I move—

Our side of the House will not long delay the passage of this Bill. I have been drawn into this debate in order to refute some of the statements and correct some of the erroneous impressions which may have been created by the Minister’s remarks in his reply to the motion to go into Committee of Supply. He said, first of all, that whenever provision is made for the future development of our Railways and Harbours the Opposition “complains about the capital expenditure Sir, we have never complained about sensible, well-planned, productive capital expenditure. We have continually urged this Government to keep abreast of development and never to let our transport system lag behind and clog the wheels of economic progress. I, personally, have gone so far as to say in this House that transport facilities should at least keep half a step ahead of industrial and economic advance so as never to hinder it in any way. Sometimes, of course, we need urgent action which cannot be conceived at leisure, such as the Minister’s planning in this Bill; quick action to meet unexpected demands which arise in the case of the export of pig-iron to Japan, for example. We welcome such quick action where it is necessary and, when it is necessary, it will always be approved by us. But what we have objected to in the past, and what we have always criticized severely, has been the haphazard, ill-planned, wasteful and inefficient ad hoc planning of the period immediately following the access to power of this Government; the period immediately preceding the appointment of this Minister to his present high and responsible station. Both sides of the House have, through the reports of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, connived to say some harsh things, over the past ten years, about the administration of the Railways, and particularly about inaccurate estimating of projected works and inadequate supervision of planned developments. Now happily the situation is being slowly improved. These strictures I mention are contained in Select Committee reports which this House has seen, and indeed some are presented in one report which is at present on the Order Paper but which we will probably not get down to discussing this Session. I want to say this in the Minister’s favour. He is only partially to blame for this situation. The transport crisis was inherited by him. He took over at a very critical stage of Railway development. It may be asked how this transport crisis arose. It arose because immediately on its accession to power this Government cut and pruned, in a drastic way, the far-visioned transport plans of the Smuts Government …

Order! The hon. member is going very far now.

I am trying to make it quite clear that through inefficiency and inaction the Government failed to follow up the plans prepared by us. The Minister now says that “we cannot build a railway line for sixpence”. We appreciate and we feel that one of the big hindrances to progress has been that at the time when we could have built railway lines much more cheaply, the opportunity was lost, and the increased costs have added greatly to our burdens, especially the interest burden. Therefore we welcome the planning which now looks further ahead. We welcome the more dynamic action being taken as something which will contribute to the welfare and progress of our country. When this Government came to power the then Minister of Transport said “honeymoon period is over”. He indulged in drastic savings; cancelled orders; scrapped plans. That is why this Minister inherited a transport crisis, and in curing this crisis, in spending too lavishly, and without adequate preplanning (about which the Select Committee has severely criticized him), he ran into a financial crisis and is only now creeping slowly out of it.

The Minister made a second statement upon which I must comment. He said that the Opposition complains about capital expenditure and interest burdens. Of course we are very conscious of the huge annual interest burden—of between R62,000,000 and R65,000,000 a year—which the Railways have to meet. That interest obligation also would not have been so great had we carried out our projected works at the time when money was cheaper. But we realize that it is a great handicap and have made fruitful suggestions as to how it can be reduced or anyway its too rapid growth can be curbed. We suggested a redemption fund, a sinking fund: but I will not enlarge here on the excellent arguments advanced by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). I would, however, recommend to the Minister that he take the advice of one of his own Railway Board in regard to this matter. According to the regulations, the Railway Board should be consulted on all Railway expenditure, although I believe this does not always happen. If he had consulted his Commissioners he would have found at least one member in favour of the sinking fund. He has in the past spoken in favour of it in this House. I refer to Mr. du Plessis.

Let me say that we are glad the Minister is learning at last. He has put these estimates before us and has explained to us at length what his plans are for the immediate future. We agree that these expenditures are necessary and we approve of the way in which he gave us his detailed views and also approve the way he proposes to spend the money. We have praised him in the past, especially on the last occasion he introduced a measure to this House, for the excellence of the detailed White Paper he put before us. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) had certain objections. His complaint was that the Minister used the existence of the White Paper as an excuse to say nothing by way of introduction and then nothing was recorded in Hansard. On this occasion he has given us a lengthy and precise statement of account. Perhaps next time he can please both the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and myself by giving us a good White Paper as well as a detailed explanation of what he proposes to do. In his speech the Minister has given, perhaps inadvertently, a pre-view of the trend of future Railway development, and I agree with him if the following is his point of view. He seems to have come to the conclusion that in future very few new lines of railway will be built, other than Guaranteed Lines which leave no burden on the railway user, railway worker or the railway rates. I believe that he realizes that the development of roads will be, in some respects, in future, more important than the building of the new railway lines with great capital expenditure. I believe he has made it clear in this Bill that in future the Railway expenditure will largely take the form of improving the existing lines, by electrification, the installation of centralized traffic control, new stations, additional loops …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill. He is discussing future planning now.

Of course I am, Sir. This Bill deals with the electrification of lines, the installation of centralized traffic control …

Yes, but the hon. member must confine his remarks to the Bill itself and to the specific items contained in it.

I am doing just that. I say that expenditure in the future on South Africa’s transport needs will be mainly confined to improvements to existing lines. These improvements will take the form of electrification; of installation of C.T.C.; of intermediate bi-directional signalling; of colour-light signalling; of the doubling of existing lines; of the bettering of curvatures and the general quickening up of transport. That is what the Minister, apparently, has in mind for the future, and I say that we agree that this is the sensible line of development and we approve of this expenditure and, from now on, will give this Bill an easy passage through the House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will take this opportunity to reply to the point I raised in Committee, because at that time the Minister did not give me a reply. It is that this amount we are asked to vote requires approval in principle of completely new projects. I refer in particular to the electrification of the Komatipoort line. The first intimation we had from the Minister on that subject …

I gave it in my Budget speech.

Yes, it was suggested in the Budget speech, but the implications of the development of that line were not indicated then. The point I would like the Minister to consider is this, that when we vote money in the House for the development of a new line, we have the report of the Railway Commissioners upon which we can assess the merits before the House takes a decision. I think the Minister will agree with me that in regard to a number of large projects for which capital was voted here we are entitled to more information if we want to have a more objective approach to these matters. We should get some White Paper giving details, so that when we come to the House we are not merely faced with the statement of the Minister and are then called upon immediately to assess objectively what is said by the Minister. All these matters have flown from plans developed by the Planning Council. We have pleaded in the past for some report on these projected new works envisaged by the Planning Council. The Minister has said that he was not prepared to make them available to us, because he regarded the work of the Planning Council as a matter of departmental interest only and he was not prepared to place departmental reports on the Table of the House. I want to ask the Minister whether he will reply to the point I raised, that in respect of these projected new works he should supply us with some information, a White Paper, in which the information is made available, so that when we come to these discussions we can assess these matters objectively. The development of the Komatipoort line is extremely important. It is probably one of the most important steps the Administration has taken for a long time, because it is coupled with a certain amount of international obligation. It will call for a revision of a long-standing agreement with the Portuguese authorities. I ask the Minister seriously to consider the suggestion I made on a former occasion, and I would appreciate it if he could indicate this morning that he will meet us in this regard. I think it must be appreciated that whilst we are merely voting in this Bill the sum of R3,000,000, what we are in fact doing, and what we have done on former occasions, is to approve a capital works programme estimated at this stage at some R53,000,000. It is likely, as the Minister said himself, that this R53,000,000 of work will be increased to R60,000,000 by the time the work is completed, because I take it that the Estimates are based on to-day’s costs, but who knows what the cost will be by 1965 when the work is completed? That is why I believe the suggestion I made is important, and I sincerely ask the Minister to give favourable consideration to the suggestion I made, because I believe it will greatly assist our discussions of Railway matters.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to accept the explanation of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) as to what the attitude of the Opposition is. The difficulty is to determine what the attitude of the Opposition is in regard to any particular matter from day to day, because their attitude changes so rapidly. There is no uniformity among hon. members opposite, in regard to their attitude with reference to any particular matter. So I am prepared to accept the explanation now that the Opposition is in favour of capital expenditure and of making provision for the future, although the hon. member for Turffontein was not in favour of it.

I did not say that.

Well, that is the impression the hon. member created. The hon. member complained about the burden of interest on the capital expenditure. In other words, by implication the hon. member was not in favour of making provision for the increased traffic demands of the future. Therefore I am prepared to accept the explanation given by the hon. member for Wynberg and I hope I now know where the Opposition stands.

I do not want to be guilty of tedious repetition in regard to the wonderful plans of the Smuts Government which were not carried out by this Government. That matter has been debated over and over again, and the whole thing has been debunked. As a matter of fact, those plans of the Smuts Government would have made no appreciable difference to the carrying capacity of the railways when the crisis arose in 1954. In any case, this is not the time to debate that matter again.

The hon. member speaks about spending too lavishly without adequate planning. I do not think it is any use making general statements that cannot be substantiated.

But the Select Committee reported to that effect.

When did it do that? The Select Committee might have reported in regard to one particular item, but as far as I know the Select Committee has never made the general statement that there was too lavish spending without adequate planning, because if that were so, the Select Committee would be entirely wrong. For the last seven years since the establishment of the Planning Council there has been adequate planning, and not only planning, but in regard to any particular work there must be economic justification for the expenditure, and planning is continually taking place. These items in the Additional Estimates are based on adequate planning for the future. I do not think the Select Committee has ever made the general statement that there is lavish spending without adequate planning.

They made a number of references to that over the years.

They have not made any such statement since I have been Minister of Transport. I do not think I should take notice of that allegation, because it is quite unsubstantiated. The hon. member makes statements which he cannot substantiate. He stated that the Railway Board was never consulted in regard to capital expenditure.

I said I did not believe that you consulted them.

The Act provides that the Railway Board must be consulted in regard to all capital expenditure, and it is consulted. As a matter of fact, I go so far as to allow the Railway Board to have discussions with the technical officials before the matter is submitted to me, because they must be completely satisfied in regard to the economic justification for that expenditure, and then I consider the recommendations of the Railway Board before I take a final decision. The hon. member is right off the rails when he makes such a statement.

Did you consult them in regard to a sinking fund for the redemption of capital?

Yes, that was discussed with the Railway Board, and I decided against it for very good reasons which I gave to the hon. member in a previous debate. It is quite impracticable to establish a sinking fund. As a matter of fact, we have a sinking fund, to some extent, in the Rates Equalization Fund.

In regard to the points raised by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), I can only say that I have a lot of sympathy with him, but it is quite impracticable to publish a White Paper in regard to every major work embarked upon. The hon. member will notice from the Brown Book that there are numerous works entailing the expenditure of large sums of capital, and it is simply impracticable to issue a White Paper in regard to every one of them before the matter is submitted to Parliament. When they appear on the Brown Book or on the Estimates, hon. members have the opportunity of asking questions and obtaining all the information necessary, and I will always be prepared to give it. Hon. members may ask those questions right throughout the debate. But however much I sympathize with the hon. member, I am afraid it is quite impracticable to prepare a White Paper giving all the information in regard to every major item of expenditure on the Brown Book, because those items are numerous.

New works.

Yes, if the hon. member looks at the Brown Book, he will find that there are many new works. In regard to the Komatipoort line, when I made my Budget speech I envisaged the electrification of that line. In fact, I gave the House an indication that that line would be electrified, but the electrification of that line has nothing to do with the Mozambique Convention. It is a separate matter altogether. [Interjections.] No, that makes no difference. It is not a question of whether the carrying capacity is either increased or decreased. The Mozambique Convention provides for the amount of traffic that must go through the Port of Lourenço Marques. That has nothing to do with the carrying capacity of that line. The Mozambique Convention, the provisions of which are going to be discussed in the next month or two, is quite a separate matter, and has nothing to do with the projected electrification of this line.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

A number of these amendments give the responsible Minister extensive powers, and deal with various matters which arise out of the present situation. We gathered from the Minister’s speech, when he moved the second reading of the Bill, that one of the objects of these amendments was to enable the existing situation to remain with as little change as possible, and we would like to ask the Minister to amplify what the effect of these amendments is and what use he foresees he will be making of them. I think some reference was made to the fact that, under this clause, the particulars on the passports of visitors may be simplified; that it may be possible to have a simplified form of travel documents for certain classes of people and so on, and I think the Committee would be glad to have from the Minister some indication of what use he thinks he will be able to make of these amendments.

As the law reads at the moment, the Minister has the discretion to grant exemptions to any person or class of persons as far as visas or endorsements are concerned. Commonwealth countries follow the procedure of endorsements. There is usually an agreement between those countries which make visas, etc., an essential requirement. The object of the amendment which is proposed here is to empower the Minister to accept much simpler documents, such as travel documents, as proof of identity. It is left entirely to his discretion. In other words, the object of the amendment is really to disturb as little as possible the good relations which have existed between us and those people who have entered our country, and to make it possible for us to be satisfied with a much simpler travel document.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

When introducing this Bill, I intimated that I would be withdrawing Clause 4, and I therefore suggest that this clause be negatived. May I recapitulate the reasons that I gave in my statement. It will be noticed that Section 10 (3) of the present Act prohibits, inter alia, the use of any words, abbreviations or initials in companies’ names which purport or suggest that such companies enjoy the patronage of Her Majesty, the Queen of England, or of any State within the British Empire. Such protection, however, is not given to any other country. As a logical sequence of South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth, it was intended to amend the relevant section of the present Act as provided in Clause 4. However, after consideration, it has been decided to leave this matter in abeyance for the time being and to substitute the present provisions of Section 10 (3) at a later stage by a provision of a general nature; in other words, it will extend the protection also to heads of States of other countries.

