Mr. Speaker, with your leave, and owing to the fact that the particulars of this Bill are known and have been approved, I should like to move, with leave of the House—

This Bill gives effect to the recommendations embodied in the report of the Select Committee on Pensions. As hon. members know, these recommendations have already been approved by this House and the Other Place.

As the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, this Bill gives legislative effect to the report of the Select Committee on Pensions, which has already been passed unanimously. We have no objection to the Second Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Clause 1 of this Bill introduces a change in connection with the term of office of the council, and I rise to draw attention to the peculiar wording which is used in this amendment and to ask for some detailed enlightenment from the hon. the Minister. The new section 1A will read—

In other words, there is a maximum period fixed in the Bill now before us. In terms of section 71 (1) of the Republic of South African Constitution Act dealing with provincial councils, however, the law is that a provincial council shall continue for five years from the date of its first meeting and shall not be subject to dissolution save by effluxion of time. In other words, a period of five years is fixed and the council cannot be dissolved; its life comes to an end with the effluxion of time. But the wording here is that the council shall continue for five years and no longer. In other words, the life of the council cannot be extended. Sir, I have some difficulty in trying to find out what the position is going to be in regard to the prorogation and dissolution of this council. Is it the intention of the hon. the Minister that the council should exist for five years, or are there circumstances under which the council may have a shorter life than five years? It certainly cannot be longer than five years, according to the wording here. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister under what circumstances it could be a shorter period and under what circumstances he anticipates the council could be dissolved and an election of new members called for.

Sir, we have no intention of dissolving this council during its period of office, and as a matter of fact as the law stands there is no provision for dissolving the council. As far as I read the law and know the law, the period of office of the council will be five years from the date of its first meeting.

Sir, I do not want to delay the proceedings, but I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that I think it would be more desirable to use the phrase which is used in section 71 (1) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, that is to say, “and shall not be subject to dissolution save by effluxion of time”. The position would then be quite clear. If the wording used here is retained, I believe that there could be arguments in relation to the additional powers to regulate which are contained in this Bill and which may be in conflict with the intention which the hon. the Minister has just mentioned. I will leave it at that, in view of the Minister’s assurance that the council will exist for five years. The law advisers will be able to tell the Minister whether they agree with me that it might be more appropriate to use the phrase contained in the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act also so far as this Coloured Council is concerned.

I can only say that there is no provision whatsoever in the Act of 1964 for an earlier dissolution of the council, but I will discuss it with the law advisers, because I know they framed it with the clear intention of the council being constituted for five years.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

I just want to state again what the attitude of this side of the House is in regard to clause 6. This is of course the most important clause in this Bill, and against which all the Opposition of this side of the House is directed. I must say that, to my mind, the insertion of this clause is based entirely on a suspicion the hon. the Minister may have that the Executive of the council will fail to pass his Budget. In view of the attitude of the representatives of all political parties in the Coloured Council in recent times, I cannot see why the Government has found it necessary to insert this clause, for the simple reason that my views are based on the attitude adopted by the Coloureds at that summit conference in Kimberley last week. At that conference it was evident that all political parties want to try and make a success of this council and that they want to use it as an instrument to act in the interests of the Coloureds. That is why I say that, considering their attitude, it is quite clear that they want to make a success of this council. That is why I simply cannot understand why they would want to thwart the Government or the council in any way by not approving the Budget.

In other words, what guarantee do we have that a Budget will in fact be rejected by the Coloured Council in future? That is why I say that the whole attitude of the hon. the Minister is based on a suspicion and if there is a feeling among the Coloureds that the Government does not trust them, they are, to my mind, quite justified in adopting that attitude. Why would they want to reject the Budget? Surely if they reject the Budget it would be their own people who would suffer most. Coloured teachers and those who form part of the Coloured administration who have to be paid, will realize that it will be the Coloured Persons Council that would thwart it. Surely they will blame their own people if the Budget is not passed.

I honestly cannot see why the hon. member cannot show that he has confidence in those people, the confidence he ought to show under these circumstances. If he wants to adopt an attitude in respect of the approval or rejection of the Budget, why does he not adopt the same attitude in case, for example, a provincial council, should refuse to approve a budget? There is ample reason to have confidence in those people and believe that they would not do anything to prejudice themselves. They would do nothing prejudicial to themselves. They would not thwart a capital programme of projects which has to be carried out nor salaries that have to be paid. Why would one find this attitude on the part of the Coloureds? We on this side of the House believe that they are on a higher level of political responsibility than any other race group in South Africa, apart from the Whites. For that reason I honestly cannot understand why the hon. the Minister finds it necessary to come to this House with clause 6. If this clause, and clause 7, had not been there, this legislation would have been passed without any material objection on the part of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment on clause 6 standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I move it, as follows—

The hon. member for Newton Park is very naive. He expects this side of the House to adopt the same attitude as he does. Does the hon. member not recall what happened last year and what the attitude of the Labour Party in the Coloured Council was both this year and after last year’s session? After the last session the Labour Party decided for the first time to participate in the future activities of the Council, but last year when the Budget was discussed their attitude was still that they would have nothing to do with it. Now that there is a degree of fluidity in party affiliations, so that it is no longer clear whether the Federal Coloured Peoples Party, which is the governing party and which constitutes the Executive, will in future have the support of the majority of the members in that Council, it is becoming a real possibility that as a result of the opposition and the boycott movement of the Labourites, the Budget may not be passed. What is going to be the case if these people, who have changed their attitude from time to time, the Labour Party, inconstant as they are, come along tomorrow and say that the Government has done this, that and the other thing which has offended them and that they consequently change their attitude once more, boycott the activities of the Council and prevent the Budget from being passed? It might then happen that it would be impossible to pay the salaries of the members of that Council and teachers.

Their own salaries as well.

Of course, their own salaries as well, but does the hon. member imagine for one moment that they will refrain from doing something which may create an unpleasant feeling among the Coloureds? This is what those people are trying to do all the time, to create unpleasant feelings among their own people towards the Government. Surely the hon. member should realize what the feelings towards the Government of the country would be if a stage is reached where the teachers do not receive their salaries and pensioners do not receive their pensions. Then the hon. member, naïve as he is, will be sitting smugly over there saying that it is the Government’s responsibility. Does he think that the Government, in view of what has happened in the past, will be so naïve as to wait for such a situation to arise before making arrangements to provide for these circumstances? When the Coloured Council sits in September or in October, this Parliament will not be in session in order to amend the legislation. The Government has to be ready, in case something of this nature occurs, and have the necessary powers to make provision for that. We cannot allow ourselves to be led by the arguments advanced by the hon. member, knowing what the position among the Labourites has been up till now and considering the irresponsible manner in which they have behaved themselves. It is very easy to say that one has to trust these people, but up to now the Labourites have done nothing to show that one should have any confidence in them. They first have to prove it.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the hon. member for Parow, who has just resumed his seat, did not express an attitude of mind which is acceptable to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to the administration of this council. What he has said, runs completely contrary to the very foundations of this aspect of the policy of that party. [Interjections.] We, on this side of the House, have always accepted that the Government and ourselves are at one that there is a need to extend political rights and obligations to the Coloured people, that it was a common political objective in so far as that side of the House and we were concerned, although we differed as to the means whereby that should be achieved.

Clause 6, which is now being introduced, offends against the very intent of placing in the hands of Coloureds rights and responsibilities. It is in effect a retrogression, and not an advance of political powers in so far as this council is concerned. It is extraordinary that the hon. member for Parow should today speak in the way he has when he ought to realize how far behind its own programme the Government is in regard to the development of this council. He will be aware that when the late Dr. Verwoerd addressed the council in 1962, he said that the development of a Coloured cabinet, which would manage all Coloured affairs, was a big programme, etc., and that the change would take some time. However, he expected it to be completed within ten years, when all control should be in Coloured hands.

At the present moment we, as a Parliament, appropriate a globular sum to this council. Section 22 of the principal Act, which is now to be amended, provides that if Parliament has not yet appropriated moneys the Minister can, subject to subsequent appropriation by Parliament, advance funds to the Coloured Council. In terms of section 22 the Coloured Council’s executive is then obliged by law to prepare and submit to the Minister its estimates of requirements. The Minister consults with the Minister of Finance on those requirements of the Coloured Council and determines an amount which will be recommended to this House for appropriation by Parliament. When it is approved, the Coloured Council’s executive submits its estimates to the Coloured Council in the same way as our Minister of Finance does to our Parliament. That is all correct.

Why is this procedure adopted? In this connection it is interesting to read what the hon. the Deputy Minister, addressing the Werkgroep oor Rasseverhoudinge in Cape Town said. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will recall the speech. He said this—

He said the Government had done so to prove its confidence. Everybody accepted that that was the position. We have also learnt from the hon. the Minister that what is going to happen is that after the election following the next election the council will be an entirely elected body. Those are signs of confidence. But while the Government is saying that on the one hand, they come back now to say that this confidence apparently is misplaced, because they think that this council, as it is now constituted, is going to act in a most irresponsible way, that it is going to turn down the necessary funds for paying pensions to Coloured pensioners, that it is going to deprive every Coloured teacher of his salary, and that the members of the council are going to deprive themselves of their own income, and that, when only 40 of those 60 are elected members. What does the Minister anticipate is going to happen when the whole council is elected? The hon. member for Parow has just illustrated the approach of the hon. gentlemen on the other side. He says that they are going to be frustrated because these elected members—they boasted about the fact that Coloureds would elect their own representatives whom they could send to the council—would not do what they wanted them to do. Those people do not like the set-up, they do not like the policy of this Government and they are going to act in an irresponsible way and so the Government will tell them what they must do. Is that extending political rights and political responsibility?

I cannot believe for one moment that any majority of the council, elected or nominated, will act so irresponsibly, as I say, to pass a resolution which will deprive the Coloured pensioner of his pension, close the Coloured schools, deprive the teachers of their salaries and deprive themselves of their own income. I cannot believe that that is so. Does the Government believe that the members of this Coloured Council will go to that extent to indicate their complete and utter rejection of the policies of this Government for the Coloured people? That is what they must expect then, that the Coloured people will go to that extent to show their rejection. I do not believe it will happen.

We on this side of the House believe that the Coloured people have already shown a marked degree of responsibility.

Many of them.

Yes, many of them.

Yes, that I accept.

So much so that the Government has already said that they can elect their whole council at the election after the next election. The Government should show that it has the confidence that the council has the competence to manage its own affairs. If this backstop is there and if the Coloured Labour Party or any other group know that they can demonstrate by voting out the Budget, that they will not have to face the consequences amongst their own people, you are inviting them to vote down the Budget. They know then that they are not going to be chased and harried and attacked by those persons who elected them to represent them in the council. You are therefore inviting them to be irresponsible.

Without being invited they did that already.

I believe that the Government is inviting this whole council to be completely irresponsible. [Interjections.]

Order!

I say this because those members of the council will make this demonstration and make this extravagant demonstration without having to face the consequences of making that demonstration.

A similar position applies in so far as the provincial councils are concerned and the hon. the Minister is well aware that if this sort of situation were to arise, a State President’s warrant can be issued to deal with essential expenditure. If there is this state of emergency created by the Coloureds themselves, a State President’s warrant can be issued and be ratified subsequently by this Parliament. This procedure which applies, inter alia, to the provincial councils can also be followed in the case of the Coloured Representative Council.

Let us not say to the Coloured people that we regard it possible that the representatives whom the mass of Coloured people have elected to this council, may act in so irresponsible a manner as is suggested by this measure before us today. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how he can reconcile his demonstrated preparedness to promise a fully elected council with the introduction of a measure like this, clause 6, which patently indicates a complete lack of confidence and a fear that the members of the council will act in an irresponsible way. We certainly cannot support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am obviously also going to vote against this clause. As far as I am concerned, it gives the complete lie to all the Government’s claims that the Coloured people are very happy with the representation they have been given in the Coloured Council. I think one Minister even claimed that they had never been so happy before. Quite obviously, the situation is out of control as far as the Government is concerned. They did their very best to thwart the wishes of the Coloured people themselves about placing in the seats of power in that council people who were not elected by the Coloured people themselves. Now the council is showing the Government what it thinks of its way of handling their political rights. As far as I am concerned, this must be a very sad day indeed for the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, because quite clearly now he must realize that he does not have the support of the Coloured people and that he certainly does not have the support of the elected members of the Coloured Representative Council behind his Government and its policy.

Mr. Chairman, it is perhaps easy for the Opposition to speak as they are doing today, but the situation is that very serious threats have been issued on the part of the Labour Party.

You say there “have been”. Has the situation changed now?

I take it that if people said something last month, that was last month. There were threats to the effect that they did not want anything to do with the Council and that they would only use the Council in so far as they could promote their own objects. As a matter of fact, they said they would not hesitate to bring down the whole structure.

That shows what they think of the Council.

Yes, perhaps that shows what they think of the Council. The most effective way in which they could very forcibly demonstrate anything would have been, even for a period, to withhold the appropriation of the necessary moneys.

*As a matter of fact they have refused to approve the Budget up to now. This is therefore not something that might happen. They have refused to approve the Budget in the past.

What happened then?

It was approved by the Federal Party alone.

And then, was it approved then?

Yes, of course it was approved then. Surely we can understand now what the approach of certain people is and what they will be able to do when they have a majority. I do not say that they will, in fact, do so, but it goes to show what they will be able to do. Surely they have already shown what they want to do.

But then this whole business is a puppet show.

This clause has not been inserted because I said it should be inserted. This clause is in the Bill because the executive committee …

Merely agreed with you.

I did not initiate this clause. It was they who initiated it. They approached me and asked me for it. I say I have confidence in the Coloureds. I have confidence in the Coloured Persons Council and I sincerely hope, and I also believe, that they will not act in such an irresponsible manner. I hope circumstances will not develop in such a way that it will become necessary to use the powers we are given under this clause. I sincerely hope so but on the other hand I cannot allow a situation to arise which would result in disorder, dissatisfaction and to some extent chaos. I want to regard this as a temporary precautionary measure. When we consider their constitution again in the second term of office of the Coloured Representative Council because we will most probably change its constitution to provide for a fully elected council, I shall probably give this matter my attention. I shall then decide whether I want to ask Parliament to perpetuate this provision under the new dispensation or not.

For the time being I feel myself quite at liberty, also as far as the Coloured population is concerned, to ask the Committee to approve this clause.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Minister’s speech proves one thing, then it is that he himself has serious doubts about the advisability of inserting this specific clause. Control over finances lies at the root of a parliamentary system. It also lies at the root of a provincial council. This is the first matter in regard to which there should be a sense of responsibility in a council or a Parliament.

Who is removing the control then?

