Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the end of one of the most important debates that has taken place during this Session—as is, in fact, also the case in every session—of this Parliament. As hon. members know, in addition to the Vote of the Prime Minister and the motion of no confidence or censure of the Leader of the Opposition at the beginning of the Session, the main Budget debate and this Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill are the most important general debates in the entire full Session. But of all those debates, and especially of the Budget debates, I want to claim that this Third Reading debate, which has taken place over a period of almost three days, should perhaps be seen as the more important of the two Budget debates, for this Third Reading debate is the most important debate which takes place at the end of any session, when the parties are afforded the opportunity of giving a résumé of what happened during the course of the Session and of arriving at decisions on the course taken by the past Session. It was particularly in this Third Reading debate that I expected the debate to reach a high-water mark as far as debating in this House was concerned.

I expected that because, at the beginning of this Session, we had here before us an Opposition which had come to this Parliament with the greatest expectations, and which as from the first day and the first debate acted here with a measure of self-assurance and smugness, as though it would merely be a question of days or weeks before it would take over the reins of government. We still remember that in those days the Press referred to the “rejuvenated and revitalized United Party”, which, during this Session, was going to teach this party a lesson in all spheres, but especially in the economico-financial sphere, and which would get the people on its side on the strength of bread-and-butter politics. That sudden burst of optimism which prevailed on the Opposition side, lasted for a while. At Brakpan No. 1 the little flame flared up a little, but very soon that spirit of smugness started to wane, and after the Oudtshoorn by-election that little flame was almost extinguished. And what do we see today, Sir? We had a Brakpan No. 2, from which the National Party emerged in a much stronger position. [Interjections.] And what do they look like today. Sir? You see them sitting there in front of you, Sir, a dumbfounded Opposition. They thought that at the end of this Session they would triumphantly tower over us, after this debate. All we find on their side now, is an Opposition which is tired, which is weary, and which does not know what course to follow.

As far as this debate is concerned, I want to say that it has been in progress for almost three days. I can understand the Opposition having made great play of the student activities. It is understandable that this matter would be debated. If they did not debate it, we on this side would definitely have done so. What is more, we do not begrudge them that, Sir; if something new appears on the political scene, something from which they think they may derive some political gain, we do not begrudge them the opportunity of taking advantage of it. But, Sir, I had expected the Opposition to give us a few answers. What we had expected, was that they, who were in readiness, “rejuvenated and revitalized and ebullient”—ebullient with strength for taking over the Government of the country—would in fact in this last Budget debate give us a few answers to the most important problems of the day. We had expected them to tell us something about their solutions to the agricultural problem, for which they so frequently criticize my colleagues the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member for Newton Park, who is the main speaker on agriculture on the other side, spoke about quite different matters, and not about agriculture. I think he devoted approximately three minutes to agricultural matters.

Chickens!

Yes, and that hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City spoke about chickens. We could say, Sir, that the entire policy of that hon. member has gone to the dogs! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister what interest the Minister of Agriculture showed, who was not even present during the whole debate?

I do not know whether this question is pertinent, but the hon. the Deputy Minister is the substitute for the hon. the Minister in this House, and he gave the hon. member a very effective reply. He gave such an effective reply on that point that the hon. member is still smarting under it.

Sir, I had expected the hon. members opposite to tell us something about their colour policy—I am referring to their latest colour policy, for we do not know which is the new and which is the latest colour policy. Over the past few weeks we had so many interpretations of their colour policy that none of us really know what their policy is. We do not know whether this is the policy of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout or the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for Yeoville or the hon. member for Von Brandis, or whichever other hon. member. We do not know whether it is the policy of the hon. member for Durban Point. What is the present policy of the United Party? We had expected them to tell us something about that relations policy of theirs, which, particularly in the constituency of Oudtshoorn, roused the feelings of our people and made them feel uneasy, and which opened the eyes of the people of South Africa to the dangers lurking in the policy of the United Party. We had expected them to tell us something about the new policy concerning land purchases, in respect of the 1936 Act, as brought up here by the hon. member for Transkei.

In this way, in numerous other spheres which do not come within my province, we expected a party which thinks it should take over the reins of government, to avail itself of this last and this greatest opportunity of revealing its full arsenal, of revealing all its powers and of showing how it would govern the country. [Interjections.] Sir, since this is chiefly a Budget debate and since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition started here in Parliament with the idea that they wanted to fight the Government in the economico-financial sphere, and since they had supposedly fought the by-elections at Brakpan and Oudtshoorn on the strength of a bread-and-butter policy, we were led to expect that more than one Opposition member would at least devote their speeches to financial matters. So little attention did they give to financial matters, so little interest did they take in such matters, so little that was new did they have to say about financio-economic matters, that in three days’ time only one speech was devoted to that important matter, and in that speech—I shall come back to it later on—nothing positive and substantial was in fact said.

Sir, this debate came up in a very important year. This is a very important Session. It is a Session following on a year which, in the financial sphere, caused a great deal of turmoil throughout the length and breadth of the world. It is a Session which followed the introduction and the intensification of import control in our country; it is a Session which followed on the introduction of devaluation in South Africa; it is a Session which followed on the challenges of hon. members opposite in the financio-economic sphere, and what did we get from them? We had the speech of the hon. member for Parktown. He was the only speaker on financial matters. Personally I feel very sorry for the hon. member. I feel sorry for him in that he has to be used to do this work alone. Sir, the hon. member is a very good speaker. He is a member who is capable of using poetically beautiful words. As far as words are concerned, he is capable of making very fine speeches, but in the speech he made here the day before yesterday—because he has to make so many speeches and does not know what to say—the hon. member eventually advocated National Party policy.

I feel sorry for the hon. member, for he is capable of speaking well, but he is so trapped in the politico-economic ideology of the United Party that he cannot see beyond the few points which he repeats here every year. What did the hon. member say? In the first place, the hon. member warned us. The major part of his speech consisted of warnings. He warned against the rising optimism in the country. He said that this rising optimism scared him; that he was getting worried about the imports/exports situation; that he was afraid in respect of other things; and he warned us that if matters continued that way, we would have a repetition of what had happened in 1968-’69. What does that mean? My hon. friend said that we were going back to 1968-’69 again. Sir, 1968-’69 was the year in which the growth rate of South Africa was 6,8 per cent. Is that what the hon. member is afraid of? Is he afraid that these things which are at present developing in South Africa in the political and the economic spheres, will flicker and flare up into a growth rate of 6,8 per cent per year? Sir, let me say this to the hon. member: I think he is right; I think he is very nearly right. I think it is quite possible, if matters continue this way, that when Parliament meets again next year, we shall be able to announce here that the growth rate of South Africa is 6 per cent or more in contrast with what it was last year.

Sir, the hon member complained about the increasing liquidity in the economy. He complained about the growing consumer spending and the possibility of renewed inflation. Quite correct. I say that he is advocating National Party policy. But, Sir, in 1968-’69, when I used the same language, that hon. member and hon. members on that side of the House criticized me. When I referred to increasing liquidity in the economy and said that we had to apply monetary measures to absorb that excess liquidity, when we had already imposed credit restrictions previously, hon. members on that side of the House accused me and the Government of fighting the increasing liquidity in the economy of South Africa; and although we have not even reached that stage as yet, the hon. member is already warning against it. I say he is pursuing the policy of the National Party. We did not only introduce monetary measures; we also introduced fiscal measures to reduce the liquidity in the economy, to drain money out of circulation, and those hon. members opposed those measures as well. Even the establishment of the Stabilization Fund, which we started years ago, was an abomination in the eyes of those hon. members. Sir, let us analyse the speech made by the hon. member for Parktown. I have no fault to find with his warnings. He warned that increasing liquidity was coming; he warned against increased consumer spending and the possibility of intensified inflation if matters continued that way, and he said we had to take steps in this regard. He is saying exactly what we ourselves said in 1968 and for which he criticized us. Sir, people say that miracles cannot happen in politics, but miracles did happen in this debate. Miracles happened in the sense that the hon. member for Constantia and I agreed. The hon. member for Parktown said we had to guard against the liquidity in our economy becoming too strong, and the hon. member for Constantia asked me to see to it that the Stabilization Fund would not be exhausted completely and to use the increased revenue as a result of the higher price for gold instead of taking money out of the Stabilization Fund. I told the hon. member that I fully agreed with him. I agree with him that in a situation of excess liquidity one should curtail the amount of money in circulation. Sir, now I want to point out to you the confusion of those hon. members. The hon. member for Constantia, as he is afraid of more inflation as a result of the pouring in of money because of increased earnings resulting from the higher price of gold, asked me to absorb that money, not to use that money, and just a few minutes before or after that the hon. member for Park-town asked me to reduce taxation by more than R64 million, to abolish the 10 per cent surcharge on individuals and the per cent surcharge on companies. The hon. member knows that this would have an inflationary effect. The hon. member for Constantia, with whom I agree, says we should withdraw the money, but the hon. member for Parktown says we should give up those taxes and thus bring more money into circulation.

The hon. member for Parktown—once again I agree with him—implicitly warned against the Exchange. He said that if matters continued this way, the danger existed that the Exchange would once again land in a critical position. I want to agree with him, but in all fairness I want to put this question to him: When, in years past, I sounded a warning in similar circumstances —even more critical circumstances than those prevailing at present—against the dangers threatening the Exchange, what was the attitude of hon. members on that side? The hon. member referred to “the unhappy days of 1971 created by the Government”. Sir, I am really getting a little tired of hon. members on that side—and there are many members whose names I shall not even mention, whose speeches are not worth referring to (I am sorry to say this)—who come forward here with accusations against the Government and refer to “the unhappy situation in 1971 created by the Government”. I want to grant that 1971 was a very difficult period. We, who had to deal with the matter every day and had to take decisions in the monetary and financial spheres day after day, can confess here before the people that this was one of the most difficult years which South Africa has probably had in its financio-monetary history. We experienced difficult times, but what did we get from the side of the United Party, the alternative Government of the country, during those difficult years? When we were struggling with the greatest difficulties, both domestically and abroad, those hon. members did not offer the Government any assistance. No, they tried to make the best use of it for themselves by making political capital for themselves out of a difficult situation for the Government. That proves only one thing to me, namely that in difficult times, financially and economically difficult times, the people cannot rely on the support of the United Party. They accuse us by saying “the unhappy days of 1971 were created by the Government”. Do the hon. member and the Opposition not know that 1971 was one of the most difficult years in the economy of the entire world, and that history will prove later on that in 1971 the world experienced a crisis such as had seldom been the case before? Take countries such as the U.S.A.; take a country such as the Netherlands and a country such as Japan or Sweden or West Germany. Take all the major countries of Western Europe, Italy as well, and you will find that last year all those countries experienced economic and financial crises such as they had seldom experienced before, and these crises which they experienced were not caused by this side of the House.

Those crises experienced by them had their effect on the economy of South Africa. They had to have their effect. It was a world crisis in the economic sphere. Now I want to repeat that one expects a party which wants to govern the country to have a rather wider horizon. What one expects from a party which says that it wants to be the alternative Government of South Africa, is that it should have a wider outlook and that it should not only look at what will happen at the next by-election, but that it should look at the economic scene throughout the length and breadth of the world, before passing judgment and blaming the Government of South Africa for the difficult position which prevailed in this country in 1971. Did the hon. members not remember what I told them in previous budget debates, namely that during that year South Africa had to contend with the problem of a deteriorating rate of exchange? Do the hon. members not know that the price of our wool dropped through no fault of ours, and that there was a drop in the price of our copper, of diamonds, chrome, platinum and scores and scores of articles of export which had to earn foreign exchange for us, whilst there was an increase in the price of those articles we had to import, with the result that an imbalance developed between exports and imports and a deteriorating situation resulted in the balance of payments? Are the hon. members not aware of this? But then they say it is the Government which is to blame for the deteriorating conditions which prevailed in South Africa last year but which were also reflected in the rest of the world. Sir, it is expected of a good doctor that he should be able to diagnose, that before he can prescribe the right medicine, he should know what the disease is. It is expected of a good economist to be good at analysing figures, to draw the correct conclusions from them and to formulate his policy on them. It is expected of a good Government, and even of a good Opposition, that it should read the signs of the times to their full extent, not only in one small sphere, but to their full extent, and so to find a solution to the problems it is dealing with. After all, do the hon. members not know that uncertainty prevailed in the monetary sphere last year, and that ever since May there was a dollar crisis which gave rise to uncertainty throughout the monetary world, a crisis which had its influence on the rand since the rand is representative of the country which is the largest gold producer in the world, and that it had an influence on our balance of payments? I simply cannot understand why my hon. friend and hon. members an that side, who ought to know what the world circumstances were last year, are now trying to blame the Government for the difficulties we experienced along with other countries last year. There are many good things. The hon. member admitted that certain good things were developing. He referred to some of those good things, but the hon. member said he was getting nervous, he was afraid of drawing good, favourable conclusions from the things he saw. Last year, however, when things did not look good, when things were unfavourable, he was not nervous. At that stage he did not hesitate to draw unfavourable conclusions from these phenomena. That is characteristic of the United Party. When things may be interpreted to the disadvantage of South Africa, they are at hand: then they are ready. However, when things may be interpreted to the advantage of our country, they are not at hand.

The hon. member went on to say some more remarkable things. In his speech he mentioned quite a number of things which are perfectly acceptable, and these I do in fact accept. There are the dangers arising from the things we see. This excess liquidity in the country might lead to another inflation; we had to guard against it. Take note, Sir, he warned against a possible inflation which might come. I do not have the time to read out all these things to you, Sir, but you will not doubt the fact that he said we could return to the state of inflation. At the end of his speech, however, he warned the country against a possible recession. I cannot understand this. I am trying to understand it, but I cannot understand how one can infer from the same data that an inflation as well as a recession are threatening. [Interjections.] Yes, correct; the hon. member says it in order to be on the safe side. In the event of our having inflation one day, the hon. Opposition may say: But surely we warned you that there would be inflation. In the event of our having a recession, they may also say that they had, after all, said there would be a recession.

The hon. member and other hon. members on that side accused this side of the House of a stop-go policy.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says, “Hear, hear!” In a moment he will say “Hear, hear!” again. They are accusing the Government of changing its economic policy according to changed circumstances. This time it was especially my hon. friend the Minister of Economic Affairs at whom this accusation was levelled again, because he had changed his policy in respect of the rules of import control. The hon. member spoke here about this Government being continually “forced to back-track again”. We are accused of changing our policy continually. It stands to reason that from time to time we are engaged, not in changing our policy, but in changing the application of that policy according to circumstances. What does the hon. member himself say? Let us listen to his own words. What does he say, he who accuses me and my hon. friend the Minister of Economic Affairs of a stop-go policy? He mentioned a few things in his speech, and then he said—

He is allowed to do this, but we are not allowed to do so. He did not say this only once. He went on to say the following—

We should adapt our policy. Now I want to ask whether those hon. members are the only people who are entitled to adapt their policy according to “ever-changing circumstances”? May this side of the House not adapt its policy or the application of its policy from time to time as well?