Clause put and negatived.

On Clause 8,

Will the hon. the Minister please explain this amendment in greater detail?

The existing Section 2 of the Act, which is being amended here, provides, firstly, that permanent residence is given to persons, but that they should first be approved of by the Immigration Selection Board. They are then given a permit by the Selection Board. In the second place, the existing section provides that a temporary permit can also be issued for temporary residence. In terms of this amendment, from 31 May 1962 the same position will obtain in respect of Britishers as in respect of other aliens. In other words, if they wish to come here permanently they must be approved by the Selection Board. If they wish to stay here temporarily, they must have a temporary permit. I wish to point out, however, that, in terms of Clause 12 of this Bill, the Minister of the Interior is given powers of exemption, and these powers of exemption are so wide that there is only one respect in which he cannot give an exemption, and that is in terms of Section 9 of the Act, which concerns the change of name. Only where there is a change of name he has no power to grant an exemption, but, as far as the rest of the Act is concerned, he has wide powers of exemption so as to meet all these cases.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I just want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. As I understand the position, South Africans at present have special exemption from the Federation. I seem to have read that in the newspapers; unfortunately I have not got the exact reference, but I wonder if there is any intention under this clause, which gives the hon. the Minister wide discretions, to extend any specific exemption to Rhodesians as far as their stay in South Africa is concerned or as far as their becoming citizens is concerned?

I might just say that the object of this amendment is to extend the power of exemption as already stated by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). The existing power of exemption is only in respect of a very small group. The Minister may grant these exemptions conditionally or unconditionally. As far as the Federation of Rhodesia and the High Commission Territories are concerned, this matter is still under discussion as already explained by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

Clause 14 provides that, as from 1 January 1963, any person who is in the Republic and has become an alien by virtue of this legislation, shall be deemed to be there for temporary sojourn only unless, before that date, he makes a certain declaration before a certain official. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister why he has found it necessary to lay down this limitation to 1 January 1963 if it is the intention that he should have discretion to extend that period, as the clause apparently allows him to do. Why not simply make the period longer ab initio? The results, of course, can be quite drastic so far as the person is concerned, and he might not be able to comply with the provisions at the first date, that is by January 1963, owing to illness or absence or pure ignorance of what has happened. And, therefore, my question firstly is why not provide for the extended period straight away, and the second question is, if that is not possible, what assurance have we that ample notice will be given of any extension? Thirdly, of course, nobody can act under this until the designated officials have been notified by Gazette. What assurance is the Minister going to give us that that designation will take place timeously, so that those who want to operate under this immediately after 1 January will be able to do so?

Every house must be put in order as soon as possible. There are numbers of British subjects in this country in respect of whom we have no knowledge whatsoever; we do not know whether or not they are here because no documents were demanded in the past. A prerequisite for citizenship is permanent residence. Nobody will receive citizenship if he is here on a temporary permit; he must first have a permit for permanent residence; then he can be granted citizenship. We now wish those persons who came here before 1 January 1963 to state whether they desire to remain here permanently. Those who wish to remain here permanently and indicate that that is their desire, will receive a permit from the Department for permanent residence. We take it that those who do not apply before that date, wish to remain here temporarily on a temporary permit. They will then be treated as aliens. After 1 January 1963 any person who is here may apply for permanent residence. But we would like to see those persons who are living here permanently become citizens as soon as possible. In terms of existing legislation, if an alien is here on a temporary permit and he eventually wishes to remain here permanently, he must first of all return to his country of origin and only then can he re-enter this country on the strength of a certificate of permanent residence. We are now giving notice long before the time—and I hope great publicity will be given to this—that all persons who have not had citizenship conferred upon them but who intend establishing themselves here permanently, must apply before 1 January 1963. Those who do not do so will be classified as holding temporary permits. If there should be cases where persons apply after that date, the Minister still has the right to exempt them and to issue them with a certificate of permanent residence at any time after wards. We simply have to fix a date otherwise we will get nowhere. If we do not fix a date this matter may again drag on for years and you will not know who is really here permanently and who wants to become a citizen.

It is also in their own interests to do so as soon as possible.

It is definitely in their own interests to do so as soon as possible, because we must put our house in order as far as this matter is concerned.

Will the hon. the Minister just tell the Committee whether the arrangements made under this clause coincide with the arrangements made for South Africans at present in Britain who may want to stay permanently or continue to reside beyond the normal period of an alien.

It is precisely the same.

Assuming persons who will now become aliens, instead of applying under this section to have their passport endorsed, apply for immediate naturalization, will they first have to go through this procedure of getting a certificate of permanent residence? There are many people who have resided here for many years. Cannot they apply normally?

They can do so immediately.

Without going through this procedure?

Yes. Persons who comply with the residential qualifications here and who intimate their desire to remain here permanently, will qualify immediately for naturalization, that is to say, if they comply with all the other qualifications required by the Act.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I would like a little clarification here. In his introductory speech the Minister said that he wanted to waive certain requirements of the Aliens Act as it applies to people in the Union, but he only mentioned one or two. I would like to point out to him that these provisions apply to hotel-keepers, partners, employers and many other classes of persons. I would like him to give us a brief view of what he intends. He said in his introductory speech that up to 1 January 1963, these people would not have to register as aliens, but of course the position will go on after that, and I would like to know what the Minister’s intentions are and to what extent he is prepared to waive the provisions of the Aliens Registration Act.

I can say no more than my colleague has said in his introductory speech, and that is that where the words “born British subject” are now deleted in Section 1 of the Registration of Aliens Act, it means that in future British subjects will be treated in precisely the same way as aliens. They will be subject to precisely the same laws; they will have to register and notify any change of address. I might just say that in this respect our Government has been somewhat more moderate than the British Government. They have carried out this agreement more strictly than we have. For instance, we do not insist on compliance with this requirement in the case of people who come here for less than six months. They, on the contrary, only allow a South African citizen three months there.

Is the administration going over to the Department of Immigration in the case of Commonwealth citizens?

No.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to explain the reasons for the repeal of paragraph (d) of Section 21 of Act 26 of 1939, because the repeal of this clause does not seem to have any relation to anything else in the Bill itself, although I do appreciate that it may be affected by provisions in the existing law. Will the hon. the Minister explain the reason for the repeal of this paragraph at this juncture?

In terms of Section 20 of the principal Act certain categories of people are exempt from registration. In terms of sub-section (d) to which the hon. member has referred, women who become aliens by virtue of the fact that they have married an alien are exempt. With a view to the previous amendments which we have effected, it is quite redundant, because Sections 12 to 15 of the South African Citizenship Act lay down that a woman does not lose her South African citizenship by virtue of her marriage to an alien. In other words, the hon. member is quite right; it really has nothing to do with this, but while we are putting everything in order, we have done a little bit of smartening up in this case as well.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 20.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what provision is made to preserve the rights of those persons who attained South African citizenship by a process of registration. Their rights were preserved, of course, by the provisions of Section 8 of Act No. 44 of 1949, but I can see no provision here which makes any reference to preserving the rights of South African citizenship of persons who have acquired it by registration. It is true that Clause 29 provides that anybody who applies for registration and has not succeeded in being registered in time, will now become naturalized, and sub-section 2 of Clause 29 preserves that right; it is specifically designed to say that a person’s rights will be preserved, that he shall be a South African citizen by naturalization; but it seems to me that once you repeal Section 8 of the South African Citizenship Act of 1949 and make no provision here for the preservation of rights, the whole position becomes changed, and there is nothing in the legislation itself to indicate that those persons’ rights are going to be preserved. Will the Minister please explain?

Section 9 of the South African Citizenship Act preserves their rights. It provides—

That section is not being repealed. That is the clear answer to the hon. member’s whole problem.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 21,

I want to make it quite clear that I welcome the provisions of this clause, but I want to ask the Minister whether he will explain why certain people have been excluded. The proposed new Section 4bis deals with the descendants of persons whose paternal great-grandfather or paternal grandfather or father was born in any part of what now comprises the Republic, and it also deals with persons descended from burghers of the two old Republics. There is nothing wrong with that at all, the point being, of course, that these people need not have been born in the old Republics. They might have come, as so many did, from foreign countries for the purpose of taking part in the gold rush, became burghers and then left. Their descendants can come to the Republic, get a permit for permanent residence and can immediately become citizens. What I want to ask the hon. the Minister is why there is no provision for the descendants of the equivalent of the burghers in the Cape and Natal, that is to say, descendants of people who became citizens in the sense in which one was a citizen, with the right to vote and so on—the equivalent to the burgher of the old Republic, but who was not born here and who would not fall into that category. Why is it only the descendants of the burghers of the old Republics?

The reply to the question of the hon. member is simply this: We are dealing here with two different categories of persons. The old South African Republican citizen who left the country, did not leave the country of his own free will in this sense that he simply left the country. Take the case of the citizens, for instance, who went to Angola and to the Argentine after the three-year war, the Anglo-Boer War. Those people simply left the country as citizens of this country because they felt that they had been deprived of their freedom. They were those who fought to the bitter end and the stubborn ones who said: We will rather go into the wide world than to live under a foreign flag. I am not discussing the merits of the case, but that is the historical background. The other persons who left the country left it voluntarily, just as an emigrant usually leaves his country. There was nothing which made them feel that they had to leave the country such as that they had lost their freedom. In that way they had sacrificed the citizenship which they would have obtained here or probably did obtain. The only reason why we are taking these steps is to afford the opportunity to the White man in those countries of Africa where his existence has become endangered, and who wishes to return to the country of which he was formerly a citizen, to obtain citizenship immediately he returns. We discussed this position last year already. I want to put it to the hon. member that there is a difference between those people who have to leave those countries and the other category of persons to whom he has referred. My colleague, the Minister of Immigration, will not afford those people financial assistance to come here, but if they have to leave, if they have to leave and seek refuge elsewhere, then this is the country where they had had citizenship and we will immediately again give it to them.

As the hon. member for Durban (North) said, we welcome this clause as we welcomed a similar provision previously, i.e. in 1961. There is, however, a question which I raised with the Minister at that time and I should like to know whether he has been able to investigate it in the meantime. It is of much more importance now than it was last year in view of the changes which have since taken place. This question related to children in the territories to the north of us and to whom the Minister has only just referred, i.e. territories like Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia, Tanganyika, Kenya, etc. The children I have in mind are those of parents both of whom were originally South Africans, or of parents one of whom was originally a South African citizen. These are people who know Africa. Now we will find that on their return there will be many children born there who will not, in terms of this clause, become South African citizens. I know of many cases of persons who have returned from the Rhodesias and elsewhere.

I do not think it will be wise to slip in n amendment here now without prior thorough investigation because one does not ant to make a mistake. I do hope, however, bat the Minister will be prepared to go into cases of this nature and that it will be possible for him to come forward with an amendment. We want to bring as many of these people back to South Africa as is possible and they should, therefore, be encouraged to come back here rather than to go elsewhere in the world. We can do that by making it easier for the children concerned to acquire the citizenship their parents enjoyed before they left.

Order! The matter which the hon. member raises extends the provisions of the Bill to a class of persons not contemplated by the second reading and I cannot, therefore, allow discussion on it.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 24,

Mr. Chairman, we do not oppose the principle of this clause, but I have two amendments on the Order Paper which I should like the hon. the Minister to consider. These are as follows—

The intention of the first amendment is to bring the wording of the clause into line with Section 19 bis of Act No. 44 of 1949 as amended by Act 64 of 1961. The law, as it stands at present, may deprive a South African citizen of his South African citizenship, if he has after the commencement of the Act (i.e. Section 13 of Act No. 64 of 1961)—

It seems to me that the Minister will be wise to use the same phraseology in this clause. Why should it not also be a “formal act” here as it is under the section referred to? Otherwise there is going to be a lot of doubt in the mind of people as to exactly what this clause means. It is quite clear that people might do voluntary things abroad without realizing that they do so in contravention of the law although they do so in an informal way. The Minister might reply by saying that such things will not be taken seriously. As far as we are concerned, we think it would give a much clearer indication of what he has in mind, if the Minister were to specify it to be some “voluntary” and “formal” act—in other words, a deliberate contravention of the law relating to citizenship.

My reason for the second amendment, i.e. to delete the words”in the opinion of the Minister”, is because as the clause stands now, the Minister could just write to, say, Mr. Smith and tell him that he, in the opinion of the Minister, has performed a voluntary act—without specifying what it is—and that he has, as a result, been deprived of his South African citizenship.

