before the Select Committee, Sir, I am quoting from other documents that I have received. The principle has now been accepted that national service need not necessarily be under military control. That principle has been accepted because of this amendment that stands on the Order Paper today, and all that we on this side of the House are asking is that that should be extended beyond the limited number of servicemen to whom it will apply, and that is those who are professionally qualified. We are asking that that principle—we all accept the principle that they must do some form of national service—should be extended to those who are genuine conscientious objectors. Sir, the hon. the Minister says that he has a problem in deciding who is genuine and who is not. I accept that. He has mentioned certain people who, we all agree, cannot be accepted as genuine objectors. But I want to put it this way to the hon. the Minister. He says that we must not place the responsibility on his department to decide. But surely if a young man comes forward with a certificate from an accredited minister of an accepted religion or an accepted society—and I refer particularly to the Quakers and to the Christadelphians, the two groups mentioned by the hon. the Minister …
Order! That argument has been advanced already. The hon. member must advance fresh arguments.
With respect, if this certificate is present, then we ask that this principle of doing some form of national service, not under military control, should be applied to them as well.
Question put: That the words “professionally qualified” in line 18, stand part of the Clause.
Upon which the Committee divided:
Ayes—85: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Malan, G. F.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.
Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk and M. J. de la R. Venter.
Noes—40: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell. A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman. J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber. W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.
Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.
Question affirmed and amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed by the Minister of Defence put and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause 2:
It would be out of order for us to move the amendment we would otherwise have moved in connection with clause 2. This clause now, after alteration by the Select Committee, doubles the time of special service from two months to four months, liable by any national serviceman. When we debated this in the Select Committee, we discussed it on the basis of his being service in lieu, virtually, of an emergency; in other words, instead of declaring an emergency or declaring martial law, the Minister would have the power to call up national servicemen for an additional four months. He has had that power to call them up for two months before, but in all the five years it has been there, he has not used that power once. Now, without having used the two-month period, he wants to use four months. Now we accept that there can be circumstances in which that would be necessary. We accept that two months is a short period where long distances have to be travelled. Therefore, we do not object to that principle, but we would have liked to limit this to special circumstances in which the security of South Africa is involved. As it reads now it need be only in the interests of the South African Defence Force, and on that basis men may be called up for four months’ additional service. Now “in the interests of the South African Defence Force” could be simply to train men better, to have a smarter Force. It could be in the interests of the South African Defence Force to call them up to build a camp or to perform some similar task. In other words the interests of the Defence Force are not necessarily the interests of security in the broader sense of the interests of the security of the country. We would have liked to see, instead of those words as they are in the existing Act, the words “where circumstances exist affecting the security of South Africa”. That would not be permissible as an amendment in this Committee Stage, but I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will instead give this House an assurance that that is in fact the intention behind doubling this period of service. In other words, I want it to be made clear that it is his intention only to use these four months for that purpose and not for normal training purposes. Of course, it would satisfy everyone if he in the Other Place by way of an instruction were to clarify it in the law itself. This is a matter which can affect voluntary officers in the Citizen Force. If word gets around that they are going to be expected to do their normal period of service as laid down in the existing law spread over ten years, plus four months’ continuous training, you can have a reaction against volunteering. People will always have hanging over their heads the knowledge that they may have to do an extra four months. It would clarify the position and it would help if the hon. the Minister would give that undertaking. But it would put matters beyond all doubt if he would amend the clause to make clear what is apparently the intention of the department. I will take it no further until the hon. the Minister has indicated what his attitude is to my request for an assurance or an amendment which will put this fact beyond all question, so that those who may be considering volunteering as Citizen Force officers or N.C.O.s will know exactly where they stand.
Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading I said very expressly—and this is on record —what the object is as far as this is concerned. In the second place, I must say that I myself am aware that there is some doubt among some of the commanders, particularly those who are serving on a voluntary basis, as to whether this is in the interests of the Defence Force, particularly in the case of those who make great sacrifices to carry out their services. Prior to the insertion of this provision, I personally had an investigation carried out by one of our most senior officers. I want to give the assurance that there is no question of this being used in an injudicious manner. This is proved by what has happened in the past, and I shall not do so in any case, unless it is absolutely essential. But I have explained why one does not always want to declare a state of emergency. The hon. member may accept my assurance that we shall deal with this in a judicious manner. We shall only deal with matters along these lines when it is absolutely in the interests of the country. I consulted the law advisers briefly in regard to this matter. They say that the amendment the hon. member wanted to move, but cannot move now, will really make no difference to this provision. If one wanted to call up people for four months instead of two months—this is already a principle in the existing Act—and perhaps wanted to train them for a week to get back into shape as a unit one could, in any case, to do so in terms of the wording of the hon. member’s proposed motion. After all, the importance of the South African Defence Force is that it has a task to perform. And what is that task? Its task is to defend the country under given circumstances. After all, one is not going to call up the Defence Force for any other purpose. When all is said and done, I am not going to call them up for the pleasure of stationing them in Beaufort West for four months so that they may carry out exercises there. This we will not do. The reason has definitely been explained to the hon. member in the course of the debate, and I have also explained it personally. I took him into my confidence and told him under what circumstances we would like to do so. The hon. member must accept that. Nobody would be that mad, and neither do I think the Supreme Command would be so silly-—even if they did have a foolish Minister—as to fall for these people being called up for the pleasure of carrying out exercises in one of the small Karoo towns, while quite a different object should actually be served here. That is the only assurance I can give. The good system of order in the Defence Force would prevent one from abusing this in any other manner.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for his assurance. I realize that the Government is not going to use this power lightly and is not likely to call up men without good cause. The thing that worried me was the point which was made by the Minister, namely the reaction amongst those units of the Force with which I have had the opportunity to speak, particularly the senior officers who were concerned about the effect on recruitment and on their own volunteers. But we must accept, and we do accept, the statement of the Minister, which he has made loudly and clearly, namely that this will not be for normal national service. If the circumstances are such that it is necessary, in the interests of our security, to call up these forces, they will be called up, but they will not be called up simply to create an additional four months of national service during their 10-year period. In other words, it will not be regarded as a mere additional period of service, but only in extreme circumstances where it is necessary. In those circumstances we accept the clause as it stands.
Clause put and agreed to.
Clause 10:
Mr. Chairman, we welcome the change made in this clause, which deals with the punishment of those persons who refuse to report for or to perform national service. The abandonment of the present system of continuous retrial and repunishment is a step in the right direction, and we will, of course, support this clause. It will be noted by the Committee that the Select Committee has now put beyond all question the issue of whether this is a once and for all time punishment. It is now quite clear that a person who refuses to report for service or to perform service will be sentenced to his 12 or 15 months and cannot again be tried for the same offence. What we welcome even more is the information given to us regarding the application of this clause. I would like to have seen it inserted in the clause, but I accept that there are practical difficulties. I would therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister to place on record the intention in so far as the application of the punishment under clause 10 is concerned, namely the intention to create a special camp where those who are convicted under this clause can be isolated from others on whom they are having an unfortunate and undesirable effect, and where they can be given constructive work to do such as road-building, gardening, growing vegetables, or whatever it may be. This work will make them do something instead of sitting around just kicking their heels and will be work which will cause them to exert themselves. There they will perhaps be able to make some sort of contribution towards the country instead of doing their national service. The suggestion was also made, and I would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s views on this, that in such a camp these men would be given the opportunity to wear either civilian prison clothing or their own clothing so that they would have no excuse whatsoever to evade the physical work which would be done in that camp on the pretext of this, that or the other reason, saying that they are not going to do it because they won’t wear an overall, etc. They can have the two things they claim, viz. the right to wear their own clothing and they can be isolated from defence and do some constructive work. That will be far better than having them sitting around in solitary detention. This is a matter which I do not want to take further in this debate if I can avoid it, but I believe that solitary detention does no good to either the morale of other people in detention or the image of the Defence Force as such. I hope the hon. the Minister can clarify that position so that this clause will make it clear to the country that here we are doing something positive and constructive to eliminate what is a festering sore at the present moment.
Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to thank the hon. member for Durban Point for the positive approach he has again displayed. Earlier this afternoon I appealed to him to help us eliminate the ignorance which may exist as far as outside bodies are concerned. This the hon. member has now done. The day before yesterday the local afternoon newspaper appeared with a lengthy report under the heading: “New appeal on conscientious objectors”. The report reads as follows—
Those very same people the hon. member quoted earlier this afternoon in this House seem to think no provision is being made for those people. For that reason I am glad the hon. member has taken such positive action to indicate to those people that the Defence Force is making provision to give this small group of extremists, viz. the Jehovah’s Witnesses, an opportunity for positive and constructive work.
While speaking about them I cannot but refer to the attitude that prevails in this relevant group, irrespective of their attitude towards national service. I have here a letter written to a school principal by a supporter of that sect. He states in this letter—
This is the attitude of this small group of extremists who are treated so accommodatingly by the Defence Force in that the Defence Force is taking these positive steps referred to by the hon. member for Durban Point.
While I am addressing this Committee I should also like, for the record, to straighten out another matter that is mentioned in this very same report in the Argus of the day before yesterday, to which I referred. The report deals with representations made by the South African Council of Churches and reads, inter alia, as follows—
The hon. member rightly said that the Select Committee not only approved this unanimously, but also inserted the proviso in which it is explained that a person who has served a sentence of 12 months may not again be punished for the same contravention. I nevertheless want to put the record straight by saying that this concept in this provision was already contained in the Bill as agreed to at the Second Reading, and that this is not an idea that was suddenly discovered by the United Party.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say how much I welcome this clause, because it is certainly an enormous improvement on the situation which has obtained until now whereby people could be sentenced over and over again for refusing to don a uniform or to render military service. I want particularly to say that I am very glad that it has been made retrospective. I do not think that this has been mentioned up to now. As I read the proviso, anyone who has already served not less than 12 months’ detention for contravention of this provision, may also not be charged again with such contravention. I think that that will come as an enormous relief to people who are genuine in their beliefs, whatever one feels about their religious “extremes”. I, after all, am not holding out any brief for such religious extremes. Far be it from me, though. I do believe that these people are genuine in their beliefs. [Interjections.] Well, I do happen to believe this. I also believe that their complaints were genuine, but I do not want to raise that again for fear of arousing the hon. the Minister to such an extent that he might change his mind about this clause. I know that there are people who have served sentences over and over again. I know of some who have served two, three and four sentences of six months. I am glad that this will be taken into consideration and that they cannot be charged again. There is a further question I should like to ask the Minister. If this one year is the minimum period, I am interested in those people who are at present serving a sentence of six months’ detention for refusing to render military service. I want to ask the Minister whether that will be taken into consideration as part of the 12 months’ sentence, and will they then have to serve just an additional six months if they are again to be charged? I would like to get that cleared up. For the rest, as I say, I very much welcome this clause, and I also welcome the statements which have been made by the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Stellenbosch that certain arrangements are going to be made. I am quite sure that this is necessary and that it will not only be better for the people concerned, but also for the South African Army.
Mr. Chairman, whether there are going to be any better relations between the authorities in charge of the detention barracks and this small group of Jehovah’s Witnesses, will depend entirely on the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I say this because there is no intention on the part of the Defence Force to prosecute or try to humiliate people unnecessarily. We have gone out of our way to make these people happy; we have even tried to make them as happy as possible under those circumstances. These people simply do not want to co-operate. They do not want to co-operate under any circumstances, and they devise plans to avoid co-operating. How people with such sacred religious convictions could be so wilful, I have yet to learn. I think they simply do not want to accept any responsibilities in life. I think they are a positive danger to any decent, civilized community. They are not only a curse to the work of the military authorities, but wherever else they come up against authority, they undermine such authority and rebel against it. How can people seek to promote their own progress and realize their own selfish interests when they are not prepared to accept the obligations of a community? For that reason I have to reject them. There is no reason why I should want to prosecute these people. Why should I want to do that? We have much more work to do in the Defence Force than to let such impossible people occupy our time. We are wasting the time of those officers, and we can employ them far more usefully. I hope hon. members will associate themselves with my standpoint and that a very strong voice will be raised in this House so that these people will understand that nobody in this Parliament holds a brief for them. It must be said for once that this Parliament has no time for these people. I hope I have the support of the hon. member for Durban Point on this point, viz. that as far as we are concerned, the Jehovah’s Witnesses should know that they must expect no sympathy from this Parliament.
I have already said so this afternoon.
Then I am grateful for it. As far as the treatment is concerned, I may say that we shall treat them in a humane manner. The regulations have been drawn up in such a way that anyone who wishes to subject himself to authority and discipline, will be treated in an humane manner. If he does not want to carry out the regulations, he has to be dealt with. That is all. For that reason I said, even before the Select Committee were in session, that we would consider isolating them; I think we have to isolate them, but I do not think we should isolate them where they can do some gardening because they would not want to do any gardening. I think we should isolate them where they will become very bored and where they will have plenty of time to give thought to their whims. I plan to have them detained in healthy surroundings where there is fresh air and every possible facility for such detention barracks without their being tortured or treated in an unchristian manner. I must add that Christianity does not pursue a policy of spinelessness. Christianity is a faith based on principles. In this southern country of Africa we find ourselves to a large extent engaged in struggles of Christianity. This we must not forget. Sometimes the forces of hell descend upon us. For that reason we are not going to be spineless as far as these people are concerned.
I do not want to say too much in reply to the hon. member for Houghton, because I think that the two of us are poles apart.
That is not the point.
The less we say to each other the better.
I agree with that.
However, I shall answer her on this one point. I shall try to see whether it is possible to have the five and six months, which these people have already served, deducted from their period of service. I think this is fair. We must consider any positive suggestion of this nature.
The hon. member for Durban Point also asked me whether we would consider the question of clothing. Well, I do not know whether we should restrict the authority of the Defence Force in this way. I shall first discuss this matter with the Commandant-General. I should also first like to discuss this with the senior officer of the Defence Force to find out what effect it would have.
Then you take their excuses away?
We shall try to take away as many of their excuses as possible without softening up. But, Sir, one can take all the excuses away—they will think up new ones.