No, wait, give me a chance. I say that this is the first matter in regard to which a sense of responsibility should be displayed. The hon. members on the opposite side, the Government, gave the Coloureds specific political rights. Now they have come to this House this morning and are telling us in so many words that although they gave the Coloureds these rights, they now doubt whether the Coloureds are capable of bearing the responsibility which stems from those rights. In fact, this specific clause is conclusive proof of the lack of confidence of the hon. the Minister and the Government in the sense of responsibility of the Coloureds. When I think back to the fine sentiments the Government expressed, through the Minister as well, in regard to the wonderful spirit emanating from this Coloured Persons Council, I am astonished that the hon. the Minister can come to this House and say: Look, I created this body, but I am afraid that I am not all that certain whether this body is going to act in a responsible way.

Now a question occurs to me, and this is very important: If the Coloureds receive political rights, must they accept the responsibilities which stem from those rights? The important question is: Does the National Party Government doubt at this stage whether the Coloureds are capable of exercising those political rights? That lies at the heart of the matter. What the Government is telling us here is that the Coloureds are not so capable.

The hon. member for Parow says that at the moment everything seems satisfactory. What the Government is now trying to do is to insert a clause here to take precautions for when another party, which is perhaps not well-disposed to the Government, might assume power in that Council. At the same time they tell us that they will allow these people to elect all their representatives. But they are so afraid of this machine which they have created that they now want to close the door in advance.

Yes, they have no self-confidence at all.

They have no confidence in their own creation. They have no confidence whatsoever in it. The hon. the Minister says that it is easy for us to talk, but it was in fact he who did so to an even greater extent, for he came and told us about the fine spirit, he came and told us that the possibility existed that they would extend the rights to such an extent that it would be possible for all the representatives in that Council to be elected by the Coloured people. After having expressed these fine sentiments, he now says: “I do not trust them. I am sorry to have to say this, but I want to insert this clause just in case the Coloureds are not capable of accepting the responsibilities given to them by their political rights.” If there was ever any evidence of the doubt the National Party has in its own political creation, if there was ever any evidence to prove that the National Party does not have any confidence whatsoever in the political sense of responsibility of the Coloureds, then it is in fact this clause. The day the Coloured Persons Parliament is so irresponsible—and now I want the hon. the Minister to listen carefully—that it is prepared to thwart a Budget, which will have the result that a large number of persons will not even be able to receive their salaries, the hon. the Minister will at the same time say to me: These people are not capable of exercising the political rights which we have given to them. This is what he will say to us. Unless the hon. the Minister confesses to us here today that the Coloureds are not yet capable of accepting political responsibility, I say that this clause should not be in this Bill.

Cannot they reject certain parts of the Budget?

Ah, the hon. the Minister is even coming forward with technical points. It is of no use, for the hon. the Minister is dealing here with a clause which lies at the root of the entire financial cont- rol. I honestly believe, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. the Minister really should not come to this House and tell us in so many words: “Look, all the fine sentiments I expressed in the past, were all very well, but I simply did so because it was very easy to talk. Now that I have taken a close look at it, I am becoming afraid; I am becoming afraid of the Labour Party, I am becoming afraid of my own creation, and I now want a key with which I can lock them up.”

No, that is not true.

It is true. The hon. the Minister cannot dispute it. It is simply because he does not trust this Council and because he does not accept the political sense of responsibility of the Coloureds, that he is doing this. That is the only reason. If the Coloureds do reject the Budget, who will bear the responsibility for that? Not the hon. the Minister; the leaders of the Coloured people themselves will be held responsible. Now it will be the hon. the Minister. In other words, as the hon. member for Green Point rightly said, the hon. the Minister is now inviting the Coloured Persons Council to act in an irresponsible way. Why is he doing so? I am asking the hon. the Minister in all courtesy to rise to his feet today and to prove the confidence which he has always up to now displayed in this body, and to bestow upon them the responsibility for the political rights which the hon. the Minister gave them. That is all we want to ask the hon. the Minister. If he is not prepared to do so, he must never again rise in this House and tell us about the wonderful sense of responsibility of the Coloureds, for the hon. the Minister himself has no faith whatsoever in that sense of responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. What he said here this morning is not quite clear to me. He said that the Executive of the Coloured Persons Council requested this clause. That is what he said this morning. The hon. member for Wyn- berg quoted here—unfortunately I do not have the cutting here, but it is on record— from a statement which was issued by Mr. Peter Swartz, one of the members of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, and the administrative secretary of the Federal Party, in which he stated that the executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council was consulted in regard to this matter. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister who took the first step. Did the hon. the Minister approach the Executive of the Coloured Persons Council in regard to this matter, or did they approach him? For, if Mr. Swartz says that they were consulted, then it must certainly have come from the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I have with me here the statement made by Peter Swartz. He has just tried to gloss over this matter a little, but here I have the letter itself which the Coloured Persons Council wrote in regard to this matter. They just wrote …

What is the date of that letter?

The date is 15th October, 1971. They wrote as follows (translation)—

To that the amendment which is in fact being effected here was attached.

Mr. Chairman, could not the hon. the Minister indicate to this council whether he agrees that there is no need to legislate in this form, but that the matter could be dealt with by way of a State President’s warrant if such situation should arise? Surely that is the advice he should have given to the nominated executive members if they felt this was a problem. He could have advised them: “I do not believe the council will be so irresponsible, but if they are so irresponsible and if this should happen, we can put it right by way of a State President’s warrant.” That at least would have been to put the council to the acid test. Then, if the elected members of the council were to act in the way which the hon. the Minister thinks they may do, then he is entitled to draw deductions as to whether this is the correct time to extend political rights to the Coloured people, because with rights go obligations. They should not be judged in advance, as is being done here. Do we have so little confidence in the Coloured people that we believe that it is possible that this situation can arise. That is what is so unfortunate with regard to the Coloured/White political relations. I have always accepted at completely face value the protestations from that side of the House that their intention is to give the maximum of political rights to the Coloured people. But after the first halting step, there is now an attempt to back out in so far as these rights are concerned. I think it is unfortunate that the hon. the Minister, at the time when this question was raised, did not think of going through other forms whereby the situation could be met if, in fact, it does arise in the future as he fears.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the State President’s warrant is not there for everyday use; it exists only for certain occasions. It is not my intention to finance the Coloured Persons Representative Council by way of the State President’s warrants. We have given them an Act and a concomitant structure for that purpose. I just want to say—and this I want to emphasize—that it is not a case of my not having full confidence in the ordinary members of the Coloured Persons Council. It is a case of this action of the leaders of the Labour Party being questioned, because hon. members can see for themselves how they are being used by certain elements in this country today, last night and every night. Some of them are travelling in America and associate themselves with the boycotts certain American institutions are being asked to initiate against South Africa. They associate themselves with boycotts against South Africa abroad. It is only this handful of leaders who associate themselves with elements to overthrow the existing order in South Africa. These people may do something of this nature. If they were to do this, I say that we should use this instrument to cope with it, but I do not expect the broad community of the Coloureds to act in this way. I have far more confidence in them than that. As a matter of fact, I also want to express the hope that this is not going to happen. All I can do is to say that I have every confidence in all the political parties in that council as well as in a number of Labour Party members in that council. But if the leaders can have it their way and if it is possible politically—it is impossible for them politically—they will not hesitate to use every available means to achieve their objects.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has now told us that there are certain Coloured leaders who are even instigating boycotts against South Africa overseas, and that he does not have any confidence in people of that type. He says that they could possibly adopt this type of behaviour. This clause in question does not deal only with the leaders of the Labour Party. His own Executive which he now has there, will also be involved in this. If this clause were to be passed, it would mean not only that he had no confidence in the majority of the Coloureds, but also that he had no confidence in the Executive, because he expects that they will refuse to approve a Budget. However, what the hon. gentleman omitted to do—and this is the only reason for my rising—is to reply to certain specific points which we put to him. Has the hon. gentleman taken note of the fact that as a result of the conference which took place last week in Kimberley there is a change even in respect of the Labour Party? It is quite clear that they, too, want to try to make a success of this Council. What assurance does that hon. gentleman have before the time that this Budget will be rejected? If he has a suspicion that this could happen, why is the hon. the Minister not prepared to regard this Coloured Persons Representative Council in precisely the same light as a provincial council, if it should refuse to accept its Budget? Surely he would then have shown the Coloureds that he deals with them in precisely the same way as he would deal with another subordinate body of this Parliament, as in the case of a provincial council. Then one would not have had any objection to this hon. gentleman’s conduct. Here his mode of conduct differs completely to that in regard to a body such as a provincial council. With few exceptions the Coloured Persons Representative Council today has far more power than a provincial council has at this stage, and that is why I am asking the hon. gentleman why he is not prepared to reply to this question, and why it is not the approach of the Government to regard the Council’s action in that light.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and W. L. D. M. Venter.

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

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, this clause adds to the powers which the Minister already has to make regulations. As section 26 of the Principal Act reads at present, the Minister may make regulations regarding—

1. (a) The sessions of the council and meetings of the executive;
2. (b) the regulation of the proceedings of the council, including the maintenance of order in the council, disciplinary measures and the rules of debate;
3. (c) the procedure in connection with the introduction, submission and disposal of Bills, laws, reports and resolutions of the council;
4. (d) absence of members of the council from council meetings; and
5. (e) attendance at sessions of the council and meetings of the executive by officers in the Public Service.

Now there is an omnibus addition which has been requested by the hon. the Minister in this Bill, which will give him the power to make regulations in regard to—

1. (f) every other matter which he considers it necessary or expedient to prescribe in order that the purposes of this Act may be achieved.

I have indicated to the hon. the Minister already that in clause 1 of this Bill before us, there is an intent only, and not a fixed statement, that the council shall not be dissolved under a five-year period. This is merely an intent, which states that a council shall not continue for longer than five years. Without an alteration or amendment to that clause stating that the council shall only dissolve by effluxion of time, which, as I have indicated earlier, applies to the provincial councils as well, this clause 7 will now entitle the Minister in effect by regulation to provide for the dissolution of the council and for the proroguing of a council session. The normal clause which one would have expected is the clause which appears in so many other statutes. I have an example here before me, where the following wording is used—

That is the wording that is used normally. This omnibus provision which we now have before us is one which, as I indicated at the Second Reading, we cannot accept. It should be restricted to what is permitted in the Act itself, and for those reasons we will vote against this clause.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Figuratively speaking, one might well compare this Bill to a patchwork quilt which, even though it consists of a large variety of pieces, has nevertheless been made into a single whole which covers everything that has to be covered. To us it has also become an old acquaintance, that, though it pays us a visit every year, nevertheless quite surprisingly reveals another facet of its contents and character every time.

Just as each instrument in a large orchestra produces its own distinctive sound and communicates it to our ears individually from among the combination of sounds, so each provision of this Bill communicates to us its own story in its own language. Although some provisions may strike a similar chord and tend to become a duet, each nevertheless remains independent of the other and speaks to us in a completely different context.

Some of the provisions hardly need any explanation at all, while others, on the other hand, may possibly appear quite incomprehensible to those of us who do not have to deal with these matters every day. So for the convenience of hon. members, I want to go briefly into the various provisions.

Clause 1 suddenly becomes clear when one has regard to the fact that the former technical colleges’ and university institutions’ provident funds were merged in terms of the Associated Institutions Provident Fund Act, 1971, but that the Associated Institutions Pension Fund Act, 1963, and the regulations made in terms of that Act, still contain references to the former provident funds. Therefore it is obvious that a reference to the first-mentioned Act now has to be substituted for those references.

When the Associated Institutions Pension Fund Act, 1963, was enacted, it was, unfortunately, omitted to make provision for the management and control of the fund and for the periodical valuation of the assets and liabilities of the fund. In the meantime we have, of course, as befit good standards, managed and controlled the fund in the best way and made arrangements for the valuation of its assets and liabilities, but we believe it is necessary also for Parliament now to give its blessing to the proceedings as envisaged in clause 2.

The Government Service Pensions Act, 1965, contains provisions which protect the interests of pensioners in their pensions against actions such as cession, sequestration or attachment. However, no similar provisions exist in respect of all the pension funds established in terms of other legislation. Hon. members will concede, however, that the rights of other pensioners, too, ought to be protected in this regard. Consequently we are doing so in terms of clause 3.

I have already said that certain of the provisions of the Bill strike similar chords. Such provisions are those contained in clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Last year, as hon. members will recall, we substituted references to some population group or other for certain references to some race or other, as this has now become the current expression in South Africa as, in fact, in the international sphere. The amendments to the definition of “Secretary” now follow this pattern.

As far as the amendment to the definition of “home for the aged” in clause 4 is concerned I just want to mention that the reference to “physical care” presents difficulties in practice as it is being construed in a too restrictive sense. We believe the proposed amendment will state the matter as it was in fact originally intended. I want to explain that the provision of food to such aged persons did not, in actual fact, emerge clearly from the original Act; now it does emerge clearly from the provisions of this Bill.

Hon. members will recall that we announced last year that henceforth attendants’ allowances would be paid automatically after a person had attained the age of 85 years instead of 90 years, which used to be the position. Clauses 5 and 7 now give effect to this arrangement and also make it possible to facilitate the granting, for example by way of regulation, of possible future concessions in this regard.

Clauses 10 and 11 are also related clauses. There are pensioners who are in receipt of a war pension as well as a war veterans’ pension, and others who are in receipt of a social pension as well as pneumoconiosis compensation. In the past it sometimes happened that when the war pension or pneumoconiosis compensation of a pensioner was increased, he had to sacrifice so much of his social pension that, as far as the sum total was concerned, he was worse off than before and was in actual fact detrimentally affected by the increase. Consequently provision was made to ignore these increases in the application of the means test. However, the new scale announced this year eliminates these problems and affords adequate protection to the people concerned. Therefore, the protection they have enjoyed in this regard up to now, may fall away at this stage. In fact, if this does not happen, they will benefit excessively from the new scale. As it is, despite clauses 10 and 11, they are going to benefit considerably from the new scale in any event. Therefore we are obliged to rectify the matter.

Clause 10 also makes provision for the recently announced increase in the bonus payable to persons in receipt of war pensions.

The Cape Education Pension Fund Ordinance provided that upon a person’s resignation his pension contributions could be refunded only after he had completed at least five years’ pensionable service on condition that application was made within two years after his resignation. Consequently the contributions made by persons who did not qualify for a resignation benefit or did not apply for one in good time, were retained as an asset to the fund and were transferred to the Provincial and the Territory Service Pension Fund on 1st April, 1969. Even so, such persons were not allowed, in terms of the Ordinance, and, in terms of the provisions of section 4 (3) (b) of the Provincial and the Territory Service Pension Act, 1969, are still not allowed, after taking up the teaching profession again, to include for pension purposes the said periods of actual contributory service in respect of which they were “not entitled to a monetary benefit” upon resignation, unless they are prepared to buy that right at a very expensive price by making contributions for that purpose for a second time, as well as paying the employers’ contributions and interest.