Really, they have had a monopoly on that side for a long time.

I want to make the statement, with all the earnestness I can command, that in spite of the accusations made by the hon. members on that side of the House in regard to the policy pursued by the Government in the financio-economic sphere over the past five to six years, this policy is the only and the best one that could be pursued under the circumstances. I want to make the statement that the latest events, and especially the speech made by my hon. friend, proved that this policy was the correct one. I shall make the statement and prove it. If I were now to re-live that period of five to six years ago and experienced the same circumstances, I would have pursued the same policy, perhaps with minor adaptations here and there. I wonder what would have happened to South Africa if we had not pursued this policy over the past five to six years. If we had not pursued this fiscal and monetary policy, where would South Africa have stood in respect of the question of inflation? Where would South Africa have been if it had not pursued this monetary and fiscal policy, a policy dictated by the International Monetary Fund to all countries which found themselves in the circumstances in which South Africa found itself? I just want to say that it is very easy for the hon. members on the other side of the House to criticize policy. I should like to see what the hon. members opposite would do if they had to bear the really terrible responsibility of a country’s administration, if they had to make decisions in the financio-economic sphere under the circumstances in which we were living. If we had not taken the measures we did take over the past five to six years, we would not have been able at present to devalue. If this had not been the case, we would not have been able to apply import restrictions as we have them now. In that case we would not have been able to give our economy a new stimulus. I want to say emphatically that through this policy which we pursued, we made it possible for South Africa to take steps for a new South Africa at the end of last year, in November and December and in this Budget. If we had not pursued that policy, we would not have been able to take those steps.

The events of the past few months have proved indisputably that the economico-financial policy pursued by us was the correct one. The United Party tried to criticize it. They did so in this Parliament and they did so at two by-elections, but today I am in a position to call the people to witness once again. In this last major debate of the House of Assembly I want to call upon the people to witness the fact that the policy of the National Party has towered triumphantly over that of the hon. members opposite, whereas their policy is like a flame that has been extinguished and of which only the ashes are left, with an occasional ember smouldering here and there in the ashes.

Let us just see how our policy succeeded. Let us take a look, first of all, at devaluation, the devaluation which took place on 21st December, 1971. I want to make the statement that the devaluation of December, 1971, was one of the most successful devaluations that has ever taken place in any country in the world.

Is devaluation your policy?

Please now you are talking nonsense!

I shall come to that in a moment. I want to make the statement, and I have made a study of devaluation in various countries of the world, that our devaluation was the most successful one that has ever, to my knowledge, taken place in any country. The hon. members opposite, especially that hon. Achitophel, the hon. member for Yeoville, took up a strange standpoint in this debate. Hon. members will recall how I vainly tried to put Question after question to that side of the House. I asked: Are you in favour of import control? All there was on that side of the House, was a dead silence. Then I asked them again whether they were in favour of devaluation, and once again no answer was heard. Eventually the hon. member for Parktown—I must give him credit for that—rose and said that he was in favour of it. He was honest and said this. The hon. member for Constantia said it was an act of insolvency. The hon. member for Yeoville, too, said it was an act of insolvency. In other words, they are blowing hot and cold. We get double talk and a dual policy from the hon. members on that side of the House. Now, if devaluation is successful, as in fact it is …

A successful insolvency.

It seems to me something is bothering the hon. member. If devaluation is successful, they will say that the hon. member for Parktown, who is the main speaker on finance on that side of the House, said that the United Party was in favour of devaluation. But if devaluation should prove to be a failure, they would say that the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Achitophel, I beg your pardon, Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville, had said that it was an act of insolvency.

Mr. Speaker, is this word “Achitophel” Parliamentary? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I say that this is a very successful devaluation when it is compared with the devaluations in Britain in 1967 and in the U.S.A., which took place more or less simultaneously with the devaluation in South Africa. In taking a look at the United States of America, we shall find that up to the present its devaluation has virtually yielded no fruits. The measure of economic revival which is noticeable in America, is mainly attributable to other measures taken by the American Government in order to stimulate the economy of that country. But as far as the foreign balance of payments and the domestic balance of its budget are concerned, devaluation in America has virtually had no effect there as yet. According to all the authorities the devaluation of the United Kingdom, which took place in November, 1967, only yielded real fruits in the year 1970, more than two years later. This is the reply to my hon. friends opposite who wanted to prod us into an “unseemly haste” at the beginning of this year, who wanted to force us to do things. Devaluation is not a fruit which one may simply ripen by force. It takes years and years, as was the case in Britain, for devaluation for have its real effect. Why was this devaluation successful? And it was in fact successful, as I shall prove in a moment. It was successful because it was preceded by a fiscal and monetary policy aimed at cooling down the economy. Over the first three quarters of last year—this is proved by the figures— our economy cooled down. I shall prove this to the House. Through the policy of this Government the economy cooled down. If, as a result of our monetary and fiscal policy, we had not succeeded in cooling down the economy during those first three quarters, we would not have been able to intensify import control, we would not have been able to devalue, and then we would not have been able to make any success of devaluation. External factors contributed to our having to devalue. But it is the common sense and the policy of this Government and this side of the House and this party which caused devaluation to take place within a sound milieu, which ensured that the conditions under which it took place, were the right ones. In addition to that there was. of course, a budget with a cautious fiscal policy. Furthermore, there was curtailment of public spending. All of these laid the foundation for a new growth and a new upsurge in the economic prosperity of this country. The hon. member is correct in saying that it is too early to see the full results at this stage already. I shall now proceed to point out a few of these results. It is too early to see all the results, especially in the industrial sphere, at this stage already. It takes months before these things take effect, but we have already seen them in various spheres. Let me point out now, also for the information of the hon. member for Yeoville. in what spheres they are noticeable already. Let us take a look at the balance of payments. Hon. members will recall that we announced in November, 1971, that we would proceed to intensified import control. This announcement was made by me and not by my friend and colleague the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. We intensified import control for balance of payments purposes. The hon. member will recall that when we devalued, we did so for no other reason than for balance of payments and balance of trade reasons, that was why we devalued. And what has happened now? During the last seven weeks prior to devaluation South Africa’s reserves dropped by R12 million per week. Now, if we leave out of account the fact that after devaluation we had a revaluation of our foreign assets which netted R55 million. and that we received R28 million in S.D.R.s, we subsequently had, on an average a growth of R9 million per week in foreign reserves.

Did the gold price have nothing to do with that?

In other words, we had an improvement in our balance of payments of R21 million per week, and all of that could not have been because of the gold price. The balance of payments improvement amounted to R21 million per week. The Reserve Bank’s assets in gold and foreign exchange amounted to R375 million on 17th December, 1971, but on 2nd June they came to R676 million. That is successful devaluation, for success was achieved in improving the balance of payments to such an extent that within the space of six months the foreign reserves rose from R375 million to R676 million— an increase of more than R300 million. The balance of payments was improved partly as a result of the deficit on the current account being reduced. Let us take a brief look at the current account deficit, which was our greatest problem in the previous period. In the first quarter of 1971 the deficit on current account amounted to R1 505 million, and hon. members must bear this in mind. In the fourth quarter the deficit on the current account amounted to R676 million. That was even before import control and devaluation had been introduced. Because of the policy of the Government the deficit on the current account of the balance of payments was reduced from more than R1 500 million in the first quarter to R676 million in the fourth quarter—a remarkable achievement! Furthermore, during the first quarter of this year the deficit on the current account, which amounted to R1 500 million in the first quarter of last year, was reduced to R493 million. There was therefore a change of more than R1 000 million in the current account of the balance of payments. This is a tremendous achievement which came our way. It was a successful devaluation, one such as has seldom taken place.

Now I come to a next point, namely capital inflow in this country. I want to point out to hon. members that during the last quarter of last year we had a net capital inflow of R170 million. During the first quarter of this year this figure dropped to R146 million. It seems as though there was a decrease in the inflow of capital; but let us take a look at the composition of that capital. During the last quarter of last year the Government and the banking sector got in capital to an amount of R129 million; but during the first quarter of this year the Government and the banking sector only got in R6 million—R123 million less. But the private sector, which had a capital inflow of R41 million during the last quarter of 1971, had a net capital inflow of R140 million during the first quarter of this year. Within the space of one quarter, Sir, the private sector had a net inflow of capital which was almost R100 million more than it had had during the previous quarter. I want to say that this is a tremendous achievement, especially if we bear in mind that a part of this capital, of this R140 million, i.e. R60 million, went to the Exchange and that the remaining R80 million went to the private sector—for productive utilization there, we hope. I believe that we have good prospects of a sound balance of payments development in the course of the year. I believe it is possible that we shall be able to push up our reserves to R1 000 million by the end of this year. But in this respect I also want to sound a word of warning, namely that we should not be too hasty and should not engage in risky undertakings, that we should not gamble with this money which we have, because there are many factors which we must take into account. The hon. member referred here to the gold price, which is very high today, but which may perhaps—we do not know— drop later on, although we have good prospects as regards the gold price. It is our intention perhaps to borrow less abroad. It may be that we are going to pay off more money abroad. It may perhaps happen that uncertainties in the international sphere will once again give rise to all sorts of factors over which we have no control. It is necessary for South Africa to build up strong reserves. We have learnt from the past that we must build up our reserves as high as we can in order to remain standing in times of difficulties.

Now I am coming back to the hon. member for Yeoville, in regard to the present gold price. The hon. member for Yeoville made a remark here to the effect that the gold price had nothing to do with the rising balance of payments. Of course it has something to do with it. The gold price, which has risen to more than 65 dollars per ounce, has definitely had a favourable effect on South Africa’s balance of payments.

And on the inflow of capital.

It has brought us higher export earnings, exchange earnings, higher revenue to the State, a more active Exchange, a stimulation of the economy and the inflow of capital, the possibility of processing lower-grade gold, and the extension of the lives of our mines. We as South Africans are grateful for the fact that the gold price has risen to its present level. We are grateful because we believe that our Government had a small share in the increase in the gold price. I am not referring to devaluation alone, something which brought us a non-recurring increase in the gold price, but I want to make bold to say that it was the confidence, faith and actions of this National Party Government over the past decade that contributed to bringing about and confirming a confidence in gold on the part of the rest of the world.

But let me take another look at the United Party now. What has the United Party sitting over there done in respect of increasing the gold price over the past number of years? I do not want to take a look at the episodes that took place in this Parliament at the beginning of 1970; I want to draw a veil over them. But I want to go back to the year 1968, the year when they spoke about the “dollar crisis”, which was actually a gold crisis, the year which led to a split in the gold market, into an official market and a free market—in other words, the two-tier system in the sphere of gold marketing. That was the year of 1968. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will remember clearly what the attitude of his party was in that year. Do you know what hon. members said at the time, Sir? When the crisis occurred abroad and the split in the gold market took place, the members opposite asked me what I as the Minister of Finance was doing here; they said I had to be on the aeroplane; I was supposed to be flying to Washington or London, but what was I supposed to do there? I was to dump all South Africa’s gold there and to sell it there. That is the policy they had at the time. They blamed me for not wanting to do that. Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville is laughing at their own blunders at the time. They blamed me for not taking South Africa’s gold in 1968 and selling it there at the price I could get for it. Sir, if I had dumped the gold there and forced the price down, we would have been without gold reserves. [Interjections.] Sir, I have a great deal of respect for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but he cannot deny that that was the policy advocated by them at the time; if I am not mistaken, it was advocated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself, and Hansard will prove this. Their policy was that we as South Africans should not have sat idle here; we should have made the best use of the gold price prevailing at the time. No, it is no use the hon. member shaking his head. I am telling him that this was the policy of his party. Now I want to call the gold-mining industry to witness, and I want to ask the gold-mining industry to bring evidence as to what has been advocated by the United Party in respect of the gold price in South Africa over the past 20 years. I know; we have good friends among the gold people and the mining people, but I know that among the gold people we also have many enemies who are fighting the policy of this party. I want to say that no party in South Africa has done for the gold mines and for the gold price what this Government has done. This upward movement of the gold price has also shown us how right we were when we decided a few years ago to assist the marginal mines by way of loans. Other people did not believe in this step. We cast a few million rand on the waters in order to assist the marginal mines, because we believed in the future of gold. By doing that we saved South Africa hundreds of millions of rand in foreign exchange.

Who recommended it?

Before saying any more about the gold mines, I want to mention one or two points before I forget them.

I spoke about the money flowing into South Africa in the form of loans to individuals and companies, but I want to add that over the past few weeks the State has had many offers of loans from countries abroad. It is true that over the past half year we were offered loans by banks of repute virtually every week, and that we declined them because South Africa is in the fortunate position that it does not need any money from countries abroad at the moment.

Now I should like to say something for the information of the whole of Parliament, because I believe that members on this side and members on the opposite side are worried by the same problems. I am referring to those bogus loans which are offered through individuals. Hardly a week passes in which we in the Treasury are not approached by people from outside and possibly by M.P.s from both sides of the House; they approach us and tell us that they know a person who has R100 million or R200 million, or even as much as R600 million, which is simply lying in a bank over there waiting for us and which they want to lend to the State. I want to tell our members of Parliament that we have followed up these offers to some extent and not in one single case have loans of that kind amounted to anything. We have laid down a policy that when someone does approach us with such a wonderful offer, we tell him, “Sir, we do not deal with intermediaries; tell us who your principals are; if your principal is too ashamed to have his name revealed, let us have the name of a bank, a bank of consequence, which will inform us that such money is in fact available to us. However, we prefer the name of your principal to be revealed and for your principal to make the offer to us; we do not deal with intermediaries”. That usually means the end of everything. Do you know what these gentlemen want? I should like to tell this to my hon. friends so that we shall no longer be bothered. The only thing they want is for us to write on a piece of paper, “Yes, we should like to have R100 million”. They go about with that piece of paper in countries abroad and say they have been appointed to look for money for the South African Government. I assume that we shall be aware of it.

Now I come back to the gold price and the significance of the higher gold price of today. In this regard I want to make two remarks. The first remark I want to make is that it has now become clear that this two-tier system for the marketing of gold which was introduced in March, 1968, has failed hopelessly. This two-tier system, which catered for a fixed gold price at 35 dollars per fine ounce and a free market price which could go to any heights, in other words, a system which had two prices for gold, has failed hopelessly as the free market price of gold has now risen to heights undreamt of at that time. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that was the idea with the introduction of the two-tier system—they thought that it would bring about a decrease in the free market price of gold and that it would be proved, as a result of that, that gold did not actually have a price but merely derived its price from the dollar. Now it has been proved that gold is able to stand on its own feet and that gold is stronger than the dollar. It is proof that the value of gold has increased by itself. I still recall previous years, when I had discussions on the dollar and on gold with some of the most important economists in America. Those economists told me: “But it is inconceivable to allege that gold in itself has any value, apart from a little value to the jewellers.” They told me. “If we were to withdraw the dollar from gold and if 35 dollars per fine ounce were no longer paid for gold, the price of gold would slump, because the dollar is the kingpin around which everything revolves”. Sir, what a complete change the world has now undergone! Now the price of gold has soared and the dollar has had to revalue in respect of gold. This proves to me that this two-tier system of gold marketing is outdated and that the time has now arrived for the people in the international field who formulate the policy to concentrate on bringing these two prices, the free market price and the official price, closer together.