In conclusion, I want to say something about the clause. I want to say this in all fairness. It was never the intention to make this anything else but a single punishment. Any report that now suggests the Select Committee has made a change, is an incorrect one, because I expressly said so in my introductory speech. In the course of my Second Reading speech I gave the express assurance to this House that it was intended to be a one-time punishment.
May I ask the hon. the Minister—I have been asked to make this approach—whether ministers of religion will be able to visit these people in detention barracks?
As far as I know, Mr. Chairman, they are all ministers of religion. Every one of them is his own minister ofreligion. So they can visit each other then.
Clause put and agreed to.
House Resumed:
Bill reported with amendments.
Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to inform the House that a South African Airways Boeing 727 on a flight from Salisbury to Johannesburg was hijacked about four minutes from Jan Smuts and forced to fly to Salisbury. At Salisbury the passengers were released, except five hostages; fuel was taken in, and the plane left there again for the Seychelles. Apparently the hijackers are two armed individuals. They said they had dynamite on the plane. They forced the pilot to obey their instructions. Apparently one of them knows something about navigation and they want to land on the Seychelle Islands. They are on their way to the Seychelles. I have not had any further information.
Mr. Speaker, I move—
Hon. members will remember that in introducing the legislation for the establishment of the Armaments Development and Production Corporation, I referred specifically to the function which Armscor, together with its envisaged affiliated companies, would perform as an instrument of the Armaments Board in the process of achieving self-sufficiency and as regards South Africa’s armament requirements. On the same occasion I also indicated that Armscor would be committed to entering mainly those spheres of production which were either too uneconomic or of a too strategic nature to be left to private industry. I emphasize this, since I think it is very important for hon. members to understand that Armscor is committed to entering mainly those spheres of production which are either too uneconomic or of a too strategic nature to be left to private industry. In other words, Armscor does not seek to concern itself with the whole sphere of the production of armament requirements. Hon. members will also remember that on 26th April of this year, while my Vote was being dealt with, I said that South Africa could justly be proud of what had been achieved in the endeavour to ensure the highest degree of efficiency for the Defence Force. Hon. members on both sides of the House were afforded the opportunity by invitation last year of seeing what had been accomplished by Armscor and its subsidiary companies in the national interest. Consequently I believe that it may justly be stated that the establishment of Armscor was undoubtedly a step in the right direction. Through the introduction of this system, South Africa has taken the lead—a fact which is also proved by the interest shown by countries abroad in the set-up, constitution, operation and liaison of the Armaments Board and Armscor and its subsidiaries, because one has in this set-up largely retained the system which is peculiar to private enterprise, in the sense that one included business people in these directorates and yet did not resort to nationalization; in other words, a system between nationalization and private enterprise.
Accordingly I want to take this opportunity to extend to those businessmen and executives who are prepared to serve on the directorates of Armscor and its subsidiaries, my thanks for their special contribution to the establishment and economic operation of a series of extremely strategic installations.
Of course, it was up to Armscor to ensure continually that it would achieve its objects more effectively. It has therefore in this process also become desirable to effect certain amendments to its legislation so that it will be able to carry out its functions more effectively. Although there was clarity on the objects and tasks of Armscor at the time of its inception, it was nevertheless fallow land that had to be entered upon and pioneer work that had to be performed. Experience has brought with it more insight as to the way in which and the techniques through which Armscor may serve its purpose even more effectively.
†The proposed amendments to the Armaments Development and Production Act, No. 57 of 1968, can be divided mainly into two categories, firstly those amendments calculated to enable Armscor to carry out its activities more effectively, and, secondly, those amendments intended to provide for a system of settlement of industrial disputes and the imposition of a total prohibition on strikes. As far as the first category is concerned, that is to say the more effective carrying out of its activities, I refer hon. members to my Second Reading debate speech of 8th May, 1968. On that occasion I informed hon. members that it was not the intention that Armscor should undertake the development and production of armaments under its own name, but that these activities should take place through subsidiary companies or through companies in which Armscor has an interest in the form of share-holding and/or financial aid. In the execution of this principle Armscor thus performs a controlling, financing and service function, while the practical manufacturing activities are undertaken by its subsidiary companies. To implement this principle more successfully in practice certain amendments which I will explain in due course are essential.
The second category embraces the exclusion of the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act regarding employees of Armscor and its subsidiary companies because it is not considered wise that activities and installations of highly strategic order should be exposed to strikes of any nature or extent whatsoever. It must be ensured at all times that the country’s preparedness will not be prejudiced in these industries.
At this stage, however, I want to stress most emphatically that the employees of Armscor and its subsidiaries will not be deprived of their basic rights through this action. In this Bill their rights are thoroughly taken into account and provision is made for a system whereby disputes can effectively be solved and settled. This amendment indeed embraces the continuation of an old principle that the Industrial Conciliation Act is not applicable to officers in the services of the State. Until their take-over by the Armaments Board in 1964, two State installations known as the Defence Ordnance Workshop and the Ammunition Section of the South African Mint were under the direct control of the State and consequently the Industrial Conciliation Act did not apply to employees of these installations which have in the meantime become subsidiaries of Armscor. Without practical circumstances having changed in any manner, statutory enactments therefore entailed that the Industrial Conciliation Act became applicable to employees of Armscor and its subsidiaries.
May I in this connection refer to the case of the South African Railways which created a somewhat comparable statutory provision for a total prohibition on strikes as well as rules for the settlement of disputes between the Railway Administration and its employees. As far as I know, the South African Railways succeeded in creating an instrument whereby it could approach its personnel matters on a reasonable and effective basis.
I want to assure the House that all possible solutions were discussed with different bodies and that the proposed system for the handling and settlement of disputes ensures a practical and appropriate system whereby the interest of the country, as well as the interest of the employee, can be served.
*I am now going to proceed to explaining in greater detail the various clauses of this Bill. In connection with clause 1 I just want to say that this clause contains a number of new definitions which are being added to the principal Act. Now I come to clause 1 (c). In order to enable the corporation and its subsidiaries to perform their functions more effectively, it has become essential to provide that certain statutory privileges shall also be conferred upon subsidiaries, such as the indemnity against liability where damage is cause for the protection of property and the exemption from the payment of duties or fees. However, the intention is that these amendments will only have a bearing on companies in which Armscor has full control. As hon. members will see, the definition of “subsidiary” is very clear.
The insertion of the definition “strike”, also in clause 1 (c), is bound up with the provisions of section 8G, which is being inserted in the principal Act by clause 10 of the Bill. The insertion of the definition “prescribe” in clause 1 (b), is bound up with the provisions of clause 11 of the Bill. In the Bill specific powers are conferred upon the corporation in respect of employees. Through the insertion of the proposed definitions of “employer” and “employee” it is ensured that such powers will also apply in respect of employees of subsidiary companies and, in specific cases, in respect of employees of the Armaments Board.
The insertion of the definition of “employees’ association” is bound up with section 8A, which is being inserted in the principal Act by clause 10 of the Bill.
Now I want to say a few words about the proposed section 3 of the principal Act. In the main the general purport of the envisaged amendment to section 3 of the principal Act amounts to the following—
- (a) the existing section 3 is being divided into two separate subsections, and the objects and powers of Armscor are dealt with separately in these subsections;
- (b) the existing powers of Armscor are being amended and additional powers are being conferred.
Proposed new subsection 3 (1):
The only amendment is the addition of the words “or pyrotechnical products”. The supply of such products is a logical side-activity of Armscor, which, in industry, is connected with its main activities in this particular case. The reference made here, is to Swartklip Products (Pty.) Limited (previously Ronden).
Proposed new subsection 3 (2):
In the existing section 3 one finds this sentence: “… to that end the corporation shall, in addition to any other powers vested in it by this Act, have power—”. That particular sentence is merely being formulated more effectively; actually, no principle is at stake here.
Proposed new subparagraphs 3 (2) (a), (b) and (c):
As far as the proposed new subparagraphs 3 (2) (a), (b) and (c) are concerned, the existing subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 3 are being amended by substituting the word “to” for the word “by”, with which each of them starts. I have been informed that this amendment is necessary because it was found in the past that the present wording of section 3 of the principal Act lent a restrictive meaning to the powers of Armscor and could cause certain administrative problems. I am a trusting person and must therefore accept it if the jurist says so. Although it has been the intention ever since the establishment of Armscor that Armscor and its subsidiaries should take over the land on which the former undertakings of the Armaments Board are situated, it has been decided on the recommendation of Armscor’s law advisers that these powers should be conferred with greater clarity in subparagraph 3 (2) (c) before actual transfer can take place.
Proposed new subparagraph 3 (2) (d):
In terms of the proposed new amendment Armscor shall have the power to establish, with the approval of the Minister, in terms of subparagraph 3 (2) (d), granted in consultation with the Minister of Economic Affairs, firstly, undertakings for the performance or promotion of the activities referred to in paragraph (1), i.e. to develop, manufacture, service, repair, maintain, buy, sell, import, export, and through advertising or otherwise, to promote the sales of armaments; secondly, to take over such undertakings and, thirdly, to acquire a share in such undertakings or to have part in the establishment of such undertakings.
Proposed new subparagraph 3 (2) (e):
Then we have the proposed subparagraph 3 (2) (e). The object of the proposed deletion and the insertion of the reference to the activities mentioned in subparagraph (1), is to confer upon Armscor, in keeping with its wide powers, also the powers for the promotion of companies other than merely companies for the development or production of armaments. This power may only be exercised with the approval of the Minister granted in consultation with the Minister of Economic Affairs. There is a reason for this. Another undertaking may be established for the attainment of an object which, in fact, may eventually be closely bound up with these objectives.
Proposed new subparagraph 3 (2) (f):
Then, as far as the proposed new sub-paragraph 3 (2) (f) is concerned, the proposed amendment merely seeks to eliminate a certain measure of overlapping that exists. Owing to the narrow meaning attached to the phrase “subsidiary company”, it is being proposed that in this case the Minister’s approval should not always have to be obtained.
Proposed new subparagraph 3 (2) (l):
Then there is the new proposed subparagraph 3 (2) (1). This is a new subparagraph in terms of which the powers of Armscor in regard to the manufacture and supply of firearms, ammunition and pyrotechnical products are defined more closely. Previously Armscor was only authorized to develop or manufacture armaments. In terms of this subparagraph it is also being authorized to service, repair, maintain, buy, sell, import, export, and through advertising or otherwise, to promote the sales of armaments.
Here I want to reconfirm what I said in 1968, namely that the distribution of commercial arms and ammunition will take place through established commercial channels and not directly to members of the public. I think it is necessary for us to emphasize this again.
Is that with regard to rifle clubs?
Yes.
Proposed new subparagraphs 3 (2) (m) and (n):
In terms of subparagraph (m) Armscor is empowered to acquire patents, licences, concessions, rights of manufacture or the like and to exercise several powers in respect of them, whilst subparagraph (n) empowers Armscor to engage employees. These powers are of necessity bound up with the activities of Armscor and require no further comment.
Proposed new subparagraph 3 (2) (o):
As Armscor has to spend large amounts of money on insurance premiums every year, the board of directors has, after an exhaustive investigation, arrived at the conclusion that a major saving could be effected if we agreed to subparagraph 3 (2) (o), if, in the first place, the State were to bear the risk in respect of losses of catastrophic dimensions which Armscor may suffer, and, in the second place, an internal insurance fund were established for covering smaller losses. The provisions of the proposed subparagraph are aimed at authorizing Armscor to establish such an internal fund. In this regard it should also be borne in mind that the activities of Armscor and its subsidiaries are of such a nature that special precautionary and firefighting measures are taken, through which the possibility of losses is limited to a large extent.
Amendment of the final paragraph of section 3 (2):
The amendment of this final paragraph is essential in the light of the extension effected to Armscor’s powers in subparagraph (1) of this section.
Clause 2 (2):
What we have here, is not a reference to the proposed new subsection of the principal Act, but to the number of the clause in the Bill. It is also deemed necessary to make section 3 of the principal Act retrospective in order to make provision for those cases where, in the implementation of its objects, Armscor inevitably had to take over certain companies and was unavoidably confronted in some respects with an excess of its powers.
Clause 3:
Fixed property which in terms of the provisions of section 5 (1) of the Armaments Act, Act No. 87 of 1964, became vested in the Armaments Board, is still registered in the name of the State at present. The Armaments Board decided not to take transfer of these properties because of the fact that the Board had not been exempted from the payment of transfer duties, stamp duties and municipal rates and taxes. For the sake of effective control, however, it is essential for Armscor to take transfer of these properties. The provisions of the proposed section 3A of the principal Act are necessary in order to prevent the properties having to be transferred first from the State to the Armaments Board and then to Armscor. This would be a cumbrous procedure. Such a take-over implies that from now on Armscor will pay normal rates and taxes to local authorities.
Clause 4:
For the sake of convenience references are made here to the subsections of the proposed sections 4A and 4B of the Armaments Development and Production Act.
Proposed subsection 4A (a):
In terms of this subsection Armscor is being authorized to employ and discharge employees. The powers conferred in terms of this provision, are of necessity bound up with the activities of the corporation, and require no further special motivation.
Proposed subsections 4A (b), (c), (d) and (e):
Prior to the take-over by Armscor of the Atlas Aircraft Corporation of South Africa (Pty.) Limited, Atlas had already provided the services and facilities envisaged by these subsections. After the take-over of Atlas, Armscor could hardly terminate these activities of Atlas without such a step inevitably bringing about serious personnel losses on the one hand, and, on the other hand, rendering absolutely impossible the recruitment of overseas personnel in particular. Armscor was therefore obliged to continue these activities.
Proposed subsection 4A (f):
In terms of the existing legislation Armscor does not have the power to establish a pension scheme for its employees. The envisaged amendment is mainly aimed at conferring these powers upon Armscor, and also at authorizing in law such schemes or funds which already existed at the take-over of subsidiary companies.
Proposed section 4B:
The proposed section is mainly aimed at conferring upon Armscor the necessary power to safeguard and protect the premises of Armscor, inter alia, by having persons stopped and searched. Of course, this will not apply to hon. members when they visit the premises. In addition, this section also confers upon Armscor indemnity against damage caused by any measures taken for the safeguarding and protection of the premises of Armscor.