The Minister is, in other words, taking very wide powers to himself in this regard. I know of course how the Minister will react, namely by asking whether it is really believed that he will do an unreasonable thing. But all Ministers say that and no Opposition ever accepts it! The fact of the matter is that Parliament is being asked to give the Minister the most exceptional powers. It is true that the Minister could also reply that he is empowered by Clause 24 (c) to cancel a decision under subsection (b) to take away a person’s citizenship. That, however, can cause a lot of trouble to the unfortunate citizen. This can be avoided by not making it subject only to the “opinion of the Minister” because the Minister of the day will then be very careful as to how he acts. It will not prevent him from exercising his powers, but it will make him very careful as to how he does exercise them, because he will know that if he uses them arbitrarily and without sound reasons, he might find himself brought to court and being called upon to give reasons for his actions.

I hope, therefore, that the Minister will, so as to ensure that everybody has confidence in this clause, accept both my amendments and incorporate them in the clause.

I am sorry but I have objections against the principle embodied in this clause. Accordingly I move the amendment which I have given notice of, i.e.

To omit paragraphs (a) and (b).

I do this because I believe the hon. the Minister already has very wide powers under existing legislation. This clause amends Section 19bis of the South African Citizenship Act of 1949. This particular section, as amended by Act 64 of 1961, already gives the Minister the power to deprive a South African citizen, i.e. not a citizen by naturalization or registration but a South African citizen by birth who is not a minor, of his South African citizenship, if the Minister is satisfied that such citizen—

1. (a) has at any time after the commencement
2. of this Act, by some voluntary and formal act in the Union, other than marriage, acquired the citizenship or nationality of a country other than the Union; or
3. (b) has at any time after the commencement of this Act, whether in or outside the Union—
   1. (i) made an oath or other declaration of allegiance to any country other than the Union; or
   2. (ii) made a declaration renouncing his South African citizenship with intent to accept any other citizenship or nationality.

I believe these are all the powers the Minister should have. The Minister should only have the power to deprive a South African born person of his citizenship if such person actually renounces South African citizenship and takes up the citizenship of another country. Only under these circumstances should the Minister have power to act in that way. Accordingly the extension of these powers asked for in this clause is in my opinion unwarranted particularly so as this clause is very widely worded. Even if the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) are accepted, the clause still contains very wide powers. It means that in the Minister’s discretion, a person may be deprived of his citizenship if at any time such a person has performed either a formal or a voluntary act which indicates that such person has made use of the citizenship or nationality of another country. This is carrying the question of “dual nationality” far too far in the circumstances of this country to-day. There are persons who for many years have enjoyed certain privileges in Britain by virtue of the fact that his or her father was born in Britain.As I said, I think this goes much too far. I should like to give some examples of what might be interpreted by the Minister as being a voluntary act or even a formal act and where use is made of privileges which we have been granted to persons for many years on account of a father, for instance, having been born in Britain. Persons falling in this category are those many thousands of young South African students and other young persons who have been in the habit of going across to Britain and of taking up temporary work there; they educate themselves further with the assistance of what they earn in that way; and, generally, taking advantages of the culture of Britain and of the experiences gained there. Now, however, a South African person may not do so after a certain date without having obtained a work permit first unless such a person still enjoys the privileges—as they will do under the relevant British Act—to which he or she is entitled by virtue of their father, for instance, having been born in Britain. Such a young person could then go to Britain and make a formal declaration that, although he carries a South African passport, he enjoys certain privileges under the British South Africa Act enabling him to take up work in Britain because his father, for instance, was born there. He could, perhaps, also travel more freely in other countries, as for instance in some parts of Africa where South Africans are not welcome, for educational, scientific and other purposes. This he could do on a British passport. This does not mean that such a person has a dual loyalty but only that he is lucky enough to have additional advantages to use for educational and other purposes. The commission of such a voluntary or formal act, i.e. to utilize for purposes of educational study, etc., a British passport, should not be grounds for the Minister to decide that such a person has, more or less, been disloyal to South Africa and should, accordingly, be deprived of his South African citizenship. But this is exactly what this clause is enabling the Minister to do, because it enables the Minister to deprive a person of his South African citizenship if such a person, in the opinion of the Minister, has made use, by means of any voluntary or formal act, of the advantages of the citizenship of another country.

There are people who travel to Britain and who are used to walking through “British subjects” gate at the customs without any difficulty who might feel that they do not want to be deprived of those facilities. It is a small matter, but one of pride to certain people. Accordingly, they produce a certificate or make a declaration to the effect that his or her father was born in Britain thereby becoming entitled to enter the country on the same basis as British subjects. I do not think, as I said before, that this displays dual loyalty, nor does it display disloyalty to South Africa. The Minister should, therefore, not have these additional powers and consequently I move the amendment which stands in my name.

I hope the hon. the Minister will find justification for accepting the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). I say so because that will bring this legislation into line not only with Section 19bis but also with Section 15 of the Act as introduced by Section 10 of Act 64 of 1961. In this section, too, the words “some voluntary and formal act” are used.

In regard to the second amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia, I hope the Minister will accept that as well because as the clause now reads, it does seem that the executive is claiming rather excessive powers. It will be observed that the words “if the Minister is satisfied” already appears at the commencement of Section 19bis. Consequently the section will, in conjunction with this clause, read as follows—

“In the opinion of the Minister”, where it appears in the latter part of this quotation, is therefore a complete surplusage. If left in, the clause might create the impression that this power is going to be used more arbitrarily or drastically than the existing provisions of the law. I say, therefore, the Minister will be wise to remove these words from the clause because one would loathe to create the impression that South Africa is trying to obtain loyalty from people by means of some sort of intimidation.

In so far as the first amendment is concerned, it is quite obvious that the insertion of the words “and formal” was found necessary in the already existing sections and should, in my opinion, be included here as well. There is, otherwise, the danger that someone might fall under this clause unwittingly and merely because that such person has accepted the benefits which accrue in terms of a personal relationship to Britain by birth or otherwise. He could have accepted a scholarship, for instance. As such it could affect persons who have been good South Africans all along and who have served this country very well. I accept, of course, that the words “and formal” do not constitute a guarantee that someone might not fall within the term “unwittingly”, but it certainly makes it less easy to fall “unwittingly” within the terms of the clause. In view of the fact that sub-paragraph (3) of this clause gives the Minister the power to withdraw any such cancellation of citizenship, the operation of this sub-paragraph will also be facilitated by the inclusion of those words. In the circumstances I hope the Minister will accept both these amendments.

I am pleased that the United Party does not want to go as far in their amendment to this clause as the hon. member for Houghton is prepared to go. I feel obliged to say unequivocally to the hon. member for Houghton and those who think the way she does, that if her amendments were accepted and the two paragraphs in question deleted, it would only mean the continuation of dual citizenship—it will flourish—without in any way curtailing or changing the existing position in this respect. I wish to state unequivocally that I am pleased that the United Party is not prepared to go as far as the hon. member for Houghton, and that they subscribe in principle to a single loyalty although they suggest certain changes in this respect with which I will deal in a moment. I wish to say to the hon. member for Houghton and her kindred spirits who think like she does, that I think the most precious and priceless possession any person can possess is his citizenship. I cannot express in words how priceless this possession is. Citizenship should not only entitle the holder thereof to privileges, because anything which only confers benefits and privileges is not as priceless as something which also places certain obligations on the person. It is only when you as a citizen have to fulfil your obligations under your citizenship that you realize its value. To sacrifice on the one hand and to give on the other hand; to give and to receive, are the two most pleasant duties which anybody can perform. But it demands loyalty and proof that you are prepared at any cost, to show a single loyalty. You may be fond of any country and if every country had the right to confer citizenship on whomsoever he pleases so that one person may be the citizen of three or four countries, the time will sooner or later arrive where such a person will stand before the choice. We wish to place our South African citizenship on such a high level and beyond every possible reproach, and we should be so fervent in our loyalty to our country that there will be no doubt as to that choice, there should definitely not be the possibility of making another choice.

Does the hon. member agree that in those cases where young South Africans have gone overseas to go and work and with a view to that have availed themselves of British citizenship, it will mean that they have been disloyal to their South African citizenship?

I can give a long list of acts which a person with dual citizenship can do and ask the hon. member whether she approves of them. Let me mention a few things—perhaps the United Party should also listen to this, bearing in mind the amendments which they have moved. Will the hon. member approve of the following act: When a citizen voluntarily applies for a passport in another country will she say that he is being loyal to his South African citizenship? Or is it merely a principle of convenience of which you can avail yourself?

In certain circumstances, yes.

As far as I am concerned, I regard that as an absolute act of disloyalty to the country of which you are a citizen. I will certainly deprive a person who has such dual citizenship of his South African citizenship. What does the hon. member think of a person who, while he is a South African citizen, takes part in the voting on the occasion of a political election or referendum in another country? If a person does that is he not being disloyal to the country of which he is a citizen? The hon. member shrugs her shoulders indicating that she does not know. That is exactly the trouble. What would she decide if she were the Minister of the Interior? We cannot argue with the hon. member because her moral conception of the meaning of citizenship differs completely from that of this side of the House. Another case which I can mention is that of a person who in another country approaches the embassy of a foreign country for assistance whereas his own country has an embassy in that particular country. What will the hon. member think of that?

19bis already gives sufficient powers.

I am not talking about the powers under 19bis, but about when a citizen of South Africa is loyal or disloyal. I can give a number of other examples, but I do not think that is necessary seeing that the hon. member and I do not see eye to eye as far as our conceptions of morality are concerned.

That is why I say I am pleased to see that the United Party have not made themselves guilty to the same extent, but that they subscribe to the principle of a single loyalty. In other words, they want to be South African citizens and they want their supporters to be that. As far as the amendments of the hon. member for Constantia are concerned, I regret to say that I cannot accept them for reasons which I am convinced the United Party will understand and to which they will perhaps subscribe on deeper reflection. You cannot restrict disloyalty to the Republic to voluntary or formal acts. That can simply not be done, because it is exactly in the field of informal voluntary acts where it clearly becomes evident whether a person wishes to give undivided loyalty to the Republic or not. If we make the act a formal one, the basis of citizenship, namely the undivided loyalty to the State, is completely emasculated. A citizen should at all times promote the interests of the State to which he owes undivided loyalty and he must at all times combat and oppose that which may injure that State, otherwise he is not only judicially disloyal but also morally disloyal. That is the big difference. It is easy to say somebody is loyal to his country in the judicial sense of the word by laying down a formal act, but when it comes to the moral aspect of the matter, that is when you cannot measure loyalty with a yardstick as you can in the case of judicial loyalty, the position is different. The hon. member for Constantia objects to the provision that the Minister must be the judge. That is not in conflict with the existing provisions of the South African Citizenship Act. I wish to give only two examples in this connection. The final say in the granting of citizenship, for instance, rests with the Minister. He also has the right by means of an order to deprive somebody of his citizenship. The whole history of and historical background to the granting and dispossession of citizenship in this country, is that it rests with the executive authority. The Minister does not, therefore, act as a person, but as the representative of the executive authority. The hon. member for Constantia said that in spite of the fact that I had an honest face and no matter what I promised, they would not accept it as it was. But it is not necessary for them to accept the bona fides of the one or other Minister.

Do you mean to say that you will submit every case to the executive authority before you act?

No.But surely a Minister does many things on behalf of the executive authority. In cases of capital punishment, for example, all the Ministers do not decide, and the hon. member who was also a Minister of State knows that in such cases only two or three Ministers take action together with the State President, that is not even the majority of the Cabinet. In any case, a Minister does not act irresponsibly. Historically, therefore, the position is as I have set out. This is a principle which we have inherited from the British constitutional law. That is precisely our attitude here. But the important point lies in this, that it is a guarantee to hon. members, the democratic guarantee in respect of the words “in the opinion of the Minister” and all the dangers in which they see in that. There is no danger for the simple reason that in this legislation the Minister is, in the first place, obliged in every case where he deprives anybody of his citizenship, to lay that case on the Table of both Houses of Parliament within 14 days. In other words, the Opposition and any other member has the right to study the reasons why the Minister has done so, to discuss them and to criticize the Minister with the result that the Minister will have to act very carefully. Because the Minister also has the right to restore citizenship. He can make a bona fide mistake, or he may have been too severe in his judgment. He may have judged that informal act which the person has committed too strictly, and he may at a later stage on reconsideration or as the result of representations made to him come to the conclusion that he acted too severely and that he may wish to restore citizenship to that person. I am not saying this to find excuses, but I want this Committee to realize that what we are doing here is as far as we can go. The idea originally was that in the case of a formal act there would only be a certain period of time during which we would allow dual citizenship. We have no objection to this amendment—if anybody values his British citizenship to such an extent that he does not wish to lose it, he can retain it. But when he commits an act which testifies to disloyalty to South Africa, we tell him we are very sorry but he can no longer remain a South African citizen; he can no longer sit on two stools, he has made his choice voluntarily.