Do you expect a dollar devaluation in the future?

I shall come to that in a minute.

You only have three minutes left; you must make haste.

The second deduction I want to make is that the official price of gold at 38 dollars is an unrealistic price; it is absolutely unrealistic, and I cannot believe that other countries will keep the position like that. I cannot imagine the Western countries, with their gold holdings, reconciling themselves for a very long time to a position where the official price of gold is 38 dollars per fine ounce whereas the free market price is already increasing to 65 dollars and more. When a change in the price of gold does take place, I should like to see that change taking place in an orderly way. We in South Africa have always stood for orderly action when the nations decide to bring such a change about and that it will not be a catastrophe, to the detriment of all of us, which will cause a change in the official price of gold to take place. I hope that the nations of the world will decide soon that gold is indispensable in the international system of payments, and that the idea of the demonetizing of gold is an untenable idea. I want to make the statement here that gold has now proved once again that it can and ought to take its full place in the international system of payments. The time has arrived for gold to be given its rightful value. The price of 38 dollars per fine ounce is an unrealistic value, and until such time as the right value it deserves is given to gold, there will always be calamity and unrest in the international sphere. Gold is the most powerful factor in the monetary system of the world in which the people have confidence, and if gold does not obtain its rightful place in the international system of payments, then gold will avenge itself on the international system of payments. I now come to the question of my hon. friend, the member for Pinetown. I read in the Press this morning that one of the leading authorities in America had said that the fact that the price of gold had increased so rapidly in recent times, was proof that gold was incompetent of being an important part of the international system of payments. Sir, if this is so, if gold is incompetent of being a part of the international system of payments because its value increases so rapidly, then the dollar must be even more incompetent of being part of the system of payments because its value has decreased so rapidly. If I had to choose, as an element in the international system of payments, between a means of payments, the value of which was decreasing and one, the value of which was increasing, I think I would choose the one that was increasing in value. I want to tell this gentleman in America that the fact that the price of gold is increasing to this extent is proof that the nations have confidence in gold. They have more confidence in gold than in any paper money. They have confidence in gold, in the first place, because gold itself has an intrinsic value. It is not a small piece of paper. Gold has an intrinsic, substantial value. Gold stands above all paper money, because gold carries no debt commitment with it as “paper gold” does. Gold has value because it cannot be increased or decreased arbitrarily by man in the same way as paper gold may be printed. Sir, events in recent weeks proved indisputably that a big change, also as far as gold was concerned, must take place in the international field. My hon. friend asks whether the dollar is going to be devalued again. I do not know, but my personal view is that the December devaluation of last year was not sufficient and that it did not free America of its difficulties. What is particularly interesting to me is that Mr. Herby Stein, the president of the Council of Economic Advisers, said two or three days ago that there would, of course, be no devaluation of the dollar; that the price of gold would not be increased, but he added to that that one should not be afraid of devaluation; that devaluation in itself was not always a wrong thing; that it could be a good thing. By that he kept the door open. To me those were very significant words. I believe we may see changes in this field next year—possibly not this year.

I have spoken of a successful devaluation. I want to make haste to come to the final few points I want to mention and I now come to the position on the Exchange.

The hon. friend referred, quite rightly, to the revival of prices on the Exchange. I do not regard the Exchange as a barometer of the economy of a country, but to some extent the Exchange is a reflection of the expectations of people. If people are optimistic about the future, they buy; if they are pessimistic, they do not buy. At the moment there are signs of confidence in the future, and the rising prices on the Exchange are to me a reflection of the growing confidence in the future of our country. I am pleased there is a revival on the Exchange, not because I want to see people gambling on the Exchange as in the past, but because I want to see the Exchange taking its rightful place in South Africa, as the place at which capital is provided for our growing industries. I hope that the Stock Exchange of South Africa will grow more and more into a place at which South Africans and their companies will be able to obtain their capital.

Now I come to Government finances. As regards Government finances, I just want to say in brief that things are going well in this sphere too. One of the difficulties we experienced last year was that we had to borrow too much money from the Bank. We are overcoming this and in the first quarter of this year our debt at the Bank was only a quarter of what it was last year; it was the lowest since the beginning of 1968. We are working it away. The revival there has been in various fields will assist state finances as well. I want to point out to hon. members that the loans we entered into have been very successful. On the 15th of last month we floated a public loan. You will recall that I said in my Budget speech that I wanted R180 million, plus approximately another R20 million from Treasury Bills. On the 15th of last month we floated a loan. A day or two ago that loan brought in the amount of R293 million. We wanted R180 million, or possibly R200 million, and we obtained R293 million, and this without the inclusion of the amount of the Public Debt Commissioners. I hope we shall be able to comply, as I said yesterday, with the wishes of the hon. member for Constantia, to draw the minimum from the Stabilization Fund. That amount of R140 million which we were to draw on the Revenue Account and the amount of R21 million which we were to draw on the Loan Account—I hope we shall draw the minimum of those amounts and that through the surplus we may possibly have on the current account and the surplus we may possibly have on the loan account we shall withdraw money from circulation in order to combat inflation and that we shall be able to supplement our Stabilization Account both from revenue and from loans. In that case my hon. friend, the member for Parktown, will no longer have the right to complain about the cupboard being bare.

Next I want to point out that rates of interest are dropping. One of the steps we announced in the Budget was a pegging of certain deposit rates. The hon. members will still remember this. There was, inter alia, the pegging of interest on participation bonds. That has had a favourable influence. This is not something one likes, but it has had a favourable influence because the climate has been favourable and lately we see a drop in the rates of interest in general. We hope this will continue.

Then I want to refer to the Land Bank. About a month ago the Land Bank asked for R30 million in a loan flotation and it received offers amounting to R93 million. A new liquidity, a new life in the money market, is in progress. The building societies have benefited from this new financial policy, from the Budget and from the measures we have taken otherwise. I should just like to mention a few figures. In April, 1972;, the building societies had an inflow of capital of R16,7 million, but in May, 1972, they had an inflow of capital of R47,2 million—R30 million more. The labour market has been relieved. Salaries and wages have not shown those tensions and pressures they showed in the past. I attribute this to the responsibility of our workers and to the prudence of our employers.

What is still lacking, is the productivity of our workers, something to which we shall have to give attention. It will be one of the biggest tasks, of us as the Government and also of hon. members on that side, as well as of the entrepreneurs and the labourers in general, to increase the productivity of our workers in South Africa in the years which lie ahead. Take the rate of inflation, which is an important thing. To what extent did prices increase in recent times? From March, 1971, to March, 1972, wholesale import prices increased by 11 per cent, but what happened in the country? From April, 1971, to April, 1972, the consumer price index rose by 5,4 per cent. From March, 1971, to March, 1972, it rose by 6.9 per cent and from April, 1971, to April, 1972, it rose by 5,4 per cent. This provides proof of what I told the hon members the other day, i.e. that we would begin to see a drop in the second quarter. General optimism prevails in the country. The hon. member for Parktown called that optimism in question, but it is true that optimism prevails in all fields, perhaps not yet in the field of industrial production—it is still too soon.

The hon. member put a question to me concerning import control of capital goods, and in this regard I want to put his mind at rest. In 1971 capital goods represented 76,6 per cent of our imports. In the first quarter of this year, however, capital goods represented 78,7 per cent of our imports. The percentage is higher, but possibly this is so because imports of consumer goods decreased. Nevertheless, the percentage is higher and the import of consumer goods did not decrease much in the first quarter. I can give him the assurance, however, that the percentage of capital and intermediary goods is still particularly high in this country.

I want to conclude by saying to the hon. members that in the favourable conditions in which we are living, we shall have to guard against causing the resources we have at our disposal to flow into the wrong channels. In the years lying ahead, we shall have to see to it that the capital, the labour and other resources South Africa has at its disposal will be utilized only for those industries which deserve to be helped. This holds good both in respect of import control and tariff protection, in which regard I agree with the hon. member for Parktown to a large extent. The hon. member for Parktown gave us an exposition in which he more or less interpreted the Government’s standpoint on import control. However, the hon. member would like us to relax import control to a considerable extent. I think it is necessary for me to give an answer to that. I say: No, we cannot relax import control to a considerable extent now. I know what my hon. friend would tell my colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, if we were to relax import control to a considerable extent now. He would say it was an example of the stop-go policy of this Government. However, we do not take any notice of that. Apart from that, the current account of our balance of payments is not yet sufficiently strong and even if our reserves increase, we must first ensure that our current account, which looks fairly favourable now, is sufficiently strong before we proceed to effecting considerable relaxations in import control. In the second place we must ensure that our reserves are high enough. Our reserves are not at all high enough yet—they are only approximately R700 million. Our reserves must exceed the R1 000 million mark by far before we can once again think of a considerable relaxation in import control, and particularly in this period in which imported goods have become so much more expensive for us. We have learned in the years gone by and we can no longer risk bringing about a considerable relaxation unless we have strong reserves.

Finally: We must get an adequate degree of protection for our industries. The hon. member is perfectly correct and I agree with him that we are not to protect our industries by means of import control. The real protection is by means of tariffs. It is the task of this Government—the instruction has already been given by my hon. colleague—to do everything within our power in the year which lies ahead to provide tariff protection to those industries which are not yet adequately established. I am referring to the industries which deserve to be protected. We have our problems with GATT. The hon. member knows about that. We have certain problems in that we may not raise certain tariffs. I say openly that import control in respect of those industries will be maintained until such time as we are able to protect those industries legitimately. I think every country in the world has the right to protect its industries.

I want to mention another small thing or two before I conclude. The hon. member spoke about the growth rate of South Africa. It was said here time and again that South Africa’s growth rate was allegedly so low, and I think I should go into this point because it is of such special interest. It was mentioned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well as by other hon. members. The hon. member for East London City, who, unfortunately, is unable to be present, said the growth rate of South Africa per capita was so low that it was of the lowest in the world. Now I want to tell hon. members that it depends on whose figures they work. It is very dangerous to work with any figures. The international figures of comparison vary so tremendously.

We use the figures of the Reserve Bank.

The hon. members may take the figures of the Reserve Bank, they may take the figures of the Monetary Fund, they may take the figures of the World Bank, they may take various other figures, but they, too, work on certain overseas data. Hon. members will find that the figures differ from one another. It is so dangerous just to accept those figures as being absolutely categorically correct.

Are you calling your own Reserve Bank’s figures in question?

No, I am merely pointing out the difficulties which exist, also as far as I am concerned, in the matter of making categorical comparisons. I have here other figures supplied by the International Bank. South Africa’s per capita growth rate is given as 3,8 per cent. It is one of the highest in the world, higher than those of most of the Western countries. In order to illustrate how different opinions may be given in this regard, and since hon. members referred to Mr. Oppenheimer, I want to refer to an edition I already mentioned in a previous debate. I am referring to an edition entitled Scope for Investment published by Union Acceptances Limited which is closely associated with Mr. Oppenheimer It was published in 1969, i.e. before this debate started in this House. What does he say? Let us have another look at this. I quote—

In the 10 years of United Party policy …

They included the five war years.

They take the war years into account, but also in our time there were difficult years of depression and in addition to that the heritage we had from the United Party on that side. I want to quote what this article goes on to say—

Go tell that to the Reserve Bank.

This was written in 1969 by leading people. We shall tell this to the Reserve Bank, but I am pointing out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition how difficult it is to work with figures. This is Mr. Oppenheimer’s company.

Why do you choose to use these figures in preference to those of the Reserve Bank?

Mr. Oppenheimer’s company takes figures from 1950 to 1966 and says: “The performance of the 1960s, however, was such that South Africa outstripped North America and Western Europe in per capita growth.”

The Reserve Bank must have had those figures to compile their figures …

One of the hon. members, the hon. member for Simonstown, put a certain question to me the other day with regard to a question he had put to me concerning public debt. After I had replied to the question, that hon. member asked me whether he was to regard it as being a new record under Nationalist rule. Now I want to say that when an hon. member puts a question, I expect him to put a sensible question. One does not speak of the debt of a country only, but one compares that debt to that of the previous periods. One compares that debt to the gross national product of a country. A rich country may incur more debt than a poor country. The debt of a country is the capital with which that country works. A country does not have capital as a company does. A country borrows money. With that money it builds roads, railways, universities, streets, etc. It is its capital. In the past year we had a debt exceeding R6 billion. The hon. member for Simonstown asked me whether that was a new record under Nationalist rule. Now let me examine what this means. On 31st March, 1972, public debt was 45½ per cent of the gross national product. But in 1948 it was 60 per cent of the gross national product. I just want to tell the hon. member …

The loan to Britain is included.

It was not Britain’s debt: I am speaking of our debt to the outside world. In 1948 we owed 60 per cent of our gross national product to the outside world. This year we owed 45,5 per cent of our gross national product. I just want to tell the hon. member that he must be careful in his use of figures.

I want to conclude by making an announcement. Rumours are doing the rounds and I have also heard of rumours doing the rounds in Switzerland that the price of gold in Switzerland and in the rest of the world has risen to these heights because South Africa is withholding gold from the market. I just want to make the announcement that these rumours are not true. It is true that South Africa is not selling all its gold to the market, but that South Africa is withholding itself from the market altogether, is not correct. Because South Africa has a favourable balance of payments, it is not necessary for it to sell gold in those quantities. Because South Africa is a gold producing country, it is desirable and essential for South Africa to maintain its reserves mainly in the form of gold. Because we are able to do so and can afford to do so, we are building up our gold reserves. However, I want to say once more very clearly in public that it is not true that South Africa is manipulating the market by withholding all its gold from the public market.

I conclude by saying, in the first place, that the United Party has contributed nothing to this debate except warnings from the lips of my hon. friend. In the second place it has become evident that the Government’s financio-economic policy, its fiscal and monetary policy, has been the only right policy in the light of the times in which it has been formulated and implemented, and that it is still bearing fruit up to this day. In the third place I want to say that it has become evident from the events of the past few days that the gold policy of this Government has been the right one, and not the policy those hon. members wanted us to follow. It has become very evident that the measures taken by the State in its Budget have been the correct measures and that the hon. members have been unable to say anything about the Budget in this third important debate.

In the fourth place it has become evident from this debate which is now being concluded, that the economy of South Africa is basically sound, that it will revive in good time and bring even greater prosperity to South Africa. Finally, it has become evident from this debate that just as South Africa grew in the past, in the past 20 years, it will also enjoy even greater prosperity under National Party rule in the quarter of a century which lies ahead.