Clause 4 (2):
Section 4A of the principal Act, as inserted by clause 4 (1) of this Bill, which has just been explained, will apply retrospectively.
Clause 5:
Basically the change to this section amounts to a rearrangement of the wordorder.
Clause 6:
The proposed new sections 5A and 5B of the principal Act make provision for the appointment of committees to assist the board of directors of Armscor in the performance of its task.
Clause 7:
Through the proposed section 6A it is envisaged to confer upon Armscor powers for negotiating loans. These powers may only be exercised with the approval of the Minister, which he grants in consultation with the Minister of Finance. In other words, he will not be able to act on his own. The object of this section is to enable Armscor, under specific circumstances, when the necessary funds cannot be obtained from the State, to obtain such funds from other sources in order to give effect to its objects. Such circumstances have already arisen. At the Committee Stage I shall move that a further subsection be inserted in the Bill. The subsection I propose to move, provides that the Minister may in consultation with the Minister of Finance guarantee loans negotiated in terms of the proposed subsection 6A. Hon. members will appreciate that it is the normal practice that whereas guarantees are furnished and whereas the State holds all the shares in Armscor, it stands to reason that the Government will have to furnish such guarantees as may be required.
Clause 8:
The object of this clause is to exempt Armscor from the payment of stamp duties, transfer duties and any other duties or fees which would normally have been payable. Because of the set-up of Armscor and in order to keep the prices of armaments within reasonable limits, this exemption from the payment of duties and fees is essential.
As the wording of this clause lends itself to the possible interpretation that fees such as purchase tax on commercial products are exempted by it, I undertake to remedy this matter by way of moving an amendment during the Committee Stage.
Clause 9:
The object of the proposed section 8 (1) A of the principal Act is to confer upon Armscor the power to build up a reserve fund and so to make provision, as is done in the private sector, for unforeseen economic conditions.
Clause 10:
†For the sake of convenience I will refer here to the sections of the principal Act on account of the fact that a large number of new sections will be inserted in the principal Act by clause 10 of the Bill.
Proposed section 8A of the principal Act:
In this section provision is made for the establishment of employees’ associations which must protect the interest of employees. Such an employees’ association must apply in writing and in a manner prescribed by regulation for recognition as an employees’ association. It is also provided that existing employees’ associations can object against an application for recognition by an employees’ association. No employees’ association of which membership is open to both Whites and non-Whites will be recognized. Where an employees’ association applies for recognition as such, Armscor may approve or refuse the application. In the event of refusal the right of appeal to the Minister is granted to such an employees’ association. The Minister can then confirm the refusal, reject it or instruct Armscor, after compliance with the conditions laid down by the Minister, to grant the application.
Proposed section 8B of the principal Act:
In this section the conditions with which the constitution of an employees’ association must comply, are stipulated.
Proposed sections 8C, 8D, 8E and 8F of the principal Act:
These sections create the machinery for the settlement of disputes between employers and employees. An individual employee, or, in the case of more than one employees, and employees’ association may submit written representations to their employer in connection with any matter related to their work. The employer must notify his decision in writing to the em ployee or employees’ association, depending on the circumstances. If the individual employee or employees are dissatisfied with the decision of the employer, they may approach an advisory committee. Such an advisory committee makes no rulings but merely acts in an advisory capacity. Armscor can accept a recommendation of the advisory committee, reject it, amend it or can take another decision. Such an advisory committee consists of at least two persons designated by Armscor. Furthermore an individual employee, or in the case of more than one employee, their employees’ association, has the right to appoint an equal number of members of the management committee of their employees’ association as those designated by Armscor.
If the individual employee or employees are dissatisfied with the decision of Armscor, the employee may, and an employees’ association must, if requested thereto by the employees, give notice thereof to the Minister and thereafter it is deemed that a dispute regarding the matter exists between the employees and their employer. When a dispute as referred to is deemed to exist, the matter is referred to a settlement board. Such a settlement board consists of three members designated by the Minister. The chairman thereof shall be a Judge or principal magistrate or retired Judge or principal magistrate or an advocate of not less than ten years’ standing. A second member is appointed by the Minister from a panel of at least three and not more than five names submitted to him by Armscor. The third member is appointed from a panel of at least three and not more than five names which is submitted to the Minister by the individual employee or, in the case of more than one employee, by the employees’ association. The decision of the settlement board is final and bind the parties to the dispute, and there is no right of appeal against the decision of a settlement board.
Proposed section 8G in the principal Act:
If the Industrial Conciliation Act is not applicable to Armscor or its subsidiaries, the prohibition on strikes contained in the said Act falls away. For this reason it is accordingly necessary that provision be made in this Bill for a prohibition on strikes; such a prohibition is imposed by this section.
Clause 11 (a):
This section is amended by the substitution of the words “management and control” and “affairs” for the words “exercise” and “powers”, respectively.
Clause 11 (b):
This clause has become necessary in view of the many matters in connection with which the State President has to issue regulations.
Clause 12:
In terms of the provisions of section 12 of the principle Act the State President is empowered to exempt Armscor by means of proclamation from the Acts mentioned in such proclamation. The proposed amendment is aimed at providing the State President with the same powers as in connection with the subsidiary company of Armscor as he presently enjoys in connection with Armscor itself.
Clause 13:
In this clause provision is made for the exemption of Armscor and its subsidiaries from the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act.
*I just want to say that this Bill was, as I have said, prepared after very thorough consideration. We believe that it is in the highest interests of strategic industries manufacturing strategic arms and ammunition for the Defence Force. But at the same time we have gone out of our way in an attempt to establish the machinery whereby employees may consult with their employers. If all these employees were still employees of the State today, as they originally were, they would in any case not have had the right to strike or have had more rights than they will have in terms of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we will not oppose this measure. I put it specifically that way, viz. that we will not oppose it rather than that we will support it, because to some extent, I feel, we are taking a sledge hammer with which to bash a gnat to death. I am not referring to the capital N sort of Nat! We, of course, agree that you cannot have strikes in an armaments industry. That is out of the question. There is no difference of opinion between us on this. We will support the Government in this measure to make strikes illegal. We would have thought that it might have been possible to simply declare strikes illegal whilst still making use of the tried and tested machinery of industrial negotiation between employer and employee which we have in our industrial set-up in South Africa.
The Minister says that these avenues have been explored and were found unworkable. Therefore we have some eight pages of this Bill taken up by clause 10, creating a complete new structure for staff representation and administration for negotiating with employers. But what it boils down to, of course, is that this is a closed negotiating machine between employer and employee within the structure of the unit. The Minister remains the boss; he remains the final court of appeal in regard to recognition or otherwise of employees’ associations. So we are saying to the employees: We will give you an organization and you can apply for registration. If it is refused you can appeal to your boss, your boss is the person who will decide whether you will be recognized and registered or not. In other words, it is in fact limiting the scope.
I would like to have seen a broader form of representation, as I say, without the strike power, but incorporating registration under the Industrial Conciliation Act so that they would be recognized trade unions. I am particularly thinking in terms of the skilled occupations where there is still the tradesman’s pride in maintaining standards and in ensuring that people who exercise a certain skill, are properly qualified to do so and do not cheapen that particular skill. That has always led to the closed-shop system, negotiation over apprenticeship, ensuring that by the time the person is recognized in his trade, he is fully qualified and can maintain all the standards. Nevertheless, despite that we recognize that there are other problems. We recognize that there are other difficulties which make arms production different from the operation of a normal factory. Therefore we shall not oppose this set-up.
We would, however, like to make a special appeal to the hon. the Minister. That is to ensure that those who are members of trade unions at the moment in the organization, that those who are already employed and who belong to a recognized trade union are consulted so that they will accept this change-over with the minimum of friction. It must not be something which is simply imposed on them by Parliament which tells them: “Take it or leave it” and “Bob’s your uncle”. Trade unionism is a delicate instrument which has many ramifications. If we want to have the goodwill of the labour market of the world, we must have the goodwill of trade union organizations. So I would suggest that whatever negotiation has taken place already—perhaps the Minister would like to tell us the extent to which there has been negotiation with the interested trade unions—in addition every effort be made to obtain the complete acceptance and goodwill of those artisans who will be affected by the new system of negotiation.
Obviously, this places a further burden on the Minister. In any department and with any Minister of State one finds that it is not the Minister himself but a person who advises him, an official who is given this particular responsibility, because no single human being could give his personal attention to everything to which a Minister is required to give his attention. No single physical body could so divide itself as to be able to give attention to all the details. Therefore if one talks of the Minister, one talks of the Minister by delegation. You will find even in this Bill the delegation of power to a body or committee then redelegated to someone else and redelegated again. What I would like to ask the hon. the Minister is that in the exercise of the powers het gets, really as a kind of deputy Minister of Labour, he will not make this a delegated power when it comes to the registration of staff associations and any matter of dispute. I ask this of him because he will now be acting in the capacity in which the Minister of Labour would act were there a dispute under the Industrial Conciliation Act. However, if the hon. the Minister himself is simply going to be a rubber-stamp to the corporation, this whole thing might as well be torn up before we start, because where you have a dispute, you will find the person with the authority, the person who does the appointing and makes the decisions, will in fact be one of the disputing parties. Therefore I ask the hon. the Minister not to make this one of his delegated powers.
When I mention delegation, there is the question of delegation to committees and to individuals, and I am glad to see that specific provision is made that where powers are delegated, the corporation itself shall not be divested of a power so delegated. This corporation handles a lot of money and a lot of responsibility. It is very highly sensitive to rumour because of the secrecy necessarily attending this sort of production. Nothing can start a hare running faster than something which you cannot talk about because by its very nature it is secret, although you know it is spending a lot of money.
That combination can be very harmful. The Minister does not need to be told about it—he probably hears the rumours every day; rumours about money being thrown down the drain here and there and commissions on this black market and that black market. It is just a hint here and a rumour there. That particularly is emphasized and highlighted when power is delegated. I refer to the proposed new section 5B which is introduced by clause 6 of this Bill. This power to delegate authority to persons or bodies of persons applies particularly to the purchasing. The Minister will remember that when we discussed the original Act, we discussed tender procedures and so on. Because of the sensitivity to which I referred, this matter is one to which I ask the hon. the Minister to pay particular attention, so that these rumours do not start. Where such delegation does take place, the greatest personal control by the Minister should be maintained. With those observations, I confirm that we will vote for the Second Reading of this measure and we will support it through the House.
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member for Durban Point that I do not think there is the slightest difference of opinion between the two of us as to the absolute necessity for the greatest measure of efficiency, good control, financial control, and business administration to have preference in this major undertaking of the State.
In the second place, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the Minister would not have been able to carry out this task if he did not have at his disposal the services and assistance of men who are prepared—as I mentioned in my speech—to help us in that regard. I think we are very much indebted to those prominent businessmen who are serving on our various directorates and helping to exercise this supervision. This applies tothe chairman of Armscor, his board ofdirectors and the persons serving in the subsidiaries. They are men of character and integrity, and we must simply ensure that this will remain the position.
Regarding labour arrangements, the hon. member may rest assured that if I could escape from the task of handling them, I would gladly have done so. I have quite enough work, but with the assistance of these directorates I have no doubt whatever that we shall also build up proper relations in that regard. After all, the future of this undertaking depends on the good co-operation between employee and employer. We have already made a great deal of progress in our negotiations with some of them. There are several thousands, and the majority of them have not been organized. Only a small group of them have been organized. We have negotiated with them as far as we could. We shall make a request to Armscor that, in the implementation of these provisions, they should expedite the further negotiations as much as possible and cause them to proceed smoothly, so as to bring about the greatest measure of peace and satisfaction. I cannot disagree with the hon. member; I am in complete agreement with him, and I gladly give him the assurances I have given him.
Motion put and agreed to.
Bill read a Second Time.
Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.
Evening Sitting
Report adopted.
Mr. Speaker, the report before us provides for the release of large tracts of land in the Ciskei for acquisition by the Bantu or by the Bantu Trust in terms of the Bantu Trust and Land Act of 1936. I think I am correct in saying that this is the largest release of land since the Act was passed and it certainly is the largest in the Eastern Cape. It behoves this House therefore to give particular consideration to this resolution and I wish to state shortly our attitude towards purchases of this nature in general before I deal with this one in particular. In deciding whether or not to support the purchase of land for use by Bantu, regard must be had to the effect of such purchases on the South African economy as a whole and more particularly to the uses to which the land is to be put, such as the efficient production of food or the development of new growth points of importance to the economy as a whole.
Thus, in making a decision, there are a number of considerations to which regard must be had. They are in the first place the statement of intention if not a commitment inherent in the 1936 legislation.
Secondly there is the fact that, with the population explosion expected by the year 2000, demands on South Africa to produce adequate good supplies render it unwise to put additional land in the hands of people who will not only farm it unproductively, but as a result of overcrowding and out-of-date methods may well cause the soil to be eroded and rendered useless for a long time.
Thirdly, there is the fact that under United Party policy consolidation of the Bantu homelands is unnecessary.
Fourthly, the future well-being of the Bantu people obviously lies not in pastoral or subsistence farming but in industrial development coupled with efficient food production from the land by the use of enlightened systems of agriculture.
Then too, purchases should not be supported just because all the land dealt with in the 1936 Act has not yet been made available, but only where such land is necessary for industrial development or the establishment of economic farming units, once again against the background of the entire South African economy.
The acceptance of these principles will leave Parliament free to judge each case on its own merits in the interests of the South African economy as a whole and all the people that inhabit the country. On this basis the purchase of land for Bantu residential occupation in the neighbourhood of natural growth points would be justified. Black spots where the presence of the Bantu is unjustified for economic reasons would be eliminated, individual land ownership amongst the Bantu as opposed to communal ownership would develop and there would be large scale industrial development both inside and outside the Reserves.
With these principles in mind, we must decide what our attitude should be in regard to this particular resolution before us. We have just approved of two resolutions of a similar nature. Those resolutions could, however, be supported for economic reasons and because of their respective merits in terms of the principles which I have just stated. The resolution before us now, however, is politically inspired and not one for economic reasons. The proposal is to declare large tracts of land presently profitably occupied and farmed by Whites as released areas to enable the South African Bantu Trust or Bantu themselves to acquire the land for Bantu occupation. The sole motivation given to us by the hon. the Deputy Chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission, the hon. member for Langlaagte, at a meeting of interested persons at King William’s Town …
The Chairman.