That is unfair. The proposed clause 12 seeks to include the relevant periods for pension purposes free of charge.

With the establishment of the Provincial and the Territory Service Pension Fund on 1st April, 1969, members were offered the choice, as it is customary to do, in terms of section 6 (1) of the relevant Act to elect to retain the benefits and privileges they had prior to the establishment of the new fund. It now appears that quite a number of members who elected to do so had not been fully aware of the implications of doing so. Therefore, in terms of clause 13, they are now allowed to cancel their previous election if they wish to do so, and they may become members of the Provincial and the Territory Service Pension Fund.

Legislation prior to the coming into operation on 24th June, 1955, of the Government Service Pensions Act, 1955, provided that a contribution might be made towards a pension of an official transferred from the Public Service to pensionable service with the Government of a British Territory or Protectorate in respect of his service in the Public Service. If the transferred official retired or had been retired from the service of such a Government by reason of the age which he had attained, the contribution was payable only from the date on which he attained the age on which he would have had the right to retire from the Public Service, but if such an official was retired, for example, by reason of reorganization, the contribution was payable immediately.

The said provision remained applicable to officials who had transferred prior to 24th June, 1955, in terms of a provision of the 1955 Act, but for some unknown reason or other it was provided that in the case of officials transferred subsequent to that date, even upon their being retired on account of reorganization, the contributions were payable only from the date on which they attained the pensionable age in the Public Service, i.e. 65 years. This provision was reenacted in the regulations which were made in terms of the Government Service Pensions Act, 1965, and which came into operation on 1st January, 1966.

During and subsequent to the coming into being of the independent African States some of the officials who had been transferred were prematurely retired on pension by the Governments concerned, and it is only fair for the contribution towards a pension to be paid immediately in such cases.

The regulations relating to the Public Service Pension Fund have already been amended with retrospective effect up to 1st January, 1966, and this rectifies the position in respect of officials who retired on or subsequent to that date. However, this does not cover the cases of persons who were transferred subsequent to 24th June, 1955, and who retired prior to 1st January, 1966. They retained the rights which accrued to them in terms of the 1955 Act. and this clause seeks to rectify the position in respect of the latter group.

Clauses 15, 16 and 17 contain the same principle and consequently I shall deal with them at the same time. In cases where an organization complete with its staff is transferred so that the staff comes under an obligation to contribute to a new pension fund, it is the policy to make statutory provision for them to remain members of their old pension funds, while being offered the choice of electing to waive their rights and to be relieved of their obligations towards the old fund and to become members of the new one.

With such a transfer there is usually the possibility of the posts occupied by the staff concerned being abolished, while new posts are created on the establishment of the organization which then acquires a new identity. In such circumstances it also sometimes happens that the staff concerned claim reorganization benefits because of their posts having been abolished. The money they obtain in this way is seldom invested wisely, with the result that when such a staff member retires one day his pension benefits from the new fund will be small and the benefits accumulated by him in the old fund will already have been squandered. What is more, such a person only changes his occupation or employer in a technical sense, because after the transfer he still performs the same work at the same place. Of course, such a state of affairs should not only be prevented, but provision should be made for the transfer of the benefits of the person concerned from the one fund to the other so as to ensure him of an adequate pension in the long run.

The necessary provision in this regard is being made in clauses 15, 16 and 17 in the cases of staff of the Vaal Triangle College for Advanced Technical Education, the transfer of staff from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to certain universities, and in the case of staff who were transferred from the Pietermaritzburg branch of the M. L. Sultan Technical College to the Department of Indian Affairs.

Some of the people transferred on 1st October, 1968, from the service of the Armaments Board to the service of Arm- scor, have already been paid reorganization benefits, with the exception of 10 persons who have made written representations to retain their membership of the pension funds to which they belonged prior to 1st October, 1968.

This small isolated group now realizes that, inter alia, on account of their age, continued membership of the pension funds concerned will be more advantageous to them than a reorganization benefit.

The Armaments Board as well as Arm- scor supports this request, particularly in view of the fact that the employers concerned have rendered long and faithful service to the State.

In terms of subsection (1) of clause 18 the group of ten will therefore be deemed to have retained their pension rights and the provision is limited to those who have already applied for the retention of their rights.

With this explanation, Mr. Speaker, I trust I have informed hon. members fully about our aims and objects.

This Bill is one which is almost an annual occurrence in this House because similar Bills are introduced each year bringing about various improvements to certain Pension Fund Acts administered by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. We on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill because it obviously brings about improvements to the various Acts and funds administered by the department. However, I think it is an opportune moment to ask the Government to consider the whole question of streamlining the administration of these various funds and Acts, which would then bring about a situation whereby difficulties may be obviated in regard to the transferability of pension rights, particularly as far as persons are concerned who are transferred to various departments or to other institutions. The hon. the Deputy Minister has outlined the necessity for carrying out some of these administrative amendments, particularly as it affects the pension rights of various persons as a result of the transfer from one department to another. I think the hon. member for Germiston during the discussion of the Vote in the House suggested that some investigation should be carried out in this regard, particularly as far as Government funds are concerned. I hope that the Minister or the Deputy Minister will give further consideration to this matter, as we realize that there are many difficulties involved. We know that the hon. the Minister of Finance some years ago appointed a committee of inquiry into the question of private pension funds, but the terms of reference specifically excluded the Government Funds. That investigation brought to light a number of shortcomings as far as the private pension funds are concerned, and I believe that it would be to the advantage of the Government employees and of the Government itself to see that this matter is further investigated and receive greater consideration so that the difficulties which arise from time to time may be rectified by perhaps consolidating the Acts of the various funds, to try to bring them into fine. An example of this is the necessity to introduce a clause which we welcome in connection with those persons who perhaps made an incorrect election in their option to remain members of old funds when they had that opportunity particularly as far as teachers are concerned. The hon. the Deputy Minister has mentioned clause 12 and particularly clause 13, whereby these persons will be given an opportunity to join the Provincial and the Territory Pension Fund, which would be to their advantage. I believe that another difficulty arises when these various institutions are taken over by the Government, or when there is a change as far as their pensions are concerned, that the full implications of their pension rights, in terms of the fund which they have the opportunity and the rights to elect to join, are fully explained to them. Unfortunately there were some people—I know that it was the case in so far as teachers were concerned—who, when special schools were taken over by the Government and teachers had the option to join the new pension fund, found there was a degree of sentimentality attached to this which, unfortunately in some ways, clouded their decision. It became obvious to them afterwards, after the specific period of time had elapsed, that they had made a wrong decision. This affects other persons as well. We must take into account that on the 1st April, 1966, some of the persons who were employed at the apprenticeship schools which were taken over from the technical colleges and who belonged to the Technical College Provident Fund, elected to remain members of that provident fund rather than join the Government Service Pension Fund. Afterwards they found that they were unable to obtain for instance 100 per cent housing loans through the department as there were no facilities for them to receive such benefits. These are various matters which affect the Government employees or the provincial employees, as the case may be, or even the employees of local authorities in some instances, where they had an opportunity of joining another pension fund which could have been to their advantage.

This provision is to ensure that such people are fully informed of their rights in terms of their existing pension scheme and of what their rights will be if they elect to join another pension scheme.

The other aspect which I should like to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister concerns the implications of clauses 10 and 11. A similar principle is enshrined in both these clauses. I want to ask specifically that the position of persons after 1st October, 1972, should be carefully considered. This amending legislation affects a previous concession that was granted in as far as the war pensioners were concerned. They were enabled to receive social pensions, but where they were subject to the means test, the Pensions Laws Act, 1969 (Act No. 98 of 1969), provided specifically that the bonus which was granted each year or almost each year would not be taken into account as means or income in the assessment of such a person’s position in so far as the means test was concerned.

The bonus has been increased since 1968, when it was 10 per cent. In 1969 it was increased to 12½ per cent. In 1970 it was further increased and in 1971 it was increased to 17½ per cent. In terms of the legislation which we have before us now, this bonus is to be increased to 25 per cent. We certainly welcome this increase in the bonus. In this legislation provision is made that those persons who are presently enjoying the concession which was granted in terms of the 1969 legislation, will continue to do so provided they are in receipt of a social pension prior to the 1st October, 1972. We know that this is the date on which the new relaxed means test will come into operation. We are unable to discuss that at this stage as it has to be dealt with by regulation. However, it does have a direct effect on these people, because this coincides with the same date. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that the relaxation of the means test would mean that these people would still be protected and not adversely affected by this legislation. That is true, because that is provided for in this Bill.

However, my concern is for the position of the person who, after the 1st October, 1972, will become a beneficiary in terms of the War Pensions Act. We must bear in mind that there are still a number of men who suffered injuries in the Second World War. Some of these will be reaching the age of 60 years shortly, if they have not yet done so. However, after the 1st October, 1972, there will be an increasing number of veterans of the Second World War reaching 60 years of age and who will then apply for a war veteran’s pension. In terms of the legislation before us these people will then be in a position that the whole of the benefit which they will receive under the War Pensions Act as a war disablement pension as well as the bonus will be fully taken into account, but those persons who are already receiving the war veteran’s pension will not be in the same position, because their position will be protected and they will still qualify for a war veteran’s pension. What concerns us on this side of the House is the effect of this legislation on those particular persons. The new means test will come into operation on the 1st October, 1972. It is, of course, a relaxed means test and a greater amount is permitted in as far as income is concerned. However, in the White Paper that was tabled at the time the Minister presented his Budget, other provisions envisaged restricting the income level, for instance, beyond which a person could not qualify for a social pension. A person in receipt of an income which exceeds R696 per annum cannot qualify for such a pension. I do hope a person who is receiving a war pension in terms of the War Pensions Act will not be subject to any such restriction and that some provision will be made—of course it will have to be by regulation—to protect such a person.

However, this is an aspect which we believe requires greater clarity to ensure that all these persons are treated alike. It would seem most unfair if we should have one set of regulations affecting these persons who, before the 1st October, 1972, will already be in receipt of benefits and a different set of rules and regulations affecting those who will not already be in receipt of such benefits on 1st October, 1972, although both groups of persons are in exactly the same circumstances. The last- mentioned group is of course the beneficiaries.

In clause 11 a similar principle is involved. It deals with those persons who receive compensation in terms of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act. If one looks at the Act of 1968, one will observe the provision whereby increases in that compensation must also be disregarded in applying the means test on persons applying for social pensions.

These are matters which affect a considerable number of people and I believe that it is important that people should be aware of their pension entitlement, whether it be in terms of civil pensions or in terms of social pensions. This legislation affects to an extent both groups in that the future social pensioner is also affected if he is also receiving a pension or benefit in terms of the War Pensions Act or the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act.

We believe that this legislation will bring relief to many people and that it will also facilitate the administration in a number of spheres as far as the various Acts are concerned. At this stage we wish to give our support to the Second Reading of this Bill and hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister could perhaps give greater clarity when he replies to this debate or perhaps during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Umbilo for his co-operation on behalf of the Opposition and also for the various matters which he raised, matters which are very relevant. As far as the Minister is concerned—the Minister is present—the hon. member will recollect that he said during the Budget debate that he was going to have a good look at all Government pension schemes. I want to say that I have taken note of his requests as far as the transfer of pensions—the various pensions in respect of which transfer comes into the picture—are concerned. I have also taken note of his request about streamlining the measures in respect of the various pensions where transfers are concerned and also about the necessity of full explanations to people so that they will be able to know at least in what way they are involved where there is a transfer and where pension schemes may later possibly be applied either to their detriment or to their betterment.

*There are other questions which he asked and matters which he raised of which we have taken careful note. In particular, however, he referred to clauses 10 and 11. I think I ought to give him a detailed explanation in respect of clauses 10 and 11. In clause 10 the question of the removal of the bonus is raised. In the future the bonus will be included in the calculation when the means test is applied. That is, in a certain sense, what is really worrying the hon. member. He admits that as far as the means test is concerned there were enormous concessions; the same applies to income. According to the latest available figures there are 472 persons who are receiving a war veteran’s pension as well as a war pension. Of these 472 415 are recipients of the maximum war veteran’s pension. Only 57 are not receiving the maximum war veteran’s pension. The hon. member expressed fears concerning the position of the people who are affected after 1st October, 1972, but I should prefer to give a full explanation. Of the 57 cases which we analysed further there are six who have not been granted the maximum war veteran’s pension owing to the amount of war pension they are receiving. The position of the other 51 persons has also been examined and it was found that they were not receiving the maximum war veteran’s pension as a result of other income or assets counting against them in the application of the means test, which, as the hon. member knows, has been relaxed tremendously. It now stands somewhere in the region of R34 000. The hon. member must remember here that the war veterans involved here are not war veterans of the Second Anglo-Boer War, but are in fact war veterans of the two World Wars. There are still a few of the 1914-T8 war veterans, of whom very few will be affected after 1st October, 1972. But then there are the war veterans of the Second World War as well. The average war pension which this group of 51 persons is receiving amounts only to R25-65 per month. As far as the war pension as such is concerned, all these people fall easily within the limits of the new means test will come into operation on 1st October, 1972. After investigation and random test calculations not a single case has been encountered since 1st October. 1972, where any person will be financially the worse off. This includes persons who, as a result of their war pension, are not receiving the maximum war veteran’s pension. Nevertheless, we have added a proviso to clause 10. The proviso is to the effect that no person may be in a worse position after 1st October. 1972, than the position he was in before that time. If there should be a case where the war veteran’s pension has been reduced or cancelled as a result of the fact that the bonus is taken into consideration for pension purposes, the status quo is maintained. In such a case the bonus is not taken into consideration for pension purposes. Now I just want to mention two or perhaps three examples to the hon. member so that he can have a good grasp of what we are up against in almost all these cases. Let me mention the first example to him. Suppose we have a married person who has not yet reached the age of 70. His present position is as follows: He is receiving a war pension of R52-87 plus 17½ per cent bonus under the previous dispensation (this is the dispensation prior to 1st October, 1972), which amounts to R9-25 His total pension is therefore R62-12. Of this only the amount of R52-87 is taken into consideration for pension purposes. His wife receives an old-age pension of R27 per month. He receives a war veteran’s pension of R35 per month. Jointly they therefore receive R124-12. After 1st October his war pension will be the same, but then he will receive a 25 per cent bonus. His total income from this source will therefore be R66-90 per month. After 1st October, 1972, the full amount of R66-90 will be taken into consideration in the application of the means test when his war veteran’s pension is calculated, but his war veteran’s pension is nevertheless being increased as a result of the extension from R35 to R41 per month, and the same applies to that of his wife. Then their total income will be R158 per month. Consequently they will be better off by an amount of R33-97 per month. That is as far as clause 10 is concerned.