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

There is no need for me to motivate this amendment, because we have already done so in the Budget Debate and in the Second Reading debate on this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, for reasons I indicated yesterday, I shall not be able to accept this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago we had a similar resolution before this House. There were two resolutions dealing with an exchange of land, one in South-West Africa and the other in the Transvaal, and then there was a declaration of released areas in the Ciskei. We supported these two exchanges because they fell into the requirements laid down by us for the addition of land to the Bantu areas. We objected, however, to the declaration of released areas because we felt that the resolution was not properly motivated and that the Government had not given sufficient reasons for the declaration of the released areas. We now have another resolution before us, also dealing with the Ciskei, and in this case it is an exchange of land by the Trust with the King William’s Town muncipality. The King William’s Town municipality is developing a certain area of land for industries, and in proceeding with their development they found that they had encroached on Bantu Trust land. They had already spent R35 000 on this development. They approached the department and offered to exchange a bit of their land for the Trust land, and this is what we are now being asked to approve. Sir, we support this exchange, but I feel it is necessary for me again to remind the House what the considerations are that we take into account in dealing with matters of this kind. It becomes necessary because of the hon. the Minister’s speech in this House two days ago. Unfortunately he is not here now. The hon. the Minister referred to an interview that I had given to the Press in connection with the previous Ciskei resolution and said that there had been confusion about our policy. Sir, there was confusion in the Press report as to what our attitude was. The one report read that we would not agree to any more additions to Trust land because we felt that the land which the Bantu had at the moment was adequate for their needs. Another report was that we would not necessarily give the Bantu all the land required in terms of the quota. Of course, both those reports were incorrect, and the Minister too made himself guilty in this House of an inaccurate representation of what I said. He said this, referring to me—

He suggested that I had said in my interview with the Press that we would give much more than the 1936 quota—

He said that I had said in this House that it was not necessary to buy all the quota land. What did I say, Sir? Unfortunately the Minister is not here, but I want to read out what I said in this connection. I said—

The Minister then went on to quote from the report of this Press interview and said that I had said that the Bantu could acquire land in the rural areas, and then he asked—

He said that I had said that the Bantu could buy land in the rural areas. Sir, in that same article from which he was quoting, the reporter in referring rural land said this—

He made it quite clear that a reference to the rural areas was a reference to the homelands.

Is that what you mean by rural areas?

The reporter made it clear in that article that the rural areas referred to the homelands. That hon. member should know what our policy is with regard to the question of land. He knows that outside of the reserves the only land that we will make available for Bantu ownership is land in the urban areas where the permanently urbanized Bantu will be allowed to own their own homes. We have never stated that we will allow the Bantu to buy farms in the rural areas; we have never said that.

May I ask the hon. member whether by “urban areas” he means the locations around towns and villages as well, or only cities?

The Bantu townships around the towns.

Any town?

In places where there is development, where it is necessary to establish Bantu townships. You have Bantu townships established throughout South Africa.

What about the existing locations?

What are the existing locations? What some people call locations, we call townships. I thought the Government preferred the word “townships” to “locations”. I thought it was one of the changes in terminology that the Government accepted. What some people refer to as locations, we refer to as Bantu townships. That is what I am referring to. Now, what did I say further in dealing with the matter? I set out our considerations and I want to repeat them and I will read it out for the hon. the Deputy Minister so that there can be no mistake on the Government benches as to what the considerations are that we bear in mind in regard to resolutions of this nature—

Now, Sir, why did the Minister yesterday make this attack and endeavour to mislead the people as to what our policy is?

*Is it because they have so much trouble with their own people about their policy in regard to the purchase of land? Nobody is satisfied with that policy; neither the Bantu nor the Whites are satisfied with that policy. Everywhere they are having trouble with the Bantu about that policy and they know that it is not acceptable to the Whites.

†In order to relieve the pressure on their policy they endeavour to mislead and to frighten the people about our policy.

Now, as far as this particular resolution before us is concerned, it falls within our requirements. Land which is lying idle at the moment is to be developed by the municipality for industrial development where employment will be given to Bantu. On the other hand we have another piece of vacant land which the municipality is going to transfer to the Bantu Trust and we understand from the discussions in the Select Committee that this land is going to be used for educational purposes; I think it will be used for a technical college. So in this transfer of land, this exchange of land here now, we find that both sections of the community will benefit. The Bantu will benefit because employment will be made available for them and they will have educational facilities given to them, and the Whites will benefit because of the income which is derived from the industrial development which will take place there. In other words, the economy as a whole is going to benefit by this particular transaction and therefore we support it. I hope that in future there will be no more argument or misunderstanding as to what our policy is as to matters of this kind.

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of this stage of the Session, I shall try to be as concise as possible. I hope the hon. member for Parktown will accept the position if I do not elaborate to any great extent, but merely refer to some points in regard to certain aspects of the arguments he advanced last night. The first fact I should like the hon. member to accept— and he is as aware of this as I—is that in the sophisticated economic systems of today it is accepted practice that the State must intervene and will intervene in order to manipulate economic trends. It follows just as logically then that one can hardly ever hope—or if so, very seldom— to get circumstances in which that intervention on the part of the State is not going to affect some person or body unpleasantly in some way or other; in other words, that that intervention will be absolutely painless. That is really wishful thinking.

We have the situation here that this Bill provides to a very large extent for intervention by the authorities in order to try to guide economic tendencies in specific directions. This must of necessity result in a certain amount of distress here and there. I do not think it can be avoided, and I think the hon. member for Parktown will accept the position as such.

This brings me immediately to the question of pension funds and insurance companies. I think the hon. member was probably correct when he said that these bodies do not feel very happy about these additional obligations now being imposed upon them by means of this legislation. The hon. member indicated that the Opposition is not happy about this either. It is just as obvious in this case that these people are affected. It probably does hurt a little and I shall indicate just now to what extent. It does hurt a little and they will inevitably have objections. I do not think, however, that the Opposition will necessarily have objections just because those people have. One must note, for example, that these people can meet those obligations, those additional commitments imposed upon them by investments in longterm Government securities. In the first place, it assures them of a reasonably high rate of interest, and interest rate which keeps pace fairly well with whatever the general interest-rate trends in the country may be. I am talking about long-term State debt. They can invest in it. Investment in long-term Government securities is to their advantage in that such investment is completely risk-free. The fact that such investment is completely without risk is, of course, important to their participants. Other more profitable investments may, on the contrary, hold more risk for their participants. When one considers that they receive these relatively high interest rates which the State offers on investments in long-term securities, and one looks at this in the light of the percentage increase which is applicable here and studies it in the overall picture of these bodies, I think the hon. member for Parktown must accept that the possible difference it can make as far as these bodies are concerned is a small fraction in terms of percentage— perhaps 0,1 per cent, perhaps 0,01 per cent —on the total turnover. Moreover, there is the fact that this practice which will now be applied is intended to finance our infrastructure. It is therefore in the public interest. In other words, it is in the interest of all. Furthermore, it is true that it is strongly anti-inflationary when one considers, for example, that those funds which are required for the infrastructure would otherwise have had to come from abroad. If they were found locally, it would only hurt somewhere else. If, however, they had to be found abroad, this would have a very strong inflationary effect. Here, therefore, we are in actual fact taking a step which is anti-inflationary, which consequently also benefits these bodies and creates greater stability in our country, economic stability, which, in turn, is also to the benefit of these bodies which are affected to the small extent I have indicated. Greater economic stability in the country means specific benefits for us all. That is all I have to say on this point.

The hon. member for Parktown asked for certain assurances in connection with the credit ceiling system. I can tell him that the steps being taken in connection with the Banks Act are intended to do away with that means of direct control and to revert to the more indirect control which is the more modern practice. I think the hon. member will accept that I cannot determine a date at the moment. I think the hon. member will also accept that calculations will have to be made and that certain adjustments will have to be effected—in other words, that there is going to be a gradual process of transition and that it is impossible to specify a date. The intention is to do away with this undesirable method.

The hon. member also mentioned the payment of interest on supplementary cash assets which could be held with the N.F.C. instead of with the Reserve Bank. This measure is envisaged. The hon. member will have to take account of the fact that the extent to which the supplementary cash can be diverted to the N.F.C., with a view to interest payments, will be determined by the circumstances prevailing at the time. It will depend upon the extent to which it is deemed necessary actually to sterilize money. As soon as interest is paid, it means that the money is taken and that the banks’ capacity to supply credit is restricted. On the other hand, the money has again to be brought into circulation in some other way so as to earn the interest to be paid on it. I wonder to what extent such funds will be able to earn interest. It will depend upon the circumstances—it will be dictated by the circumstances prevailing at the time. Where practicable and realistic, it is intended to divert interest to those people in that way.

The hon. member mentioned the position of the I.D.C. and of the Land Bank and asked whether they would remain in the picture. I think the hon. member realizes that the position in this regard is difficult at the moment. Here it will depend largely upon the way in which the pattern develops in the future and how funds become available for these two bodies in other spheres.

The hon. member for Parktown also referred to section 17 (2) (b) (ii) of the Banks Act, as amended by clause 14 of this Bill. The hon. member’s difficulty in this regard was not quite clear to me. All that is involved here is that these promissory notes, acceptances and bills which may now comprise 20 per cent of the supplementary requirements that may be laid down, can be excluded as a liquid asset by that subsection. It is probably a measure that will be applied very seldom, if ever. It is merely felt that that additional tooth must be retained for quite extraordinary circumstances so that it may be utilized in order to restrict any excessive liquidity that may arise. The hon. member also asked about the position of companies with limited liability and why they could not invest in building societies. He also asked when this day would come. In this case the reply is simply that the technical committee which has so far completed the work that is before us, will investigate this matter further. They are inquiring further into this matter, and at the moment this is a question that is being submitted to them for consideration. We have to await their findings in that connection.

The hon. member expressed doubt in regard to the possible weakening of the security the public now have in building societies as a result of the powers now being given to the Minister. I can assure him that there are so many restrictions and stipulations in the building society legislation that still have to be applied that I do not think there is any danger that the security of the public can be affected. Then there is the further assurance I can give hon. members opposite, namely, that a Minister of Finance will not, I am sure, make reckless use of these powers with which he is being invested.

The hon. member also had serious misgivings about the question of participation bonds and the amendments now being effected in that connection, namely, the minimum of R1 000 and the minimum period of five years for an investment. The hon. member’s objections are apparently very deep-seated, because he said that they were going to vote against these provisions. As far as the minimum amount of R1 000 is concerned, I want to tell him that I have been informed by the Financial Institutions’ Office that that scheme has accepted this amount and that some even want the minimum to be considerably higher. This is understandable, because the smaller the amounts, the greater the attendant administrative problems. The larger the amounts, the easier the administration that has to be undertaken by these offices. It is also pointed out that this investment is attended with risk and that the small man ought rather not to participate. This is apparently a game for a man with large capital resources. It is not a game for the man who wants to go into a financial institution of this nature with less than R1 000. The building societies are the proper institutions for him. It is felt that from the nature of the case, the type of institution we are dealing with here is geared to long-term business. It is felt that it would not be fair if this type of financial institution competed with the building societies and other financial institutions geared to short-term business and to the saving activities and saving capacity of the small man.

The hon. member raised the question of interest rates. The rate of 8½ per cent will not apply indefinitely. It will depend upon the way in which the situation develops and how the position in respect of interest rates develops. If it appears that the present 8½ per cent is going to affect these bodies in an unfair way, it is self-evident that the hon. the Minister of Finance will intervene. If economic tendencies change to such an extent that the hon. the Minister feels he can intervene, he will naturally do so, but in this connection too, I have received the assurance from the office I have just mentioned that a new scheme was started during the past month and, at an interest rate of 8½ per cent, has already received a considerable amount in investments. Naturally I cannot mention the amount, because then it will be possible to identify the concern. That is the position at the moment. As far as the comparison between interest rates is concerned, I want to say that I think the hon. member will agree with me that the interest rates advertised by the building societies are a trifle inflated, although not wrongly or misleadingly so. I think what is involved here is the tax-free investments that can be made with building societies, with the result that it is easy to calculate your actual rates of interest, as against the position when you do not make use of these tax-free investment facilities.

Although my reply has been fairly rapid, I do think that it has been a reasonably comprehensive reply to the points raised by the hon. member.

As the hon. the member for Parktown indicated in the Second Reading debate on this Bill, we are opposed to the provisions of this clause, because it has the effect of lengthening the minimum period for investment in a participation mortgage bond from three years to five years. We are also opposed to the prescription which is contained in this clause of a minimum investment of R1 000 in a participation mortgage bond, although we realize that probably most managers of these schemes will voluntarily limit the amount of investment that they will take. We see no reason why a smaller investor and one who wishes to invest less than R1 000 should be precluded from making an investment of this kind. If it is necessary to prescribe a minimum investment we think that R1 000 is too much and would suggest R500. But it is the five-year provision that we find most objectionable. That is a provision which cannot be viewed in isolation in this clause. Clearly this five-year provision is part of a whole pattern of actions by the Treasury to make investment in participation mortgage bonds less attractive and to pull the money that has been invested in these schemes away from them and into the building societies and to some extent into Government bonds. In practice, what has happened is that these measures taken in this pattern by the Government have over-killed the participation mortgage bond schemes and to all intents and purposes they are now as dead as a dodo. This pattern affecting participation mortgage bonds started last year with the abortive attempt by the Government to force participation mortgage schemes to invest a portion of their funds in Government bonds. That scheme failed because it was completely impracticable, besides being in conflict with the law. That was followed by the announcement in the Budget that the interest rate on participation mortgage bonds would be limited to a net 8½ per cent. That was the real mortal blow to participation mortgage bond schemes. Now the lengthening of the period of redeemability of an investment in a participation mortgage bond and scheme from three to five years is merely burying those schemes well below the ground. I will give reasons why I say so, and I am advised that that is already happening in practice. As the law stands at present, a participation mortgage bond investment will yield a maximum of 81 per cent which can, in certain circumstances, be adjusted downwards, but cannot be adjusted upwards. It is an investment which will, under this clause, be unredeemable for five years. It is an investment which ranks as a secure investment, but not as secure as an investment in a gilt-edged security or in a building society. It is an investment that attracts the full rate of taxation. Compare such an investment with one in a fixed period paid-up share in a building society. That investment yields 8 per cent, which is guaranteed against reduction for five years. It is taxable as a dividend, with the result that a married man without children who has an income solely from investments of this kind of more than R3 000 is better off receiving an 8 per cent dividend from a building society than 81 per cent interest from a participation mortgage bond. Or compare an investment in a participation mortgage bond with an investment in Government stock, which yields the same, namely 81 per cent. That investment is likely to appreciate in capital as interest rates go down, and is also completely marketable on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. Or compare the investment with an investment in other gilt-edged securities, such as municipal bonds, which are also likely to appreciate, earning yields higher than participation mortgage bonds, and which are also completely marketable. Clearly, Sir, if you couple this five-year redeemability limitation with the 81 per cent interest, participation mortgage bonds are no longer starters. What is the effect going to be of killing these schemes? Clearly building societies are going to benefit by an improved flow into their funds—that is something that we welcome, because we welcome the ability of building societies to expand their loans for the purpose of home-ownership. It may well improve the flow of funds to more attractive fixed interest investments, such as Government stocks, public utility stocks, municipal stocks, quoted debentures and unsecured notes. But by doing so, a very important source of finance for the development of flats and commercial and industrial buildings will disappear. Commercial buildings may not be so important at the moment, because in most centres there is a surplus of commercial accommodation available. But flat development is highly desirable to meet the housing requirements of the population. Industrial building development is also desirable if we are going to accommodate the increased output of industry which we are hoping to see from a growing economy.