I said the Deputy Chairman.
He is the full Chairman.
The Minister is the full Chairman.
No, you are wrong.
We changed the law last year.
This hon. member for Langlaagte, apart from costing the Government R60 million per year in increased salaries to railwaymen to get him into Parliament, has now also had to have his status raised. The Minister of Native Affairs in the past used to be the Chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission, now the member is the Chairman.
You passed the Act.
That accounts for this type of recommendation which is now before us. [Interjections.] We are not getting our money’s worth.
No, you have been caught out.
He told the land owners in King William’s Town that the Government is obliged to purchase a certain extent of land as provided for in the 1936 legislation. By saying that the hon. member repeated what the hon. the Prime Minister had said, viz., that the Government is obliged to buy a certain amount of land in terms of the 1936 Act. That of course is not true. The Act lays down the maximum extent of the land which may be bought in each province.
However, I do not contend that we should not abide by the spirit of the 1936 legislation. But I wish to point out that the land owners in the affected area are being misled into believing that the Government is committed by promises of the previous Government to buy a minimum amount of land when in fact they are limited to buying a maximum extent of land. Incidentally, Sir, the limit of the extent of the land which is to be bought in terms of the 1936 legislation was set out by a United Party Government, and it is interesting to note that at that time the Nationalist Opposition, led by Mr. Strydom, opposed it on the ground that too much land was being set aside for the Bantu.
That is not so.
That is so. All that hon. member has to do is to read the debates which took place at that time and then he will see what happened. Sir, one must remember that the 1936 Act was passed and the commitment entered into when we were emerging from the depression, and therefore land for subsistence farming was the only prospect that we could offer to the Bantu. South Africa has changed since then and we now all agree that the economy should be diversified to make the people in the Reserves less dependent on this type of agriculture. It is possible, and indeed advisable, that the Bantu should be encouraged to accept more valuable land with industrial potential which can support thousands more than farming land can support. In this way it may be possible to achieve the objects of the 1936 commitment on a smaller area of land than contemplated as the maximum in that enactment. It may be argued, Sir, that we are in honour bound by the 1936 commitment, but Bantu leaders have already stated that they were not a party to that legislation and therefore they do not consider that they are bound by that legislation at all. The door therefore is open to this Government, and certainly to a United Party Government, to negotiate with Bantu leaders in the future to persuade them that eventually a smaller area of land may be more beneficial to them than that provided for in 1936. On the other hand, it may be necessary, in order to do justice to the Bantu, to exceed the maximum laid down in 1936. We do not want to be bound by questions of geography or acreage. We believe that our first concern should be the welfare of the people for whom we are responsible. Sir, we must not lose sight of the many morgen of land purchased since 1936 by various Governments for Bantu townships in the White areas. When the 1913 and the 1936 Acts were considered, it was never envisaged that there would be so many thousands of Bantu permanently employed and housed in the White areas. We believe that notwithstanding Government policy, these people are there permanently, and those who are permanently employed must be allowed to own their own homes in terms of our policy. I say therefore that we must bear this in mind in considering what land to set aside for Bantu occupation.
The resolution before us provides for the release of over 118 000 ha of land, and it is obvious that the acquisition of all this land by Bantu or by the Bantu Trust will take many years. I see that the hon. the Deputy Minister has suggested that it might be as long as 15 years. But with the drastic reduction in the amount of capital provided in this year’s Budget for the purchase of land, and bearing in mind the demand of the Zulus, I do not thi<u>nk </u>that even 15 years will be sufficient time for the purchase of the land envisaged here.
Sir, if this was the final plan for the Ciskei, it could be argued that we should support this measure in order to finalize the boundary of the Ciskei and so end the uncertainty which exists in that area. However, we have been told by the hon. member for Langlaagte and by the Minister himself that this is not the final plan for the Ciskei. This major consideration, therefore, falls away and the whole border area is in fact left in a state of uncertainty, uncertainty as to where the final boundaries are going to be and which area will be the next to be declared a released area for occupation by Bantu.
Sir, I do not think that anybody will seriously contend that the setting aside of this land for Bantu occupation will be for the benefit of the South African economy as a whole or for the more efficient production of food or for the development of growth points. There has been no submission by any official or Government spokesman that the proposal is for the benefit of the South African economy, and until we are satisfied on that score, one of our foremost qualifications, which I set out earlier, is not met.
The Eastern Agricultural Union delegates at the King William’s Town meeting, to which I have referred earlier, said that they felt that it was their duty to see to the efficient production of food. They objected to the transfer of the land, and again there has been no suggestion by any official that the acquisition by the Bantu Trust will bring about a more efficient production of food in this area. With our past experience, we fear that the opposite may result. From submissions made by the farmer delegates at the King William’s Town meeting, I am of the opinion that no more Bantu will be profitably accommodated on this land than the numbers at present accommodated on this land in the employment of farmers.
We feel that by adopting this resolution we will not be taking a step in the interests of the economy as a whole, nor of the Bantu concerned, in particular, nor will we be bringing finality to the Government’s problem of finalizing the boundaries of this area, which is fundamental to its policies. The memorandum submitted to the Select Committee provides for use of portion of the proposed released areas as compensation for various small isolated Bantu areas totalling 59 100 ha in exchange. Sir, I say that we support the elimination of Black spots where for economic reasons they are unjustified, and I believe that the Black spots indicated on the map supplied to the Select Committee would fit into that category, but in this instance we were unable to ascertain which land would be used in exchange for these Black spots or when the exchange would take place. I know that this is a matter of urgency to many in that area, and the Government should come with a clear statement of policy as to which areas it intends exchanging, as it did in the two resolutions which this House accepted a few minutes ago. As against whatever doubtful advantages or beneficial aspects there may be in the resolution before us, we say that there are definite discernible disadvantages.
Firstly, the areas concerned are some of the best farming areas in South Africa and are required for efficient food production and generally in the interest of the economy of the country as a whole. Secondly, there will be a state of uncertainty in the whole area because none of the inhabitants will know for certain when their properties are to be acquired by the Trust or are to be bought for Bantu. Once the area is released, the Bantu Trust can buy anywhere in the area; and others whose land is not included in this resolution which is before us now will not know how far the boundaries are going to be extended and when their properties, too, will be set aside for acquisition by the authorities for a possible independent state, and this uncertainty will persist as long as the Government neglects or fails to lay down the boundaries of the homelands to which it intends giving independence. It is clear, Sir, from the statements by the Minister, his Deputies and officials of the department and the farmers’ associations and others who attended the meeting at King William’s Town that there has not been adequate consultation between the Government and the farmers’ associations concerned or the other organizations or public bodies representing the landowners in that area. And it is clear too that they have not been told how much compensation they will get, how they will be compensated or when their properties will be taken over. Sir, we have the Transkei experience before us. We contend that where Government action places people in a position where in fact the Government becomes the only market for the property, it should give an assurance that they will buy the land offered to it without laying down conditions of urgency, as it was done in the Transkei. Although the position has improved there over the years, there is still dissatisfaction with this amount of compensation, but especially with the rate of the take-over of the property of those who wish to leave because of Government policy. With the reduction of funds provided in this last Budget, the take-over is going to be even slower. Circumstances may be urgent to an owner, and not urgent to the Government. Schooling, for example, may be urgent for the owner, but it may not be urgent to the Government in deciding whether to take over the property or not. The desire to take advantage of an opportunity establishing themselves elsewhere may be urgent for the owners of property, but it may not be urgent as far as the Government is concerned. Illness in a family may be urgent to the owner or occupier. The objection to living alongside of people with a different colour can be urgent to the people living in the area, but not to the Government. There is a variety of other reasons which may eventuate because of changed circumstances brought about in the area, because of the application of the Government’s policy, altering the law relating to the acquisition of land by other race groups and political changes in the area.
Speaking of removals, we all know of the dissatisfaction there has been over the application of the Group Areas Act, where people affected have been aggrieved. Sometimes, of course, their grievances may have been unjust, but there is now no doubt about it that they feel that the Government has given them a raw deal and that they did not get their just due. This will apply also in this area, where some people will have to leave who do not wish to leave. Then, speaking of those who do not wish to move because of the difficulty they foresee in establishing themselves elsewhere, on the same basis, and according to the same living standards as they enjoy now, I here refer especially to the small farmers in the Braunschweig and the Frankfort area, but others will deal with that.
Now, what is to happen in the villages of Hamburg and Peddie? They are now excluded from the schedule although they were originally included in the memorandum set before the Select Committee. Hamburg, as a tourist resort, may go on as it is now, but what will happen to Peddie? It will starve if the neighbouring farms all round that village are sold or acquired by the Government. But it is proposed to make the fate of these villages even worse than it would have been had they been included in the scheduled released areas, be cause it is now proposed to leave them out, and there is another resolution on the Order Paper before us, in which the Government is asked to consider legislation to deal particularly with these areas, and the way they will deal with it is to pass laws, as they have done in the Transkei, zoning these villages for occupation by the Bantu, and zoning them party by part until the whole village is taken. I know all about the trouble experienced in the villages in the Transkei. Once it becomes known that these villages will gradually be rezoned piecemeal for Black occupation, they will become moribund. There will be no hope for them to sell to others besides the Bantu Trust or the Bantu, and the Bantu Trust will not be able to buy because they are not released areas. They will not be able to buy until the village is zoned piecemeal for occupation by Africans. Sir, you only have to hear the complaints in the villages of the Transkei who have experienced this type of take-over to realize what is going to happen in those two villages. I say it bodes ill for them. Hamburg is excluded from the schedules before us now, but not the other potential holiday resorts being established along that coast. I understand there are four or five of these resorts being developed at present by private enterprise. They may be more fortunate in Hamburg at the moment, in that once they are declared released areas, the Bantu Trust can buy, or the Bantu can buy, but this coastal strip, I submit, is not suitable for agricultural development although it does provide the best potential for tourist development in South Africa. I have before me certain photographs, and I am prepared to hand them to the Minister, to show the type of holiday resort that can be developed there. There is Umtana Lagoon. From the picture you can see that it is forest area all above the sea with a lovely lagoon, and it is very popular with holidaymakers. Then there is Bushbuck Park, which is also being developed as a nature reserve for animals, and you can see the cottages already built there. You can see what a beautiful area it is, with a river too. Private companies are developing this. [Interjection.] I am not going to mention the names of the companies here, but the fact is that they are being developed. Then there is the Gusha Mouth Estate and Gwalana Lagoon. What we fear is that once these areas are declared released areas and are taken over by the Bantu Trust, because I cannot see who else is going to buy them, they will stagnate and will not be developed satisfactorily as tourist resorts; we have the example of what has happened in the Transkei. I know that the farmers do not want to be isolated on that strip. They do not want to be left there alone if the rest of the area is going to go Black. They want the area to be bought by someone. I suggest that the Government should buy that area or get the Bantu Trust or some other organization to buy it, and to set it aside for development as tourist resorts and as nature reserves. Now in fairness to the developers—it does not matter who they are; the hon. member for Cradock wants to know who the developers are. I do not know who they all are, but there are five of them as far as I know— but in fairness to these people, once these areas have been declared released areas, the Government, should tell the owners how they can dispose of their properties and what is to become of their holiday resorts.
Then too we are not satisfied that proper assurances can be given to King William’s Town, that its water resources will be properly protected. We know of that meeting at King William’s Town where they expressed their concern.
I think I have given enough instances to show the concern with which we on this side view this setting aside of the whole of this area as a released area, and I say in conclusion that the Government cannot possibly take over the whole area at once. We do not know when it is going to start and we do not know what properties will be affected and the people living in that area do not know what properties are going to be affected. The Government should come with an overall plan to tell us what they intend doing, how they intend taking over the property, and in fact where they intend finalizing the boundaries, so that everybody in that area will know exactly where they stand. We are therefore opposed to this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, we should like to know where we now stand with the United Party in connection with this legislation.
He has just told you.
We now want to know exactly where we stand in connection with this. When the hon. member began, he created the impression … let me now just say that the speech the hon. member made here is one that was written out for him by the Eastern Province Agricultural Union. [Interjections.] I just want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville, who is now becoming ecstatic about this, that he knows absolutely nothing about these matters.
I know much more than you do.
At the King William’s Town meeting we sat and listened to the evidence. We obtained a memorandum from the Eastern Province Agricultural Union …
East Coast Agricultural Union.
… from the East Coast Agricultural Union.
What is the name of the body?
Let me tell hon. members that all the arguments the hon. member for Transkei used here are also the arguments they used that day at the King William’s Town hearing. They also proceeded from the supposition that they have only one object, to produce food. They wanted to retain all the available agricultural land for the purposes of agriculture. But that is not what it is all about; here it is a question of the realization of the provisions of the 1936 Act. It is also a question of the consolidation of the Bantu homelands. I want to say here this evening that I think this is a very historic moment for South Africa. I want to take the hon. House back 36 years into the past. At about the same time 36 years ago the 1936 Act was debated in this House. On 4th May 1936 a decision was taken in this House. In those days the National Party sat on that side. The National Party, which was in the Opposition, supported the provisions of the 1936 Act.
Including Mr. Strydom?
They supported it. The hon. member must please go and do his homework for a change. Here I have the debates. He may go and read them. The Act was supported in principle. It was only Mr. C. R. Swart who moved an amendment, i.e. that that Bill be referred to a Select Committee …
Why?
… to more specifically examine certain provisions in that Act. After Mr. C. R. Swart had spoken, Gen. Hertzog stood up, and what did he say? He said that the time had come for him to make a statement in connection with this matter.
He was a “Sap” at the time.
He was not a “Sap”; he was never a “Sap” in his life. I think it is a reprehensible thing for the hon. member to say. Gen. Hertzog said—
- (a) It is the intention of the Government that the purchase of the above-mentioned land be commenced as soon as possible.