In regard to the question of what will happen to these people after 1st October, 1972, I just want to say that I do have the impression that there ought to be more of these war disabled persons, as well as widows, who will qualify to receive pensions than there were prior to 1st October, 1972. There will also be those who will qualify for increased old-age pensions because the tendency there is gradually to expand all forms of relief. I must also mention that the concession that bonuses are not taken into consideration only applies in respect of pensioners in receipt of both a war pension and a social pension at the time the said legislation is passed. This legislation is passed year after year with reference to and in accordance with the Budget. Therefore it will not be correct of me to expect that I should give complete assurances in regard to these people. Unfortunately this concession can only apply for these people until 1st October, 1972, but if there are any anomalies, they can be eliminated in the next Budget. As the hon. members have recently experienced there is a tendency to concessions and more relief for these people for whom the hon. Minister said we cannot do enough. We and the hon. members on the opposite side most probably share the same sentiments in this regard.

In respect of clause 11 I want to say that virtually the same principles apply here as apply in regard to clause 10.

†I wonder whether the hon. member also wants me to go into detail about the position of the pneumoconiosis pensioners that are involved here. It actually amounts to the same. Where we talk about bonuses in the other instance, we talk about benefits in these cases. It is actually the same thing. As far as we know, all these people will benefit to a much greater extent before 1st October, 1972. As far as the period after that is concerned, I want to say that Parliament will then of course in its wisdom decide whether these people should receive the relief they might be entitled to. I think we will have to leave it at that for the time being.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In terms of section 7 (3) of the existing Act, the Board, viz. the National Transport Commission, and the local road transportation boards may issue a motor carrier certificate or exemption for an indefinite period or for such fixed period as it may determine, and may in its discretion from time to time renew any motor carrier certificate or exemption which has been issued for a fixed period.

In terms of this provision motor carrier certificates and exemptions have in the past been issued as follows—

1. (a) motor carrier certificates for a fixed period, i.e. from 1st January to 31st December of every year.
2. (b) exemptions:
   1. (i) for an indefinite period, i.e. for the life of a vehicle in respect of which it is issued; and
   2. (ii) for a fixed period, i.e. from 1st January to 31st December of every year.

These exemptions, as you will note, were therefore divided into two categories. In respect of that transportation and areas where other competitive services were not involved it was for an unlimited period of validity. In the other category, where the opposite applied, certificates were issued for a year only, but in this connection it may be mentioned that only a few of these annual exemptions are still in force.

As a result of staff problems and the increase in the number of certificates which have to be issued annually, the work study division of the department has recommended that all motor carrier certificates should in future be issued for an indefinite period, but that the holder of each certificate shall at the end of the year of validity pay his renewal fee and be issued only with a new distinguishing token. In addition the period of validity is being changed from 1st January to 31st December to 1st July to 30th June of every year.

The new procedure then comes into operation. After this procedure had been in operation for a long time the legal validity of reviewing a motor carrier certificate or an exemption issued for an indefinite period at the end of the transportation year was questioned. A legal opinion subsequently obtained, confirmed that such a certificate could not be reviewed at the end of the transportation year.

For obvious reasons it is desirable that certain motor carrier certificates and exemptions should be reviewable at the end of a transportation year, and the only method whereby this power may be retained, is by means of the proposed Amendment Bill.

What this amounts to in brief is that motor carrier certificates and exemptions which authorize the conveyance of passengers by means of buses, are issued for a period of 12 months, so that these un doubtedly expire at the end of the period of validity. In addition, the amendment provide that existing exemptions and motor carrier certificates in respect of the conveyance of passengers by buses expire after 30th June, 1972.

The reason why certificates in respect of passenger services are only issued for 12 months is that such services are continually subject to important structural changes, deviations from routes, etc. Consequently it is essential that the certificates should be subject to annual review at least. Strictly speaking the same does not apply in respect of the conveyance of goods. In any case, even if it should be decided to subject such certificates to review as well, this department does not have the necessary staff to deal effectively with the stream of applications for renewal which would result.

The fact that clause 3 (c) (i) provides that all certificates and exemptions which authorize the conveyance of passengers by means of buses expire on 30th June, 1972, is nothing new, for the certificates and exemptions would in any case have expired on 30th June, 1972, were it not that the working procedure, according to legal opinion, is extending the life of certificates and exemptions.

The proviso to section 7 (3)bis is also being amended to read “90 days”. The existing provision could lead to abuse, and could give rise to protracted negotiations simply in order to continue the validity of an expired certificate or exemption.

Mr. Speaker, these are briefly the reasons why this measure is being submitted to this House.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House support this Bill. The amendments will remove one of the items that have caused aggravation as far as the transport owners are concerned in that they have to apply, year after year, for a renewal of certificates. For the reasons given, it is a wonder that it was not done a long time ago. As I have said, we on this side of the House support this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The three clauses of the Bill refer to completely divergent subjects and for that reason I shall deal with them separately.

Clause 1: The Coloured Persons Representative Council Act, 1964, provides, inter alia, for that Council to fulfil the function of local government for Coloured persons. As part of the Government’s socio-economic development programme for the Coloured people, good progress has already been made with the creation of a pattern of local government for them and, under the Group Areas Act and provincial ordinances, consultative and management committees for various Coloured group areas have been brought into being as a preparatory step towards gradually bringing the Coloured communities to maturity in the sphere of local government. As I announced in my statement of 26th September, 1971, the Government feels, however, that the rate of development in the sphere of local government ought now to be accelerated and that more effective participation by the Coloured people in that development and in the management of their own municipal affairs should be brought about.

One of the steps envisaged in this accelerated process is the transfer of the activating function in respect of the establishment and expansion of local government, as well as the accompanying employment and training of Coloured staff and related matters, to the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. In this way the Executive will be given the opportunity to be the activator in respect of greater participation by Coloured persons in their own local government and also to act as the guardian of the interests of the Coloured people in this sphere.

Although it is the eventual aim, the Executive will obviously not at this stage be able to take over completely, and any action taken will still have to take place in consultation with the provincial administrations and the White local authorities concerned. In a resolution taken on 17th November, 1971, the Executive reaffirmed its viewpoint that under the present circumstances it was preferable for the proposed accelerated development of local government in Coloured areas to take place within the framework of the existing system, adapted in order to give the Coloured Persons Representative Council and its Executive a meaningful role in the process. This implies continuous laison with the White bodies concerned, and this is an important function and task of the Minister of Coloured Affairs—

1. (1) because by virtue of his office he is directly responsible for the promotion of the interests of the Coloured community;
2. (2) because he and his Department of Coloured Relations form the official channel for liaison with White authorities; and
3. (3) because under section 17 (6) (c) of Act No. 49 of 1964, he is empowered to delegate any power conferred upon him by any law and which refers, inter alia, to local government, to the member of the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council designated to perform the function concerned. In law, such delegation cannot be made by the Minister of Community Development.

In accordance with the Government’s plan for the accelerated development of local government in Coloured areas towards independence, the intention of the proposed amendments is therefore to give the Minister of Coloured Affairs, instead of the Minister of Community Development, an overall authority in connection with the establishment of consultative and management committees in group areas for Coloured persons (section 28), the making of regulations in respect of such committees (section 48) and the establishment of local authorities (section 29).

A need was also felt for the Minister of Indian Affairs to play a greater role in the establishment of the aforementioned committees in group areas for Indians. Therefore a redefinition of the term “Minister” is also being proposed in this connection, and follows, inter alia, the principle which applies in respect of the various welfare laws, namely that the implementation thereof in respect of the various population groups be entrusted to the responsible Ministers.

Clause 2: When the Planning Vote was being discussed in the House of Assembly last year, I said in reply to questions relating to the future of the Grey Street area that it was my intention to declare the area a business area for Indians. There was, however, some doubt as to whether this would be possible under the existing Act. Accordingly I undertook to go into the matter and, should amending legislation be required, to introduce it this year. Clause 2 seeks to give effect to that promise.

In terms of the existing Act, section 19 (1), under which the use of land may be restricted to a particular purpose, may only be applied in a defined area. This means that an area being used in terms of section 19 may not be set aside at the same time for a specific group, but that, in respect of every building erected or enlarged in that area, it has to be decided, by way of a determination under section 18 (3) (b) or a permit under section 21, which group or person may occopy such a building. Apart from the fact that this sort of control requires much time and manpower, it may also hamper the development of such an area. Because control by permit creates uncertainty, land owners do not always want to risk their money there.

The proposed amendment as contained in clause 2 will make it possible, although not compulsory, for a specific area simultaneously to be declared a group area for a particular group and for a particular purpose. Such proclamations will eliminate all doubt in regard to the future use of an area and create the correct climate for development.

Although section 19 has been on the Statute Book since 1961, it has always been the policy to use sparingly the powers it confers. Thus far the provisions of the section have only been utilized for establishing business areas at Port Elizabeth, East London, Pretoria, Roodepoort, Newcastle and Ladysmith (Natal). Although the amendment will now make it possible also to establish group areas for a particular purpose only, I should like to emphasize the fact that the policy remains unchanged and that section 19 (1) will, as was the case in the past, only be applied by way of exception in those cases in regard to which the Government is satisfied that there is no other alternative.

Clause 3: Under the existing section 34 of the principal Act, surveyors-general may issue certificates in respect of land in any type of area except in a future group area or a border strip. The amendment contained in clause 3 seeks to supply this deficiency.

Sir, I welcome the sense of confidence in the future of the Coloured people which was evinced by the Minister in the introduction of this measure, as against the lack of confidence revealed earlier this morning. We welcome this Bill and we will support it, but there are one or two observations I should like to make. The Minister has pointed out correctly that this Bill is designed to fit in with the granting of greater autonomy in Coloured and Indian local areas. It is a step also towards entrusting the Coloured Representative Council and the Indian Council with greater powers with regard to the control of local matters and municipal management.

Sir, we welcome this step, because as the hon. the Minister knows, this is in accord with what we believe should be the function of the Indian and the Coloured Councils; in other words, that they should be communal councils with far greater powers and rights than they have at the present moment to deal with matters which are intimately connected with the Coloured and Indian people. The Minister has also correctly pointed out that with the division of powers between the various governmental bodies, there arises a need for greater co-ordination and consultation between the existing local authorities, the existing provincial authorities, the existing Government authorities and the Coloured and Indian Councils. Sir, it is for that reason that one regrets to note that recently when a motion was introduced into the Cape Provincial Council suggesting the establishment of a means of consultation between the Cape Province and the Coloured Representative Council, it was rejected by the Nationalist Party majority in the Cape Provincial Council. This seems to be a matter which may provide some difficulties for the hon. the Minister in establishing what he has referred to today as greater co-ordination and consultation between the Provincial Administration and the Coloured Representative Council. So far as the establishment of local authorities is concerned, I would point out that without the existence of Coloured and Indian local authorities and management committees, the upper or superstructure, of course, becomes unnecessary.

But, Sir, I want to draw attention to the fact that what the Minister has expressed this morning as good intent will have to be translated into action at a far greater pace than has been done hitherto. I only this morning referred to what was the prognosis in regard to this policy 10 years ago, and the timetable is really very much behind schedule in so far as this development is concerned. One finds for instance that in so far as the elected management committees are concerned last year there was only an element of election in the whole of South Africa in only six Coloured management committees. That was the reply I had from the hon. Minister last year. These existed at Bellville, Graaff- Reinet, Paarl, Worcester, Port Elizabeth and Johannesburg. It is a pathetically slow start for the establishment of responsibility for urban local government as far as the Coloured people are concerned.

The progress under the Minister of Indian Affairs for the Indian council has been less attractive. In fact, it is a pathetic situation. In Natal at present there are only two town boards. Although there are 16 local affairs committees, there is not one management committee with elected members to serve the Indian residential and local authority areas. It seems that if that is the pace at which the Government is going to implement this policy, events will overtake them. The advent of a new Government will probably also overtake them if they carry on at this slow rate with the implementation of their policy. It is perhaps not specifically within the Minister’s power but he can do it with his overall planning and I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give some impetus to this whole idea, the whole basic concept of the extension of local government more and more into the hands of the Coloured people and the Indian people with greater say through their representative councils, the Coloured Council on the one hand and the Indian Council on the other hand.

In regard to the remaining aspects of the Bill as contained in clause 2 we on this side of the House appreciate that what this clause does by the amendment of section 19 of the principal Act is to empower the Minister to override provisions of a local authority town planning scheme. We have been opposed to that. We were opposed to this power being given to the Department of Community Development, a power which it now has. But we welcome the assurance which the hon. the Minister has given that that power will be used sparingly. As he pointed out correctly, it is only being used to create business opportunities for disqualified persons in certain of the main city areas. The Minister was also good enough to point out that this was introduced as the result of a request made by the hon. member for Port Natal who last year was concerned that in the development of Grey Street provision of opportunities for Indian traders to carry on business be made. That obviously will now be made possible as the result of this amendment, and for that reason also we support the measure.

I thank the Opposition and the House for the unanimous support which they are according this measure. With regard to the second part of the hon. member for Green Point’s remarks I think, in fact I am convinced, that local authorities need have no fear that what is being envisaged here will override the local planning schemes, on the one hand because, as the law stood, section 19 (1) proclamation in effect had the same effect, and, secondly, we are bound to consult the Administrator of the province and that in effect means the local authorities, through the Administrator.

If I may comment on the first part of the hon. member’s remarks, I can say that there must necessarily be liaison between the province and the Coloured Persons Representative Council for a long time still to come; it is my personal feeling, but I am supported also by the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, that that liaison must be done through me.

And not through the provincial executive?

No, the contact will be between myself and the Administrator and therefore the contact of the provincial executive with the executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council will be through the Administrator and through me. Naturally, when it come to normal small matters of administration, we will allow them to deal with those matters direct.

The hon. member made certain remarks regarding the fact that there are very few elected local management committees, even on a part-time basis. That is a matter which I shall under no circumstances allow to be taken out of my hands. I want a definite say in that; it is the one reason why I am introducing this amendment. It is a matter on which I am very keen. There are other similar matters but if I should allow such matters to go out of my hands and to permit direct negotiations with the provincial executive committees in respect of such matters, I feel my say will be excluded.

Your predecessor allowed the provinces to pass ordinances to do just that.

I am prepared to allow the provinces to continue. I may say that they have been a bit slow. One of the objects of this new set-up is to get things going and to get things moving. I shall naturally consult with the Executive of the Coloured Representative Council, but it is my intention if they support me, that in future we shall have no further fully nominated management committees, but that at the lower rung of the ladder we shall have partly elected and partly nominated management committees constituted in such a way that the elected members will always be in the majority. There will then be certain Coloured townships which will be identified. I shall allow myself to be guided by the opinion of the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council and on their guidance I shall consult with the Administrators. I think that we shall be able to find a number of local authorities in Coloured townships which can be fully elected. I have no doubt that during next year’s session when we deal with the Vote “Coloured Affairs”, hon. members will ask me what progress has been made under this new set-up.