I regard this clause as being completely unjustifiable interference with market forces, in conditions where those market forces are not working to the disadvantage of the economy as far as participation mortgage bond schemes are concerned.

One further problem is introduced by this clause, and that is that it stipulates that investment in a participation mortgage bond must remain for a minimum period of five years, even if the bond is repaid, and that the money repaid must be re-invested for the remaining period in another bond acceptable to the investors. What happens if the manager of the scheme is unable to find an alternative participation acceptable to the investor, or if the investor refuses the alternative offer? It may well happen that an alternative is offered at a lower rate of interest than that of the original bond and the investor is able to obtain higher interest rates outside, and the alternative investment is therefore unacceptable. To me this seems to be a deadlock that is not provided for in this clause. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid not much can be added to what I said in this connection in my Second Reading speech and again in my reply a few moments ago. I think the hon. member who has just resumed his seat accept, that, from the point of view of the Government, the national interest must be considered; when we begin to consider the national interest, our eyes immediately turn to institutions like building societies, which have to compete with this participation bond system. It is in the general national interest that the building societies should also enjoy prosperity. I have already indicated that the 8½ per cent is not fixed for all time. It is not the intention of the State to kill and bury these entrepreneurs as the hon. member suggested. It will be up to these undertakings to indicate and to produce proof that we are indeed killing them with this 8½ per cent. If they can produce that proof it will have to be looked at very positively. But thus far that proof has not been produced. In fact, the information at my disposal indicates that these undertakings are doing very well. That is the information that I furnished here too a few moments ago.

The hon. member asked what the position would be if a bond were redeemed before the expiry of the five years and the manager could not find another bond that would be acceptable to the participant. If that situation could be proved and it should appear the participant was not unreasonable, that he did not merely want his money back for some or other reason, it would be a different matter. If it should appear that that undertaking could not find a mortgagor acceptable to the participant and he was not unreasonable, he could go to the Registrar and the necessary redemption could be obtained with the approval of the Registrar. I therefore do not think this is an insurmountable problem, but I accept that the Opposition do not feel happy about this clause and that they will vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, clause 24 needs no elucidation. The same applies to clause 26. As far as clauses 27 and 28 are concerned-these measures have been agreed upon by the Government and the Opposition. Clause 30 is self-explanatory. Clause 35 seeks to keep the State President out of ordinary politics. I have already dealt with clause 32. As far as clause 33 is concerned. I may just mention that there can be no objection to it, since agreement has been reached between the Controller and Auditor-General and the Institute. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture will explain clauses 34 and 36 during the Committee Stage, if necessary.

†That, Mr. Speaker, brings me to the two clauses in respect of which I said that I would deal with them later, namely clauses 10 and 25. The amendments to these two clauses, Sir, arise from recommendations made by the commission of inquiry into matters relating to the security of the State, and to which, for the sake of brevity and convenience, I will refer as the Potgieter Commission, or the commissioner. We adopt the commissioner’s recommendations in toto. We do not query them at all; in fact, we maintain that they support what we contended in 1969, and I may say, although the amendments are self-explanatory, the principles reflected thereby must be seen against the background of what I am about to say and that which preceded the amendments, as well as in conjunction with the other provisions of the clauses concerned. The provisions in these two clauses relate, respectively, to sections 10 and 29 of the General Law Amendment Act, 1969. Sir, let us look at the clauses, and first of all at clause 10. The amendments to that clause, as recommended by the Potgieter Commission, are as stated in the Bill, but I want to draw attention pertinently to the fact that the commission has not suggested any amendment whatsoever to the wording of the 1969 amendment. The wording of the 1969 amendment remains in its present form. In fact, the commissioner has expressed the view that he is of the opinion that the definition of “security matter” should not be amended, subject to what is now inserted elsewhere in the subsection by this amendment which is being brought about? Without going into this difficult and highly technical field of “blameworthiness” in our law, suffice it to say that the effect of the amendment, is, firstly, to define more closely the degree of circumspection which constitutes guilt with reference to a contravention of the section and, for the sake of the technical principle, I repeat it in Afrikaans. “Die Potgieter verslag het gesê die effek van die wysiging is om die graad van omsigtigheid wat skuld met betrekking tot ’n oortreding van die artikel daarstel, nader te omskryf.” It amounts to this, that in considering the question whether mens rea, which is an element of a contravention of the section, has been proved, the circumspection aspect of mens rea must be considered in the light thereof as to whether the perpetrator exercised that degree of circumspection required by the circumstances of the particular case.

As far as the aspect of blameworthiness is concerned, Sir, I just want to mention that the other side of the House at that time argued that mens rea is not an element of the offence when information is published in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interests of the public. I do not think that the Opposition will deny that. This side of the House, on the contrary, argued that mens rea is an element. The commission has also decided so.

Since the date of the Commissioner’s report, this section has also come up for consideration in the Appellate Division in the case of S. v. Marais, 1971 (1), 844. In that case Mr. Justice Wessels said in connection with the mens rea aspect as follows—

In other words, what was contended at that time by this side of the House, and then he proceeded by saying—

I emphasize the word “uiterste”—

The degree of mens rea required by the section in its existing form does not seem to have been found fault with by the Appellate Division but, as I have said, the aspect of circumspection is now more closely defined so as to be considered in the light of the circumstances of each particular case.

The amendment has, however, also a further effect to which I must draw attention. It not only has a bearing on the provisions which were inserted in the subsection concerned in 1969, but it also qualifies, inter alia, those provisions of the subsection which were placed on the Statute Book in 1956 and, I want to add, with the approval of the other side of the House.

Briefly then, Sir, the amendment in this clause boils down to this, namely, that the element of mens rea which has been an element of a contravention of the subsection all along, is now spelt out in explicit language.

That brings me to clause 25, which amends section 29 of the General Law Amendment Act, 1969.

The amendments in this clause, Sir, are as recommended by the Potgieter Commission, and I think it is absolutely necessary at the outset to draw attention to certain important paragraphs in the Commission’s report, because basically the amendments do not change the main principle of section 29—namely the exclusion of evidence in certain circumstances upon Ministerial objection. That section will consequently, if amended as set out in this clause, mainly still have the same effect.

Firstly, Sir, Mr. Justice Potgieter says, in paragraph 244 of his report, that it was evident from some of the memoranda received by him, that there was considerable misapprehension about the legal position in regard to the exclusion of evidence on the grounds of the interests of the State or public security before section 29 was placed on the Statute Book, and that some think that there have never been cases where a citizen has been deprived by law of the right to give evidence, whether documentary or oral, before the court in criminal or civil proceedings and that section 29 is a serious violation of citizens’ rights. This idea, he says, is of course completely unfounded. The effect of the amendments, Sir, will therefore, not bring about any change in the law in this respect.

Secondly, Sir, I refer to paragraphs 278 and 279, and also to paragraph 247 of the report, which ought to remove a total misapprehension, as the amendments in this clause do not in any way affect the law as it was prior to section 29 and as confirmed by section 29. In those paragraphs, the Commissioner says in his report that various persons and bodies objected to section 29 on the grounds that an accused person in a criminal case may now be barred from giving oral evidence in his own defence. That was also maintained by the other side of the House. Then he proceeds by saying that it is almost inconceivable how such a case could ever arise, and, should it indeed happen, such a case could safely be left in the hands of the court. This position, the Commissioner says—and I emphasize it, Sir—was the same, however, before the passing of section 29, because even then the court could exclude evidence if it affected public interest, the interests of the State or the security of the State. Also as far as civil actions are concerned, it was argued that the question of costs could be affected should evidence be excluded under section 29. This, says the Commissioner, was the case before the passing of section 29, and there have never been any problems. The Commissioner also says in paragraph 247—

Section 29 has, therefore, Sir, not introduced something new in this respect.

Thirdly, I want to point out that the amendments, in so far as they relate to the security of the State, in no way detract from the main principle of section 29 (1). If amended, section 29 (1) will continue to have the effect, in so far as the security of the State is concerned, that a claim to secrecy done in the proper form by the Minister concerned will have to be accepted as conclusive by a court of law. In this respect, the Commissioner says that the exclusion of the residual powers of the courts should be limited to matters affecting the security of the State and that the responsible Minister to whom the protection of the security of the State has been entrusted are the only persons who should form an opinion as to whether the disclosure of information might be prejudicial to the security of the State. In paragraphs 276 and 277 of his report the Commissioner says that in various memoranda as well as in oral submissions it was submitted that, even in regard to information affecting the security of the State, the court should have the power to reject an objection properly made by a Minister. To this view, the Commissioner says, he cannot subscribe because when the security of the State is at stake no risk, however slight, should be taken of disclosing information if the security of the State might be prejudiced by such disclosure.

So far the amendments in general. I now deal with the amendments more in particular.

Firstly, Sir, the provisions of section 29 (1) are now being extended to apply not only to a court of law or a body or institution established by or under any law, but also to the giving of evidence before a commission as contemplated by the Commissions Act, 1947. In 1969 there were objections to the provisions which included also a body or institution established by or under any law, on the ground that those provisions were tremendously wide. Well, Sir, those provisions remain unchanged and are now, for the sake of completeness, extended to include commissions, since a commission is not a body or institution established by law.

Secondly, the provision relating to the production of a certificate by the responsible Minister is now substituted by a provision providing for the production of an affidavit by the responsible Minister. As reason for suggesting this amendment, the Commissioner quotes from a certain decided case where, inter alia, the following was said—

On the strength thereof, there can be no objection to the amended procedure. At the same time I may mention that the provisions in terms of which an objection may be made by an authorized person, are now deleted. It was of course never contemplated that persons other than persons in high authority would be authorized to exercise the powers under this section, but, on the strength thereof that the amendment will not detract from the main principle of section 29, reference to “authorized person” is deleted.

Thirdly, the provisions of section 29 are extended also to vest an Administrator, where matters relating to a provincial administration are involved, with the same powers a Minister has when the security of the State may be prejudicially affected. In this connection, the Commissioner says in his report that it is necessary that section 29 should also make provision for an affidavit by an Administrator as it is conceivable that there might be such matters affecting as far as an administration is concerned, the security of the State.

Fourthly, I come to another very important aspect of the amendments in this clause, and that is the restriction of the provisions of section 29 (1) to matters affecting the security of the State. In terms of section 29 (1) an objection properly made by a Minister will still, as mentioned earlier, have to be accepted as conclusive by a court of law. As far as the “interests of the State” other than the “security of the State” is concerned, section 29 (1) will now also govern those matters and a Minister may still, in appropriate circumstances, by means of an objection made in proper form, object to the production of certain information, but, by virtue of that provision the court retains its residual powers in terms of which the Minister’s objection may be rejected. The Commissioner is, however, of the opinion that it is almost inconceivable that this would ever happen. I may mention in passing that the provisions of section 29 (2) are also now being extended to include commissions of inquiry.

Now, Sir, it is all important that I, as far as the expression “security of the State” with regard to which section 29 (1) applies, refer to two very important paragraphs in the Commissioner’s report, namely, paragraphs 123 and 127. From those paragraphs it appears that the security or survival of the State may be endangered in various spheres and these spheres, as identified in evidence given to the commission, appear to be very wide, namely, military, political, economic, social, educational, psychological, subversive, terrorism, sabotage and espionage. The expression “security of the State” should, therefore, not be understood in the sense that it only applies in a case where an onslaught is made on the security of the State by means of physical violence. In my application of the rule, I was of the opinion that certain of the matters mentioned here, such as the economic and social and educational spheres and so forth, should be classified under the expression “interests of the State”, but, according to the report, it appears, depending of course on the circumstances of the case, that these spheres also fall under the expression “security of the State”.

It boils down to this, that section 29 (1), in spite of the amendment, still covers a wide range of matters. Now, Sir, it does not mean that a court of law will consider itself bound by the interpretation given by the commissioner to the expression “security of the State”. Therefore, I want to state plainly that should it occur that the expression “security of the State” is given a narrower meaning as set out in the commissioner’s report, I will not hesitate to consider a further amendment to the section in order to give effect to the commissioner’s report.

I want to conclude, Sir, by saying this: Section 29 did not come as something out of the blue to vest Ministers with powers they did not have before. The whole matter turns upon an important aspect in respect of which uncertainty was created as a result of an Appeal Court decision and which could not be left at that. In fact, the commissioner says in paragraph 262 of his report that the Appeal Court left the question open whether in cases where the security of the State, international relations or documents at a high level of executive authority were involved, the courts also possessed residual power. He also says that since time immemorial it has been the law in England that the courts may exclude evidence on the ground that admission thereof would be contrary to some aspect of public policy, and that the decision to claim secrecy should be taken by the Minister himself on his personal judgment. The decisions are divergent, however, on the question of who should give the final ruling.

I trust that the matter is now clear to all and that sections 10 and 29 will not, as the impression was created by the other side of the House at the time, be seen as something vicious having been forced on to the Statute Book.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at once that this Bill is welcomed by the official Opposition. Indeed, I would like to thank the hon. Mr. Justice Potgieter for the main provisions of this Bill. Hon. members know that the hon. the Minister referred to those stormy debates that we had and the stormy times that followed with the passing of the General Laws Amendment Bill in 1969. The furore was all about clauses 10 and 29 of that Bill, which has now become an Act. Those sections have now been amended by clauses 10 and 25 respectively of this Bill. Hon. members will recall that we fought the Bill which has since become an Act tooth and nail. We fought both these clauses in the Committee Stage and the House divided on them with no success. Indeed, the hon. the Minister was not the gentleman who piloted it through; it was the former Deputy Minister of Justice who has been seconded to the Free State as Administrator since then. When the hon. the Minister said that the amendments supported what the Government said in 1969 about clause 10 of the Bill which was then before the House, I laughed at the time, but that will not be recorded in Hansard. I would just like to record that that is not so. The reason why we divided on clause 10, which was an amendment to the Official Secrets Act, and which made it an offence to say anything and to communicate in respect of a matter which was being dealt with by the Bureau of State Security, amongst other things, was given to this House. As we pointed out, it was impossible to know what the Bureau of State Security was dealing with. Indeed, it was in the public interest that no one should know what the Bureau of State Security was dealing with. We proposed amendments in this regard. The gravamen of our case was indeed that the elements of mens rea should be in the Bill. In other words, it should have been provided that a person only committed an offence if he knew or ought reasonably to have known that this was in fact a matter being dealt with by the Bureau. That is precisely what Mr. Justice Potgieter recommends should be put in this clause. He recommends that this Bill should be amended precisely as we indicated.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to write an article in a legal magazine which is recognized by the legal practitioners in this country, in which he will say that the Commissioner has found that the hon. Opposition has recommended precisely what he has found? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary to consult Hansard, but should the hon. member want to do so, I refer him to the Second Reading Debate on 11th June, 1969, as it appears in the English edition of Hansard.