That is what Gen. Hertzog said at the time on behalf of the United Party. He goes further—
- (b) that funds amounting to £10 million be voted within the next five years in such annual amounts as may be considered necessary for purchase each year;
- (c) that any further sums which may at any time appear to be necessary for the purchase of the above-mentioned land during the course of the said period of five years, or thereafter, be immediately made available for that purpose. The Government wish once more to give the assurance that it is their earnest desire to see that the obligation towards the natives of the Union arising out of this Bill…
Who is arguing about that?
—
There it is underlined—
For representation in this House.
Today I want to accuse the United Party here before the people: You are the people, the true descendants, who failed to meet those commitments when, in 1939, you …
Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. When those hon. members came into power after 1939, they failed to meet these faithful obligations that Gen. Hertzog gave them, on his honour, to comply with. With the statement of these three points, Gen. Hertzog undertook to purchase all these 7¼ million morgen for the Bantu within ten years after 1936. But what was done after that? That word of honour, which the hon. members gave, was not kept by them. Therefore I want to say that today it is a gratifying moment for us to be able to say that after 36 years, after 24 years of National Party rule, we are now starting off here to draw the boundary lines of the Ciskei, after having put all the machinery in operation to set these people going towards eventual independence under their own homeland governments. As far as this homeland is concerned, we are now eventually doing the rounding off work.
Temporary
boundaries.
We are drawing these boundary lines. What we are engaged in now is consolidation work. That is why we told the audience and the people at King William’s Town that we are engaged in discussions with the relevant bodies there as far as the consolidation of the Ciskei is concerned. As far as that is concerned, things are made very clear to them. The hon. member for King William’s Town was there, so were the hon. members for Transkei and East London North. They heard what was said there. We stated it very clearly that what we were engaged in was related to the terms of reference we were given, as a Bantu Affairs Commission, to hold discussions in the Ciskei with those bodies in respect of the consolidation of the Ciskei and the acquisition of quota land for the Transkei in the first place and, secondly, compensation land for the shifting of those areas that are badly situated areas. That is what we are engaged in. That is why I am grateful that we can say on this historic moment this evening that we are acquiring and establishing the quota for the Cape Province. What are we now doing here with this motion? Firstly we are acquiring the quota land for the Cape. But what is the Cape Province’s quota? Under the 1936 Act the Cape Province was to acquire 1 384 156 ha. Since 1936 1 022 358 ha have already been acquired for the Cape Province. In other words, the balance of the quota for the Cape Province is 361 798 ha. In this motion it is now being recommended that 178 330 ha be purchased. 59 000 ha of that 178 330 ha will be used as compensation land. Let the world know this. We are telling the world; we are telling the United Party; let there be no illusions about that. As far as the Cape Province is concerned, the outstanding land quota that still has to be purchased under the 1936 Act is 120 330 ha. No, pardon me, I have made a wrong calculation. 59 000 ha must be subtracted from the 178 000 ha. This is compensation land for these badly situated spots that must now be shifted. In other words, the land that is now being released, that may now be acquired, is 120 330 ha in extent. In other words, the outstanding quota land that still has to be purchased in terms of the 1936 Act in the Cape is 361 000 ha minus 120 000 ha, i.e. 241 468 ha. That is the land that is still outstanding in the Cape Province according to the provisions of the 1936 Act. That is the quantity of land that still has to be made available here. The Cape Province must simply accept the fact. That is the quota that was laid down in the 1936 Act…
Is that the law of the Transvaal?
No, wait a minute now …
Order! The hon. member may continue. He must not take any notice of such interjections.
Mr. Speaker, that hon. member must simply accept that the quotas for each Province were laid down in the 1936 Act. In this specific motion, which we have before us, we are only dealing with the purchasing of quota land for the Cape, and in particular for the Transkei areas. That is why I say that the land we are now releasing …
What was that about the Transkei?
I mean the Ciskei area. That balance of 241 468 ha is land that will have to be divided up amongst the other Bantu peoples living in the Cape, i.e. the Ciskei people, the Transkei people and the Tswana people.
The Prime Minister has told us all that.
Yes, but I am now telling the hon. member. That is what this whole matter is all about. It is also what the King William’s Town inquiry was all about. These areas, which are now to be released in terms of this provision, will be employed, firstly, as I have said, to make up, to a large extent, the outstanding land quota that still has to be purchased in the Cape Province. Secondly, this land will be employed for the shifting of these badly situated Bantu areas. These are areas that fall outside the Ciskei area; these are areas such as Goshen Missionary Reserve, which is 1 830 ha in extent. This will be shifted to the Whittlesea area. Then we have the Wartburg Reserve of 2 805 ha. This will be shifted to the Frankfort area. In a moment I shall tell the House why these specific poorly situated areas are being shifted to these specific areas. Then there is the Umgwali Reserve of 4 768 ha. That will be shifted to the Braunschweig area.
When was this policy stated?
That is our intention. Then we will obtain the Mooiplaas location, the Kwelera area and released area No. 36 of 16 859 ha. The idea is that those people living in the Komgha district at East London will also be shifted at a later stage to the Peddie and Bell districts. Then we have the Newlands …
May I ask the hon. member a question? I want to ask the hon. member why these proposals for exchange ground were not made in the Select Committee report?
I am stating what the idea is as far as this shifting is concerned and why it is being done. I am stating why these specific areas are being purchased. The Newlands location is situated in the East London District and is 4 581 ha in extent. This area must be shifted, and the only area it can tie in with is the Chalumna area in the East London district. So, too, we have the Bantu areas at Humansdorp which fall altogether outside this area. Those areas must be shifted, and the only areas they can tie in with, being 7 708 ha in extent, are the Keiskamahoek areas. Likewise we have the portions of the Sikobeni, Peelton and Balazi locations that have to be shifted because they are wrongly situated. They cover an area of 2 591 ha.
Get to the point please.
I shall be getting to the point in a moment. Just give me a chance to finish. They will be shifted to the Braunschweig and Frankfort areas. Then we have the Lesseyton location, a poorly situated Bantu area, which must be shifted from that sector. It covers 6 866 ha.
Mr. Speaker, I address you on a point of order. The hon. member is not discussing the proposals which are before the House at the moment.
Order!
I am stating how the released areas are going to be employed, and what the idea in that connection is. This is quite within the qualifications of the discussion.
I asked and you said you did not know.
You did not ask the question on the Select Committee. On the Select Committee the question was what it is all about. And then it was …
You then said you did not know.
The reply was clearly given to the hon. gentleman in the Select Committee to the effect that these released areas are going to be used for the shifting of poorly situated areas and for the removal of Black spots. All I am now doing is furnishing particulars. The hon. members must just listen. I say that the people of the Lesseyton area, in the Queenstown district, which covers 6 866 ha, must be shifted to the Ndonga area. Then we also have Black spots in the districts of East London, King William’s Town. Peddie, Alice, Stutterheim, Cathcart, Stockenstroom and Uitenhage, which cover an area of 8 565 ha all-told. Those areas must also be tied in with these released areas. As I have said, the shifting of the poorly situated areas into released areas is taking place according to the ethnic classification and the ethnic accommodation of those people where they belong. Everything is being placed on ethnic basis. All the people who have to be shifted from the poorly situated areas must be put in areas where they can be placed within their tribal context. That, I state, is the object of this releasing process. It is being done, firstly, to fill the quotas of those areas. It is being done so that the Ciskei’s quota can more or less balance with that of the Transkei in accordance with the population density there. In addition the poorly situated areas must be shifted, and this includes the Black spots within these areas. As I say, this accords with the 1936 Act, but it also accords with the policy of the National Party, and that is to consolidate these homelands as quickly as possible. The National Party wants to draw the boundaries of these homelands so that everyone knows exactly where the homelands’ boundaries are. We also want to settle matters in respect of the quota land, which was promised in terms of the 1936 legislation, as quickly as possible.
When will we know where the boundary lines are?
As soon as this consolidation has been completed —and we hope we shall obtain the United Party’s support—these boundary lines will be drawn and one will know exactly where the boundaries of these homelands are. But now it is being said by those people, amongst them the hon. member for Transkei, that the people were not consulted. But, Sir, that is surely not the case. The hon. member surely knows that.
What about the maps? What happened there?
The hon. member surely knows that matter was properly advertised in the newspapers. The hon. member surely knows that those bodies were informed that from the Department of Bantu Administration at King William’s Town they could obtain a proper map on which all these farm boundaries are indicated, if they only wanted to take the trouble. He surely knows that. You are talking nonsense!
You know that is untrue.
Order!
I withdraw it, Sir,
If they could not obtain it there, they surely knew the address of the hon. the Minister and his department in Pretoria. They could have obtained it there. But these people sat there at the time and expected to be treated like babies. They thought everything should fall into their laps. The people did not do their homework.
Who are “the people”?
All those people involved in the matter. After we later pointed these aspects out to them nicely, those people conceded that they had not been properly informed by their superior bodies in connection with this matter.
The hon. member also spoke here about the White areas; but he tore a page from our book. We came along with the proposal—at a later stage there was, accordingly, another proposal—that these Peddie and Hamburg White areas be cut out of this report. We shall come with law amendments at a later stage to provide that the purchase of Peddie and Hamburg, which are excluded White areas, will take place at a later stage on a piecemeal basis by means of zoning. That is going to be done at a later stage. Those people were also told about that.
The hon. member also speaks here of the question of compensation, and makes a great story out of it. The hon. member surely knows that when a released area such as this is being considered, it is no time to be speaking about compensation. After all, he knows what the provisions of the Act are. The areas must first appear on the schedule of the 1936 Act. As soon as that happens it is a released area, and then we can start negotiations to purchase some of those areas for these various purposes, as I have just explained to him. Then the question of compensation arises.
Sir, I just want to say that we are grateful we have come this far with the implementation of the policy of separate development and the creation of homelands for the Bantu in South Africa. I want to tell the hon. member that what we are now doing here is nothing new in South Africa. I have already said here on previous occasions, and also on other occasions, that what we are doing here also tallies with what was said to the world as far back as 55 years ago. As the policy of the National Party it ran through everything like a golden thread. On 22nd May, 1917, this same idea, which is beginning to bear fruit here this evening, was expressed by Gen. Smuts in the Savoy Hotel in London. The hon. members know it. Just to refresh their memories again I want to quote it for them. I say that we stick to that, and we hope this United Party will take notice of that. What did Gen. Smuts say on that occasion? He said—
That was said in 1917 by Gen. Smuts. He said at the time: “It may take 100 years to work out”.
… which in the end may be the solution to our Native problem. Thus, in South Africa you will have in the long run large areas cultivated by Blacks and governed by Blacks.
He outgrew that view.
In 1917 Gen. Smuts said it. And what more did he do?
He outgrew it.
No, he could not grow anymore; he was an old man at the time.
What did he do? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville must listen. In 1936 he laid it down in legislation in this country.
He did not.
In 1936 he did.
He did not lay it down.
He did lay it down.
Shame on you for saying that.
He said—
What are you now saying?
That is what Gen. Smuts said. But listen to more. He said—
What was that again?
… and each will be satisfied and develop according to its own proper lines.
Even if Gen. Smuts lost his head after 1936 and went off the rails, let me tell hon. members that the National Party still sticks firmly to that policy. We stand by the 1936 Act and will ensure that the word of honour that was given at the time will be kept, because we also voted for the provisions of that Act.
Mr. Speaker, what are we really being asked to do this evening? We are being asked to excise 184 000 ha of land from the Eastern Province, declare it to be released area, and give it to the Ciskei Legislative Assembly so that they may eventually become independent. In other words, that land is being alienated.
You did, after all, promise it to them in 1936.
I am coming to that promise; I am coming to the hon. member. We are, in other words, being asked to withdraw this 184 000 ha to a certain extent …
178 000 ha.
184 000 ha. Read your own report. [Interjections.]
Order!
In other words, these lands must to a certain extent be withdrawn from production. This is a drastic step if we consider that 30 per cent of the exports of this country consists of agricultural produce, in spite of the fact that agricultural is the stepchild of this Government. It is a drastic step if we consider that at the end of the century there will be 52 million people here who will have to be fed from this land, from this soil. I am asking whether, in view of this, it is in the interests of South Africa, whether it is in the interests of Whites, Coloureds, and Blacks to withdraw these lands suddenly from production. What reasons have been advanced as to why this step has to be taken? We heard the speech made by the hon. member for Langlaagte. He said that a promise had been made by Gen. Hertzog. Firstly he said that it was necessary to take this step because there has to be consolidation. But this measure is not resulting in consolidation.
Are you in favour of consolidation?
How far is Herschel from the Ciskei? Over a hundred miles. How far is it from Whittlesea and Glen Grey?
Pretoria is 1 000 miles from Cape Town.
How far is it from Glen Grey? A hundred miles! Surely this is not a consolidation into one piece. It is true that a few black spots are being eliminated. The hon. member for Langlaagte said that Wartburg— this is an area of 2 800 morgen—and Ungwali—an area of 4 800 morgen—should be exchanged for Frankfort and Braunschweig. Braunschweig and Frankfort are 18 400 morgen in extent, however, but the hon. member maintains that 4 800 morgen should be exchange land for it. Surely that is not exchange land. In any case, five years ago when Keiskammahoek was declared to be Black, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said that it was exchange land for Ungwali and Wartburg. He said that we should give him two years and he would eliminate all the black spots. Now the hon. members are saying, however, that they want exchange land again. The hon. members create the impression that they want to exchange black spots for white spots. The black spots which are being exchanged here are 59 000 ha in extent, but 184 000 ha of what is white land, is being taken. The remainder is therefore the quota land.
The hon. member then made his second point, which is that we are supposedly breaking the promise which was made in 1936. What promise was made in 1936? The most important promise made in 1936, when the Bantu voters were removed from the common voters’ roll, was that they would have three White representatives.
Where are those representatives?
What has become of them? It was, according to that side, the dead hand of the past; they then abolished the representation in 1959, as they also broke all promises to the Coloureds and to every other non-White sector of the population. But now the hon. member talks about we who are breaking promises. The hon. member quoted Gen. Hertzog. I can quote Adv. Strijdom. This is what Adv. Strijdom said in regard to that Act (Hansard, 1936, col. 2753)—
In other words, he did not accept it as a promise.
He qualified it.