Can you give us examples of that?

I did so during your absence. You must ask the others for those. I can still give a number of other examples. I just wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that I really think that at the time of the negotiations with the British—I was one of those who conducted those negotiations—it was stated very clearly, and we stated it unequivocally, that, as far as dual citizenship in the case of South African citizens was concerned, we expected undivided loyalty to the Republic on the part of the person, and that principle, given to us in a memoir by a British Ambassador, was unequivocally accepted, and it was not held against us. I just want to say that I do not think we should interfere with this clause. I must say that our experience has been—that has been my experience as one of those who conducted the negotiations—that they demand it, and they do not hold it against us for demanding it. We need not conflict with one another because of that, nor do I believe that that will cause us to come into conflict. I just want to add that the Government will be very careful before it deprives anybody of his citizenship. It is a valuable possession; it means a tremendous amount to a person, and a great deal of thought will be given to it, and there will have to be very definite reasons before such a thing is done. We can discuss the circumstances in which it can be done ad infinitum, but I would rather ask that we do not do so. Let the Minister exercise this discretionary power which is being given to him in such a way that when such cases are eventually tabled the necessary criticism can be levelled if we are not satisfied.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak to the second part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), that is to remove the words “in the opinion of the Minister”. I think the hon. the Minister himself gave the best reason why that amendment should be accepted. The hon. the Minister said that the most priceless thing that one could possess was one’s citizenship. The hon. the Minister is saying in effect that it is a priceless thing, that it should therefore be guarded and it should, therefore, I submit, also be protected. All that the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia means is whether or not when a certain fact has occurred, it should be determined as if it were a fact and should not be determined as if it were an opinion which the hon. the Minister has. I appreciate the fact, Sir, that the hon. the Minister is not lightly going to deprive anyone of his citizenship. I think the Minister has already indicated to this Committee how extraordinarily difficult it is going to be. That has been indicated by the questions which have been put to this side of the House and the questions which have been put to him. The hon. the Minister has said that they will talk and talk about it before they come to a decision. I must say that this is a most unsatisfactory way in which to determine a fact. What we are deciding in this clause, Sir, is whether someone can be deprived of his citizenship. We say that he can be deprived of his citizenship on the happening of certain events, not on the happening of the hon. the Minister feeling that someone should be deprived, not on the happening of the Minister’s interpretation of some event, but on the happening of certain facts.

Who is to take the initiative in determining that fact?

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) asks who will have the initiative. The initiative will, of course, lie with the Minister. If the Minister does make a decision and does deprive a person of this most priceless possession, then, Sir, if he does it arbitrarily, if he does so on false premises, then the citizen has a right to go to the court and say that there were no facts whatsoever upon which such a decision could be founded. It will not affect the initiative of the hon. the Minister. There are two other factors which come into this. The one is that the act concerned must necessarily have been committed outside the Republic. The hon. the Minister is going to have to decide, when he deprives anyone of his citizenship, purely on hearsay evidence. The hon. the Minister has said that there is a safeguard inasmuch as all these names will be laid on the Table of the House. But, Sir, this is no way to determine facts. Facts must be determined by proof. Facts must be determined by the best methods known to our society, known to our system, known to our Constitution. There should be proper examination as to whether a fact is a fact or whether it is not a fact. I submit that laying it on the Table of the House will have no effect whatsoever so far as the determination of the fact is concerned. It will give certain hon. members the right, when the Minister’s Vote comes up, to discuss with him across the floor of the House whether a certain fact is a fact or not. I submit it is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs and I would ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not reconsider, in the light of what he himself has said, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia.

The hon. the Minister has said that the British Government fully agreed with the principle. We on this side of the House accept the principle too. I just want to put a small extra point to the Minister. This, therefore, is a question of the Government having concern for its own citizens before depriving them of their citizenship. I think that is the point that should well weigh with the Minister when such an important matter is decided.

I regret that I cannot accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). It is destructive of the principle of single citizenship which was accepted at the second reading of the Bill.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Waterson put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and a division called.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Mrs. Susman) voted against the clause, as printed, the Chairman declared it agreed to.

On Clause 62,

There is just one small point. Will the Minister explain why he wishes to retain the words “High Commissioner”.

The reply is that we may at some time wish to appoint a High Commissioner to some country or other. The hon. member will recall that the term “High Commissioner” has not always applied only to Commonwealth countries. For instance, there was a time when there was a High Commissioner in one of the French territories. There was a suggestion of a High Commissioner in one of the Indonesian countries. So there is the possibility that such an appointment might be necessary in the future. We are providing for such a possibility. That is the only reason.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Omission of Clause 4 put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I wish to move the amendment which stands in the name of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman)—

This is a new power to curb the freedom of the Press. Despite the assurance which the hon. the Minister gave at the second reading that the Bill was not designed in any way to restrict free speech or to curtail the freedom of the Press, this provision is, in fact, such a provision. Because it means that new machinery is being introduced whereby a newspaper proprietor has to make a deposit before registration can take effect, and that the deposit may be forfeited to the State in certain circumstances. Although it ostensibly affects only those proprietors who wish to register after the coming into operation of this law, it actually goes much further, because, where there is a change in ownership, or even in name, of an existing newspaper, this section will operate. Where there has been a delay beyond one month in the publishing of an existing registration, the provision will also apply. The objection of this side of the House to the clause is the forfeiture by executive decree. It means that it rests entirely in the hands of the executive as to whether or not there should be a form of penalty over and above a cancellation of a registration of a newspaper. Not even in time of war was there a provision as drastic as this. Not even the War Measures went as far as this. The Minister will know that, although consideration was given to apply a form of censorship on the Press during the war, it in fact never did take place. As I say, Sir, the objectionable aspect of this clause is not so much that a new newspaper will have a certain amount of capital tied up as security, but this amount of money can become forfeited to the State entirely by executive decree. The Minister is the sole judge as to whether this form of penalty is to be enforced or not. The only relief that has come is the provision which the Minister has introduced himself in providing that there can be a remission. In any case, Sir, that power of remission by grace or favour is part of executive authority already. The executive can always, by grace or favour, remit a form of penalty. In so far as it may affect the discus, it can also do so by an ordinary appropriation.

At the Committee Stage this side of the House tried to ameliorate the harshness of this provision by providing that the court, and not the Minister, should be the arbiter of the circumstances. That was ruled out of order. I naturally accept the ruling, and I am not going to try to advance the argument now. Except to say this: that the hon. the Minister will have an opportunity in the Other Place of dealing with this. I hope he will give us an assurance that he will have recourse to that method of dealing with the matter before this Bill becomes law. As it stands now, Sir, it provides no safeguards of a nature that we would like to see in it. It is a bad provision and harsh. I, therefore, move the deletion of the clause in its entirety.

I second.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has advanced two arguments. The first was that this clause conferred a new power on to the Minister “to curb the freedom of the Press”. The people who would naturally have been the first to object to it, had the hon. member been right in his contention, would have been the Newspaper Press Union and I have not received any objection whatsoever from them in this connection. How can the hon. member come with that argument, in spite of the fact that he ought to know that these people who are intimately concerned did not object to the clause concerned? The hon. member will also remember that in everything that was written in the newspapers in this connection, no reference was made whatsoever to this amendment by people who are intimately and mainly concerned in this. As far as his second argument is concerned, namely that the clause as amended will now give the Minister the right to confiscate by way of ministerial decree, a certain amount or the whole amount which was deposited as a guarantee. I take it that the hon. member’s argument is that the ministerial discretion which is granted is in conflict with the “rule of law” about which we have heard such a great deal. But that clause has been inserted at the request of the Bar Council. I cannot understand, therefore, how the hon. member can accuse me of violating the “rule of law” in that way, whereas those very watchdogs of the “rule of law” were the people who asked me to effect this amendment. I am afraid, therefore, that neither of the amendments of the hon. member is supported by those people who are intimately concerned in this matter and consequently I cannot accept them.

Question put: That all the words from the commencement of the clause up to and including “State” in line 30, stand part of the Bill,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—85: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S.F.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw. E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster.B. J.; Vosloo. A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—38: Barnett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Connan, J. M.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Holland, M. W.; Hughes, T. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H.G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson. S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Plewman negatived.

Amendment in Clause 5, made in Committee of the Whole House, and the first amendment in Clause 7, put and agreed to.

In Clause 7,

I move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje), duly authorized by him—-

To omit paragraph (b), as amended.

The amendment is to omit paragraph (b) of this clause. That paragraph gives the Minister the power to ban certain types of gatherings, gatherings of a particular kind in any area during a particular period. When this matter was discussed in Committee, the Minister removed certain words and added certain other words, and as the position stood before, the Minister could ban any meeting at any place if he was satisfied that there was one person in the whole of the Republic who propagated the aims of Communism. The Minister has seen the error of such phraseology and has therefore deleted it, but the words which he inserted in their place, although a little better, do not alter the principle of the matter, which is that the Minister no longer needs to apply his mind to the meetings which he intends to ban. The Minister has indicated that under this sub-clause now proposed to be omitted, he can ban all meetings on the Parade or on the steps of the City Hall.

That is not in this clause.

I am pleased to hear that, because when I asked the Minister this question in the second reading he was in agreement. But the fact remains that the Minister here takes the power to ban any type of gathering in future either to be held in any place—-he could ban all meetings on the Parade or even all cocktail parties in Cape Town. He could ban social events or any meeting in the City Hall. If the Minister had accepted in the Committee Stage an amendment which was moved, which would make it imperative for him to apply his mind to every meeting, this clause would not be so objectionable when viewed in the light of the principal Act.

I had wider powers under the original clause.

No, the Minister always had to apply his mind to the meeting.

But I had wider powers under the original clause.

Yes, but only in this respect, that he could ban any gathering at all regardless of whether it was connected with Communism or not. Now the Minister has exactly the same powers. He can still ban all gatherings without their being connected with Communism, and without his applying his mind to whether or not they are connected with Communism. I say the Minister can ban all future meetings at any place merely if he at the same time says he deems it necessary in order to combat Communism. How can the Minister apply his mind to every meeting which will be held on the Parade? Obviously he cannot. The Minister does not know who will call meetings there, or which societies will call what sort of meetings in the next month or year, but he takes power to ban all these meetings. How the Minister can say in future that he deems it necessary to do so in order to combat Communism, to ban all meetings that he does not know about, and how he can pretend that he is going to achieve the objects of this clause by banning, e.g., the Salvation Army—and I am not just mentioning the Salvation Army because I am trying to be facetious, but the Salvation Army might have a meeting there, and then the Minister will be banning the meeting of the Salvation Army because he deems it to be necessary in order to combat Communism. The Minister is taking powers which cannot be applied for the objects of fighting Communism.

I second.

I have expressed my views quite clearly in the Committee Stage on this Bill and I do not want to reiterate the same arguments, but it was quite clear from the discussion at that stage that the Minister’s reason for introducing this amendment, which he himself admitted in his reply, was the Zac de Beer case. Perhaps I had better tell the House what the Zac de Beer case was. Last year just before the proclamation of the Republic, there were signs that there would be some unrest in the Republic, and as the result of that the hon. the Minister simply banned all meetings throughout the Republic. It so happened that the then member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer) had a meeting scheduled, which had nothing particularly to do with the subject of the Republic, but an ordinary political meeting was scheduled in one of the suburbs of Cape Town, and he then fell under the ministerial ban. It was decided that this was completely unreasonable, even in terms of the very wide powers given to the hon. the Minister under existing law. It was therefore decided to oppose this ban and proceedings were instituted. The hon. the Minister was advised by his legal advisers that he did not have a hope of winning such a case; the case was settled and the State paid the costs. As the result of that the hon. the Minister now wants to take powers to do what he was not allowed to do then, and I think he is demanding very wide powers indeed. He now wants this blanket power, without the accusation being brought against him that he could not possibly have applied his mind to the banning of meetings in so far as they would further the aims and objects of Communism. I think that the hon. the Minister is going too far here in terms of any democratic right, and I certainly will oppose most strongly any further extension of powers.

Question put: That all the words from the commencement of paragraph (b) up to and including “he” in line 24, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Bill,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—82: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Roux, P.M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N.F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—37: Barnett, C.; Bloomberg, A.;Bowker, T. B.; Connan, J. M.; Field. A.N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Holland, M. W.; Hughes, T. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell negatived.

Remaining amendment in Clause 7, made in Committee of the Whole House, put and agreed to.