†Further I want to refer him to the Assembly Hansard of the 13th June, 1969, col. 7962 following. There he will find that that is what our argument was about. That is what our objection was. That is what the hon. Judge proposed should be done. He recommended that this be amended in that form, exactly as we suggested, maybe not in those words, but in respect of that matter. We divided in this House on that. What is more …

That hon. member voted against us.

Yes, indeed. But it goes further than that. In relation to clause 25 of this Bill, the old section 29, I want to say that this was a matter dealing with State privilege. The hon. the Minister said that the amendments proposed in clause 25 do not change the major provisions of the 1969 Act and that it does not affect the principle of section 29. This, again, is not so. What was suggested from this side of the House? It was suggested that there should not be just a certificate from a Minister who wished to exclude evidence, but that it should be an affidavit. We said that an official should not be able to do this and that only Ministers of State should be able to do it. Furthermore, what we objected to, to a large degree, was that this made no distinction between what was related to the security of the State and what was the interest of the State. Indeed, we went out of our way to point out that this Government had great difficulty in

knowing what was in fact in the interest of the State and what was in the interests of the Nationalist Party. We made that very point. What has happened? The Judge has found that this provision should be amended in those respects. If hon. members look at it, they will see in line 40, first of all, that it should not be a certificate but an affidavit. In the second place, it should not be in respect of a matter affecting the interests of the State, but only a matter relating to the security of the State and also that no official should be able to do it. These are all the things we fought about. All the things that we fought for are now being recommended by the Judge and are now being accepted by the Government. Perhaps the most important paragraph in this regard in the Potgieter Commission report—and the hon. gentlemen should take note of it—is paragraph 273 which reads as follows—

The hon. the Minister is not here.

Where is he?

I do not see him.

He will be back in a minute.

As a matter of fact, when I stood up I saw him go out.

I am taking notes for him. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of Health also voted in favour of these provisions the Judge said were wrongly passed, but I suppose he knew as much about it as some of his friends at the time and he will probably be just as competent to deal with the matter as some of his friends were at that time.

Order! That is beside the point.

Now, what happened after this? One of the arguments that was advanced at the time by this Government and later espoused by the hon. the Prime Minister was that section 29 had been the law in Great Britain for more than a hundred years. The case that was quoted was the Thetis submarine case, Duncan v. Cammel-Laird, in the House of Lords and they relied upon that. Can one credit it that when that debate took place and these things were said, the House of Lords had in fact, 18 months before the debate in this House, overruled the decision which this Government said had been the law in England for 100 years, in the case of Conway v. Rimmer in the House of Lords? It is almost unbelievable that a Government can be as badly informed as that. What is worse is that there was talk at the time that there was confusion in the various courts. The case of Van der Linde v. Calitz in the Appeal Court was quoted, and that resolved all the difficulties. That is also what we said, namely that section 29 did not reflect the common law. “No,” the Government said, “it did”, and I said it reflected Van der Linde v. Calitz. If one looks at the report one sees that the Judge says that this is precisely what it does not do. I want to put on record what happened thereafter to give some indication of the arrogance of this Government. What happened thereafter was that having been ruled out here by a majority voting wrongly, the Bar Council took this matter up. All the Bar councils of this country took this matter up and opposed these two sections, especially section 29. Every legal authority of any note in this country opposed it. We then had the unprecedented happening of a Judge of the Supreme Court feeling that it was necessary for him to speak about this, Mr. Justice Kobie Marais. Then the whole of the country was suddenly aware and awake to what this section meant.

And the Transvaal Law Society?

The Pretoria Bar was one of those who opposed it, and the hon. member for Prinshof will appreciate that. After all this the then Deputy Minister, Mr. Froneman, went around the country compounding his mistake, saying all sorts of strange things. Then, in the end, the hon. the Prime Minister entered into the picture. He then spoke in Pretoria. Hon. members will remember that at that time the Hertzogites were making a great fuss about BOSS. This is what worried him. The hon. the Prime Minister addressed a meeting and said that he was going to appoint a commission of inquiry into State security, because he was worried about what the Herstigte Nasionale Party was saying about BOSS.

Where did he say that in his speech?

Of course he did not say that, but I am telling you that was why. I will also tell the hon. member something else. It is quite clear that the hon. the Prime Minister, when he appointed that commission, did not intend that the Judge should look at sections 10 and 29. If you ask why do I say that I will tell you. Because at the time in the very same speech as he announced the appointment of this commission the Prime Minister said that a lot of nonsense had been spoken about section 29, that this has always been the law and that he had experience of it. In other words, he judged the issue then and there and if that was his view he wouldn’t have asked a Judge to have a look at it. But for Mr. Justice Pot- gieter’s report, and but for the fact that Mr. Justice Potgieter felt that his terms of reference were so wide as to include an examination of sections 10 and 29, the law would not have been altered today. We are pleased that he in fact interpreted his terms of reference in that way and we are also delighted that this was made public and that the law is now to be changed as we suggested it should be at the time. How many more examples are there like this, where the Opposition puts its case, the Opposition argues it, and what happens?— Nothing! Just “kragdadigheid”. The Government has its way right or wrong. I hope they learn a lesson from this and that they will in future appreciate that what is said in Parliament by the Opposition should be taken notice of. Then the hon. the Minister says that next time if there is any doubt about the interpretation of what the security of the State means in the application of section 29, as being amended by clause 25, they won’t hesitate to come back and amend it. I hope that before it does he will have the wisdom to go and talk to Mr. Justice Potgieter first and not make the same faux pas, the national disgrace almost, that was made on the last occasion.

I do not wish to detain the House long. As I have indicated it is a Bill which is acceptable to us. We are also pleased that the clauses dealing with Judges’ pensions have been introduced because we think it is time that there was a change in this connection. We are pleased that sworn appraisers are now deemed not to hold offices of profit. There was doubt about this, in fact there was reasonable ground for having doubt about it. Indeed there is a judgment of Lord De Villiers before Union which would seem to indicate that they might have held offices of profit under the Republic.

We also welcome the clause dealing with the prohibition of the killing of dogs for meat and for their pelts. My hon. friend for Green Point will talk upon that during the Committee Stage. Indeed, all the clauses of this Bill are unobjectionable to us, save clauses 4 and 5, which deal with the question of entertainment in licensed premises, entertainment relating to the body beautiful, but I do not think this is the time to discuss it. We will deal with that in the Committee Stage.

In so far as those provisions which amend the Suppression of Communism Act is concerned, it seems to us that in any event the hon. the Minister has these powers in terms of the Act. They do not seem to us to be necessary, but the reasons the hon. the Minister gave in his Second Reading speech on Friday night, seem to be adequate reasons for the provisions which are herein provided.

At this stage we will postpone further discussion of this Bill to the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Justice pointed out in his Second Reading speech that most of these recommendations of the Potgieter Commission correspond to the arguments this side of the House put forward in 1969. The hon. member for Durban North was then overcome by a hysterical fit of laughter, absolutely hysterical. The hon. member for Durban North also went further and referred to the debates of 1969, relating them to the Potgieter Commission report, and reaffirming that the legislation today, which is representative of the Potgieter Commission Report, is precisely what the Opposition suggested in 1969. But, Sir, the hon. member for Durban North, earlier this year during one of the debates on 17th February, made an extremely sharp and completely unjustified attack on the hon. the Prime Minister in this House. Some things which the hon. member for Durban North said compel me to regret that one feels obliged to confine onself to parliamentary language. I should now like to try to prove to you, Sir, with reference to the standpoint the hon. member again adopted here today, that the essence of the hon. Opposition’s suggestions was not accepted in the Potgieter Report, and that the amendments which are now before the House, do not affect the essence of the 1969 legislation. Earlier this year the hon. Opposition also tried by way of Press statements to create the impression among the public that the Potgieter Commission Report had accepted completely the essence of the Opposition’s suggestions. What is the position now? Earlier this year the hon. member for Durban North, by way of introduction and with reference to the credibility or otherwise of the hon. the Prime Minister on these matters. to which he referred again today—I shall quote this from the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister when he announced this Commission—said the following (Hansard, col. 1293)—

Then the hon. member took this further and said the following (col. 1295)—

The hon. member must please do the House the favour today of quoting where the Prime Minister said this of Mr. Justice Potgieter specifically. The hon. member then went further and said (col. 1297)—

Now I ask the hon. member for Durban North: If it is not stated in his Report, here is my Potgieter Commission Report. The hon. member must now quote to the House from the Report where the Potgieter Commission impugns and attacks the credibility of the Prime Minister. I do not think that any person who is credible, would say a thing like that.

I think you can do better than that.

No, Sir, the hon. member has since the beginning of the year been making these acrimonious speeches. We still remember his speech attacking the hon. the Minister of Justice. He made this speech attacking the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to these matters. He must not say to me: “You can do better than that.” If only I were allowed to, I would have done considerably better—that I can guarantee you, with all due respect to the Chair!

Arising out of this, I should like to refer hon. members to paragraphs 241 and 243 of this report. Paragraph 241 reads—

Then he went further in paragraph 243—

But, Sir, the hon. member again wanted to state matters here as if they were facts, until I asked him by way of an interjection: “Show me where the hon. the Prime Minister said in his speech that this commission was being appointed as a result of criticism levelled by the Herstigte Na- sionale Party? I should like to refer the hon. member fo relevant sections of the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister when this commission was appointed; this was the speech which he made before the National Party congress in Pretoria on 10th September, 1969. This afternoon the hon. member wanted to attack the hon. the Prime Minister again, implying that he had misled the House and the general public by saying what the position in English law had been for as far back as 100 years; and what did the hon. the Prime Minister say? He said, inter alia (translation)—

Here the hon. the Prime Minister was simply referring to the Conway v. Rimmer case. [Interjections.] I am referring to the charges made by the hon. member.

The Prime Minister only said that after we had pointed it out.

Sir, if we must argue about credibility here today, what else did the hon. the Prime Minister say? He said—

Mr. Speaker, does this not include section 10 and 29? What becomes of the charge made a moment ago by the hon. member? Then the hon. the Prime Minister continued—

Sir, you therefore see who the people are who dare to want to impugn another person’s credibility. This is what appeared in the Press, and it is stated here in black and white what the hon. the Prime Minister said, that if the Potgieter Commission should recommend it, the Government would take the necessary steps in that regard. Sir, what happened further. When this Commission was announced by the hon. the Prime Minister, a statement was issued which reads as follows (and I am quoting what the Prime Minister said from Die Burger of 6th September, 1969)—

Sir, that is the position. The hon. member must not think that attacks of this kind on the credibility of honourable people can simply be allowed to go unanswered. But let us consider further what the real standpoint of the United Party was in regard to this matter. In col. 1293, the hon. member for Durban North said the following—

The hon. member went on to say the following—

Sir, I have told you what the standpoint of the United Party was in respect of mens rea. The standpoint of the United Party was also that the legislation adopted in 1969 changed the situation in respect of mens rea by creating a situation where mens rea was of no importance whatsoever. That is what the United Party standpoint was. And what was the Government standpoint? The hon. the Deputy Minister stated it very, very clearly. I am quoting from column 7968, where the Deputy Minister said—

That was the standpoint of the Government throughout. The standpoint of the Government was that the position in respect of mens rea was not being altered in any respect by this legislation. But now the hon. member tells us that this legislation has effected a change in the situation. Surely the hon. member knows better. The hon. member is a person who has previously in this House referred disparagingly to the legal knowledge of hon. members on this side of the House. It is difficult for a person not to hurl back at the hon. member his comment in this respect which he so frequently makes in regard to certain members on this side, and particularly in regard to the hon. the Deputy Minister, who dealt with this legislation at the time.

Mr. Speaker, the Potgieter Commission Report went further and confirmed in paragraph 233 that mens rea is an element of a contravention of section 3 (2), which inter alia is under discussion here. Sir, what also strikes one is the decision given in the case of the State v. Arenstein, in 1964, when a similar provision was considered by the Appeal Court, and when the Appeal Court said the following—

In paragraph 235 Mr. Justice Potgieter went further in respect of this same matter with which the amendment deals, and he does not say that proof of mens rea is not a requirement; he simply says that a clearer definition of this aspect would be fairer. Sir, what happened then, after the Potgieter Commission Report? After the Potgieter Commission Report, in the case of the State v. Marais, which was quoted by the hon. the Minister of Justice, the Appeal Court confirmed the standpoint adopted in the case of Arenstein in 1964 in regard to the relevant section to which I referred here. Sir, if one reads all these things in conjunction with one another, then this recommendation in the Potgieter Commission Report is not even necessary, because the principle was already established by the Appeal Court. Sir, let us see what amendments the Opposition moved in 1969. Their amendments related only to a reference to the Bureau for State Security. I refer you, Sir, to column 7962, where an amendment by the hon. member for Transkei was moved; I refer you to column 9787, where the hon. member for Musgrave moved an amendment. I have the wording of the amendment in front of me, but I do not have the time to quote it. Not one of these proposed amendments in respect of section 10 was sustained in the Potgieter Commission Report. On the contrary, what was in fact sustained, is the standpoint of the Government and the courts that mens rea is an element of a contravention of this section, and that it should be regarded as such. This is confirmed in the Potgieter Commission Report.

Sir, the hon. member also referred to section 29, which is clause 25 of this Bill. Here the hon. member went even further. Today he quoted quite a few things from this Report to support his unjustified charges made earlier this year. I should like to place this on record here, and then I shall again make my Report available to the hon. member and then he should look again to see whether he can find these passages for us. And what did he say? He said this about the above-mentioned legislation, in column 1296—

Then he says: “He found that he …”—and is referring each time to the hon. the Prime Minister—

He then went on to say—

Today the hon. member simply qualified this again by saying what was in the interests of the State and what was in the interests of the National Party. This is the vein in which the hon. member keeps on discussing these matters.

I said that in 1969 too.

Yes. I am quoting what you said in the debate that year. Then the hon. member went further and he said the following—

In other words, the Prime Minister is an expert when it comes to lapses in respect of the interests of the State or the security of the State—

And this arrogant gentleman is apparently the hon. the Minister of Justice, to whom the hon. member had referred. Sir, I am again asking the hon. member for Durban North this question. Here is my report in English and in Afrikaans, and I challenge him, I tell him that he cannot in any respect prove any of the six statements he made here. Now I ask the hon. member again whether these are the kind of statements a credible person makes. He can decide for himself. I know what my decision is. Then the hon. member went further and said (column 1297)—

I am repeating it. But what was the essence of the United Party’s objections, these people who protested so vehemently? It was that under this legislation, in terms of section 29, a person could be prohibited from giving evidence in his own interests in a criminal court or a civil action through a certificate issued by a Minister. That was the essence of their objection, and secondly: What was included under “interests of the State”? These were the two matters at issue, and the hon. members conducted the entire debate, or certainly 90 per cent of the debate, around the question that a person could be prohibited from giving evidence in his own interests in court. And then the hon. member for Durban North even asked the following question: Where in the Western world is there a provision which allows a Minister to prohibit a person, if such person is an accused in a court, to give evidence on his own behalf? And then he said the hon. the Deputy Minister should not look so shocked. But let us ascertain what the position is. After all, the hon. member had the Report at his disposal, and I am referring here to paragraph 244 in which Mr. Justice Potgieter gives the hon. member a reply. After all, the hon. member had this Report before him; why does he not correct the nonsensical things he said? The hon. judge said the following—-

Some think …

And that word “some”, I am very certain, refers to the hon. member. He could not have been referring to any other person—

It is just so much nonsense, as are many other sections of the hon. member’s speech—

What does the learned Judge say in paragraph 247? He says this—

These are the replies given by Mr. Justice Potgieter to the hon. members. What does Mr. Justice Potgieter state further concerning the same question, and this is the point around which the entire debate centred in 1969 (paragraph 246)—

There is no doubt about what the standpoint of the learned judge in this connection was, but now the Opposition comes along and they move certain amendments in respect of this section. The most important of these was dealt with by the hon. the Minister, but the hon. member for Durban North went further with these amendments, and he said the following in column 8030—

On this point, once again, the hon. member was given a very clear reply by the learned Judge in paragraph 278, and I do not want to elaborate any further on that.