Let us read what Mr. F. C. Erasmus had to say. I am quoting from Hansard, 1936, col. 2796—
That was the basis of the legislation. It was not a quid pro quo for the removal of their franchise; that was not the intention. The land was given in order to get the Natives out of the cities, but the Natives are not out of the cities; they are still there.
In far greater numbers.
Sir, at its best the 1936 legislation was a declaration of an intent to purchase. That is what it was, nothing more and nothing less, and one Government cannot commit any subsequent Government. That is how the people saw the situation in 1936. In the light of the circumstances of 1936 it was perhaps a good thing to purchase the land in the hope that they could get the Natives out of the cities, but anyone who in the light of the circumstances of 1972 thinks, in view of the population explosion, that it is in the interests of Whites, Coloureds and Blacks in South Africa that these lands should be withdrawn from production, does not know what he is talking about. The future of South Africa lies in industrial development. The future of the Natives, as industrial workers, lies in industrial development. Their future does not lie in eking out a hand-to-mouth existence on an uneconomic farming unit. Sir, this same Government wants to remove 30 000 White farmers from the rural areas because farming is not economic today.
That is a lie.
On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say that another hon. member is telling a lie.
Sir, I say that that assertion which is being made in regard to the land, according to that hon. member, is a lie. That assertion is a lie.
Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “lie”.
I do not mean that the hon. member is telling a lie.
Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word.
I withdraw it.
Sir, the future of the Native does not lie in a starvation wage farming system; it lies in industrial development in South Africa, and if we want to do justice to Whites and non-Whites in South Africa, and if we want to provide for 52 million people in South Africa at the end of this century, then we have to develop South Africa as quickly as we possibly can. We must develop South Africa within the reserves; we must develop it in the metropolitan areas; we must develop it at every possible growth point. We shall have to develop it around Sishen; we shall have to develop it along the Orange River; we shall have to develop it in my own constituency, and in every possible way; and to be able to develop South Africa, we need Natives, and if we need Natives for that, we shall need land for that, far more than this little piece of land which is under discussion here at the moment. We shall purchase much more land than this, but we shall purchase it where it is in the interest of the economy of South Africa, where it is in the intests of Whites, Coloureds and Blacks. We shall have to provide the Natives with land around the cities; we shall have to give them freehold title; we shall have to refrain from begrudging them a family life so as to create in this way an established middle class. That is how we see South Africa, Sir, If we purchase this land now, where are we going to find land in future? The 1936 Act did not state that the land should be purchased in the Eastern Province.
Where will you purchase the land?
I told the hon. member a moment ago where we will purchase the land. We will purchase land around the growth points of South Africa, where it is needed, where it is in the best interests of the urban Natives in particular, which today comprises the most important part of South Africa.
May I ask a question?
I am sorry, I do not have the time to reply to questions. We shall purchase land where it is of the greatest importance to the Natives, and that is in their parallel native townships in the urban areas where they work and where they are developing South Africa together with the Whites and where Whites, Coloureds and Blacks will all make their contribution to the economy of South Africa. Sir, even if the Nationalist Party should be right—we do not concede this—then this is still a bad plan, for this is not how one ought to treat these people. If one wants to implement such a plan as this, then one must at least consult the people whom one wants to throw off their land. The hon. member for Langlaagte said that he had consulted these people. What did he do? I shall now tell the Minister what he did, and I wonder whether that hon. member will still have a job after I have told the Minister what he did. Sir, on 19th November they announced in the newspaper that this area was going to be-declared Black.
In what newspaper?
In Die Burger, in the Nationalist newspapers, as the Government always does. On the 21st I was in King William’s Town. I hurried to my constituency, that morning I got on to the telephone …
Did it not throw you off?
[Laughter.] Let hon. members on that side laugh if they wish. They laugh when people are thrown off their land and caused to suffer. On the 21st no one in King William’s Town could tell me where the boundaries would be, not the Bantu Commissioner either. I telephoned them and they said they would send me a telegram that Friday. To this day they have not sent me a telegram. They sent out a circular to the divisional councils. Sir, you must remember that this was on 19th November. Objections in writing had to be submitted by 20th December. Where they received no objections, they interpreted it as tacit acceptance. Evidence would then be taken on 3rd January, the most inconvenient of all times.
Many people replied to it.
Yes, that only goes to show how hard this hit them. The Commission then arrived there on the 3rd, and the evidence which they took in there …
Took in with a spoon?
The hon. member must not play the fool now. We are dealing with serious matters. I know that the hon. member has had a festive evening, but it is not necessary for him to play the fool here while I am dealing with serious matters which could affect voters of mine, although they are English and German.
But then you must speak so that a person can understand you.
Sir, the evidence was overwhelmingly opposed to that proposal.
When did you get off the telephone?
There was not a single area which was not opposed to the proposal, except most probably Subu, which stated that it was prepared to sell, and it is strange that Subu was excluded. The Peddie farmers said that they would be prepared to make that sacrifice on certain conditions, and the others all gave evidence against it.
No, you are wrong.
Sir, let me take my own constituency. Mr. Gert Henning gave evidence there. Circulars were sent out and 126 replies were received; 84 rejected the proposal, one was prepared to sell after six years; nine were prepared to accept the proposal on certain conditions, and 22 were prepared to sell. Seventy per cent were opposed to it. From Frankfort a petition was sent to members of the Commission, a petition which was signed by 81 people who unanimously asked that the proposal be rejected. Did hon. members on that side pay any attention to this? From Braunschweig a petition signed by 62 persons was sent in. Did hon. members on that side pay any attention to that? In Stutterheim a meeting was held which was attended by 75 to 80 people, and they decided unanimously against it. Surely the hon. member for Langlaagte must have realized, after that meeting, that the people were unanimously opposed to the proposal. What kind of consultation is this, if one pays no attention to what people think? Sir, how are these people being treated further? They have not been told what they are going to receive for their lands. If a person comes to me today and tells me he wants to buy my land, the first thing I will ask him is: “What are you prepared to pay for it?” If he does not tell you, you cannot negotiate. In the second place, these people are being told that their land will be purchased in 15 years’ time, because the Government does not have the money at the moment. If a man wants to buy land from me and he tells me that he does not have money with which to pay for it at the moment, I shall immediately tell him he must first find the money. After all, one cannot let these people sit there for 15 years. Sir, there are farmers on that side, although I do not see them here this evening. The hon. the Deputy Minister is a farmer. He knows in what an uncertain position a farmer finds himself if he has to sit on a piece of land for 15 years without being able to make any improvements. He must sit there and pine away for 15 years and then he must start farming again from scratch somewhere else. After all, these are not all old people; there are among them young, energetic farmers who want to carry on with their farming operations. It is the aim of any farmer to do something constructive. Now they must sit there and pine away for 15 years; they must sit there waiting to hear whether or not the Government will buy in 15 years’ time, and they are unable to make any improvements. Is this what you do to people? And what about the victims of that area, the farmers from Braunschweig and Frankfort? These are small farmers, but farmers who are making a good living and who are making a contribution to South Africa’s production. They must be thrown off their land there, and they only have small pieces of land. The money which will be paid out to them will not even be enough to buy a house in King William’s Town. They are being deprived of their livelihood. This same 1936 Act provides that a Bantu cannot be moved unless he is given land of equal value to that of which he is being deprived. But what about these people? They must simply be thrown off their farms, and the Government does not care what becomes of them. What does this plan look like? Look at map F; see how it affects Frankfort, Braunschweig and Stutterheim, and also parts of King William’s Town. It is a Black pincer around the whole of King William’s Town. King William’s Town is a small White peninsula in a Black sea; it is surrounded by a Black area which will, like an octopus, send its tentacles into MacLeantown and Kei Road, where those people have to farm, and that after that hon. the Minister, when he wanted to win an election in King William’s Town, when he came there with that hand-picked candidate of his, said that “King William’s Town will not be engulfed”. But what has he done now? That candidate went about telling the people of Frankfort: “Miles Warren is merely spreading lies; Frankfort will not become Black”. What happened to that promise? And then that hon. Minister talks about promises.
He did not say that of Frankfort.
Did the Minister say “King William’s Town will not be engulfed”?
It is absolutely untrue.
The Minister said “King William’s Town will not be engulfed”. But look at that map, Sir,
What map?
Map F. I know the hon. member would not be interested, for what interest does he have in this? He merely got a job in Parliament; he is not interested in this.
On a point of order, Sir, is an hon. member entitled to say that to another hon. member?
Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.
I withdraw it. Look what the map looks like. A promise was made by Minister De Wet Nel; he promised them that “the corridor will be kept White”. Look what that map looks like. The entire entrance to the corridor has now been closed.
Then?
The Minister must please take a look at the map. Look at Frankfort. Surely it makes no sense [Interjections.] There is no natural boundary. The tarred road would at least have been a natural boundary, but this point thrusts across it. Sir, surely you know that the farmers adjoining that area will not be able to farm there. You know that if such an area as that is declared Black the adjoining farms also go out of production. That was why there were farmers who said: “Then take the whole lot, for we cannot farm on adjoining land”. And what does that area look like? It is the catchment area for all the dams and rivers in that region.
Where?
The hon. member is on the Commission and he asks me where it is. This is the catchment area of the Buffalo River, and the Stutterheim section is the catchment area of the Kabusi River. Did the hon. member not know that? The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs is not here tonight; he has gone overseas again, but I wonder what he would have said about this, for we know that the catchment areas, the water sponges of the country, must be carefully looked after. But here they are being given away.
Look at the map and you will see that they have been excised.
Sir, does the hon. member know where Frankfort and Braunschweig are situated? They comprise the water catchment area of that region, but they are being excised. Sir, have you considered where King William’s Town is situated? It is being cut off; its road-link with Stutterheim is being cut off by a Black area, not that I have anything against a Black area, but you have promised them independence. All the power-lines will pass through a foreign area. All the telephone poles to King William’s Town will run through a foreign country, but it has been cut off. And have you ever given any thought to those farmers of Stutterheim, Frankfort and Braunschweig? That was the larder of the entire Eastern Province. It was the one area in South Africa where the cost of living was still reasonably cheap, but now that entire area is being withdrawn from production. Have you ever thought what that will do to the cost of living? It is a border area where you want to encourage border industries, but it is being wrenched out there. All these points were stated before that commission. Did the hon. member pay any attention to them?
Who stated them?
Gert Henning, amongst others, stated them. Miles Warren stated them. Goodwin of Frankfort stated them. Petzer stated them, a Nationalist Party chairman. Gert Henning is also a Nationalist Party chairman. [Interjections.]
Order! The hon. member must not reply to all the interjections. He must continue with his speech.
The hon. member for Langlaagte came there and said that they were going to implement the 1936 Act, and he brought the farmers there under the impression that that Act provides that the land has to be purchased there. He said that this land was the heartland of the Xhosas.
Who said that?
You did, and you said you were determined to buy it. But why are you purchasing it in that area? Why do you not purchase it in another place?
Where?
You said it was the heartland of the Xhosas. I want to ask him, if it is the heartland of the Xhosas: Do the German settlers who came there in 1858, and the 1820 settlers who were put there to form a buffer, and who tamed that area for civilization, not have a right there? Must they now be thrown out because they are a minority group, because it is an English-speaking part of South Africa and because the Germans in South Africa are a minority group? Sir, in 1965 they were thrown out of Potsdam by this Government on the same pretext; they were thrown out of Nxessa, they were thrown out of Dimbasa, and they were thrown out of Keiskammahoek, five years ago, and then they were told that they would be safe in Frankfort and Braunschweig, and now they are being thrown out there as well. Now there is no refuge left for them because that is supposedly the heartland of the Xhosas. [Interjections.]
Order!
I say that the Government does these things without consulting people and without taking their feelings into consideration; it is causing these people suffering and sorrow and they are doing this to these minority groups because they are English-speaking and German-speaking persons and they are doing it m the name of Afrikaner Nationalism. I want to warn the hon. members: “The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine”. I want to warn that side of the House; they must stop treading minority groups underfoot, and that in the name of Afrikaner Nationalism.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for King William’s Town, who has just sat down, not only became dramatic, but sentimental as well. We are dealing with very serious matters here. They do not concern the future of the King William’s Town constituency; the concern the future of South Africa. They concern not only the future of White South Africa, but also that of the Black man in the Ciskei and in South Africa.
Therefore the hon. member will excuse me if, to a certain extent, I do not follow him up. Since I am a member of the Bantu Affairs Commission of the Cape Province, I think that on this particular occasion, an historic one, as my hon. chairman put it, it would be proper for me just to thank my fellow-members of the commission for the sympathetic and commendable way in which they have approached this matter and are carrying it through. It has indeed been a pleasure and a privilege to work together with them in carrying through this great, difficult task to the stage we have reached now.
It is not an easy task for me as a farmer to speak here this evening. It is not an easy task for me as a farmer to recommend that people who have been on certain land for generations—more than hundred years—should leave their land. It is true that this is historic land, but I just want to say to the hon. member for King William’s Town that the boundary lines there have been fixed for the past 220 years. Those boundary lines were determined by Ryk Tulbagh and his 37 burghers 220 years ago. And for most of the time during those 220 years, the major proportion of that area belonged to Bantu and not to Whites. The land we want to give them this evening, is not being taken away from anyone. The Whites moved in there, and we want to consolidate that land. To me the crux of this matter is concerned with the second point in the memorandum. It reads as follows—
I have the map here. On this map hon. members can see how piebald the district of East London is. The district of East London, the corridor to the north, is full of Black spots. What we are going to do here, is to eliminate those black spots and consolidate them with the greater Ciskei.
The hon. member for King William’s Town asked how we could consolidate various Black areas. That is correct; there are many Black areas, I think there are 29 or more than 30, but when we have completed the Black areas, only four will be left. Now I want to ask the hon. member for King William’s Town into how many islands Greece is divided. What does it matter to Greece? Greece has the sea in between, while we are merely going to have White corridors between the Black areas in terms of the consolidation we are going to do there. The point is this: Since we are going to effect consolidation in that area, this is the penultimate border definition which is going to be made. As I have already mentioned, the first one took place 220 years ago. The first war between Whites and Bantu in South Africa took place in 1779, almost 200 years ago. Just as Gen. Smuts wrote in “Eeu van Onreg”, we may also say that 200 years of injustice has prevailed on the border in the Eastern Cape, this historic land we are consolidating at the moment. This border definition was accompanied by various other matters. Stock thefts on the border were the order of the day. Bantu came over the border and stole the Whites’ livestock. Wherever they went, the Bantu carried out livestock thefts on a large scale. Political incitement on the part of Dr. Phillips, Dr. Van der Kemp, Lord Glenelg and Captain Stockenstrom created major problems on the border. That is why we have to considate now. This is the penultimate border we have to define. We shall define the last border soon. Recently the hon. the Minister announced that this border would be defined before long.