In Clause 8,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

Paragraph (a) will replace the existing subsection, and the effect of my amendment therefore is to restore the status quo. Sir, this clause has rightly been described as the harshest of a host of harsh provisions in a Bill which has disturbed a large part of the population of South Africa. It places in the hands of the Minister extraordinary powers to restrict the freedom of the individual, without trial. It is quite true that those powers are mainly directed at persons whose names appear on a list which is in the custody of the Minister’s Department, but the list is 12 years old and the Minister has admitted that some of the names on it should not be there at all. These extraordinary powers enable the Minister to confine a person to a form of house-arrest and, in addition to that confinement, to impose certain final restrictions or limitations upon him as to communication with other persons, as to receiving visitors or “performing any act so specified” by the Minister in his prohibition order. Sir, this is very widely stated. Goodness alone knows what sort of normal business or domestic activities can be included in this term “acts so specified”. It is not a question as to whether the Minister will act bona fide or not; that is not an issue at all. The point is that wide powers are being given which should, of course, be defined more strictly in the legislation itself. The enormity of this new form of penal sanction is that by resorting to this Star Chamber method of criminal trial, the executive is clothed with all three functions of Judge, counsel for the prosecution and counsel for the defence. In legislating in that way, there is a breach of a long-standing tradition of legislative practice in this House. I know of no instance in which powers of penal sanction have been conferred on a court of law by Act of Parliament in which the Act does not lay down the maximum period which the court may impose in placing restrictions on the freedom of the individual who has been found guilty of some offence against the law. Here, Sir, no such limitation is prescribed; it is left entirely to the whim of the hon. the Minister. I feel therefore that a long-standing tradition of legislative practice goes out of the window. This new form of executive punishment has no bounds or restrictions. As I say, it is left entirely to the whim of the Minister as to how long the penal restrictions are to last. They can be renewed at any time, and neither the imposition nor any renewal of these restrictions is subject to any form of executive review or executive revision. Sir, it was ruled that amendments invoking the aid of the courts would not be moved. I am not now going to pursue that argument, except again to point out that as the provision now stands, the prohibition order is not subject to any form of executive review or executive revision, and it therefore goes much further than anything that has happened in this country before. One limitation and one limitation only to the whim of the hon. the Minister has been provided and that is by the proviso which the hon. the Minister himself moved to the new sub-section (1) (a). But, Sir, what is the real value of that proviso? Admittedly it will prevent the Minister from debarring the person concerned from communicating with or receiving as a visitor “any advocate or attorney managing his affairs”. To that extent there is a limitation but I say it has very doubtful value since it is most unlikely that any advocate in his professional capacity will be engaged in managing a person’s affairs. It is true that the management of a person’s affairs may be entrusted to an attorney, but it is more usual that it is left to a banker or to an agent or to some chartered secretary. Therefore the proviso itself is of very doubtful value and it also provides an additional danger in that it brings into play the axiom “exception proves the rule Here the exception is “advocates and attorneys managing the person’s affairs” and the inclusion of one is always the exclusion of others. In other words, the exception proves the rule in cases not excepted too. Therefore a medical practitioner, a parson, a banker, a businessman, are all by implication excluded from the provision. Whilst the Minister may say that he may put them in his prohibition order, I think as the clause reads, he may be debarred from putting them in.

How can you say that?

Because inclusion, usually means the exclusion of others.

Subject to the exceptions that may be stipulated.

Yes, but you have made your prime exception already by saying “advocates and attorneys”. Why then not make it wider and exclude the banker, the businessman, the partner in his business or the parson who wishes to come and visit him? All those matters could easily have been inserted and then the legislation would have been clear. It is anything but clear now and I say that it is a drastic position, and I therefore move the omission of the paragraph.

I second.

I just want to reply to two arguments which we have again had from the hon. member. The first is the question put by the hon. member as to how long this provision will remain in operation. This provision will remain in operation as long as there is a danger of Communism in South Africa. In the second place I just wish to point out to the hon. member that similar provisions existed in Kenya; they were only much more stringent than our provisions. Had the hon. member read his newspapers over the past week he would have seen that similar territorial restrictions to those we are placing on the communists here, were placed on the former Mau-Mau leaders in Kenya. They are equally dangerous and both employ the same tactics. In that case, just because that person went beyond the area to which he was restricted, he was sent to gaol by a magistrate for four years, not even by a Judge. I did not notice any newspaper making a hullabaloo about that. I am surprised, therefore, that objection is raised to it here seeing that we are only making it 12 months if a communist commits the same contravention.

I am not at all convinced by the reasons given by the hon. the Minister for the inclusion of this paragraph in the Bill. I think, however, that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) stated that this power that the hon. the Minister is taking of confining persons to house arrest applies only to a listed person, but I do not think that is correct. It is even wider than that. It includes “any person, if the Minister is satisfied, etc.” So it is not confined to a listed person at all. It includes anybody at all in the Republic if the hon. the Minister thinks that he will do certain things. Such a person if he is likely to do these things can, on the order of the Minister, be confined to house arrest or to any other place that the hon. the Minister so designates. I think it is almost the worst clause in the whole Bill, and I shall certainly vote for the exclusion of this particular paragraph.

Question put: That all the words from the commencement of paragraph (a) up to and including “specified” in line 62, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Bill,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—79: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C.A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C.P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M.D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—39: Barnett, C.; Bloomberg, A.;Bowker, T. B.; Connan, J. M.; Durrant, R. B.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Holland, M. W.; Hughes, T. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Plewman negatived.

First amendment in Clause 8, made in Committee of the Whole House, put.

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

medical practitioner on a professional visit”

The effect will be to add one more person to the exemption list already provided for by the hon. the Minister by his amendment. On representations by the Bar Council, the hon. the Minister has inserted a proviso that no prohibition under the existing clause shall debar any person from communicating with or receiving as a visitor any advocate or attorney managing his affairs, providing his name does not appear on any list, etc. Now the purpose of my amendment is to ask the hon. the Minister to give a further dispensation by inserting the words “or medical practitioner on a professional visit”; thereafter the same limitation will apply, that is to say that his name must not appear on any list …, or who is not under any prohibition. The obvious reason for my amendment is that people who are confined to their houses under the house arrest clause may obviously need to communicate very urgently with their medical practitioner, and it is not possible at a moment’s notice, or in the early hours of the morning, when somebody is ill, to get the necessary permission from the hon. the Minister. I think it would at least show some kind of reasonableness on the part of the hon. the Minister if he would agree to the insertion of these words.

I second, and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment. This amendment is one which has merits and quite clearly in no way interferes with the principle of the clause and will enable a person to receive medical attention.

It is not necessary to accept the amendment because the doctor is not the only person who has to have access to that person. Many other people have to have it and that will be specified in the notice to the person concerned. There will be a number of other people and we cannot insert a provision in this Bill that a medical man should be allowed. You have the dentist, the nurse, the midwife, and any number of other people who have to have access and it is not practical to insert it here. The only reason why the attorney and advocate are mentioned here is that the Bar Council insisted upon it that that should be stated very clearly; that no matter who else you refuse, the person should not be prohibited from having access to his attorney and his advocate. They wanted to make sure that in principle that would not be refused because, as they put it, that would have been in conflict with the “rule of law”. But the moment we specify any person, we will have to specify his bank manager and a whole list of other persons. That will be done administratively and the person will be notified of it.

Automatically?

Yes, with a view to the requirements of the person it will be stated in the notice whom he can see. In any case, for example, it will not be necessary to allow a midwife.

That is an assurance from the hon. the Minister which I am prepared to accept.

With leave of the House, the amendment proposed by Mrs. Suzman was withdrawn.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Amendments in Clauses 8 and 9 and in Clause 10, line 4, page 11, agreed to.

In Clause 10,

I move—

The arguments are the same as those which I advanced at the Committee Stage of this Bill. I feel this clause goes far beyond the normal protection of citizens as far as freedom of speech is concerned, and I intend voting against this clause.

I second, Sir. Obviously if our amendment to this clause is not carried we will vote against it.

Questions put: That all the words from the commencement of paragraph (e) up to and including “Minister” in line 12, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Bill.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—85: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R.H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J.A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C.B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—40: Barnett, C.; Bloomberg, A.;Bowker, T. B.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mrs. Suzman negatived.

I move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman)—

This sub-section makes it an offence to record, reproduce or print any speech, utterance or writing by a named communist, and the purpose of this clause is to combat Communism. The effect of our amendment will be to make it an offence to record any speech or writing by a named communist and to disseminate it if it is done with the purpose of furthering Communism, or if it is calculated to further the objects of Communism or of an unlawful organization. I submit that if the House accepts our amendment, we will be achieving the whole object of this clause. If the House does not accept this amendment, it will place the public generally, and especially the Press, in an impossible position. It will mean that the Press will have to keep long lists of named communists and study these lists before they report any speech or news which might involve them in criminal sanctions. I submit that it would put the Press in an impossible position. They may quite inadvertently report a speech or utterance by a named communist, not with the object of furthering Communism, and they may find that they are liable to a term of imprisonment of three years. Not only will it affect the Press, but every member of this House. As I pointed out before, it is often necessary to quote the speeches and writings of named communists in order to combat Communism. Every member here will have found at different times that he has had to quote speeches by named communists. I submit that is one of the best ways of combating Communism. But now we have the ridiculous position that we can quote any speech made by Mr. Kruschey or any foreign communist, any of the communists in the African states to the north of us, without committing an offence, but once we quote what a local named communist says we are committing an offence. I know from my experience that not only do politicians use speeches made by these people in attacking Communism, but also in attacking the other political parties.

The Progressive Party.

Yes! The Progressive Party and even the Nationalist Party. We used these speeches to great advantage in attacking the Nationalist Party, and I have no doubt that the Minister himself and other Government members have used these speeches to attack the United Party. If any politician inadvertently uses a speech made by a communist to assist his own cause, not with the object of promoting Communism, or the Press inadvertently prints that speech, the politician as well as the Press will be committing an offence. I submit that it is quite unnecessary to tackle the matter in this manner. What is more, if they quote, not for political purposes, the utterances may be named communist, even for scientific purposes, they may be committing an offence inadvertently. I cannot see why the Minister refuses to accept this amendment, because if he accepts our amendment it will be an offence to disseminate a speech of a communist if it is done for the purpose of furthering Communism, and after all, that is all the Minister wants to get at. I therefore hope the Minister will change his mind and accept this amendment.

I second the amendment moved by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). I would like to say that since the Committee Stage apparently we have enlisted in our opposition to this Bill even the help of the Burger. It is significant that since the discussion in the Committee Stage when this matter was discussed and all the difficulties were pointed out, the Burger has come out in support of everything that we said on this side in opposition to this clause. Indeed, the Burger supports the amendment of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. In a leading article on 7 June the Burger claims, exactly as the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has said, that they would have to keep a list of such named communists and carefully eliminate their utterances from their comments, and they went on to say even when those words include necessary information or can serve the anticommunist cause through critical repudiation of such statements. I do not understand why the Minister will not accept this amendment. Surely the object of this clause is to prevent people from disseminating or reproducing communist propaganda. We want to stop that, and no one will be more willing to help the prevention of the spread of communist propaganda than hon. members on this side of the House.

Is that so?

Of course that is so. But this clause does not do that. If the amendment of the hon. member is accepted, it would do just that, and nothing else, but quite apart from the difficulties which the newspapers will have, the Burger puts it as well as I can put it when it says: “We ask therefore whether it is possible to phrase the clause in such a way that a distinction is drawn between factual and propagandistic publication of the words of listed persons.” That is precisely what this amendment hopes to achieve. It hopes to achieve the position where the only persons who will be prosecuted will be those who publish the statements of named communists for the purpose of propagating Communism. It does not help for the suggestion to be made that obviously the Attorney-General will not prosecute in those cases, or that obviously it is not what the Minister intends. Obviously this is not what the Ministers intends, and this amendment is to bring the clause within the ambit of what the hon. the Minister in fact intends. It does not help to say that prosecutions will not be instituted against people who disseminate or reproduce statements by named persons for the purpose of fighting Communism. The point is that it places an unnecessary and unwarranted restriction on the use of statements made by such persons. How many people would dare, knowing that it was unlawful, to reproduce the statements of Luthuli when he was fighting, in an election, someone like the Progressive Party or the Liberal Party? How many people would dare to use a statement of Luthuli in those circumstances? Frankly, I would hesitate myself, if I were fighting an election against the Liberal Party or the Progressive Party, or a representative of the Congress of Democrats, to use a statement by Luthuli, because I would know that I could be prosecuted. I must say that it is perhaps because of my upbringing, or because of my profession, that I would not willingly do something which would be an offence, and if I quoted Luthuli—and I have quoted him and I would have hoped in future to be able to quote him in the various by-elections between the United Party and the Progressive Party—I will not now quote him because I know it would be an offence. That is the position in which the Minister has now placed everyone who wishes to fight these people and the ideology they stand for, and I hope that the Minister will have regard to this amendment. I think it is a reasonable amendment and it puts into law what the Minister intends, and puts into effect what the Burger itself hopes the Minister will achieve.

There is a great deal of substance in what the editor of the Burger wrote in his article. Before the publication of that article, as well as thereafter, I gave particular attention to this clause. I am aware of the problems which the Burger has raised. On the one hand my difficulty is that if you make any concessions, you are creating another loophole which the communists can use. I am convinced, having studied the amendment of the hon. member, although in essence I agree to a great extent with the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), that this amendment does not cover the problems which both he and I have in mind. I cannot agree, therefore, to the acceptance of this amendment as it appears before us at the moment, because it will create a loophole which we will only have to cover at a later stage. I am still, however, continually giving attention to this clause and I am trying to find another formula whereby it will not be as wide as it is at the moment and if I succeed in finding such a formula I will with pleasure move an amendment in the Other Place to cover the position.