Does the hon. the Minister anticipate that he will be able to speed up the establishment of management committees constituted with elected members? There are only six after ten years, and that is pathetically slow.

I do not have the slightest hesitation in assuring the House that this process will be speeded up beyond all recognition. I am quite confident that next year I shall be able to inform the House, or the Committee, when we deal with my vote, of the progress which we shall have achieved. There are quite a number of aspects which we shall have to clear up, but that will be done. There is also the question of the powers which these people should have and how liaison can be achieved, also on the level of local authorities. At all times I want to have the co-operation of the White local authorities. If I do not get their co-operation, I shall have difficulty in making the system work.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This amending Bill makes provision for a comparatively minor amendment of the Chiropractors Act. This Act provides, inter alia, that a person who is a South African citizen and who was practising as a chiropractor in the Republic on the date of the coming into operation of the Act, or was studying in order to qualify as a chiropractor, and whose name was, on the recommendation of the Chiropractic Association of South Africa, entered on a list by an officer of the Department of Health within six months after the coming into operation of the Act, may practise chiro- practics in the Republic.

Since the coming into operation of the Act on 16th June last year, it has come to our attention that there were three persons studying overseas who, on the date of the coming into operation of the Act, qualified under the South African Citizenship Act, 1949, to apply for South African citizenship. In view of the fact, however, that on the date of the coming into operation of the Chiropractors Act they did not possess such citizenship, they cannot be entered on the prescribed list and they are accordingly prevented from practising in the Republic. These persons are desirous of obtaining South African citizenship and of practising as chiropractors in this country.

The cases concerned are regarded as deserving cases and as cases which should receive sympathetic consideration. The obstacle encountered here cannot, however, be eliminated administratively, and the only way in which a concession can be made is by means of a suitable amendment to the Act, as we are proposing here. A further shortcoming we have found in applying the Act is that there is no provision whereby a South African citizen who was practising chiropractics outside the Republic on the date of the coming into operation of the Act, can continue his practice in the Republic after his return. In cases such as these it is also felt that vested rights ought to be protected. This Bill is accordingly aimed at eliminating the aforementioned shortcomings in the principal Act and enabling the two groups of persons mentioned to practise chiropractics in the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. I would <u>lik</u>e to bring to the notice of the Minister, however, that I have been given information that the code of ethics of the chiropractors who are now registered, is not enforceable by law, and it is possible that there are people who are registered chiropractors who need not adhere to the code of ethics that has been drawn up by the Chiropractors Association. If that is the case, I think some of the objects of the Bill will be missed. I wonder if the Minister could find out whether that is in fact the case. I think it is very important that we should know that the chiropractors do have the support of the Minister in this.

I have also been informed that there are people who are still practising as chiropractors and who are not, in fact, registered. They are nevertheless using the term “chiropractor”. I think we should investigate this matter as well. If there are unregistered people who are practising as chiropractors, they should be brought to book. Those are just one or two matters I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. It is quite obvious to me that this Chiropractors Bill is an encouragement really for chiropractors to continue practising in South Africa. If that is going to be the case, we should at all times keep an observing eye on the practise of the chiropractics to make sure that they do not go further than the provisions of their code of ethics. I think it is terribly important that that should be kept in mind. If we find that they are fulfilling a need, as was said during the original debate, it may be possible at some time to give them recognition for the future as well. As the Minister knows, the Act was introduced originally to allow them to practise now, but it was hoped that they would eventually phase out. But the type of legislation we have to deal with today, which allows more people to come into this profession, rightly or wrongly, gives them encouragement to keep studying and come back in the hope that they will be accepted. That is all I want to say about the matter at the moment. We on this side of the House will support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Rosettenville for the support he has given to this Bill on behalf of the official Opposition.

I may just comment on the question of the code of ethics. The hon. member will remember that during the debate last year, I indicated that it would be necessary really that a code of ethics be drawn up. I believe that the association has gone a long way in doing it. It is quite correct that it cannot be enforced by law; but as most, or almost all, of the practitioners do belong to the association, I would think that the association, as in the case of the Medical Association, would have enough power over their members to see that this code of ethics is adhered to. If it were to become necessary in years to come to perhaps enforce it by law, we can look at it again, but I do not think the time is opportune to do so now.

The second point is that the hon. member indicated that there might be some practitioners whose names are not on the list and who are holding themselves out to be chiropractors and are practising as such. Such cases, of course, must be brought to the notice of the Police and the necessary steps will be taken. It is not the function of my department to take steps in such a case. But if there are any cases of this nature and if perhaps the Association of Chiropractors are aware of such people, and it is brought to our notice, we will see to it that the proper authorities take the necessary steps.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In paragraph 95 of the White Paper on the decisions by the Government on the financial and administrative relations between the Republic and South-West Africa, it was announced that the Government had decided that the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act be made applicable in South-West Africa. However, for practical reasons it has not yet been possible to implement this decision up to now. It is a simple Bill and entails only the amendment of the definition of Bantu persons so as to include Natives because this term is still used in regard to mines and works in the Mines. Works and Mineral Ordinance of South-West Africa of 1968. Furthermore, a definition of “Republic” is being inserted and it is being defined to include South-West Africa as well as the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel.

The Pneumoconiosis Compensation Amendment Act, 1970, makes provision for the control of works as defined in the Mines and Works Act, 1958. However, this Act is not applicable in South-West Africa. Instead. the Mines, Works and Mineral Ordinance of South-West Africa. 1968, is still applicable in the Territory. However, it is deemed desirable that medical control be exercised over works in South-West Africa as well, in the same way as in the Republic, and consequently it is necessary to amend the definition of “works”, as contained in the amending Act mentioned above, so as to include a works, as defined in the Mines, Works and Mineral Ordinance. These amendments I have mentioned are the only ones which are needed to make the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act and all its amendments since 1964, applicable in South-West Africa. The effect of the application of this Act in South-West Africa is that mines and works will be declared controlled mines and controlled works and that it will be possible to exercise medical control over workers exposed to coniosis. At the same time, it will then also be possible to pay workers who contract coniosis and tuberculosis at controlled mines in South-West Africa, the compensation prescribed by the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act. Therefore mineworkers in South-West Africa welcome this measure whole-heartedly.

The application of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act in South-West Africa does not involve great financial implications for either the South-West Africa Administration or the Central Government. From the side of the authorities, the expenditure in regard to the exercising of control over mines and works in terms of this Act, including the medical examinations for which the miners’ Medical Bureau is responsible, is estimated at approximately R15 000 to R20 000 per year. This expenditure will be defrayed from the South-West Africa Account in terms of the financial arrangements between the Republic and South-West Africa.

In addition to the few provisions I have already mentioned, the Bill contains only two other provisions. The first of these is the repeal of section 93 (5) of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act (clause 2). This subsection provides that a person who worked at a mine before August, 1941, which became a controlled mine after that date and who did not work at a controlled mine again after that date, is not entitled to compensation. The background to and reason for this provision is no longer clear, but it does prejudice a few old miners who last worked at a mine before 1941, after which the mine became a controlled mine. There is in fact another case of a person suffering from pneumoconiosis above 75 per cent and of tuberculosis, but who cannot obtain compensation because of this provision. The retention of the provision is definitely not justified. At the moment these persons and their dependants will not be able to receive the appropriate compensation. If this provision is deleted, they will in fact be entitled to it.

The other provision (clause 4) makes provision for the payment of a service gratuity to a few officials and former officials of the Miners’ Medical Bureau and the General Council for Pneumoconiosis Compensation. When these two institutions were incorporated into the Public Service on 1st August, 1946, persons who were employed there in a permanent capacity were offered the choice, depending on their age and period of service, to join the Government Service Pension Fund or to receive a gratuity from the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund on their retirement. Of the officials who chose the latter because they could not afford to join the Public Service Pension Fund at that stage, only five or six are left at present, of whom one is a doctor who has since been transferred to the Department of Health, one an official at present in the service of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, and the other officials still in the service of the Miners’ Medical Bureau and the General Council for Pneumoconiosis Compensation.

The original formula according to which the gratuity was to be calculated, is complicated, but was intended to give those persons a benefit more or less equal to what they would have been able to receive from the Public Service Pension Fund on their retirement, had they joined it. Since that time the benefits payable from this pension fund have, however, been improved considerably and the officials entitled to the gratuity, have remained far behind.

The proposed provision which makes provision for a service gratuity in the place of the previous gratuity, amends the formula for calculating the service gratuity so that the amount of the benefit will be more or less comparable to the benefits payable from the pension fund.

The difference between the old and the new formula is to be found in the salary factor being increased from one-twelfth to one-eighth, which is regarded as more equitable in the present circumstances. In addition, the discrimination amongst officials in the terms of the old formula on the basis of a ministerial determination at the time, namely whether it would have been prejudicial to them to become a member of the pension fund or whether it would not have been prejudicial to them, is being removed.

This Bill contains no contentious provisions.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned for lunch, I was saying that it seemed that it had become traditional for the House to discuss matters pertaining to mining legislation on the last or the second-last day of a session. This Session seems to be no exception to the rule. The piece of legislation we are dealing with this afternoon has been on the Order Paper since the beginning of the session. Is it because he wants to discuss mining matters at the end of the session that the hon. the Minister has found it unncessary to bring this piece of legislation for debate earlier on. However I think it is right that mining legislation now on the Statute Book of the Republic should also be applicable, wherever possible, to South-West Africa.

As far as pneumoconiosis, tuberculosis and other occupational diseases are concerned, I feel that compensation for these diseases particularly, both here and in South-West Africa, should be on the same level or scale and that those affected should receive the same compensation in both places. Although I do not want to anticipate legislation, I understand that it is possible that legislation may be brought into this House during the next session to deal with the matter of compensation for pneumoconiosis. If that is the case, I hope that that legislation will also include compensation for those people suffering from occupational diseases in South-West Africa as well as in the Republic. I also want to say to the hon. the Minister that. I hope that the delay in discussing this Bill in the House is not going to be to the detriment of any people in South-West Africa, who may be beneficiaries for compensation either because of disease or because of service in South-West Africa. Provisions are here being made for them and I hope that these provisions will be retrospective from the beginning of this year, if that is at all possible.

Lastly, I want to take this opportunity— and I am sure the hon. the Minister will join with me—to express our deepest sorrow to the relatives of those people who lost their lives during the terrible mining disaster in Wankie, Rhodesia. We feel very, very deeply with these people. South Africa did its best to help to save as many lives as possible by sending proto-teams from this country to our good neighbour, Rhodesia. I am certain I have anticipated the Minister’s feelings, but I want to say to him that we do join with him in this matter. We know that the hon. the Prime Minister has sent a telegram of condolence to the people of Rhodesia and we, from our side, have also done this. Again I want to say how sorry we are that such a terrible mishap should have taken place and that so many lives should have been lost.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Rosetten- ville said in regard to the mine accident in Rhodesia. He has quite rightly indicated that the Prime Minister, on behalf of the peoples of South Africa, has sent a message to the Prime Minister of Rhodesia. I may also tell the hon. member and the House that, at the earliest possible moment, I was in telephonic contact with my colleague, the Minister of Mines in Rhodesia, and offered him any help they might need. So we are not only in contact with one another, but we are doing what we can to do what they have requested us to in the circumstances. The Chamber of Mines, too, has reacted in a very commendable way.

There is just one point I should like to reply to, namely the remark of the hon. member that we tend to deal with legislation pertaining to mining towards the end of the session. There is a very definite reason for this in this particular case. The hon. member quite rightly pointed out that this Bill had been on the Order Paper since the beginning of the Session. As the hon. member knows, I have held discussions both with the Mine Workers’ Union and with the Chamber of Mines in reviewing the whole of the Pneumoconiosis Act in order to convert it into a draft Bill on Occupational Diseases. If it had been at all possible to introduce that Bill during this Session, this Bill would, of course, have been withdrawn. That is the only reason why I come with it at the end of this Session. This Bill would otherwise have been incorporated in the new Bill. I hope to come along with a completely new draft Bill on Occupational Diseases at the beginning of the next session and to refer it to a Select Committee. I should like to thank the hon. member for the support he has given to this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Time.

In this measure we are chiefly introducing the legal provision that is necessary for the implementation of certain recommendations of the Franszen Committee into Post Office financing.

As I informed the House during the handling of the Post Office Budget on 22nd March, all the recommendations of that Committee were accepted by the Government earlier this year.

The recommendations of the Committee relative to this Bill are to the effect that—

1. (a) that the Post Office be authorized to obtain extended credit conditions on telecommunications equipment that is imported;
2. (b) the legal provision that has to be made for these extended credit loans must be wide enough to allow the Post Office at any time to negotiate additional foreign loans with the approval of the Treasury; and
3. (c) that the R199 million of the Post Office’s outstanding loan liability be converted into permanent capital on which an annual dividend of 6 per cent is paid to the Treasury.

It has been decided that it is desirable to make legal provision for borrowing powers for the Post Office that are at least as wide, for example, as those of the Electricity Supply Commission, and which are not restricted to foreign loans either.

This will ensure that the pattern of loan financing of the Post Office can promptly be adapted in future to changed circumstances and needs.

The loan financing of the Post Office as a State undertaking must inevitably fit in at all times with the broader requirements of State financing.

Since this Bill therefore makes provision for wide borrowing powers, its implementation, as it becomes necessary, will be subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance.

The obtaining abroad of extended credit conditions on imported Post Office equipment, as recommended by the Franszen Committee, is included in the wide powers the measure makes provision for. The borrowing powers are contained in the proposed four new sections being inserted in the Post Office readjustment Act by clause 1 of the Bill.

Those sections chiefly provide that loans can be negotiated and securities issued for them up to an amount approved by the Minister of Finance from time to time. However, the total amount of the loans may not at any time exceed—after allowance has been made for the loan funds made available to the Post Office by the Treasury—what is necessary for capital expenditure approved by Parliament. The loan provisions of the Bill are moulded on the lines of the General Loans Act that controls loans by the State.

The Bill also makes applicable the provisions of the General Loans Act on securities of the type that could be needed in the case of the Post Office, and on matters such as the appointment of agents for the issuing, control and repayment of securities, to loans negotiated by the Post Office. In addition, provision is also being made for the Minister of Finance to be able to guarantee the repayment of the loans and securities of the Post Office.

To the recommendation of the Franszen Committee on permanent capital for the Post Office, to which I have already referred, effect is being given in clause 3 of the Bill. The amount of R199 million of the outstanding loan liability, which is now being converted into permanent capital, is the amount at which the Post Office, with the advent of its independence in 1968, took over the permanent assets which had been built up since the advent of Union. Up to now this has been regarded as a repayable loan which was made available to the Post Office by the Treasury on 1st April, 1968. By the conversion of this amount into permanent capital a more rational capital structure for the Post Office is being established. The dividend of 6 per cent per year, which the Post Office will pay on the amount, is equal to the interest payments that have been made up to now. However, for the foreseeable future the finances of the Post Office will benefit considerably from the remission of redemption which the conversion brings about.