Before long?
It will not be many more years before we in South Africa will know exactly where the borders are going to be. Then everybody ought to be satisfied.
The Minister said the same thing last year.
Order! The hon. member for Kensington must contain himself.
I want to state clearly this evening that we Whites are not colonialists in Africa. We as Whites are of Africa and because we are of Africa and have not only had contact with the Black man in Africa over the past 220 years, but have also exercised Christian guardianship over them, Christian guardianship in the true sense of the word, no finger may be pointed at us. We did not launch machine-gun attacks on the Black man of Africa, nor did we leave poisoned food for them so as to eliminate them. We have cared for the Black man of Africa and are honest and sincere towards them. That is why I say we are of Africa. Because we are of Africa, we are perhaps better able than any other country in the world not only to meet the problems of South Africa, but also to solve them. We are trying to tackle the problems and solve them in this way.
These are major problems which cannot be passed over lightly. These are not matters which may be exploited in a sentimental way. The Whites of South Africa last trekked in 1838. South Africa is fully occupied, and we shall not be able to trek again, because where would we trek to? We must create a home for ourselves now, not merely a temporary one, but one for the years to come. The borders of that home must be defined in such a way that it would create satisfaction for White South Africa as well as for Black South Africa.
This evening I heard from two hon. speakers on the opposite side—unfortunately they are not in the House at the moment —that they do not want to implement the 1936 Act. They do not want to implement the 1936 Act and they say that that is the maximum land which should have been purchased. They say that because of the many Bantu already working in the White area, it will no longer be necessary to implement the provisions of the 1936 Act. This is a charge against the United Party, and they want to commit a breach of faith against the Black man in South Africa. They lay it at our door that the Black man has only 13 per cent of the land in South Africa, but now they do not even want to implement the 1936 Act. Are they consistent in their policy? Are they aware of what they want to do? With other Whites one may still try to justify one’s case and break one’s promise, but we may not and cannot break our promise to the Black man of South Africa.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to comment on what the hon. member for Aliwal said, except to say that it amazes me listening to the hon. member going back into the history of the Eastern Cape and championing certain leading figures in their capacities as Governors of those times and mentioning men like Lord Glenelg. Oh yes, he mentioned all these gentlemen, but let me remind him—possibly he does not know— that Lord Glenelg was one of the most liberal minded people to live in Great Britain at that time. He was a liberal and very much so. I do not think the hon. member knows it. Lord Glenelg was the governor of the British colonies in the Cape. He was the man who first came with the idea of the Transkei and the Ciskei. He was the man who said: The land beyond the Kei will be known as the Transkei and the land between the Great Kei and the Great Fish rivers will be known as the Ciskei and, which was to be no man’s land. This is the liberal whom the hon. member for Aliwal quoted here tonight. For years and years we have been hearing talk about consolidation of white owned land in the Eastern Cape. Yet, even now we have had no clarity from the Government or any Government speaker on the consolidation of land in the Eastern Cape. I have listened to three hon. members on that side of the House tonight including, the hon. member for Langlaagte. Three of us on this side of the House attended that notorious meeting at King William’s Town on the 6th January. Having listened to the hon. member for Langlaagte one would never say that it was the same person speaking, who again spoke here tonight. I will tell the House why.
He grew a moustache.
To start with, the hon. member for Langlaagte said: “Ons het samesprekings met die boere in King William’s Town gehou.” These were his words. I wrote them down. Let me tell this House there were no “samesprekings” at all that day. Every time the farmers wanted to hold “samesprekings” with the three hon. members serving on the commission, they were told “No, we are not here to discuss the issue with you. We are here to take evidence.” Is that not so?
I deny it.
Are you prepared to go back and say so?
I will go back and tell this to those farmers. The commission was not prepared to discuss the issue. The chairman said that they were there to take evidence. The hon. member for Langlaagte repeatedly reminded the meeting of this. I am sorry that the hon. members for Transkei and King William’s Town are not here at the moment, as they too heard what he said. They said they were only there in their capacity as a commission investigating the consolidation of land and not to discuss the matter. In fact, only upon two occasions, after many questions were put to the three hon. gentlemen, did they venture to answer questions. In fact they answered only two questions. The King William’s Town meeting did not last half a day, it lasted all day. I may mention that this was a meeting of somewhat hostile Eastern Cape farmers representing many Farmers Associations, all Local Governments, and all groups, English, Afrikaans and German. They were angry.
No.
Oh yes. They had every reason to be hostile. The hon. member for Langlaagte said they had ample warning of the meeting and that they were well prepared. Every farmer who gave evidence (not to hold “samesprekings”, because they could only give evidence), made mention of the fact that he was unprepared for discussions or even to give evidence. Some farmers had to return from holiday to be at that meeting on the 6th January. Every time they put a question to the hon. member for Langlaagte about whether their farms were in fact in or outside the released area under consideration, the hon. member for Langlaagte gave no answer. He said: “Nee, ek weet nie. Julie moet dit later met die departement bespreek.” He would only answer two questions all day. There was a huge map displayed at the meeting but no one went away from that meeting satisfied with what they learnt from the map. No one went away knowing whether his property was in fact in the released area or not. The hon. chairman of the commission went further. I want to remind him how he misled people at that meeting. The hon. member for Langlaagte was speaking in terms of morgen on that occasion and not hectares. He mentioned, as we all know, that 7 250 000 morgen of land had to be bought under the 1936 Land and Trust Act. This he mentioned and he went further and said that the Government still had to purchase 477 000 morgen in the Cape Province. He led the meeting to believe that these figures were the minimum land that had to be purchase under the Act.
I did not.
The meeting was misled, in that it was the minimum amount of land to be purchased and that there was in fact a time factor involved as well. As we discuss this tonight, we all know that there is only one reason why this Government wants to buy all this land and why they pretend to be in such a hurry to do so. It is to carry out their own ideological policy.
Correct.
They need not pretend to be so sincere about the 1936 Land and Trust Act; it suits them, only to carry out their own policy. We accept that 477 000 morgen must be purchased in the Cape Province. As members representing agriculture in the Eastern Cape asked the hon. member for Langlaagte why it must necessarily …
What are you trying to say?
Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte must keep himself in check a little.
He has a lot to say tonight, but in King William’s Town he did not have anything to say.
Order! The hon. member may proceed.
When he was asked the question in King William’s Town why all this land must necessarily be purchased in the Eastern Cape, his answer was, “Because this is the traditional land of the black man.” That was his answer. He said it was the traditional land of the black man. I should like to ask the hon. member for Langlaagte and the hon. member for Aliwal, who has just left the House, and, who was speaking of land of 220 years ago, to whom did the Free State belong 220 years ago?
To nobody.
To nobody? And now? If we have to purchase this land now while the Government thinks in terms of industrializing the Western Cape and the coastal area surrounding Saldanha Bay—why does the Government not consider buying land there for the Bantu? Then you will have all the labour you require for the development of Saldanha Bay. Why must it only be in the Eastern Cape?
Has the Saldanha Bay area also belonged to the Black man?
I am surprised that the hon. members on that side never mentioned the wishes of the Eastern Agricultural Union as expressed in a memorandum on the 6th January in King William’s Town. The commission has never taken this into consideration at all. I believe that the Eastern Agricultural Union was very reasonable in expressing its wishes and views by saying what it desires in that area. Here are five points. The Eastern Agricultural Union mentioned. First of all it asked that all Black spots be removed. This has been put to the Government for many, many years, as hon. members and the hon. Minister know. It is the desire of agriculture in that area to remove all Black spots. In return for those Black spots, they, the farmers through their strong Union unanimously decided that they were prepared to hand over to the Government the rich farming area of Guba in the Indwe district and the whole area of Peddie down to the sea. But this committee has ignored that request; they have taken no notice of the wishes of the farmers of Guba in the Indwe district. You only have to look at the map to see what an awkward situation has been caused there in Indwe.
But why do you want a portion of Indwe?
Order! The hon. member may not make any remarks or comments from a ministerial bench.
They did not only ignore the wishes of the farmers in the Indwe district, but what they have in fact done at Whittlesea, where there is a black spot, they have made it larger now than it was before. Now we will have a very large black spot there. I wish the hon. the Minister would listen. It does not shock me, but I am disappointed to see that so many hon. members on that side of the House regard all this as a joke. [Interjections.] Yes, you do; this is the tragedy of it all. It has been regarded as a joke too long in South Africa. This is no laughing matter, I can assure hon. members.
I am laughing at you.
The hon. the Minister has been laughing all evening.
I am laughing at you personally.
Well, it is strange that you have had six and a half years to laugh at me; why laugh now when matters are so serious?
I want to mention the five points put to the commission by the Eastern Agricultural Union, which were reasonable claims. They are as follows—
- (a) An acceptable basis of valuation;
- (b) Complete valuation and purchase of an area, not piece-meal buying;
- (c) Establishment of priorities for relief;
- (d) Speedy acquisition in order that the farmers may re-establish themselves. It is suggested that purchase in an area should take place within two years…
Not ten or fifteen years—
- (e) No coercion.
In other words, no compulsion in regard to farmers being told to sell or get off the land. These are the five points. These points were never mentioned by hon. members on that side. They were reasonable requests. In addition, they forwarded an addendum to this memorandum to hon. members on that side, and neither has any mention been made of this.
Did you say Guba must be sold?
Are you going to speak, Jannie?
I am looking forward to hearing the hon. the Minister of Planning. These were very reasonable requests.
Must Guba go?
The hon. the Minister of Planning asks me whether Guba must go. His own constituents at Guba told us it must go. I am speaking about their requests. This was agreed upon by the Eastern Agricultural Union. The hon. the Minister’s own voters were there and asked that Guba should go.
[Inaudible.]
When were you there last?
Thursday.
I know he was there on Thursday and I know he made a speech at Queenstown.
Only three out of 34 want to sell.
Nonsense. I know those farmers who do not want to sell there are only three, and they are not actually in Guba. They are on the borders of Guba. I know all about them. Most of the farmers at Guba want to sell, let me assure the hon. the Minister. I wish he would get up and make a speech on the consolidation of land.
This brings me to another point. Here is an hon. member representing Queenstown, an area which is being vitally affected; but he never has the nerve to get up here and talk about it. All he can do is sit there and make interjections, but never yet in the six and a half years I have been here, has he mentioned the consolidation of land in the border area.
His zip is stuck.
My views are well known.
Now I want to refer to another important point which I mentioned in this House the other day, and that is the planning of this particular released land and how the Government intends organizing agriculture in these areas. Sir, this land is not only amongst the best land in South Africa, it is the best land in South Africa; it is very highly productive agricultural land. I refer to Whittlesea, Braunschweig, Peddie down to the sea, in fact the whole of the border. When one goes to agricultural shows on the Witwatersrand, you see that some of the best stock comes from the Eastern Cape. The farmers in these areas are well established, they have built up their farms over generations. They spent a lot of money there, and a lot of Government money has been spent there, as well, in developing this land. Soil conservation is being done strictly according to farm planning. I asked the hon. the Minister the other day whether he had taken into consideration the question of training Bantu to take over all this land; We must remember, Sir, that when the Bantu take over this land, each Bantu farmer will not be allotted more than five to 10 morgen of land. Whereas today one farmer has hundreds and in some cases, thousands of morgen on which to make a living, the Bantu has to make a living on five to 10 morgen, and it is therefore more important that the Bantu should be well trained before they are allowed to take over this land. I ask the hon. the Minister the other day what he had done in regard to the training of Bantu to take over this land, a take-over which the Government appears to be in such a hurry to bring about, and I quote his reply from Hansard of 10th May, 1972, Col. 6954—
He did not mention how many—
Twenty-seven.
The hon. the Minister went on to say—
Then he said—
Sir, I do not think this Government realizes or appreciates what it means to farm successfully today in South Africa. It is a highly scientific profession. If a farmer wants to make a success, and get maximum productivity from the land on which he farms, and if he is to be worthy of this precious soil, then he must be educated and trained to the full. The hon. the Minister replied to my question in a vague way and then reminded me that Rome was not built in a day. He mentioned the few hundred Bantu who have been or are being trained in agriculture—a few hundred, Sir, when there are 14 million Bantu living within the borders of South Africa. Surely this is something which the Government should have contemplated doing years and years ago before they considered the question of consolidation. Surely it would have been reasonable to have come to this House and asked us to vote R5 million, R10 million or even R15 million to train the Bantu, so that when they take over this land they will be able to farm the land successfully. No, Sir, nothing has been done, but they expect a responsible Opposition such as we are to support a crazy suggestion of this kind. Another matter which concerns the Eastern Province is this: Those farmers who are established there and who have to leave the land have not only developed those farms but they have on those properties today highly pedigreed stock, stock bred up over many years. Sir, we who know something about stock-breading realize that you cannot buy High grade stock readily. It has to be bred up along blood strains over many, many years. Those farmers have asked me and the hon. members on that side of the House, particularly the chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. member for Langlaagte, that when they leave this land, where must they go. Where can they go? Has any provision been made for their stock?
Putsonderwater.
Where will they go?
Pofadder.
We cannot ignore people like this. These agriculturalists must go somewhere. They cannot find work or employment anywhere else. A middleaged farmer cannot give up his profession. He is born to the job and there is no other profession which he can take on. It is only reasonable to believe that he should have somewhere to go with his belongings.
Does that not apply to Guba?
Yes, obviously they have made provision because it came from the farmers themselves. Now the hon. member is suddenly interested in the welfare of the Guba farmers. The hon. member must not try to bluff this House that he is so concerned about the Guba farmers and that this is the reason why he refused to buy their land.