Amendment put and the House divided:

AYES—40: Barnett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Bow-ker, T. B.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H.C.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

NOES—89: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N.F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P;. van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B.J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment in Clause 10, lines 12 to 14, made in Committee of the Whole House, put.

Duly authorized by the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie), I move the amendment standing in his name on page 802—

I hope the Minister will accept it. It is a very simple amendment, to omit the word “or” in line 12.

I second.

Question put: That the word “or” in line 12, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the amendment,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—87: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen. W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J.C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H.G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller. S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H.H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—41: Barnett, C.; Bloomberg, A.;Bowker, T. B.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hughes, T. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H, G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell accordingly negatived.

Amendment, as printed, put and agreed to

Amendments in Clause 10, lines 16, 18, 19 and 20, put.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—87: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H.G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J.E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H.H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—40: Barnett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Bow-ker, T. B.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hughes, T. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Amendments accordingly agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Clause 10, put and agreed to.

In Clause 16,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

The hon. the Minister already has full and complete emergency powers under the existing Public Safety Act to deal with any action, threat of action or circumstances which may seriously endanger public order or safety. The Minister simply has to proclaim an emergency in the area in question and then he can handle the situation by regulation. Moreover, under Section 4bis he has the further powers to detain anywhere in the Republic people who are arrested in the troubled area, and moreover under that section he has powers to apply the proclaimed regulations to such detained persons wherever they happen to be detained. Notwithstanding that, we are prepared to assist the hon. the Minister, as our amendment indicates, to give him certain limited extra powers which will then enable him to deal fully and effectively, even outside the area in which the emergency is proclaimed, with activities which may fairly be said to be connected with it, should they show themselves anywhere in the Republic. In other words, we are prepared to give him all the power to deal anywhere in the Republic with an emergency in any area in which an emergency has been proclaimed, and I suggest that that is a very fair attitude. The hon. the Minister in his Bill, however, asks for still further powers. Clause 16 provides—

That is to say, the regulation which has been proclaimed under an emergency in any particular area—

I suggest that that has two very serious consequences. One is that notwithstanding the fact that no emergency in fact exists in, say, 99 out of 100 areas in the Republic, notwithstanding the fact that no dangerous situation exists in all but one magisterial district, the Minister is taking powers to legislate by regulation in such areas. He can act, in other words, as if there is a dangerous situation or an emergency in all those other areas. He can wield powers as if there is an emergency, and those powers are extremely extensive. I suggest that when there is an emergency in, say, the district of Potgietersrust and when regulations have been proclaimed to deal with the emergency there, the Minister has the power, without declaring an emergency in any other area, to legislate or to rule as if there were emergencies in other areas, and I submit that that is going very far.

To obviate the necessity of declaring an emergency in the other districts.

The fact is that the Minister is taking these powers, notwithstanding the fact that on my hypothesis there is no dangerous situation; he has the power to take those powers in spite of the fact that there is no danger in those areas.

Otherwise the whole district must be declared an emergency district.

No; with great respect to the hon. the Minister, the fact is that this provision will give the Minister powers when in fact there is no danger in a particular magisterial district to take complete powers in that magisterial district.

But I explained to you what happened in the last emergency.

Again I say that when there is no danger in one magisterial district whatsoever …

Then no regulations will apply.

… this provision in fact gives the hon. the Minister the right to take emergency powers in that area; that is the point. I have already explained that if there is an emergency in, shall I say, Potgietersrust magisterial district, we are prepared to support the Minister completely in dealing with that emergency, whenever any manifestation of that emergency occurs, in all the other districts of the Republic. That we are prepared to do and our amendment underlines that position. But why does the hon. the Minister take these further powers that I have indicated he will have. If he does not want this power, why does he take it, because it only sets people’s emotions going, it only does us harm elsewhere, it only worries people who are determined to see the maximum liberty preserved to people. Why does the hon. the Minister do it?

I say with respect that that is the one consequence which this new power that the Minister is seeking to take has. The other consequence is this, that notwithstanding the fact that there is in fact an emergency in a second district—not only in Potgietersrust but in a second district—the Minister is taking power here to pretend, as it were, that there is no emergency in that second district; in other words, instead of calling a spade a spade and saying, “Look, there is unfortunately an emergency …

I am calling it half a spade.

Instead of saying that there is an emergency and facing the fact squarely, the Minister will have the power under this clause to apply the powers that he has through the Potgietersrust emergency, in the other emergency areas and say nothing about it. While one concedes that one does not want people to be unnecessarily perturbed about a situation, if in fact there is a dangerous situation in a second or a third area, then let it be said and let it be faced. It is because this amendment by the Minister does these few things, which one would like to see him avoiding—we would like to see that he takes no more powers than he needs—that we cannot support his amendment. We suggest that our amendment is a very fair amendment. Indeed, the hon. the Minister at the second reading himself was considering the wording proposed by us here, and I hope that subsequent reflection may have led him to find it possible to accept this amendment. Let him take all the powers that he really needs and let him leave tempers as little ruffled as possible and let him leave the protection of the law as firm as is possible.

I second.

Let me concede at once that the hon. member is trying his utmost to help me—from the frying pan into the fire. At the Committee Stage I explained to the hon. member that it happened during the recent state of emergency, where a state of emergency existed in Cape Town and Wynberg, that the circumstances and actions of the people responsible for the state of emergency were such that my predecessor was obliged to declare, firstly, Stellenbosch, then Paarl and subsequently Wellington and other districts as districts where a state of emergency existed whereas a state of emergency did not exist there and whereas it was not necessary to do so. If the hon. member were to read the Emergency Act which his party supported he will realize that we cannot declare a 50 per cent state of emergency in a district; we have to declare a 100 per cent state of emergency. This clause simply gives us the right, with a view to the circumstances which prevailed on the last occasion, not to declare a 100 per cent state of emergency in an adjacent district, but only to apply certain provisions as far as need be. That is why I say the hon. member wants to help me from the frying pan into the fire. He knows that as his amendment is worded at the moment the Minister will be vulnerable in respect of each regulation which is promulgated, in respect of every step which the Minister takes in a state of emergency, and one court case will follow upon another. Court cases are the last things you should have in a state of emergency; you cannot afford them. In normal circumstances you cannot afford it, far less so in a state of emergency and for that reason I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member. As a matter of fact, what I am doing here is to ease the position because the Minister has the power under the Emergency Act to declare a state of emergency in all districts but he does not wish to do so. He wants to water it down so that only certain regulations will apply in respect of certain districts. With the best will in the world I cannot understand how anybody can object to this.

I will attempt to explain to the hon. the Minister why we regard this as necessary. The hon. the Minister gave the example of the previous state of emergency which unfortunately arose down here and where it was necessary to proclaim an emergency in adjoining areas for the sole reason that the emergency existed here and that these powers were necessary, and the only way in which he could extend those powers was by declaring a state of emergency in a further area. I think that is the hon. the Minister’s argument. It is true that we wish to avoid that necessity, and there we agree with the Minister. I submit it is perfectly clear that if in respect of an emergency in the magisterial district of Wynberg, it is necessary to extend the powers which are taken in that emergency to adjoining areas for the purpose of dealing with the emergency situation in the magisterial district of Wynberg, that would be possible under this clause, with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pine lands (Mr. Thompson.)

But then every regulation can be questioned in court.

Sir, I am all for the questioning of regulations in a court of law where it is in the interests of the public that that should be done in order to see that justice is done. The position is that if, as is set out in the amendment, the regulations are extended in so far as it may be necessary to deal with the emergency so proclaimed, then as long as the powers are used only for that purpose, quite clearly an application to the court would be of no avail. But the point that the hon. the Minister is overlooking and the point which we on this side of the House feel very strongly about is that in emergency powers should be dealt with as emergency powers and should be as limited as possible. Under the clause as it stands—and I think the hon. the Minister will concede this—even if there were an emergency over the whole of the Cape Province, for example, it would be possible in effect to proclaim a state of emergency over the whole of the Cape Province by declaring a state of emergency in one district only, because on the declaration of a state of emergency in one district only, it is possible to provide that all the regulations will apply to the whole of the Cape Province, for example. Sir, it is my submission to the hon. the Minister and to this House that it would be utterly wrong to do that. In other words, the effect of the amendment which has been moved would be to give to the Government of the day the power to deal with the emergency concerned but it would not give the Government of the day the right in effect to have an emergency throughout the Union without declaring it. We are dealing here with extraordinary powers, and I think it is a sound principle that they should be as circumscribed as possible, while at the same time making it possible for the Government to deal with an emergency. While there may be an attempt to upset the regulations before a court, that is no real answer to the amendment moved by the hon. member, because if the Government has acted only insofar as the necessity of the case required, the court would undoubtedly uphold the decision of the Government of the day.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) did not understand the problem raised by the hon. the Minister. I do not want to do him an injustice but I want to ask him whether he advanced that argument deliberately. The facts are simply these: It is necessary for the Minister to be able to declare a qualified state of emergency, and if the hon. member for Germiston (District) were sincere—I ignore the hon. member for Pine lands (Mr. Thompson)—he should have moved an amendment allowing a qualified state of emergency because he realizes that it may be necessary for the Minister to apply certain measures to a district adjoining the district where a state of emergency has been declared. And what do hon. members opposite do? They propose that emergency regulations may be applied there but subject to this proviso “as far as it may be necessary to combat that state of emergency”. What is the effect of that? The effect of that is that the moment the Minister takes steps under the regulations which he has applied there, the question will arise whether they are necessary in order to combat the state of emergency and the court will have to decide that question because the section clearly says “as far as it may be necessary”. If he were to say “as far as the Minister may deem it necessary” he will be solving the problem but he does not want the Minister to have that power.

I suggested that.

The hon. the Minister suggested that in the Committee Stage and he said to the hon. member for Pine lands: If you accept it I will accept your amendment. However, the hon. member for Pine lands is such a clever person; he knows so much that you cannot teach him anything and I want to tell him that he if continues to behave like that he will learn little in life and he does not know a great deal.

Order! The hon. member must return to the amendment.

I want to explain once again that the first thing which the hon. member for Pine lands will do when such a case comes before the court will be to ask for an interdict against the Minister restraining him from carrying on with the actions he was taking. And what will that mean? Say, for instance, the Minister were to take action against people here in Cape Town. Assuming there is a state of emergency in the Cape Town district and that the people responsible for it seek refuge at Stellenbosch. Let me state it simply: Assuming he takes action against the people in Stellenbosch; assuming he arrests them; in that case the hon. member as an advocate will on behalf of those people who are being detained, obtain a court order for their release. Or assuming the Minister introduced a curfew; in that case the hon. member for Pine lands will have the right in terms of this clause to obtain an interdict against the Minister restraining him from continuing with that measure until such time as it has been decided that that measure is necessary to combat the state of emergency. The hon. the Minister has already explained the position but it seems to me that you should not only state the case in general terms but that you must also give specific examples for that hon. member opposite to understand it. The hon. the Minister said:”Your amendment is helping me from the frying pan into the fire because I will not be able to take quick and effective action if I accepted this amendment”. They insist that the Minister should accept the amendment. In other words, they insist upon it that the Minister should exercise the powers which he is given and which the country expects him to have in order to combat a state of emergency, in an ineffective way. That is why I say that the hon. gentlemen are not serious because the hon. the Minister has given them the opportunity of reconciling their objections with his, if they really have objections, but they did not wish to avail themselves of it. What must we think of that, Mr. Speaker?

I think the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) is wrong about who is serious about this. He says we are not serious because we do not want to accept the hon. the Minister’s amendment or the suggestions made by the hon. the Minister. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, if he is serious about this, whether he will not in fact move an amendment to our amendment. If the hon. the Minister did so at this stage as an unopposed motion, I think the rules of this House would allow such an amendment.

I suggested that in the Committee Stage and you did not agree.

Yes, I know the hon. the Minister suggested that to us in the Committee of the whole House and we rejected it for the reasons that the hon. member for Pine lands (Mr. Thompson) suggested when he spoke just now. If the hon. member for Standerton, instead of choosing to ignore the hon. member for Pine lands, had listened to him, he would have found the answers to all the difficulties that he had in fact. Sir, the hon. member for Standerton says that the effect of this amendment is that the court will have to decide. Does it matter whether the courts decide whether the Minister is exercising powers that this Act does not give him.

I say it precludes the Minister from acting efficiently to cope with the emergency; that is what I said.