An additional matter for which the Bill makes provision, by way of clause 2, is the adjustment of section 52 of the Exchequer and Audit Act so that the Post Office can also invest working balances on a shortterm basis with the National Finance Corporation and approved financial institutions abroad. By being able to invest with the National Finance Corporation the Post Office, in particular, will be able to eliminate much of the labour and expenditure that is now involved in the control of its Reserve Bank Account. Since the Post Office regularly makes large payments abroad to other postal administrations, and receives large payments from them, this will again help to eliminate the two-fold handling of payments and, at times, exchange rate losses and foreign exchange difficulties if the Post Office can temporarily invest money there when necessary. The arrangement proposed in this measure is essential for the more efficient financing and working of the Post Office.

I trust that both sides of the House will support this.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have consistently been supporting any measures that can contribute to the independence or the gaining of independence by the Post Office on a larger scale. We have also thus far supported all measures that have resulted in the Post Office being managed more along business principles than previously when it fell directly under the Central Government. Since this measure is one of those, we shall consequently support its Second Reading and I shall not occupy the attention of the House for very long as far as that matter is concerned. It is apparently the logical result of the recommendations of the Committee the hon. the Minister mentioned. I think it is a good thing for the Post Office to have the right to negotiate its own loans. There are certain principles that must be acknowledged in this connection.

The first is that the Post Office must not negotiate loans in competition with the State. I am satisfied that this is being taken care of in this Bill, particularly since there will be co-operation and consultation with the Minister of Finance about this matter.

The second principle is, of course, that under the present dispensation the Post Office must not be allowed to obtain just as much money as it wants to on the money market. Provision is being made for that in the provisions of this Bill. The total amount the Post Office borrows is still fixed in the Post Office Budget and the Post Office Appropriation Bill each year.

A third principle is that a loan of this nature must be as good as gold because of the reputation of our country and our country’s finance abroad, i.e. it must truly be a “gilt-edged” investment. This is being taken care of in that the State as a whole is guaranteeing all the loans of the Post Office. I think it is a good idea for the net for our capital sources to be thrown wider so that we can borrow money not only locally but also abroad so that we can also obtain money on the international money market for our Post Office in South Africa. The additional provision of actually transferring to the Post Office itself the R190 million, which the Post Office would originally have obtained from the Central Government as a fixed capital asset or fixed property, is something acceptable to this side of the House because it gives a fixed financial basis to the Post Office as such. The Post Office is at present experiencing problems with its financing since it has thus far been compelled to make regular payments on that amount of R190 million. This Bill alleviates this obligation.

†Though we give our support to this Bill, I would like to place one idea before the hon. the Minister before I sit down. The hon. the Minister probably knows that the ordinary Government loans issued by this and by most other Governments, are given such dead, uninteresting and unimaginative names. You find things such as a “5 per cent, 5-year Treasury bond, 1978” or “6 per cent Government stock 1973”. I wish therefore to conclude by suggesting to the hon. Minister that the first two loans that he raises for the Post Office under this new Bill, which we are now agreeing to, should, in the first case, be “a Post Office 4 per cent Expansion of Telephone Services Stock, 1972-1984” and the second should be “Post Office 4 per cent Television for the Republic Loan”. Subject to those provisions we support this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, from earlier discussions in this House, this measure results from recommendations of the Potgieter Commission that instituted a comprehensive inquiry into the security set-up of the Republic. It links up with the measure introduced by the hon. the Prime Minister to establish a State Security Council, to define the activities and duties of the Bureau for State Security and to entrench this in legislation. I do not think I need to say anything about the necessity for being able to listen in to telephone conversations and open and investigate postal articles when the security of the State demands it. It is known that both sides of the House are agreed about this objective of the measure before us and that it is not a contentious matter. As is apparent from the report that has been tabled, particularly paragraph 212, the hon. Justice Potgieter regards it as desirable that—

1. (a) interception of postal articles, telegrams and telephone conversations must take place on application giving good grounds, and according to a procedure laid down in legislation; and
2. (b) that it should be made clear that interception will be restricted to matters that have an actual connection with the security of the State and that there will be no interference with the private conduct of persons, their business activities or political views, except in so far as these are of a subversive nature.

These considerations have been given close attention in the formulation of this Bill.

In the first place, the Bill provides that interception can only be requested by a State employed person designated to do so by the State Security Council.

It is obvious that the State Security Council can designate the head of the Bureau, the head of the Security Police and the Director of Military Intelligence to request interception. However, it will not be possible to grant interception automatically to a person who is designated to request it. He will have to apply for the interception to an authority that will be competent to refuse the request. In his application he will have to explain the grounds for his belief that the interception is essential in the interests of the security of the State. The authority to which the application is made can only grant it if he is convinced that it is, in fact, essential for State security reasons.

A request for interception will also have to specify the period for which the interception is required, and the authority that must consider the request will be competent to grant it for a shorter period if he is not convinced that the interception is justified for the full period requested.

These principles of interception on an application giving good grounds, from an authority that can refuse it, and interception for a specified period, will ensure control by a second authority and the regular review of all cases. The period for which interception is granted can be extended, it is true, and this can also take place more than once if necessary. But the authority that grants interception will have to review it on each occasion and be convinced that each extension is justified.

To ensure, in addition that all cases will be properly considered, and that interception cannot take place on insubstantial grounds, it is being provided that all requests for interception, and all requests for the extension of the period of interception, must be put down in writing.

It is provided that the authority that must consider the requests must be the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, a Minister who is a member of the State Security Council or an officer to whom the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has delegated the authority.

The officer to whom the authority can be delegated will derive his authority from the Minister who can, at any time, review his conduct, and he will not be able to delegate his authority to another officer, but will have to implement it personally. It goes without saying that specific interception may be urgently necessary. The person who requests it will therefore be able to go to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, or any Minister who is a member of the State Security Council, when the officer vested with the authority to grant the application, or a specific Minister, is perhaps not available. A Minister will, of course, also be able to review a case where the person requesting interception is not satisfied with the decision of an officer who can grant applications.

The fundamental provisions I. have dealt with are contained in subsections (1), (2), (3) and (5) of the proposed new section in the Post Office Act. In subsection (4) the persons, who must carry out the interception that has been granted, are being legally authorized to do so.

Subsection (6) deals with the return to the Post Office, for transmission to the addressee concerned, of postal articles and telegrams that have been intercepted, or disposal of them if their return conflicts with the interests of State security.

We all realize that the interception of postal articles, telegrams and telephone conversations is something that no government would like to do, but it is something that must unavoidably be done in the prevailing interests of the security of the Republic.

The provisions of this Bill take into consideration what is being done in comparable Western countries, and is an honest attempt to establish workable fixed arrangements which can engender confidence and will be acceptable to everyone who wants to see the security of our country protected.

I trust that the measure will be seen in this spirit and be supported by all the hon. members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill gives effect to certain recommendations in the report of the commission of inquiry into matters relating to the security of the State, more popularly known as the Pot- gieter Commission. This report itself, as we know, led to the Security Intelligence and State Security Council Bill introduced earlier here by the hon. the Prime Minister, to which both opposition parties, the United Party and the Progressive Party, agreed. This present Bill is, in fact, to some extent, consequential on the previous Bill that we have passed. In view of what I am going to say now, we intend supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, and I propose to give our reasons for doing so.

Sir, it is well known that in all countries, including democratic countries of the West, the tapping of telephones or the interception of mail for the purposes of the security of the State—and I underline those words—does take place and has been taking place for a long time, even in our own country. The usual custom is for it to take place, but for the responsible Minister to deny that such tapping or such interception does take place. I am therefore not blaming the Minister for the fact that there has been tapping in the interests of State security in South Africa, because it also happens in other countries of the Western world.

Sir, certain strict legislative limits in an Act are now being laid down in regard to the interception of mail and communications for the purposes of the security of the State. I regard this as an improvement on the state of affairs in the past, where such tapping of telephones and such interception of mail and mail articles for the purposes of the security of the State took place without authorization, and took place in an uncontrolled way. Mr. Justice Potgieter was specific in regard to this matter, and it may be as well if I read out certain parts of the report which the hon. the Minister also read out, with the addition of a few words. Mr. Justice Potgieter said—

It must be in accordance with a certain procedure, and that procedure must be prescribed. Mr. Justice Potgieter continued—

Sir, more than normal interest—a natural interest—has been shown in this Bill on account of fears that certain people might have had that it could infringe the liberty of the subject. Of course, a Bill of this nature goes to the root of one of the problems that we have in all democratic countries, and that is the problem, on the one hand, of the security of the Sate itself, which means the security of all the citizens who are members of that State, and their lives, and, on the other hand, the undeniable liberties and freedoms of the ordinary subject. Now it is no use considering the extreme views in regard to a matter such as this. On the one side you have the views on intereference with the mail, which demand measures much stricter than in this Bill, namely that you have to tackle these people, and it does not matter whether you intern them or what you do with them, but you simply have to tackle them with or without due process of law. Neither do we find much comfort, or any comfort at all, in the opposite view which allows extreme permissiveness, sometimes almost verging on anarchy, for the exercise of certain inalienable rights, which can be abused in a democratic country. I believe that in a case such as this the sensible view is that of what has been called the silent majority, the person who holds these liberties, the privacy of his telephone conversations and his mail dear, but a person who is also a law-abiding citizen and who is prepared to see that under strictly-defined circumstances his Government, which has to see to the security of the State and protect the country against the dangers from the outside world and internal sabotage, be given certain rights which he knows and which he will demand will not be used against him if he is a law- abiding citizen.

There is no doubt that a Bill of this nature was necessary. We accept what Mr. Justice Potgieter had to say in his report, which is a document indicative of very hard work and a great deal of research on his part. We regard it necessary, secondly, because experience in other countries has proved that a Bill of this nature, however peaceable everything might look on the surface, is necessary. We do not live in a world Utopia today. Nations are still preparing for war against each other. Terrorism has reached new heights. Countries are still spying on each other. Illegal dealings are perpetrated between countries. Therefore countries, amongst which the democracies such as Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia and others, have found it necessary to introduce measures of a similar kind.

In Britain there is no particular Act on the Statute Book, but in Britain one particular Minister, the Home Secretary, the equivalent of the the Minister of the Interior in this country, can issue a warrant for interfering with the mail or for listening to a telephone conversation. I almost feel that the present Bill which we have before us, in which not one single Minister has to take the responsibility, but the whole security council, consisting of several Ministers, is a greater safeguard than leaving the decision only in the hands of a single Minister. The British idea appears to be that the tapping of telephones for State security purposes—I underline that every time—and the interception of mail is justified on account of what in the British terminology is called “immemorial usage”. Now we have no such tradition of immemorial usage in this country and therefore legislation of some kind is necessary. The commission which in 1956 inquired into this in Britain came forward with a report repeating this theory indicating why legislative measures would not be necessary. But we accept that a legislative measure is necessary in this country. In New Zealand and Australia there are laws on the Statute Book in this regard, in New Zealand since 1969 and in Australia since 1960, where the legislation is called the Telephone Communications Interception Act of 1960.

Take another country, the Netherlands, which is culturally, etc., close to us. In the Netherlands they have legislation with similar provisions and I hope I may be allowed to read what was said by a special commission of inquiry of the Netherlands Staaten-Generaal into the matter, and which reported as follows. It is part of the report of the Vaste Commissie van Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdiensten—

Sir, looking at the Bill itself, I find it to be reasonably specific and aimed at a particular task, namely the preservation of the security of the State. It places definite limits, as far as I can judge, on the extent to which mail can be held back and telephone conversations can be intercepted. That leads me to the first reason why I believe that this Bill should receive our support, namely that it now specifies under what particular circumstances mail can be intercepted for the security of the State. In the past, as I indicated, it could be done and it was done—not under the law necessarily—without proper control being exercised over the methods used. The fact that this Bill now states under what conditions it can be done is, I believe, an improvement. In the Bill itself we find it clearly stated that any person who makes a request, for instance, a high official such as the Director of Military Services, to the State Security Council for action under this particular Bill, such a person (I am now quoting clause 2 (b) of the Bill)

“… shall make the request only if he believes that the interception in question is necessary for the maintenance of the security of the Republic.”

The words are specific. They apply to the person applying for the right to act under this Bill. There is another safeguard, as I see it, and that is that when the State Security Council gives permission for action under this Bill, it too is precluded by this Bill from acting under motives other than that of the interests of State security. Clause 3 (a) of the Bill states that—

We must be clear about the fact that this Bill has nothing to do with the or- dinary telephone tapping that citizens have been objecting to in the past and will continue to object to or with the interception of mail, such as lottery tickets or plain envelopes containing, for example, Playboy, or things of that nature. This Bill has nothing to do with those matters. Our objection is still as strong as ever against interference of that nature. But this has to do with attacks against our country as such, and with the security of the State as a whole.

The second provision in this Bill that leads me to give it support is that, other than has been the state of affairs up to the present, only one body can now give permission for this interfering with the mail and communications and that is the State Security Council itself. We have heard allegations in the Press and from other parties too, like the Herstigte Nasionale Party—even Dr. Hertzog once came with a complaint but I doubt whether it was justified—about the methods being used against them under the cloak and the guise of State security. That state of affairs, I trust, will no longer be able to continue where only one body will in future give permission, namely the Sate Security Council itself.

A third reason is this, that only certain defined persons can now ask for interception of communications for the objects of State Security. In the past it could be that any Police officer, any person involved in State security or military intelligence could do so. very often without the knowledge of the Minister himself. Now it is clearly laid down that only certain people will be able to ask for it. The hon. the Minister mentioned that it is possible that the Director of Military Intelligence, the head of the Bureau of State Security or the head of the State Security Police, will be amongst the designated people who will be allowed to apply for action under this particular Bill. I would be happy if the hon. the Minister could perhaps be more specific and tell us that it will be limited to these three people, or if it is not limited to them, if he would give us some indication of what other people will be entitled to ask for this. I am sure he would like us to know that only the top people and responsible people will be permitted to approach the State Security Council for reasons of State security in this regard.

There is a fourth reason why I am prepared to support the Bill. In future specific reasons have to be given to the State Security Council before any interference is made in regard to communications, mail, telephones and so forth. The reasons must be given and they must be specific reasons. You can no longer just say to the Police: “I suspect So-and-so” and “There is general suspicion against a certain organization or against certain persons; tap their telephones and interfere with their mail.” Specific reasons must now be given.

Fifthly, Sir, it is now necessary, in the case of organizations or persons, that specific addresses and telephone numbers must be stated in any type of application that is made. That was not the position in the past when there was a rather haphazard method of investigation. The sixth point in this Bill is that the period is now limited during which such interference can take place. It has to be stated in the application to the Security Council and in the Security Council’s permission that the tapping, or interference with mail, in the case of a certain particular specified person may only continue for a specific number of weeks or months. After the expiry of the period concerned, it lapses and a fresh application has to be made. The period therefore is limited.