He has never been.
They came to him in King William’s Town on their knees and asked the Commission to buy their land. The president of the Eastern Agricultural Union gave it his support and the hon. member knows it. Now, all of a sudden, he is very sympathetic towards the Guba farmers.—Ten to 15 years have been mentioned as the period which will elapse before people can expect to sell the released land. Any economist, any businessman realizes that if a person has to live in uncertainty for ten to 15 years, such a person cannot expect his security to remain strong. The commercial banks are not interested in people who have no security or can only offer temporary security, yes, for an interim period. I wrote to the hon. the Minister the other day—this is just one case—about a farmer who happens to be a widow, living in the Bolotwa area. She wanted to know when her farm would be taken over by the Government for Bantu occupation or whether the farm was indeed demarcated in a released area. I received the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply while we were discussing this very important matter. I quote the last two paragraphs of the letter—
There is far too much doubt in everybody’s mind as to what is happening in the Eastern Cape. As the hon. member for Transkei rightly said, this is not the end of the story. This is only an interim period. We can expect that later on more land will be bought up.
That is no secret
Exactly, and this is how insecure the Eastern Cape farmers feel. The hon. member obviously did not listen when I read the request made to the Committee by the Eastern Agricultural union, that these properties be not bought piecemeal—it must either be all or nothing in their particular areas. The hon. member was not listening.
The last point I want to mention is also very important, an important matter which involves the chairman of the Select Committee again. At King William’s Town a lady got up and asked him what security the State would be providing for them in the Kidds Beach area. We have seen, in the latest newspapers, what has happened at Kidds Beach recently. This is happening too frequently. When we hear of the hijacking of an aircraft, it is even announced in the House, but when people are assaulted in the Kidds Beach area, then there is no announcement made in this House. You have only to look at the map to see how serious the position is there. When a lady approached the hon. member for Langlaagte that day in King William’s Town and asked what security he and the State would provide for them, his answer was: “Refer this matter to the Police”. He said it is not his job to provide security and protection for the people. Those were his very words.
Of course it is not my job.
Then he comes here and says: “Ons het samesprekings met die boere gehou”. Sir, this was one of two questions he was prepared to answer that day.
We on this side of the House cannot, being a responsible Opposition, consider supporting this measure.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London North accused this side of the House of making a joke of this whole matter and of the motion now before the House. Let me inform the hon. member. No one on this side of the House can make a joke about so serious a matter or make it look ridiculous.
That is what you are always doing.
Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a motion that is aimed at the consolidation of a Bantu homeland, the Ciskei. This measure, at present before the House, forms the basis of the whole policy of this side of the House in its relations politics, i.e. the consolidation of homelands; that of the Bantu homelands, but when the Bantu homelands are consolidated, the White man’s homeland is also consolidated in the Repubic of South Africa because we are a multi-national country. That is why it is a profoundly serious matter as far as we are concerned, and not a joke as that hon. member apparently regards it to be. It is a profoundly serious matter as far as we are concerned, because in this lies our guarantee as far as the identity of the Whites of South Africa is concerned, the identity of the Xhosa in South Africa, and the identity of each population group in South Africa.
And the Coloureds in South Africa?
I say it is a profoundly serious matter as far as we are concerned.
Accusations were levelled here against the hon. member for Langlaagte on the basis of his conduct as chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission. On this occasion I want to go out of my way to pay tribute to the chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission, the hon. member for Langlaagte, for the way in which he conducted himself at all the meetings that I had the privilege of attending, when we were engaged in these negotiations.
Another motion of thanks.
It was certainly no easy and pleasant task. I now want to say this here in his presence—and I shall say it in his absence, and I have said it in his absence—that he was in no way afraid to state the National Party’s policy at each of those meetings at which he acted as chairman. That is how he stated it at King Williams’s Town on 4th January. If that hon. member now wants to be honest he would agree with me that the chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission stated the standpoint of this Government without beating about the bush and I agree with him wholeheartedly. The meeting, which we are now reporting on, was a big meeting, and a very well-attended meeting. He stated the case here this evening as he did on 4th January in the town hall at King William’s Town. He stated the 1936 Act very clearly. He said more than that. He had the courage of his convictions to tell those present that it was not the last time that we might be coming to King William’s Town, and that it was not the last time that we might be coming to the Eastern Cape, because this Government intends to carry out the undertaking the White man gave in 1936.
In the next 25 years.
No time has been set. If the hon. member for East London City wants to draw conclusions— he was not present—he may do so. We have a policy to implement and a nation to save in South Africa. We are not in Rhodesia.
The Minister says 15 years.
Order! The hon. member for East London City must contain himself.
It makes no difference to me how long it takes. We are dealing with a task and a mandate entrusted to us, i.e. the consolidation, at this moment, of the Ciskei. That is why we went there after notice had been given to all the interested bodies to be present to debate this matter. We can give various interpretations to discussions or non-discussions. The commission went there, and there was a town hall full of people and the hon. member for East London North was there. We held discussions and heard evidence. We answered questions and gave people every opportunity to ask questions. Am I right or wrong? There were people who had very strong objections about the land that was under discussion. That is quite correct. Organized agriculture objected strongly in respect of certain land which was under discussion there. That is quite correct. That is true. However, I want to tell the House something else, and the time has now come for this to be revealed. After the chairman or secretary of organized agriculture has stood up and spoken—I am not trying to be personal now; we have a high regard for the people who represent that organization—we drink tea. Do hon. members know what happens then? Then the individual farmers come to us and say they hope their farms are bought up, because they cannot make a living there. They then come along to us individually and ask us to have their farms purchased. However, they do not want to embarrass their organization. That is what happens, if I now must reveal what takes place at such meetings. This evidence was led. However, my colleagues on the other side will also acknowledge that people also stood up and gave evidence in public asking that they should be bought up because, under such circumstances, they …
She as well?
I am qualifying this. They said they could not exist under such circumstances. Such individuals also stood up. However, it is a pity the hon. member for East London City referred to the lady who came forward there and gave evidence.
Why?
He ought to know better. He ought to know that that lady’s state was far from normal when she ran to the microphone and gave evidence.
It was not that lady.
I have at all times the utmost respect for all ladies, and it could just as well have been a man, but that lady—I do not know if it is the same person the hon. member referred to —was completely hysterical.
She was not.
Then he and I cannot make the same distinction. The hon. member for King William’s Town said things here this evening which we shall probably, in the political sense, use very profitably in public against the United Party. Not about his Afrikanerhood, but about the attitude he adopted or the policy statement he made on behalf of the United Party in respect of what they are prepared to do for the Bantu in South Africa and where they are prepared to purchase land for the Bantu. They want to do so on the boundaries of the urban areas in order to give them proprietary rights there. This evening I want to tie him down to that standpoint, because I know …
Are you only finding that out now?
The hon. Whip over there must now give me a Chance. He is trying to save his party from embarrassment, but he will not manage to do so. I have been in politics a long time, and he will not manage it. I shall use that hon. member’s Hansard tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?
No, the hon. member may make a speech if he so chooses. I am not replying to questions now. I am now dealing with the hon. member for King Williams’ Town. I now want to tell him that I am going to tie him down to the fact that the United Party is prepared to purchase land near the cities and towns Where there are growth points and where there is no opportunity for any agricultural land belonging to the Whites to be withdrawn for the Bantu homelands, since they should only develop in the industrial sphere. That hon. member created a great deal of embarrassment for his party. I watched the hon. member for Transkéi and the hon. member for Yeoville. How that hon. member is going to get out of this I do not know, because he created a great deal of embarrassment for his party, and we shall keep him to those Words of his. I take it that is what goes on in the heart and soul of the United Party. I take it he is speaking as a member of the United Party. Influx control is over and done with.
Mr. Speaker, the Opposition speakers reproach us, in season and out of season, for only wanting to give 13 per cent of South African soil to the Black man. But this reproach is linked to circumstances, to certain climatic conditions in South Africa. It depends on where there is a by-election in South Africa, whether that by-election is at Oudtshoorn or Brakpan.
What has this to do with the debate?
It has everything to do with this matter. That hon. member was apparently not listening. He does not like me saying it now. I should very much like to know what his standpoint is in respect of the 1936 legislation. Must we only purchase 7¼ million morgen for the Bantu in South Africa? That is the maximum. Or must We purchase less?
What do you say?
No, what does that hon. member say who has just interrupted me? I am making a speech. I would very much like to know what the hon. member for Kensington says. Must we purchase more than 13 per cent for the Bantu or must we purchase less? I should also like to know what the hon. member for King William’s Town’s standpoint is in this connection. [Interjections.] You see, they are again divided. We do not know where they stand in respect of this matter. This Government, as the hon. member for Langlaagte stated, intends to implement the provisions of the 1936 Act. We intend to consolidate the Bantu homelands. Opposition speakers are continually asking us where the borders are and when these consolidations will take place. But in the meantime they are being obscurantists. They are hindering us in the implementation of this consolidation. I do not want to discuss here what happened in the Select Committee. There we discussed matters, but here we are now conducting an open debate. We went out of our way to notify the persons concerned with these matters about where we needed land and where land had to be purchased. Apparently there is no suitable place anywhere in South Africa where land can be purchased for the Bantu. But we are honour bound; we shall implement the provisions of the 1936 Act. In time we shall purchase the necessary land. We shall consolidate Bantu homelands so that we can also ensure a place for the White man in South Africa and also ensure his identity in South Africa.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad told us early in his speech that this legislation was the basis of the Government’s entire policy. He very piously told us with what “diepgaande erns” they regarded this entire matter. Yet, when my colleague, the hon. member for East London North, was talking, who regarded the very serious issues of “diepgaande erns” as being laughable? Who was splitting his sides? Who was trying to make a mockery of this House? It was that hon. Minister sitting in the front bench.
Order! The hon. member must withdraw that allegation.
I withdraw it, Sir, The hon. member for Wolmaransstad said that it was no easy or pleasant task to go into the Eastern Cape to talk to the people there who were due to be affected by what we have before the House this evening. He said that he agreed one hundred per cent with what the hon. member for Langlaagte had said. I want to ask him a question: He spoke to us about the good audience he had. Did his audience agree 100 per cent with what they were told? Did they?
You did not listen to what he said.
I listened to what that hon. member had to say. Of course they did not, and he knows it as well as I do. He also said that it would probably not be the last time that the hon. member for Langlaagte would be going to the Eastern Cape and to King William’s Town in particular.
He made the announcement there.
Right, the hon. member said that he made the announcement there. I want to ask the hon. member for Langlaagte, that is if I can just get his attention and if he just takes his hand away from his forehead for one moment, across the floor of this House whether he is prepared to go back to King William’s Town to meet that same audience and to tell that audience everything he told this House tonight? Is he?
Yes.
We shall hold him to that. I warn him here and now and I hope that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad also will commit him to this. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Wolmaransstad told us quite a lot, i.e. he gave us his version of what went on at this meeting. He said that the people, the delegates and the representatives who came to meet them, were allowed to give evidence, to put questions …
Every one of them.
… and he said that there was a discussion or a debate in general between the Government representatives and the people whom they had gone to meet. I agree with him I know quite a lot about the meeting …
Were you there?
No, nor were you; so just keep quiet. [Interjections.] I was not there, but I am putting questions to that hon. member now. I was not there, but perhaps we should try to establish exactly what went on. The best way of doing this is by prodding the hon. members a little bit.
You have to prod a lot!
Hon. members see that it is common cause, and we need not argue about it, that evidence was called for and that it was in fact given by the leaders of the various groups, the farmers’ associations and the other associations who were represented there. I do not know what has happened to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad now.
He has walked out.
Has he left? Oh, I am sorry. Anyway, the hon. member for Langlaagte remains: I hope he stays with us because perhaps he can tell us what went on. The leaders of these groups apparently were called upon to give evidence. The one thing that each person who gave evidence was asked to say, was whether he and the people he represented were prepared to sell their farms. Perhaps the hon. member for Langlaagte could just nod at this stage and tell us whether this was so. Well, he is not nodding; so we will assume that it was. I am afraid I have to do this, because he has already spoken. He cannot get up and speak again. I am trying to put these questions in very simple terms, so that he can nod or shake his head. According to my information— this I believe is common cause—the people who were called upon to give evidence were asked whether they were prepared to sell their farms. Perhaps I could ask him again, Sir, Is this so?
Have a guess.
Its a simple thing, but he cannot say. According to my information—the hon. member for Langlaagte is thoroughly unhelpful, obviously; I do not know what his motives could be— the people, upon being asked whether they wanted to sell their farms, then asked whether their farms were in released areas or not. Perhaps he would tell us whether this question was put to him in turn. He shakes his head. Does he say that the question was not put to him?
You do not know what it is all about.
Now, Sir, I am surprised that that hon. member is so coy about what we are asking. After all, he was running the show. Can he not tell us simple facts like this? He did not tell us in his speech. According to what I am told, when these people in turn asked whether their farms were in the released areas or not, what did the hon. member for Langlaagte say? He said: “I cannot tell you. You will have to go to the department to find out.”
That is right.
The hon. member for Transkei, who was there, said it is right; but the hon. member for Langlaagte, who was supposed to be running this inquiry, does not seem to know. Was he not listening? Did he not keep minutes? No, Sir, this is not good enough. These people are trifling with the interests of the people of the Eastern Cape. What is more, they are proving it here tonight. Now, Sir, let us go a little further. In view of the silence of that hon. member in the back bench there, who holds such a senior position, let me say this House can accept that everything that I put to him did happen.
Q.E.D.
Yes, Q.E.D., as the hon. schoolmaster opposite says.
Just to test the situation a little further, I want to ask <u>h</u>im—the questions seem to be purely rhetorical, because he is very silent—whether the people who were being questioned by him, then in turn asked him, before they were asked whether they wanted to sell those farms, why they were not warned that that hon. member did not know whether their farms were in released areas. Why were they not warned of this, so that they could go to the department and find our before they were being asked to give “Yes” or “No” answers?
Hear, hear!
My colleague, the hon. member for East London North, was there, and he says “hear, hear!”. But again we have a strange silence on the other side, because it is true.
Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.
The House adjourned at