Are you for or against the improvement?

Do not ask me such a stupid question, while you know that this amendment concerns the essence of the legislation in 1969 and that the essence of the legislation is not altered by this amendment. But the amendments proposed by the hon. member in 1969 have absolutely nothing to do with the essence of these amendments, and you are trying to create the impression among the general public that the Potgieter Commission report reprimanded the hon. the Prime Minister. You want to make a political issue of this matter, and we are not prepared to allow you to do that. The learned Judge went further here. The concern which hon. members had that a certificate could be issued prohibiting a person from giving evidence in court on his own behalf, is now being expanded in this section in the amendments which are before you. In the amendments which are before you, in the relevant clause, there are five sections referring to that. The Opposition’s proposal in 1969 was that not only those two Ministers, the Prime Minister and the Minister entrusted with State security, should be entitled to issue a certificate, and the judge is now recommending, and this legislation is providing that all Ministers may issue such a certificate which will have the same effect. The legislation and the recommendations go further. It is being extended to administrators and to commissions in respect of which the Commissions Act applies. Then the report goes further in regard to one point which was not debated in 1969, and says that this certificate should be made under oath. But what is interesting now, is that the Opposition intimated throughout, and did so again in the debates this year, that the 1969 legislation prejudiced and brought about a complete change in the whole essence of the right to give evidence in one’s own interest, and what was in the public interest. But what does the Supreme Court say? We need not listen to what the United Party says. What does the Supreme Court say in a recent case, in 1971, in the Free State division of the Supreme Court, in the case of Geldenhuys V. Pretorius?

Order!

This is typical of the United Party. The moment it is demonstrated to the world that their stories cannot be believed, one has this type of circus on the opposite side. But what does the learned Judge say in the case of Geldenhuys V. Pretorius?—

That is what the Judge said. Then the Judge went further—

The following is the most important point, particularly as a result of the reference made by the hon. the Minister to paragraph 127, where State security is now fully defined—

He goes further—

I do not think there is a better reply to the arguments raised by the hon. members in respect of the essence of the legislation in 1969 and in debates this year and today in this House than the reply in the Geldenhuys case, which I have just quoted.

I want to conclude by saying that since 1969 the hon. Opposition has been going out of its way to bring the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Justice and the then Deputy Minister of Justice, who dealt with the legislation at that time, into discredit with the public and to attack their credibility outside this House and bring it into discredit. When the Potgieter Commission’s report was made available, hon. members on the opposite side of the House did not have the courage to return with this Potgieter report to the same Press, and to the same organizations and to say that the report had in certain respects not agreed with them, and that it did not impugn the credibility of either the officials or the Government dealing with this legislation. I say, with all due respect, that to this day the Opposition still does not have the courage to stand up and say that this is the position.

Your time is up.

Order! If the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District does that again, I shall ask him to leave the Chamber. I am warning him now.

Mr. Speaker, I want very briefly to state my attitude in regard to this Bill. I must say it is a relief to have a General Law Amendment Bill which I do not have to oppose at Second Reading. In previous years there has always been a clause or perhaps two clauses which were so objectionable that I had to oppose the Bill at Second Reading. Indeed, in the case of the General Law Amendment Bill of 1969, which contains clauses 10 and 29 and as far as I was concerned, clause 23, to which I objected, I opposed the Second Reading and actually moved that “this day six months” should be inserted. I mainly did that because of clauses 10 and 29, but also because of clause 23. In previous years I have also opposed Second Readings because until the last few years there has always been the very objectionable Sobuk- we clause. I am very glad indeed to find that this General Law Amendment Bill omits such a Sobukwe clause. There have been other General Law Amendment Bills in the past which have introduced what I call restrictions on civil rights and which have introduced various laws allowing detention without trial which I also opposed for that reason. I am glad to say that I can support the Second Reading of this Bill which contains nothing objectionable to that extent as far as I am concerned, although I do not like and will oppose clause 6 since I opposed the introduction of the original section 5 quat in Act 44 of 1950.

Clause 6?

Yes, I am going to oppose clause 6. I shall support clause 10 as it is an improvement on the original. I am very pleased about the “animals” clause which does not only include dogs, but includes any animals. The hon. the Minister wishes to stop gentlemen like Mr. De Villiers Smit from slaughtering and serving up dogs as pelts. I am glad to see that the hon the Minister is also able to prevent the slaughtering of cats and other domestic animals he cares to include. I am particularly glad about cats as you can imagine. Then, I think, that clause 25 is obviously an improvement on clause 29. I do not want to get involved in the crossfire between the hon. member for Potchef- stroom and the hon. member for Durban- North. I, personally, am always so pleased about small mercies. I long ago gave up expecting big mercies in this House; so I am always pleased to receive small mercies and I do not think there is any point in gloating about them when they in fact do appear on the floor of the House. I am very pleased that improvements have been introduced in this Bill. I think clause 25 is still fairly wide, but it is a narrowing of the existing legislation. For those reasons I shall support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

(Committee Stage)

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, this clause is the clause being introduced to prevent the holding of a strip-tease show in licensed premises. I want to say in the first place that the whole clause in fact is completely unnecessary. Section 12 of the Publications Act covers this subject adequately. The Publications Board which, we all know, is certainly not a liberal body or a body of left wingers who allow questionable entertainment, has full power. But, over and above that, there is control through the normal law. The indencency laws deal with this, Any policeman can be called in by anybody who has a complaint and he can act immediately on the grounds of public indecency, but, nevertheless, if the hon. the Minister feels it is vital, in addition to all the other powers, to ban any offensive, indecent or obscene act again we will not object to it.

But the hon. the Minister goes very much further in this clause than merely dealing with offensive, indecent or obscene acts. In any case, who decides what is offensive? He goes further and introduces the wording “who is not dressed or not properly dressed to perform or to appear”. That means not only must the owner of a hotel, the licensee, ensure that a person who is performing a stage performance must be, what the law calls, “dressed and properly dressed,” but he must decide whether any other person who is on those licensed premises is dressed, not dressed, or not properly dressed. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he considers Women’s Lib as being properly dressed? Or must everybody now go around checking for Women’s Lib? Is he putting bras behind bars?! He is placing the onus of deciding whether a person is properly dressed on a hotel licensee with no definition of what is “properly dressed”. One can judge what is “not dressed”, but you cannot judge what is “properly dressed” because every person has a different opinion to what is “proper dress”. There are some hotels where they still do not allow ladies in slack suits, where they will not allow a man in a safari suit. There are other hotels which accept a safari suit as proper dress. However, there are some hotels, particularly in my constituency and on the Natal Coast, where holidaymakers stay. They can come on to the veranda of a hotel in a bathing costume. In terms of this clause, if they are not properly dressed, the licensee commits an offence, can be punished and can, in fact, ultimately lose his licence. The hon. the Minster says: “Read the clause.” I have just read the clause.

Read it again.

The clause reads “a person who appears not dressed or not properly dressed”. Does the hon. the Minister accept a person wearing a bikini as properly dressed? I read further—

I want to ask him whether a hotel with an indoor swimming pool is a place to which the public has access.

Yes.

The hon. the Minister confirms that a swimming pool on licensed premises is a place to which the public has access. So, if a person, an attractive girl in a bikini, sits on the steps of the swimming pool at the Elangeni Hotel, she has then, in terms of this clause, to be properly dressed. Who decides what is “properly dressed”? [Interjections.] Hon. members are making queer noises. The Minister is asking this House to make a law and I am dealing with what the law says. I am saying that it goes far beyond entertainment, and places an unreasonable onus on hoteliers which they cannot, in fact, carry out.

However, let me turn to the other aspect, the aspect of strip-tease itself. In the first place, the only people who are allowed into licensed premises are adults. They must be over the age of 18 years. Secondly, they go there voluntarily. Nobody forces them to go. They go voluntarily and very often they have to pay an additional cover charge if there is a floor show.

An uncover charge!

An “uncover charge” is perhaps a better description. Thirdly, there are other lounges and bars in those licensed premises to which that person can go if he or she does not want to attend the entertainment. Anyway, why should the Minister of Justice impose his own neurosis on the public of South Africa in regard to what they should see or not see? We are living in the 20th century. We are living in an age where these things are common throughout the world. I have been to a place like the Lido; I have seen the show at the Lido in Paris, one of the most artistic shows one could ever see. It is only a person with a dirty or a distorted mind who could see evil in that sort of show. [Interjections.] Anyone who says that the Lido in Paris is not an artistic show, needs to see a “trick-cyclist”. He needs to have his brains examined. I have seen the Folies Bergêres, I have seen Raymond’s Review Bar. All of them are artistic shows to which any adult can go. When I walked out, unlike what apparently these hon. members think would happen, I did not go chasing bunny girls round the fountain. Normal civilized human beings do not do that sort of thing, but apparently this Government has to bring in a law because it cannot trust the South African male. The implication of this clause is that this Government, and those members, (a) don’t trust themselves, and (b) they are insulting every South African male by implying that if they see normal adult shows, they are going to lose control of themselves, and that this is therefore an evil that must be stopped. In fact, after you have seen some of these shows you get bored. I once got much more fun winning a bottle of champagne for dressing a stripper after she had stripped than watching her undress. That is quite an amusing sort of entertainment which I saw in Berlin. These are the things that go on in the capitals of every country in the world, including the most conservative. There are two types of this sort of entertainment: there is the decent and there is the sleazy. There is the sleazy, that which is designed to encourage undesirable practices. You don’t find that sort of entertainment in the sort of hotels which is affected by this legislation. In the first place these hotels have to have a high standard and to put on that sort of entertainment they have to charge high fees. You are therefore dealing with a sophisticated sort of person who goes there. There are plenty of laws to deal with the uncontrolled and undesirable type. In any case, they are not covered by this law, because that sort of show does not take place on licensed premises. The sort of show that takes place on licensed premises is the sort of show which usually has some artistic touch to it. If it becomes indecent or obscene it can be dealt with quite easily under existing legislation or under subclause 1.

I move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. I want to say that in any event, the language used in the new paragraph (hA) (ii) is quite inappropriate. It is very inappropriate to use in the English language the words “dressed” and “properly dressed”. The Afrikaans is correct, namely “gekleed”. To dress is to adorn in some way. One dresses a bird. [Interjections.] The bunny girl which the hon. member for Durban Point would not chase around the fountain would be “properly dressed” as an attractive waitress, but she might not be properly clothed. I think, for the intention the hon. the Minister has in mind the word to be used is “clothed”. Surely this is the word to use, and I cannot understand why a Bill should mutilate the English language to the extent that the word “dressed” be used when it should be “properly clothed”. After all, to clothe means to cover or “properly cover” is to clothe to that degree which the body must be covered. To dress means something different. It may be that a man could be improperly dressed if he is not wearing a black tie on a certain occasion when he should be wearing a black tie. If he wears a loud shirt with a loud tie with a dinner jacket, he would not be properly dressed.

Like Frank Waring— he wears his medals on the wrong side.

There are matters of that sort when it comes to dressing. Apart from the fact that the clause, as it is worded, is not a valid clause because it is ambiguous and has no meaning—and the language that is used is inappropriate. Laws do exist for action if there is any impropriety or indecency so far as clothing is concerned. The evil—if there is an evil —to the beholder can be dealt with by one of the various other Acts which we have in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point, as regards the amendment he moved, made the mistake of thinking that the artistic performances he saw at the Lido and the Folies Bergères in Paris are the type of performance the Government wants to prohibit here. I do not think he can say with any justification that we have ever had in South Africa an example of the type of performance he saw in the Lido.

I have seen the Folies Bergères in South Africa.

The performance of the Folies in South Africa has not been prohibited by any steps taken by the Government here. The hon. member tried to draw a comparison between two things which cannot be compared. The first is the performance on the part of a number of artists who, let me put it this way, were not fully dressed, and the second is the type of performance which has now obviously taken place in South Africa. It was no artistic performance whatsoever, but an unartistic, performance. A quite obscene, performance.

You are verkramp.

This Bill provides that the Government will not permit any person who is not dressed or not properly dressed, because we have had this type of obscene appearance in South Africa. South Africa is a proper and decent country. My hon. friend for Port Elizabeth Central, who interjected by shouting that I am verkramp because I say South Africa is a decent country and wants to remain so, is missing the ball completely.

You are verkramp in all respects.

He must not confuse being proper and decent with being verkramp. Being verkramp has nothing to do with being proper and decent.

I think we now have to make the standpoint of the United Party in this regard quite clear. The standpoint of the United Party is that this half-baked, improper and obscene performances we have had in certain hotels, performances of a very poor standard, should be allowed to continue. Then I want to tell the hon. member that he is being quite silly to say that a lady in a bikini at the swimming bath of the Elangeni Hotel in Durban be affected by the provisions of this Bill. Of course, that is quite silly. In the first place, the Bill applies only to people who give a performance—in other words, before an audience. The clause reads—

I think the hon. member can agree with me on this score. We need not differ on these facts. A lady in a bikini is most certainly not improperly dressed. That is not something this Bill applies to.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage, without taking up the time of the House unnecessarily, I just want to express my gratitude to the Department of Justice for inserting this clause, because it will, to a great extent, facilitate the work of the Publications Board since they do not, perhaps, go and see this type of thing as I and the hon. member for Durban Point do, and is therefore not always in a position to see what is going on at some places. We must bear in mind that the word “obscene” appears in the Bill. They are not always able to see what goes on at places such as those. The Police, who are young men who go round and look at these things all over the place, will be better able to see to it, as I put it initially, that we are not on the slippery downward path. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to be firm on this clause and not to accept the amendment. I think this is one of the additional weapons we are getting to help us in the struggle against pornography, against undesirable elements and impropriety.

Sir, I rise just to reply briefly. In order to show what type of thing we want to counteract, I want to quote from a letter written to my department by an English-speaking lady. She writes as follows—

[Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I cannot proceed when that hon. member behaves in that fashion.

Order! That hon. member must please contain himself.