Seventhly, it is specified further that an application must be in writing and that it must be made by the person asking the Security Council for action in terms of the Bill. The application must be in writing although it is provided that oral application can be made in urgent cases. The application must, however, be made in writing afterwards while permission must also be granted in writing. In a case such as this, whilst conceding that oral permission could be granted in the case of an emergency, and agreeing that it is necessary, I believe that when the subsequent application in writing is sent to the Security Council, the hon. the Minister should consider whether it should not be laid down that that application should be in the form of an affidavit with a view to any action that might be taken by the courts in terms of the provisions of the Bill.

Eighthly, it is an improvement, or at least it does not worsen the present position, that this Bill provides that any postal articles that have been intercepted which have been found not to affect the security of the State, will be returned to the addressee. I sincerely trust that if any such letter is discovered containing, say, a lottery ticket or something else, which does not involve the security of the State, that no steps will be taken against such person on account of his mail having been opened and he having been found innocent.

There was one question which concerned me but the hon. the Minister has to a certain extent replied to it. He is the person introducing this Bill. He will therefore be the Minister responsible for a great deal of the carrying out of the provisions of this Bill, except in so far as the Security Council acts itself. I am, however, not quite clear yet as to what his particular powers will be under this Bill. If there is to be interference, it will be in connection with postal articles handled by him as the Minister and his department. It will be in connection with telegrams, mail and telephone communications which pass directly or indirectly through his department itself. His department will therefore have a major responsibility in regard to the security of the State. For reasons I do not know, and which I am not necessarily contesting, the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is not an official member of the State Security Council. He is not one of the Ministers who has been placed officially by the Act on that particular Council, although there is a provision saying that other Ministers may be co-opted. In view of the close indentification of the Post Office with the security of the State in this particular issue, perhaps the hon. the Minister could tell us whether, to assist in the carrying out of the provisions of this Bill, there is a possibility that either he or the Postmaster-General being more closely associated with the State Security Council.

Having said this and having indicated why we believe that a measure of this nature is necessary, I think it is also necessary that the country should be given a full assurance that the letter of the Bill will be obeyed and that only matters affecting the security of the State will be involved. The security of the State can be a very wide term. Mr. Justice Potgieter stated so himself. He also indicated the difficulty, almost the impossibility, of defining the expression “security of the State”. It can have some wide interpretations, people in politics, from the hustings, often are guilty of giving an interpretation of the “security of the State” which is much wider than the legal intention of the words.

*We, and I am including all of us, so easily talk of such and such an act as sabotage against South Africa and say that such and such an act of a party amounts to treason.

†If it were the case it would certainly be undermining the security of the State. But we do not really intend it to mean that. I am almost certain that the interpretation of the words “security of the State” in this particular Bill will not cover some of the more grandiose claims made by the hon. member for Carletonville on occasion, or by myself, when I attack the Nationalist Party. It is just as well that the words of the Potgieter commission in this respect be restated. I am reading from paragraph 293 of the report as follows—

That is the supreme assurance that the people of South Africa, the law-abiding citizens, would like. I am sure the hon. the Minister can give that assurance and that he is prepared to do so. I should also like to see that in so far as it is possible, Parliament should be kept informed of how this whole system is working. I am not asking for any secret evidence ever to be given to Parliament or to anyone on this side of the House. But we would like to have an indication annually, as the people supplying the funds for this whole system, of how it is working, of any changes that are necessary and of the good effect it has. I particularly would like to see that in regard to any specific instance of abuse of this Bill which can be established or reasonably inferred, that we should have, subject naturally to the demand of public security, the normal opportunity of discussing it here in this House.

It should be clear that this is not a Bill which is increasing the amount of tapping that is being indulged in in this country or in any other country. As I have said, the bad old system remains and we in the United Party are as opposed to it as we have always been, when it has been used for internal matters or internal investigations. Not that we have ever expressed ourselves fully against such tappings, but we have demanded safeguards in the past, as the hon. the Minister will know if he consuits Hansard. Indeed, this Bill will lead to a greater control of the methods employed, and it will be confined in this instance, definitely, to matters of public and State security.

The following should also be made quite clear. I have heard it said that the United Party has now changed its policy in regard to matters of this nature, but as I have already indicated, there is no change in our basic policy and there is no question of our suddenly adopting a new attitude. In regard to that, it would be just as well to read the words of my hon. leader, Sir De Villiers Graaff, in this House this year on the 24th May, two weeks ago. He said the following (Hansard, col. 7931)—

This still Sir De Villiers speaking—

Here we have this Bill—

Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude. In a matter such as this one has to think of the interest of the State as a whole, on the one hand, and of the liberty of the citizen on the other. I do not believe that there is any increased interference with the liberty of the citizen, more than there has been up to now in this country and, as I have said, in many other democratic countries of the West. If this Bill can assist in the ap- prehension of, say, communist spies or terrorist activists of foreign governments already planning military operations in our country against South Africa, then this Bill does deserve our support. If it can prevent, or at least lead to the conviction of saboteurs responsible for bombing harbour installations and blowing up power stations, newspaper plants or other public institutions, we must not oppose it. If it can prevent or hold back the wave of political assassination and hijacking, the wave which it is now reaching our shores, then indeed it would be irresponsible to vote against it. If it can prevent the sort of thing that is happening in Northern Ireland today such as the hurling of bombs amongst innocent citizens or if it can forestall the blowing up of a railway bridge, resulting in the death of hundreds of innocent women and children, then I believe this Bill deserves our support. As I believe that it can, to a lesser or a greater extent, assist at least in preventing matters such as these or assist in finding the guilty persons, I believe that a measure of this nature needs our support, and the United Party will give it.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Orange Grove have pointed out, the recommendations of the Potgieter Report are embodied in this Bill. I do not, however, agree with the hon. member for Orange Grove when he says that this Bill is consequential upon legislation which was passed earlier this session. I believe that, although legislation we passed earlier this session also referred to recommendations in the Potgieter Report, this is a completely separate piece of legislation. But in any case, Sir, unlike the Government and the official Opposition, I have no obligation to support the Potgieter Report in toto. It is quite true, as both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Orange Grove mentioned, that there are other countries which have laws on their statute books which give powers of telephone tapping and the opening and interception of mail. The countries specifically mentioned in the Potgieter report are Rhodesia, Australia, the Netherlands, Western Germany and United States of America. The Potgieter report points out that in Britain there is in fact no law on the Statute Book, but the Home Secretary is however able to authorize telephone tapping and the interception of mail under certain circumscribed circumstances. It seems to me that if we are going to compare legislation which is operating in other countries with legislation which we propose to introduce in South Africa we must also examine the framework in those countries where such legislation exists. The Minister referred to these other countries as “comparable” Western countries. The hon. member for Orange Grove talked about “other democracies”. Rhodesia apart, I wonder if the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs can tell me whether in Australia, the Netherlands, Western Germany or the U.S.A. house arrests and bannings on ministerial edicts, for example, are permitted. I wonder if he can tell me whether they suspend the right of habeas corpus in those countries and permit detention without trial and deny any access to the courts of law. I wonder if he can tell me whether in these “comparable” Western countries they engage in dawn raids on respectable citizens.

Order! What has that got to do with the Bill?

If I may point out with respect, Mr. Speaker, both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Orange Grove mentioned the fact that in other countries there was legislation similar to the legislation we are considering today. I therefore think that one must consider the background in those countries. If we are going to consider the legislation which has been introduced, we must also consider the framework within which that legislation is going to work. I have nothing further to say on that, except to point out that those countries operate within the normal democratic framework. They use the normal democratic methods and therefore it would be perfectly acceptable to give those governments those powers. It would be perfectly acceptable to give them powers of telephone tapping and to intercept mail under strictly circumscribed conditions, in order, for example, to protect the security of the State, or. also as the case in Britain, in attempting to track down serious crime. I would have been prepared to give my support to this legislation if we were acting within the framework of a normal democracy.

What do you mean?

I can spell it out in the greatest detail if necessary. I do not consider that our actions in South Africa are within the normal democratic framework for the reasons which I have already given.

You are not on the steps of the Jameson Hall now.

Yes, even the Jameson Hall is an example, as students, while we are talking of immemorial usage, since time immemorial have sat on the steps of Jameson Hall. I do not believe that in South Africa, with the Acts which pertain and which give Ministers these vast powers to which I have already referred, we can consider that we are acting in a normal democratic manner.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am busy [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member would not like to reply to a question.

Take your passport and go to Israel.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Without my passport and without going to Israel. If this Government had demonstrated that it had the ability to distinguish between the security of the State and the secureness of the Nationalist Government in the seats of power, I would have supported this Bill. If this Government had shown, as over and over again it has not, that it can distinguish between subversion and Liberalism, I would have been prepared to support the Bill. If the Security Police, who as far as I am concerned are undoubtedly going to be the persons who are going to be named by the Security Council to operate and actually to implement the powers which are being given here, had shown that they use reliable agents instead of the shifty characters who received such a drubbing in the Appeal Court over the Dean’s case, then I would have been prepared to support this Bill. If, in short, this Government had demonstrated any respect whatsoever for the rule of law and for civil liberty over all these years, I would have supported the Bill. But none of the “ifs” that I have advanced, in fact, obtains. On the contrary, we have had ample proof over nearly a quarter of a century that the Government, as I say, is intent not so much on the security of the State as on staying in power. In these circumstances I am not prepared to give an aura of respectability or the stamp of legality to practices which I believe will be abused, as other powers which the Government has taken unto itself, have also been abused in the past. Perhaps, when one says “will be” one is being a little naïve, because as the hon. member for Orange Grove points out, all of us are under the impression, certainly he is and certainly I am, that there has been telephone tapping going on in this country for a very long time. There has also been interception of mail, because all of us know that mail arrives mysteriously much later than even normal postal delays would entail. I view this Bill against the background of the activities of the Special Branch in South Africa and the way in which this Government has used and often abused the vast powers that they have taken unto themselves over the years. It will not be one Minister who will administer this as the hon. member seems to think. It is any Minister on the State Security Council or the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs or any person to whom this power can be delegated. I cannot say of them, and I am afraid I cannot say of members of our State Security Council what the Birkett Commission was able to say of its Home Secretary and of its officials who have been administering, since time immorial, the tapping of telephones and the intercepting of mail. This is what the Birkett Commission said, and I am unfortunately not able to repeat it with regard to the persons who will administer this measure in South Africa—

Secondly they said—

I am quite sure that the interception in the past has been on a very much wider scale here than that and I am absolutely sure that it will be on a very much wider scale in the future. Since I have no confidence in the Government and since I have no trust in the Security Police, I shall oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to react briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Orange Grove. As far as I am concerned his speech was actually just, a poor translation to a certain extent, of the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister, because what the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech the hon. member for Orange Grove simply repeated. Before I devote my time to the hon. member for Houghton’s speech I want to say that it struck me that the main Opposition speaker in this debate sang quite a different tune with respect to State security. Similar measures to promote State security in South Africa have been opposed very strongly by the United Party in the past.

Name them.

As a result of the recommendations in the report of the Pot- gieter Commission of inquiry into State security we have this attitude on the part of the Opposition. It would appear to me as if members in their ranks have been somewhat converted. We know that any measures this Government has previously passed to make it possible for our security men and our policemen to root out subversion have been opposed by that side of the House. But, as I have said, the hon. member merely translated the hon. the Minister’s speech.

I shall not be guilty of repeating the facts that have been mentioned and explained in this Potgieter Report, but I do want to say something in connection with the hon. member for Houghton’s argument. No-one in this House finds it strange to see that hon. member, who represents the Progressive Party, acting in this way. She moved slightly to the right here by referring to the necessity for certain measures. But if one analyses her speech one comes to the conclusion that her conduct here this afternoon is quite in line with her conduct in this House in the past.

I now want to refer to a few matters. She said here that this Government is a kind of democratic party system, whereby she implied of course, as she has done frequently, that this Government inclines more towards being an autocratic one. If there is one measure that irrefutably proves that the National Party and the Government of the Republic of South Africa is out-and-out democratic, it is this measure. A measure is being drawn up here on the recommendation of a one-man commission of inquiry in order to safeguard the State against the conduct of those specific persons and organizations—and let me now underline this here—for whom the hon. member for Houghton time and again takes up the cudgels.

Mr. Speaker, may the hon. member describe my activities in that way?

Order! You need not ask that member’s opinion. What is your point?

I want to know if the hon. member is entitled to describe my activities in the House in the way in which he has just done?

I did not hear what he was saying.

Well, then you should ask him to repeat it.

Order! Would the hon. member just repeat what he said?

Mr. Speaker, I said that when this hon. member is active in this House, she time and again …

Oh no, repeat what you said.

She has acted time and again as spokesman—the words I am now using here are exactly the same as those I used a moment ago, i.e. that she is a spokesman, as it were, for the organizations and persons against whom the Police and our security men take action time and again. We can prove that from Hansard.

Order! The hon. member is going too far.

I shall stop just short of that point.

Order! Yes, but then the hon. member must immediately come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation deals with measures that give a person—a Minister, or someone who is vested with those powers—the right to obtain certain information by way of listening in on a telephone …

Order! I just want to make sure that the hon. member has withdrawn the words he used a moment ago.

If you consider them to be unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, then I withdraw them. I want to prove something here. The hon. member is opposed to this measure. In so far as she stated the case, she said that this is not a democratic state, but one in which we act autocratically. Over the years she has been intensely interested in the activities of people who have been restricted, and in people who carried on subversive activities and businesses in South Africa. Throughout the years those elements have been responsible for the incitement. We have now again had the beginnings of attempts in that direction, and the hon. member has again played along with demonstrations and so on. I do not know what her part was, because I was not present, but she was always to be found there, as far as I know, and on her own …

Order! The hon. member is saying that the hon. member for Houghton played along with disorder.

With the persons who demonstrated, Mr. Speaker. May I continue, Mr. Speaker?

The hon. member may continue, but he must come back to the Bill.