Sir, if that were so, we would not move the amendment, because we have said that we appreciate the hon. the Minister’s difficulty. He has an emergency in one or two magisterial districts and he does not want to declare a state of emergency in the whole country, and so he wants the power to extend certain of the regulations to the other magisterial districts. Well, we understand that, but the effect of this clause, without our amendment, is to give the hon. the Minister powers that he would normally have only in a state of emergency over the whole of the Republic merely by declaring a state of emergency in one magisterial district. What we have suggested to the hon. the Minister is that he should only take that power in law in this clause for the purpose of doing what he says he intends to do. If the hon. the Minister now takes powers which he does not need to deal with an emergency, then why should the court not tell him that he does not need those powers, if in fact he did that, if in fact that happened?

Read the original Act, then you will find out why.

I have read the original Act and the hon. the Minister has indicated to this House the difficulties that he has had to deal with. We are willing to meet the Minister, but we do not want to give the Minister carte blanche as this clause will do. to completely ignore Parliament and to do, as I have said before, more than any Parliament, more than any political party in South Africa would ever dare to do in Parliament, because it would have to face an election thereafter. We do not propose to give the hon. the Minister those powers.

You are not giving him those powers.

I don’t think anybody in this House would cavil at the hon. the Minister declaring a state of emergency in Pondoland, in fact he has done it under a different Act, not under the Public Safety Act, because circumstances in Pondoland were such as to make him believe that there was a state of emergency. As the situation is now and there is a state of emergency in Pondoland, all the Minister has to do is to say”Look, I would rather deal with this area under the Public Safety Act and not under the Native Administration Act”. The moment he does that, the hon. the Minister has all the powers in the book, he has all the powers of Parliament. The hon. the Minister would not dare to introduce a Bill into this House to give him all the powers he would have under a state of emergency. But that in fact is what he is doing here. If the hon. the Minister is serious as to his suggestion, then I ask whether the hon. the Minister or someone else, will not then move an amendment to our amendment.

Why not move it yourself?

Amendment put and the House divided:

AYES—40: Barnett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Bow-ker, T. B.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H.C.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hughes, T. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

NOES—87: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J.C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H.G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J.E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H.H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

In Clause 17,

This is the clause which merely by substituting the word “1962” by “1963” re-enacts part of an Act which was debated at great length last year that the Attorney-General may detain for 12 days, without trial, without bail, without reason, any person at all. This part of the old Act which was passed last year has already lapsed on 1 June. The power was given for one year and on 1 June, last, it lapsed. We had the benefit last year of a long, somewhat tortuous statement, from the hon. the Minister’s predecessor as to why it was that this extraordinary power was required. He gave many reasons for it. But, Sir, this is a most extraordinary power to give to anybody. It is a very serious matter to deprive anyone of his liberty, even for an hour. It is an extraordinary matter to come before Parliament to ask Parliament to give the power to the Attorney-General to order the detention, without trial, without bail …

Order! The principle has been accepted.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment on the Order Paper is to negative this clause, and I hope that I may be allowed to give you reasons why I submit that this clause should be omitted from the Bill. Sir, the hon. the Minister has given us no reasons why it should be there at all.

Did I not mention the case of Strachan and the case of Turok?

Yes, the hon. the Minister did quote Strachan and Turok, and Strachan and Turok are the very reasons why this clause should not be in the Bill. Under this clause the accused cannot get bail at all for 12 days. The hon. the Minister quoted Turok’s case. The Minister says that it is to deal with cases like that, cases of saboteurs that you want to be able to retain them for 12 days. Does the hon. Minister have no faith in our courts that they would refuse bail in a case like Turok’s? I want to remind this House that in the case of Turok, there was an application for bail and it was refused by the court, for the very reasons that the hon. the Minister suggests. I hope the hon. the Minister will not throw up arguments like this any more. I think that our courts can be trusted to grant bail or to refuse bail in proper cases. Turok’s case was a proper case and the court properly refused bail. And why 12 days? Why should a man be deprived of his liberty for 12 days without bail, without any recourse whatever to anyone at all? This is a most serious matter and this undermines the very basis of our society and the foundation of our civilization, the freedom of the individual. How can we pass powers like this so that one person, the Minister, can lock up a man for 12 days without him being charged for any offence whatever?

You know that the Attorney-General’s certificate is required.

I do not want to quote once again what has been quoted in these debates at least three times, that every Attorney-General will take his instructions from the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice may reverse any decision.

Under his signature.

It does not say that in the Act. The Minister can reverse any decision of the Attorney-General. There are no exemptions from that. The Minister is the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is the Minister. There are no exceptions to this rule. So this is a power that is placed in the hands of the Attorney-General, is given to the Minister: If the Attorney-General does not exercise it, the Minister can make him exercise this power, and the Minister can do it himself—to deprive a man of his liberty for 12 days. The hon. the Minister is asking the House to pass this without giving any real reason why this should be passed. Last year, it was passed because it was expected that on 31 May there was going to be a lot of trouble. Fortunately there was not. One would have thought that on 31 May the reason for this would have lapsed. That is why Parliament laid down that it should lapse in June this year. It has lapsed. Now the whole business is to be revived, and all we have had from the hon. the Minister are two names, Strachan and Turok, in respect of whom the courts have in any event indicated how completely unnecessary this clause is. The hon. the Minister has not given any indication as to why it is necessary. Therefore I move—

I second.

I support the amendment because it is not the use to which this power might be put that I am so much opposed to, it is the misuse of the power. I have indicated to the hon. the Minister during the previous debate that the powers given under this particular clause …

I quoted the figures of the Cape to you, and you agreed that there had been no abuse.

No, the hon. the Minister cannot escape the fact that not one but hundreds of people were taken off the streets of Cape Town and put in prison, and when their cases were investigated, it was found that there was nothing against them and they were released.

Do you think they should have been kept in gaol?

I pointed out to the hon. the Minister that I personally was approached with regard to cases where Bantu were put in prison because they were not able to produce their passes there and then to the constable. I myself made representations to the then Minister who tried to deal with these cases as expeditiously as possible, and in all the cases that I dealt with it was found that these Bantu were taken off the streets because they could not comply with certain demands made by the Police. We had dozens of cases. They were kept there in some cases for seven days before the Minister found out that they did nothing wrong. I can mention the case where the pass of a Bantu was held by his boss; he did not have it with him when he went on an errand. That man was in prison for seven days, completely innocent. Therefore I say that I am against this clause because of the misuse of this power.

Are you talking about the emergency?

It is not a question of an emergency only. The Minister knows that the ordinary procedure in law is an arrest. A man arrested may be detained for 48 hours before being charged. Then he can be remanded for 14 days, and the question of bail arises at the first hearing. The hon. the Minister must know from his own experience that a prosecutor can get up, as they sometimes do, and say: My investigations are not yet complete and I oppose bail. In that case the magistrate accepts that statement and remands a man for 14 days.

You know that it does not happen in every case.

Very rarely a magistrate will not accept the statement of the prosecutor. Notwithstanding the right he has to grant bail, no magistrate will go over the head of the prosecutor when he says “My case is not complete, and I fear that if the accused is not kept in custody, it may prejudice the case of the Crown”. That means 14 days plus two days are 16 days in all. Why then does the Minister want these powers, when the existing law satisfies everything the Minister wants? Our procedure has stood the test of time and where the Crown has urged that bail should be refused, the Supreme Court in practically every case has refused bail. I feel that the hon. the Minister does not need these powers, and therefore I am going to vote against it.

I spoke against this clause in the Committee Stage of this Bill, and I therefore do not intend to repeat the arguments which I used then. Briefly summed up it means that legislation which was introduced for an express purpose to deal with a particular situation, which the then Minister told us was an urgent and critical situation, is now being perpetuated in our law. I am quite certain that next year we will have another amendment to extend this for another year, and gradually this will become a permanent part of the law of South Africa. In the course of the discussions in the Committee Stage, I asked the hon. Minister how many people had in fact been detained under this 12 days without bail clause and he said he would answer the question if it were tabled, which in fact has been tabled by the hon. member on my right, but the reply is standing over. But perhaps the hon. the Minister will be able to give us the information as he seems to know the figures of the Cape so well.

I got those from the Attorney-General in the Cape.

He may also possess other information which I asked for, namely how many persons were subsequently charged. He mentioned that 30 such persons were detained in the Cape Province only but he did not give the figures for the rest of the Republic. The hon. the Minister seemed to think that that was a very small number of cases. Of course here again we show a complete divergence of opinion as to what are normal circumstances in a so-called democratic country operating under the rule of law. I think 30 people detained without right of bail is a very large number for one province, and I think the number is very much larger if the other provinces are included. Perhaps the hon. the Minister in the course of his reply can indicate to us how many of the 30 people who last year were detained for 12 days without bail, were subsequently charged with any crime and how many were found guilty?

Question put: That Clause 17, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Bill,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—86: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M.D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D.C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rens-burg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W. Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—41: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T. Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment negatived.

In Clause 19,

Amendments, in paragraph (a), put and agreed to.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

I move the same amendment during the Committee stage of the Bill in an endeavour to restrict the power which the hon. the Minister is taking under this clause which enables him now to ban any meeting and all meetings, not only the particular gatherings which he could ban previously in terms of the Riotous Assemblies Act where he had reason to believe that feelings of hostility would be engendered between the various racial groups. I believe that the Minister has great powers already under existing legislation and I therefore do not wish to extend those powers. Furthermore, paragraph (b), the deletion of which I have moved, allows the hon. the Minister to prohibit the reproduction and dissemination of any speech or utterances of persons who are banned and persons who are prohibited under certain laws from attending or addressing gatherings. As stated earlier, I believe this to be a grave infringement of freedom of speech in a democratic country and I therefore move my amendment.

I second.

Question put: That all the words from the commencement of paragraph (b) up to and including “Minister” in line 63, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Bill,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—86: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J.E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—38: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment negatived.

Amendment in lines 63 and 64, made in Committee of the Whole House, put and agreed to.

Amendments in lines 66 to 70 put, and the House divided:

AYES—86: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman. G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Mayer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt. B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C.G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—38: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Con-nan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Amendments accordingly agreed to.

Duly authorized by the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Hourquebie) I move the amendment as printed in his name—

Paragraph (b) will then read—

The reasons for this amendment were fully canvassed at the Committee Stage of the Bill and I do not, therefore, intend to elaborate on them, except to say this: The onus of proof is placed on the accused and he has to establish that, having made some utterance, he had no knowledge of the prohibition concerned at the time the alleged offence was committed. That onus on him is a heavy one and he will have to discharge it. It seems to me that it is elementary justice that if in fact he is quite sincere and honest about his lack of knowledge, he should not be convicted because of some technicality or other such as publication in a Gazette of a prohibition about which he plainly had no knowledge at all. The fact that the prohibition has been published could of course be used either to refute his statement or to discredit his evidence. That can take place quite fairly. But to me it is elementary justice that when the onus is placed on the person concerned, and he has honestly and sincerely discharged that onus he should be entitled to the benefit of it. I would urge the hon. the Minister to drop these two last lines of the Clause.

I second.

Question put: That all the words after”concerned” in line 8, page 15, to the end of paragraph (b), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Bill,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—87: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S.F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J.C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H.G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J.E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H.H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—39: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Con-nan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment negatived.

In Clause 21,

I wish to move the amendment as printed in my name—

1. (1) Any person who by means of an explosive or with intent to cause insurrection or to seriously interfere with the operation of the affairs of State, or to seriously damage the national economy, or to seriously interfere with essential services—
   1. (a) murders or attempts to murder any person; or
   2. (b) assaults any person with intent to do him grievous bodily harm; or
   3. (c) commits arson; or
   4. (d) maliciously injures property or attempts to injure property maliciously; or
   5. (e) contravenes Section 37 of the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, 1957 (Act No. 70 of 1957),

   shall be guilty of the crime of sabotage and liable on conviction to the penalties provided for by law for the offence of treason;

2. (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1)”essential services” includes—
   1. (a) any hospital service;
   2. (b) any transport service;
   3. (c) any service relating to the generation, supply or distribution of electricity or water;
   4. (d) any sewerage system;
   5. (e) any service relating to the production, supply, delivery or distribution of food, fuel and coal;
   6. (f) any fire brigade;
   7. (g) communications.

The amendment is to omit sub-sections (1) and (2) and to substitute a new definition for the crime of sabotage. Like the amendment which was moved at the Committee stage, the main provisions in this amendment are taken over from the War Measures which were included in our law as a matter of emergency at that time. The hon. the Minister indicated that he was not very happy about the sabotage clause which did not define “essential services We have accordingly defined “essential services” in the amendment which is now before the House.

It is a distinct improvement.

We have tried to meet the hon. the Minister. We are hoping that as a result of this distinct improvement, as the Minister calls it, he will see his way clear to accept this amendment. The first part of the amendment has stood the test of time and found to be effective. The second part which defines “essential services” has been taken over from the references to “essential services” in the provision for which I am proposing to substitute the provisions of this Clause. I would like to say that there is no dispute between the official Opposition and the Government as to the necessity for the creation of the crime sabotage in the circumstances which exist. The dispute between us is what the form of the provision in regard to sabotage should be.

But you voted against the principle.