This is what an English-speaking lady wrote to my department. She wrote—

The position is that it is always a factual question whether a person is or is not properly dressed; and whether or not a bikini at a private swimming pool at a private house is or is not decent. In the long run it is the court that decides, not the board. If, in the opinion of the Police, things go wrong, they will take the necessary photographs, and those will then be submitted to the court as evidence, and it is for the court to decide on the facts whether a certain thing is offensive or not. The hon. member is quite right when he says that this will place on the licensee the onus of deciding for himself whether a court will perhaps consider this thing as offensive. Of course, the provision applies only to places where there is a performance or some or other form of entertainment.

No.

The clause reads—

“Or to which” not “and to which”.

“Or to which.”

Read it again.

Sir, there is nothing in this. I am not going to decide nor is the board going to decide. If there is any contravention, the Police will go and have a look, and if they think it is outrageous, the person will be charged. The necessary proof will be submitted to the court and the court will then decide.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister cannot get away with this sort of nonsense. In the first place he is completely wrong when he says that this applies only where entertainment is taking place. The clause says clearly, “Where entertainment of any kind is held or to which the public has access”. Therefore there need not be entertainment taking place. It can be any place in the hotel to which the public has access. In fact, technically it could include the cloakrooms, because the public has access to the cloakrooms, and any person who was undressed in a cloakroom, technically, would be breaching this clause. So this does not apply only to entertainment, to start with. The Minister is wrong there. Secondly, we are not moving to delete the words “offensive, indecent or obscene act”. We accept the prohibition on offensive, indecent or obscene acts. That should satisfy the Mother Grundy who wrote to the hon. the Minister. It is interesting, Sir, that this Government brings in a law to satisfy one unknown lady who writes a letter of complaint.

I should think it was probably nannie Kruger.

Sir, the second point I want to make is that we are not opposed to the prohibition of obscene or indecent acts. That is fine; we will accept that and we will not vote against it. What we have proposed is the deletion of this specific subsection which deals with “not being dressed or not being properly dressed”, firstly on the ground that it is vague and, secondly, on the ground that whatever the Minister says about courts, this would completely ban any sort of strip act or act of that nature—the Minister must accept that—whether it is obscene or not.

“Perform any offensive, indecent or obscene

Or …

“… or who is not dressed or properly dressed”.

That is right. You do not have to be indecent; you do not have to be obscene; you do not have to be offensive, but if you are not properly dressed you are committing an offence. That is a blanket ban on any sort of show in which the performers are scantily dressed. First of all, Sir, must we be ashamed of facts? Does the Minister think that a beautiful girl in a bikini is something evil that must be covered in a sack in case people see her? Sir, she is God’s work, God’s creation, and it is only when that creation is abused, when it is used for obscene or offensive purposes or indecent purposes, that it is necessary to act. Sir, I object to the hon. member for Pretoria Central trying to impose his standards on me. That is this Government’s trouble. It decides everything. When we dealt with the Publications Board, we had the same thing. This Government decides what is right for everyone. We accept that when a thing is unpleasant, offensive or obscene, or indecent, it must be stopped.

On a point of order, Sir, is it Parliamentary for the hon. member to say, “that a girl clad in a bikini is God’s work”? Is it your ruling that that is Parliamentary?

I said that a girl clad in a bikini, for instance, is God’s creature.

On a point of order, Sir, I should just like to know what the ruling of the Chair is on this matter?

The hon. member is in order.

Sir, I want to come back to this issue of the Government’s continual determination to impose its standards of what is right and wrong on everybody else. Nobody else is allowed to think differently; if anyone thinks differently, then they pass a law to stop it. Sir, if there are things happening which are wrong, surely the Minister of Justice, with the Police, can deal with it in terms of sub-clause (i). But, no, the Government must go further and pass a blanket prohibition, and that is what I object to. I object to their telling everybody else what is right and what is wrong. I object to their treating us like a bunch of school kids. In any case, as I have said before, this is limited to adults, and provided adults are not doing something immoral or indecent, then it is not for this Minister to tell them how to behave, what they may do and what they may see. I object to this approach to life in South Africa.

I just want to say here that the legislation, as it stands here, i.e. this clause, does not give expression to the feelings of narrow-minded people, but to the feelings of both English- speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people throughout the country. I am prepared to consider the word “or” to see whether it should not be “and”. I shall consider it and, if necessary, effect an amendment in the Other Place.

Will the hon. the Minister also consider using the word “clothed” and not “dressed” in the English text?

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

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

As I indicated in the Second Reading, I want to oppose this clause. I was against the introduction of the original section Squat of the Suppression of Communism Act, and I am obviously going to oppose its extension. As far as I am concerned a man who has committed a crime in terms of section Squat, should be judged by his peers, and that is by the Law Society, and if they are prepared to allow him either to go back on the roll or to be employed in any capacity connected with the profession of an attorney, notary or conveyancer, they should be allowed to do that. I do not see why they should have to apply for the permission of the hon. the Minister. I do not think the Minister is going to be very much inclined ever to give that permission, even if the Law Society concerned is prepared to give permission. I think this is unending punishment for somebody who has already been punished for a crime. I think our penal system is in fact aimed at the rehabilitation of a person who has committed a crime and if you are for ever going to deny a person who has committed a crime and who has paid for that crime the right to be able to earn a livelihood then I do not see how you can ever rehabilitate. To me this seems to be utterly lacking in compassion, and accordingly I am going to oppose this clause.

I do not think it matters what the attitude was at the time when the Communism Act was amended to allow the Minister to apply to the courts to have the attorney struck off after having committed an offence under this Act. The law societies would not intervene. That is why the Minister took the power himself, and now having taken that power, the Minister or the Secretary can apply to have him struck off, it would be senseless now to deny him the right to prohibit the attorney from practising.

[Inaudible.]

He is struck off at the instance of the department and not of the Law Society, so the Law Society obviously would give approval for his firm to practise. That would defeat the whole object of the department in applying to have him struck off. But I think it is consequential. Whether we opposed it at the time or not, the fact is that the Minister has the right. We opposed it too, as far as I can remember, but now the Minister has the right to strike him off, and I think it is logical that he should have the right to prohibit him from working otherwise the whole object of the Minister’s striking him off may be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Transkei has stated the position quite correctly. Two or three years ago a measure was piloted through this House which gave the Secretary for Justice the right to apply to the Supreme Court to strike off the roll the name of a person who commits offences under the Communism Act. In this way one Greenstein was struck off the roll, apart from the other things he did. He went back to Natal and applied to the Law Society for readmission. He was admitted by the Law Society, but then what happened? He then became involved in, or rather, he was the briefing attorney in the terrorism case.

I do not care about that.

The hon. member may not care, but I do care. He then went and did the work of an attorney and worked on the case full-time, in spite of the fact that he had been struck off the rolls in terms of that Act. When I wrote to the Law Society concerned and asked them how they could do this, they told me that their attitude was that if fraud was not involved they were very sympathetic. Then I felt under those circumstances that if that was their attitude, I was obliged to give effect to that Act because the Law Society cannot undo everything that the Supreme Court has done, namely to remove him. Therefore I say that I am not taking away anything. They can still do it in other cases, but in this particular case I request the power to compel them to obtain my consent as well.

So it is an extension?

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

Clause 21:

Mr. Chairman, one appreciates the reason for the introduction of this clause into the General Law Amendment Act, having regard to the announced intention of a certain person to kill dogs for the purpose of using the skins for making coats and other adornments for women. There has been a statement in the Press indicating that this gentleman is reported to have said that if he is prevented from doing the actual killing within the Republic, it would be quite easy for him to do the dog farming outside the Republic and then to use the skins nonetheless for this same purpose. I rise to ask the hon. Minister for an assurance that he is satisfied that whether through import control or some other means the importation of the skins could not take place, so that the stated intention of this particular individual could not in fact be carried out.

Mr. Chairman, I can tell the hon. member that I was given the assurance by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing that they have the proper powers to control this. I can give the hon. member the further assurance that should those powers prove insufficient, we shall come back to take the necessary powers.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 25:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

The effect of these amendments, if accepted—which I doubt—will be to exclude the commission section that the hon. Minister proposes to insert here. The reason I do that is because I think there is just a chance that maybe one day we shall get a commission of inquiry as requested on various occasions into, shall we say, the death of a detainee or perhaps into Police baton charges or something of that nature. I do not want evidence which could be produced in front of such a commission to be included under the rather wide provisions of this section which though improved, still is a very wide section. That is the reason for my moving that amendment. The amendment to move “or commission” in line 49 is consequential on that part of the amendment. Then I have asked to omit the words after “documents” up to and including “concerned”. There is also a consequential amendment a little later which I will move. The object of that is to exclude Administrators from the functionary who can in fact give the instruction that evidence may not be produced in the courts in the interests of State security, etc. I do this because I can think of two Administrators, anyway, to whom I should not like to entrust this particular authority. The one is, of course, a former hon. Deputy Minister who is now the Administrator of the Orange Free State. When one reads the arguments that he advanced in this Committee and in this House when the original 1969 Act was introduced with section 29, which this clause is now amending, I would be very loath indeed to entrust that particular Administrator, for instance, with the powers of deciding what is or what is not in the interest of State security which may or may not be produced in court. He had a lot of very extraordinary arguments, many of which have been proved to be incorrect in law, and he had some very extraordinary views with which I certainly do not agree. I do not want to mention any other Administrators, but we did have a recent case where one of the Administrators, then a Deputy Minister, said it was not the function of the judiciary to criticize legislation, but only to enforce it. He also had other views which I did not, in fact, approve of. If this power is extended to Administrators, because they are part of the State machinery, we may just as well extend this also to, shall we say, the mayors of cities, who also are part and parcel of local government. For all these reasons I propose that Administrators be excluded from the powers which are being extended in this clause. For reasons I have already given, I propose that commissions also be excluded.

Mr. Chairman, I rise just to indicate shortly that we do not support the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. It is a pity she did not put it on the Order Paper. It would have given us more time to examine it.

We only finished the Second Reading this afternoon.

The principle of the matter is that the clause is as recommended by Mr. Justice Potgieter. We accept his recommendation. The fact that it applies to a commission does not alter the principle of the matter, that is to say if there is very certain evidence which should not in the interests of the Security of the State be allowed to be made public. The hon. member does not want the Administrators included, but I may say that it has always been our common law that Administrators have this particular power.

It has not been our common law with regard to State security.

Nevertheless, that has been the common law. That was the law in Van der Linden v. Calitz. In fact, Van der Linden v. Calitz was a case about the exercise of the Administrator’s power in this regard. As I indicated during the Second Reading, we are satisfied with the draft of Mr. Justice Potgieter, and I do not think I could persuade anyone on my side of the House, let alone on that side of the House, that my view was a better view in the circumstances than that of Mr. Justice Potgieter.

Mr. Chairman, I received prior notice of the proposal made here by the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member was good enough to show it to me. I am in a difficult position now. The Government has decided to accept the report by the Potgieter Commission in toto. Since this matter forms part of those recommendations, I should be acting quite wrongly if I were to deviate from that decision at this stage. The official Opposition was also present at a rewriting of the report of the Potgieter Commission, so that they could know exactly how far matters should be taken. Therefore they were fully aware of this wording. Apparently there were no objections. I am afraid that I am unable to accept the proposals of the hon. member for Houghton. We have decided to accept the Potgieter Commission’s report in full and consequently I must reject this proposed amendment.

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

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

I move this amendment because the Afrikaans version reads: “… om te vol- doen aan ’n bevel …” whereas the English version reads: “ … to comply with a notice …” In none of the recognized dictionaries do I find that the word “bevel” has the same meaning as the word “notice”. Furthermore, another reason why I move this amendment is that in clause 6, which seeks to insert a new subsection 34A (3), it is provided that the Minister may give a notice in writing. The Afrikaans version states that the Minister may give a “skrif- telike kennisgewing”. The Afrikaans translation of “may order” is “kan beveel”. The same is found in clause 7. I move this amendment in order to have consistency.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umlazi has a good case. [Interjections.] I suspect that this Bill was drafted in Afrikaans and that an error probably crept in when it was translated. If this is not the case, one would to my mind have to choose between “order” and “notice”, and I think “order” would probably be more acceptable in military language. Consequently I accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I drew to the attention of the House a suggestion of the South African Property Owners Association that the words “after consultation” should be changed to “after approval of the local authority”. The Minister, in replying to the Second Reading debate, gave an explanation as to why he did not think that that was a good amendment. I rise to say that I accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation. His explanation is sound and I therefore do not wish to proceed with the suggestion.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

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

1. (c) If the owner is dissatisfied with the amount determined by the board under paragraph (b), such amount shall be determined by arbitration in terms of section 45.

I do not think it is necessary for me to motivate this amendment, because I did so during the Second Reading debate. At this stage I would merely ask the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I re- ferrd this amendment to the legal advisers and they do not think it is necessary. I therefore think that I cannot accept it I. will read to the hon. member the opinion expressed by the legal advisers and I think that he will then agree with them—

The hon. member has argued that this amount will form part and parcel of the amount which the owner will receive in respect of expropriation, but that is not correct; this is merely an additional amount, if any, to compensate the owner in respect of actual loss suffered as a result of expropriation.

I may just say to the hon. member that the amount decided upon on expropriation is, of course, subject to arbitration and to court procedure. I think the hon. member will agree then that his amendment is really unnecessary, and therefore I cannot accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the hon. the Minister to give further consideration to this clause perhaps before he deals with it in the Other Place. I would point out to the hon. the Minister that these amounts are not necessarily small items. They could deal, for example, with financial loss or inconvenience as a result of having to move a business elsewhere, in other words, loss which is not directly related to compensation. but which arises indirectly. I do not think that the law advisers are entirely correct when they say that these would be only related to small times. I do not wish to press the point at this stage, but I do think that the hon. the Minister should give further consideration to it, especially under the heading of “inconvenience”. This matter does not necessarily relate to a specific item which can be proved by handing in an account which has been incurred. I do think that there may well be some substance in the suggestion of the South African Property Owners’ Association, and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to give further consideration to the matter. But at this stage I am willing to withdraw the amendment which stands in my name.

With leave, amendment withdrawn.

I may just point out to the hon. member that exactly the same point he has made now about inconvenience, was put by me to the law advisers. The law advisers assured me that it is not “inconvenience” in the abstract sense, but that a person must prove that he actually spent a certain amount of money. He just cannot say: “I have been inconvenienced and I want to be paid R1 000 for that”. He must show that he actually spent a certain amount of money. That is the explanation of the law advisers, but I am quite willing, since the amendment has been withdrawn, to go into the matter again and, if necessary, to change it in the Other Place.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

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

1. (c) by the addition of the following subsection:
   1. “(4) If any property expropriated by the board in terms of this Act was encumbered by a registered mortgage bond at the time of such expropriation, the board shall, notwithstanding the provisions of section 42, first pay to the mortgagee the sum owing to him under his mortgage bond.”

I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment as it is not relevant to section 43 of the principal Act and it cannot therefore be moved to this clause. The appropriate section to which the amendment should be moved is section 42 of the principal Act, but this section is not sought to be amended by this Bill.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.