I have just mentioned this as proof of why the hon. member is opposing this measure. By passing this measure in this House today it is being made possible for the State Security Council to obtain information under certain specific circumstances. If one does not allow this and make it possible, one is putting a spoke in the wheel of the State Security Council when they want to ascertain the plans of those organizations. If one takes the slightest action here to prevent this legislation from being passed, and one leaves the matter as it was under the old dispensation, one would perhaps be able to obtain information surreptitiously here and there. I say it is a good thing that this legislation is being passed here on the recommendation of Judge Potgieter. It is exclusively intended for not only the security of the National Party and the Government, but also for the State and all its inhabitants, including the hon. member for Houghton, the Progressive Party and other such elements. There is as much danger in a feeling being created that must eventually give rise to action that can harm our country and people. One has to nip these aspects in the bud beforehand. I am just pointing out those matters. Here I want to express my displeasure at the fact that someone who also calls herself a good South African does not want to do everything that can be done to strengthen the State Security division in its action to protect, safeguard and save South Africa in these difficult times. The hon. member for Orange Grove mentioned here that there is, in fact, unrest in this country, an admission I did not actually expect from him. He acknowledged it, and we accept the position as such. Therefore, without elaborating any further on the matter and taking up the House’s time any longer, I want to say that I appreciate the Opposition’s support in this matter. I regret that a few “but” statements were made. On the other hand I reject the hon. member for Houghton’s attitude. I hope that this State security Council will serve South Africa in such a way that in future we can as peacefully as in the past, if not more peacefully, go about our affairs and carry on living.

Mr. Speaker, it was most interesting to hear the hon. member for Harrismith, who has just sat down, saying that he accepts the fact that there has always been telephone tapping. My mind goes back to not many sessions ago …

I did not say that.

The hon. member said “and I accept it as such”. He said the hon. member for Orange Grove had said that and he added: “and I accept it as such”.

Especially in the time of Gen. Smuts.

My mind does not go back very far, i.e. to a debate in which that hon. member got up and fervently denied that such a thing could ever happen in South Africa. He denied it to us and to the Herstigte Nasionale Party. I am very pleased that he has become converted.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may the hon. member put words in my mouth without quoting from Hansard to prove it?

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point must accept what the hon. member for Harrismith is saying.

Is the hon. member saying that he did not say “and I accept it as such”?

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that.

Order! The hon. member says that he did not say that.

Very well, then I accept the hon. member’s word, but I can promise him that I am going to examine his Hansard.

†Both the hon. members who have spoken before me suffer under one difficulty, one problem. The hon. member for Harrismith suffers under the difficulty of being unable to distinguish between the Security of the State and unbridled power. He expressed surprise that we were supporting this measure. He accused us of having opposed measures designed to safeguard the security of the State. The fact is, Sir, that we support this Bill before the House today because it prescribes the conditions under which and the people by whom these powers may be exercised; it lays down the procedure and the circumstances under which exceptional and unusual action may be taken; in other words, it protects the ordinary citizen of South Africa from interference with his privacy, and it lays down specifically the conditions under which interference with the privacy of the citizen may take place. We welcome that and we accept it, because we believe that in the past that guarantee did not exist for the ordinary citizen. In the past we have time after time challenged the Government, questioned the Government and criticized the Government in regard to their interference with the privacy of the citizen. It is therefore a matter of pleasure—and acceptable to us—when we find that the conditions under which interference may take place, interference which we know and which the Government knows took place, are prescribed and limited to certain circumstances affecting the security of the State. But, Sir, we have—and we would have done so in this case—opposed legislation Which gives arbitrary powers to the State and which go beyond the field of State security. That is the problem of the hon. member for Harri- smith. He cannot see the difference between powers which provide for the security of the State and powers which interfere with the rights of the citizen.

You are wrong.

And since the hon. member cannot draw that basic distinction, Sir, how do you debate with him? We have opposed powers which interfered unduly with the right of the citizen and which we believe went far beyond the security of the State. Equally, Sir, the hon. member for Houghton has a problem. She is also unable to distinguish between what this Bill does—which is to deal with the security of the State—and threats to the security of the State. Political freedom reaches the point at which it becomes political licence and beyond which it becomes a threat to the security of the State. The hon. member for Houghton is unable to draw that line, the line at which individual freedom, individual rights and democracy, pass beyond the point at which they are a right to which every normal citizen is entitled, and reach the point where they become an abuse of freedom and therefore a threat to the State and to the other citizens of the country.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Where does he draw the line between a person who wants to commit subversive activities and a person who does so under the rights he has under a democratic system of government?

It is a very simple question, and I hope the hon. member will listen to the answer. The question is whether you seek to achieve change through the processes of democracy or whether you try to achieve change through extra-democratic processes and methods such as revolution, subversion and undermining of the authority, power and security of the State. The line is drawn at the point at which you cease to use the normal processes of democracy in order to achieve change.

That is no answer.

That is the answer which the hon. member cannot understand and which his Government cannot understand. That is one of their fundamental problems; but it is not the subject of this Bill, and I want to deal with this Bill and with the arguments of the hon. member for Houghton in her opposition to this Bill. She said that she would accept this Bill if we were a normal democracy. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton what a normal democracy is.

Certainly not this country.

In other words, one man one vote? Is that the normal democracy? Where is the normal democracy under a Progressive Party Government, when the income which a person earns determines his rights; where a person who earns R59 is a savage and is not entitled to rights, and a person who earns R60 becomes civilized and so can participate in the processes of democracy by thus differentiating between rights and not having rights. Now that would make us a more normal democracy, I assume? Who judges what is a normal democracy? If you start to apply that sort of rule there is only one test, and that is “one man, one vote”, or nothing— no votes at all. Sir, you cannot judge this Bill against the background of whether we are a democracy or not. You must judge this Bill against the background of whether it is desirable legislation for South Africa. This debate does not have to do with what sort of country or what sort of Government or what sort of democracy we are. This Bill contains specific provisions designed to give specific powers and it must be judged in the light of whether it is in the interests or for the benefit of South Africa. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether, if she is opposed to this Bill, she prefers the status quo? Because if this House were to reject this Bill then we would be back at square one. Then we would have uncontrolled telephone tapping with no machinery for controlling it and no limitation of the conditions under which it could take place, and with no limitation on the people who may do it.

Why cannot you have that as well, anyway?

Now that is an interesting interjection, but let me finish my argument first. The hon. member for Houghton is going to vote against this Bill, therefore she is going to vote for uncon- trolled interference, uncontrolled telephone tapping and uncontrolled interception of mail. Her party, unlike the United Party, does not want to limit these practices. The Progressive Party does not want to limit it. It is going to vote for the status quo. It is going to say: Let us go back to the days of Albert Hertzog and let us have unquestioned interference.

That might go down well in some quarters.

We say here is a limitation in law. When this Bill is passed, it becomes a law, a statute, an Act of Parliament, and if it is abused, the hon. member for Houghton can test it. She can then test it in the courts, she can test it against the law of South Africa. At the moment she has nothing to test it against.

Of course I can test it.

At the moment if she catches somebody tapping her telephone …

I can test it; it is illegal.

There is nothing illegal about it. She has no law to test it against, and now that she is getting a law which she can use to protect herself, a law which she can use to go to court with because she has been interfered with, she says she does not want it. The logic of the Progressive Party is just beyond me. It is the logic of her democracy. It is like what happened in a certain court case which took place not so long ago, where this sleazy—what did the hon. member call that agent of the Government?

Shifty.

Anyway, it was a contemptuous term that she used for the agent. When he was trying to persuade a certain church to take violent action, that churchman said: “No, you should join the Progressive Party.” The hon. member’s argument is illogical. We, Sir, support this measure, because we believe it is a step forward. We believe that it brings us into line with Western countries. It takes us out of the iron curtain countries, where powers are unlimited, and it brings us into the ambit of Western countries. That for us is an acceptable and welcome step.

There is one point which I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister, namely the question of who may grant the authority. The hon. the Minister said it would be the official appointed, and when he is not available, a Minister who is a member of the Security Council. I would like to test the qualification “not available”, because I think it is important. Can any. member of the State Security Council at any time give authority, or can a member of the State Security Council only give authority when the official whose job it will be is not available?

Why don’t you read the Bill? It is there.

I am questioning the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech. The second question I would like to ask the hon. the Minister is whether he considers it desirable that the Minister of Police as a member of the State Security Council should have the power to decide on an application by his own department. In the normal course of events, the power lies in the hands of this Minister, who is responsible for Posts and Telegraphs. That one can understand. But I do not know whether it is completely acceptable for the Minister of the department which makes the application to be the Minister who decides whether that application should be granted or not. That is getting away from the concept of the State Security Council, the arguing of the case and the justification for that case. I wonder whether it would not put this Bill in a better light and give it a greater acceptability than it has if the Minister of Police were excluded from the power to give permission to his own department and the Prime Minister from giving permission to the Bureau. In both cases they are the Ministers in charge of the applicants. I be live that that would make it clearer to the people of South Africa that this is a sincere control measure and that in fact it cannot be abused as the hon. member for Houghton believes it will be abused. It will become clearer to the people that that is so if these additional limitations were considered.

I therefore support the hon. member for Orange Grove. We on this side of the House will accept the measure as a step forward, an improvement and a norm which we can apply to interference with the privacy of the citizen of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, since this measure has to do with the protection of the security of the State, I think it is necessary and fitting that the Government and the Official Opposition be in agreement about it. Therefore I appreciate the support. although as far as I am concerned it should actually be an obvious attitude on the part of a responsible Opposition. I do not think it necessary to reply to the hon. member for Houghton. She used this opportunity, like every other opportunity, to besmirch South Africa.

Not South Africa, but you.

Therefore the hon. member does not deserve a reply. Just as the majority of the responsible English- speaking public has turned its back on the hon. member and her spiritual allies in the past few days, we may also do so, I think. I would rather reply to the specific matters raised here, inter alia, by the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Durban Point. The question is whether this designation by the Security Council will be confined to the head of the Bureau, the head of the Security Police and the Director of Military Intelligence. The intention is that it will be restricted to those three. but it was not thought necessary to define it as such in this measure.

The hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Durban Point wanted to know about the powers I would then have as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in this connection.

The other Ministers as well.

Yes, and the others. The position is that by way of one of these three—let us now just say, practically speaking, one of the three I have just mentioned—-the security Council will first make the request to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. As the legislation reads at present, and practical considerations will probably dictate, the Minister will designate an official, who will probably be the Postmaster-General, who will handle this on his behalf or when he is not present. The request is therefore made to the Minister in the first place, or to his delegated official, the Postmaster-General in this case. He then decides about it. The important aspect of this Bill is actually that it introduces a dual form of control, and that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, the designated official or another Minister of the State Security Council will decide about this. The decision therefore rests there. The hon. member asked whether it is not desirable to exclude the Minister of Police as far as this matter is concerned. I think this ought to be left to the sound judgment of the State Security Council. As the legislation reads at present, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in the first person to whom the request is made. He in turn can decide to designate an official—an official who will be in a very senior position; as I have said, probably the Postmaster-General.

Does the application or request come to you from the State Security Council?

The request, of course, comes from, say, the Director of Military Intelligence, or the head of the Bureau, to me or to the Postmaster-General. Supposing we are both absent; then it comes to the Minister who has a seat on the State Security Council and has been designated by that Council as the other person to whom these requests can come. The hon. member for Durban Point actually advocated that it should not be the Minister of Police. This cannot be defined in the legislation. I think we must leave it to the sound judgment of the State Security Council, so that they themselves may decide about who it must be. Does this answer the question the hon. member wanted to ask?

The interception of postal articles will not be done by the State Security Council itself or by the Bureau for Military Intelligence. It is then done at the request of the State Security Council by you, the Postmaster-General or someone designated by you. Is that the position?

The State Security Council’s nominees direct the request to the official I have mentioned. Then it therefore comes to me or to the Postmaster-General who then sees to it that the machinery is set in motion. Is there something else the hon. member for Durban Point wanted to ask?

Mr. Speaker, there are actually two questions. The first was whether the request should first come to the hon. the Minister and then to another Minister only if he or his official is not available. In other words, can the request go direct to a Minister. The second question was whether it is advisable for a Minister to decide about his own department’s request.

In the first place, the request is made to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs or the official he has designated for that purpose.

The Bill does not state that. It can be “the Minister or a Minister”.

Yes, but that is the order in which it is done. “The Minister” means the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs.

It does not state that.

No, but a description of this nature means that it is the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, because it is the Post Office Amendment Bill that is being discussed here. “The Minister” in this connection therefore means “the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs”.

It does not state “in his absence”.

No, but that is the intention.

A question was also asked in connection with the verbal request that is made and must then be followed up by a written request. The request was that this should be accompanied by a sworn statement. That was the request of the hon. member for Orange Grove. I can only assure him we will see to it that the application will have to be made on a proper, prescribed legal form so that it can meet with the requirements of any court case that may arise from it.

I have also been asked for my assurance in connection with steps that we must not take against innocent people whose postal articles are intercepted. I readily give that assurance. We have no intention whatsoever, of course, of prejudicing innocent people whose postal articles are intercepted.

If a lottery ticket is found inside they really must not charge the person concerned.

The hon. member will simply have to leave this to the discretion of the gentleman who must carry out this difficult task. This covers the main points that have been raised here. I just want to conclude by giving the assurance that this measure is going to be administered in the interests of our national security and definitely not to serve political, personal or ulterior motives.

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

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since the coming into operation of the Business Names Act, 1960 (Act 27 of 1960), on 25th March 1960, a “business” has been defined as a business for the carrying on of which any licence is required under the Licences Consolidation Act, 1925, (Act No. 32 of 1925). In 1962 last-mentioned Act was substituted by the Licences Act (Act 44 of 1962). The Licences Act will be repealed as from 1st January, 1973, by the provincial council of the four provinces in terms of powers conferred upon them by the Financial Relations Further Amendment Act, 1968 (Act 69 of 1968), to make ordinances in regard to the licensing of trades and occupations, and to repeal the provisions of the Licences Act in so far as those provisions are applicable to their provinces.

Therefore it has become necessary to insert a new definition of a “business” in the Act.

It has been found in the application of the Business Names Act that the definition of a “business” as it appears in the Licences Act, 1962, is too narrow to ensure that effective application of the Business Names Act, since certain businesses are excluded from the provisions of the Licences Act; this applies particularly in the case of manufacturing and engineering industries which do not carry on business as companies. Therefore such businesses could proceed unhindered with carrying on the practices controlled in terms of the Act.

Consequently the new definition of a business now being inserted in the Act, is formulated in such a way that it will also subject those businesses which were previously excluded from the provisions of the Act and which were not companies or statutory bodies, to the requirements of the Act.

As will be noticed, clause 1 of the Business Names Amendment Bill, which is before this House now, was amended in the Other Place in order to make it clear that “a business” means a business which buys and sells goods or barters or exchanges them for the acquisition of gain. This Bill does not seek to subject professions and occupations to the requirements of the Act.

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the principle of the Bill. As the hon. the Minister knows, when the Bill was introduced in the Other Place, we were concerned that professional people and farmers would be brought within the ambit of the Bill and the definition of “business”. This fact was brought to the notice of the hon. the Deputy Minister and as a result he amended the definition to read: “ ‘Business’ means any business of trade” instead of just “any business”. It was questioned whether this amendment was sufficient to really clarify the position, but apparently the view of the law advisers is that it does. The hon. the Deputy Minister has given an assurance in the Other Place that the Bill will not apply to professional people or farmers and we therefore support the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.