The Minister does not take the same view as you do, Sir, as to what the principle of the Bill is, because many of the things we are not allowed to do in the Committee Stage, because they are in conflict with the principle of the Bill, do not fall in any way within the definition of the principle, as the Minister has put it to the House.

I named two principles and asked you to vote for them and you refused.

The attitude of this side of the House in regard to the principle is clear. It goes far beyond what the Minister and his Press suggested is the position. If the Minister had brought a Bill and was prepared to put in satisfactory provisions dealing with this matter, he knows that we would have supported it.

Order! We are dealing with the amendment now.

I was hoping that by putting this point to the Minister, I was submitting a very good argument to him why he should accept the definition of “sabotage” as proposed in this amendment. I say that to the Minister in all seriousness, because if he accepts this amendment, we would have a satisfactory definition on the Statute Book of the crime of “sabotage” and one which is particularly satisfactory in this respect, that it includes nothing but what falls within the term “sabotage” as ordinarily understood. That is certainly not the position in regard to the clause as it stands now. I do not want to go into a great deal of detail. In the earlier stages this matter was widely canvassed, but I think the Minister would be the first to admit again, as he did in the earlier stages, that sabotage as defined in Clause 21 of the Bill, contains matter which does not fall within the term “sabotage” as generally understood. During an earlier stage of the Bill, when a particular case was put to the Minister, he said that an Attorney-General would not indict in a case such as that. What we seek to achieve is a definition of sabotage where it would not be for the Attorney-General to decide to indict in a case which falls within the words of the clause but not within the term “sabotage”. We feel it is our duty to provide a definition of “sabotage” which is so satisfactory that any person who commits any of the acts complained of could properly be indicted for sabotage. That would also mean that there could not be an injustice. Attorneys-General can make mistakes, but it is the duty of Parliament not to make mistakes. I say to the Minister that in this definition of “sabotage” it would be to the interest of all if sabotage was circumscribed as it is in the amendment I am moving, because I do not believe that any hon. member can point out facts which in the normal use of the word “sabotage” are not covered by my definition. On the contrary, it is perfectly clear that there are innumerable examples which could be given under the clause as it stands of matters which could probably be indicted under that clause as sabotage, which do not in any sense fall within the term “sabotage” as ordinarily understood. I would ask the Minister to remember that whereas most of these provisions, we hope, are of a temporary nature only, and we hope the time will come when these extraordinary powers can be removed from the statute book, it seems to me that we must accept the fact that in creating the crime of sabotage, as we are doing here, we are establishing something which will stand on the statute book permanently as part of our law. If the clause is a satisfactory clause, there is no reason why it should not form part of the permanent law of the country. I submit to the Minister in all seriousness that as Minister of Justice he would be failing in his duty if he retained this unsatisfactory clause.

Then there is of course another particularly objectionable provision in the existing clause which would also fall away if my amendment was accepted. I refer to sub-sec. (2), which is objectionable because in terms of this Bill the onus is shifted.

Then why do you not move the deletion of sub-section (2)?

We have moved the deletion of sub-sections (1) and (2), if the hon. the Minister would look at my amendment.

Why not (2) alone?

If the Minister wishes to leave out (2), well and good, but it is not for us to tamper with the Minister’s amendment. We believe it is wrong and that our amendment will improve it. (Interjections.) The objectionable onus is in sub-section (2) and the Minister can get rid of it by voting for my amendment. The Minister cannot get away from it in that way. It is perfectly clear that in sub-section (2) the onus is put on the person who is charged, because once he is charged he will be convicted for an offence under subsection (1) unless he proves that the commission of the alleged offence, objectively regarded, was not calculated and that such offence was not committed with intent to produce one of the following effects, as stated in sub-section (a) to (j), which are the matters which the accused must prove did not apply in his case. It is an enormous onus to put on the accused. It is utterly unnecessary to put such an onus on the accused if sabotage is satisfactorily defined. In the war measures which were found to be effective a method was adopted similar to that I have adopted in my amendment. It does not meet the case for the Minister to say: Why do you not delete sub-section (2)? What the Minister is asking us to do is to leave the absolutely unacceptable sub-section (1) there, and to confine our amendment to sub-section (2) only.

But your argument is that the sting is in sub-section (2).

No, I did not say that at all. I say it is clear that taking (1) and (2) together, the provisions are far too wide and they contain matters which do not fall within any definition of “sabotage” which you can find in any dictionary, and in addition there is the objectionable provision that the onus is on the accused to disprove intent in respect of the matters set out in (a) to (j). So we reject (2) as we reject (1). We want both to go. I say that the Minister will be doing the right thing if he accepts this amendment. It is a form of definition of “sabotage” which has been found to be effective. It is obviously clearer than the provisions which the Minister seeks to include. There could be no conviction under the clause which I propose unless in fact sabotage was committed, and I submit that the clause is quite wide enough to cover all forms of the word “sabotage” in its ordinary sense; and that is a crime which we are quite prepared to see created and which we realize is a serious crime because we provide that the accused on conviction for sabotage will be liable to the penalties provided for treason. By putting in that provision, we remove another objection to the Minister’s clause, which is that there is a minimum sentence provided for. We do not propose to provide for that, but by providing that the person found guilty under this clause would be guilty of treason, the sentence will be in the discretion of the court, according to the seriousness of the offence, and the maximum sentence would be the death sentence. In a proper case of sabotage, where it is combined with murder or attempted murder, clearly a sentence of death is a proper sentence.

But he can also get five years.

Yes. Obviously if it was a simple case of murder, the indictment would be for the crime of murder, but I have confidence in the discretion of the Judges, that if there was a murder committed in the course of committing sabotage, I have no hesitation in saying that the Judges would impose the death sentence. I think the Minister knows that this is a mere quibble on his part that there may be only a five-year sentence. I believe that we should trust our courts and leave the sentence to the courts. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

I want to move an amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) to read as follows—

1. (1) Any person who commits any violent and unlawful act with intent to—
   1. (a) cause or promote general dislocation, disturbance or disorder;
   2. (b) cripple or seriously prejudice any industry or undertaking or industries or undertakings generally or the production or distribution of commodities or foodstuffs at any place;
   3. (c) cause, encourage or further an insurrection or forcible resistance to the government;
   4. (d) cause serious damage to State property; or
   5. (e) seriously interrupt the supply or distribution at any place of light, power, fuel or water, or of sanitary, medical or fire extinguishing services,

shall be guilty of the offence of sabotage and shall be liable on conviction to a sentence of imprisonment of such duration, or a fine in such amount, or to both such imprisonment and such fine, as the court convicting may deem fit.”.

It is the same amendment I moved in the Committee Stage, but I wish to move it again for the following reasons. I do not want to create new offences as such, but I am perfectly prepared to have the existing offences defined and described as sabotage under certain circumstances. But I want to leave the punishment for that crime in the hands of the courts. If the offence, which already exists, is committed in circumstances which are sufficiently grave to impair the security of the State, such an offence in terms of our existing law could be charged as high treason and the death penalty could be imposed. Equally, if an offence is committed which causes the death of any person under the existing law, the person could be charged with murder and the death penalty imposed. I do not want to extend the death penalty to crimes other than those already prescribed in our law. That is why I have great difficulty in accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Germiston (District), because his definition works rather the other way. It brings sabotage, as defined by it, within the ambit of treason without making it necessary for a charge of treason to be brought against such a person. In other words, it is enough to be charged with sabotage, as defined by the United Party, for the court to impose the same penalty as that for high treason. So I find it difficult to support that amendment. Also, I object most strongly and voted in the Committee Stage against the Minister’s definition of sabotage, which is far too wide and brings in all sorts of petty offences which by no stretch of the imagination can normally be described as sabotage. The hon. member for Germiston (District) said that his definition had stood the test of time. I am not sure what he means by that, because the only similar definition I can find was the one used during the war. Well, if it has stood the test of time it means that it is still being employed.

You should not be unkind to him. He has helped you a lot.

Then I should be grateful, because it does not happen very often these days. But right throughout this debate we have had members on this side of the House oppose other clauses on the ground that what was necessary in time of war is not necessary in time of peace. I hold that the same objection therefore obtains in regard to the explanation given to us by the hon. member for Germiston (District). In other words, what might have been applicable and acceptable during time of war in defining what was known as “special crimes”, rather than sabotage, although in fact they were related to sabotage, is not acceptable in times of peace. Therefore I do not want to accept an amendment which extends the death penalty in circumstances other than those we already have in our common law, and that is where circumstances are sufficiently grave for a person to be charged with high treason or murder, for which the death sentence can be imposed.

There being no seconder, the amendment dropped.

I wish to support the amendment of the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). It gives a definition of “sabotage”, and what stands in the clause cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a definition of sabotage. If one examines the clause as it is, sub-sec. (1) states that the offence of sabotage is committed. I think it is common cause that that does not even look like sabotage, and the Minister has admitted it. He says he has had to cast his net very wide to catch everyone, but what he does in effect is to make the Attorney-General the court which decides on the facts whether or not the accused is to go to prison or not. I say so because the moment the man is indicted for sabotage and has committed one of these petty offences listed in sub-sec. (1), he will get five years.

The same applies to the Official Secrets Act, from which this comes.

But the offences under the Official Secrets Act are serious offences, whereas I do not think it is a very serious offence to obstruct traffic or to tamper with a telegram.

But you have it in your own definition.

No, that is not so. Our definition is in clear terms. It does not include petty offences. It says that offences which otherwise might be petty offences must be committed with a clear intention to sabotage. The intention is seriously to interfere with the affairs of State, or seriously to damage the national economy. If you do any of those things with that intention, it is what the public understands to be sabotage. The amendment of the hon. member also defines “essential services”, so that if anyone maliciously damages property in order to interfere with essential services then he is guilty of sabotage. That is precisely what this clause is aimed at. The only criticism the Minister had was that if you locked the Cabinet up in their room, then under our definition you would be guilty of sabotage. It may be that that was so, but it is not so any more, because the word “seriously” now appears. I do not think any court would consider that if somebody as a practical joke locked up the Cabinet it would seriously interfere with the affairs of State. The only other objection the Minister had was that there was no definition of “essential services”, and now there is one, and it is precisely the same one that is contained in the Rhodesian legislation which hon. members opposite are so fond of quoting, and in respect of which the Minister of Information made such a blunder. The other thing the Minister had to say was that under our definition, if anyone throws a fire-cracker, he is guilty of sabotage. During the war, under the war measures, there was a sub-section which said that explosives did not include fireworks. That is not here, and for a good reason, because I understand that with a firework one can do things which one cannot do with a match. You can throw a firework into a petrol drum, or into the petrol tank of an armoured car and blow up the vehicle. So sabotage could be committed with a firework if there were a certain intention, seriously to interfere with the affairs of State.

No, each one stands alone. You cannot connect the two. Each is a separate offence.

If you do any of these things by means of an explosion …

No, that has nothing to do with it.

The Minister does not see the difference. If someone throws a cracker into a room, does anyone suggest seriously that he does so with the intention to murder someone? I do not think so, but let us go so far. What would happen then? The Judge would say: Do not be a silly boy; go home. [Interjection.] The Attorney-General has always had a discretion whether to prosecute or not, and he takes the circumstances into consideration and if someone threw a cracker into a room obviously the Attorney-General would not prosecute. But under the Minister’s definition, if he did such a thing, if he did lock the Cabinet up in their room, that man would get five years and the court could do nothing about it. What is the Minister then going to say? Will he say that the Attorney-General will not prosecute?

I say that when the Attorney-General prosecutes he becomes the judge in the case because he and he alone decides what sentence the accused will get. He decides that he will get five years, and not the judge. And what does he decide upon? He decides upon a file which he has in his hand, and what is in that file? The depositions of his State witnesses. He has not even had the benefit of seeing or hearing the witnesses. All he has is their statements, and on that, without having heard any evidence from the other side, and without having regard to the personality of the accused and the circumstances, he decides that that man will get five years. That is what this definition means. I think the hon. member for Germiston (District) has made it abundantly clear that we on this side are as much against sabotage as anyone opposite.

That is just lip service.

What happened during the war?

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

This amendment proves our bona fides in regard to sabotage. We are not being chicken-livered about it, like the hon. member for Houghton. If a man commits sabotage, we believe that if the Judge feels he should impose the supreme penalty, he should do so. But in all conscience, how can the Minister expect us to vote for a definition like this when the death sentence can be imposed for crimes which are not real crimes, and where a minimum sentence of five years has to be imposed?

Question put: That all the words from the commencement of sub-section (1) up to and including”commit” in line 41, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Bill,

Upon which the House divided:

I move the amendment standing in my name—

The sub-section as it now stands sets out to define the offence of sabotage and to provide that anyone found guilty of that offence shall “be liable on conviction to the penalties prescribed by law for the offence of treason.” But then comes the sting in the tail in the shape of the proviso which reads as follows—

I need hardly point out that the sting in the tail is readily directed at our courts and our judges. Treason is a capital offence and the gravity of that offence in the eyes of the law is not made anymore grave by the insertion of a provision of this nature. I hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will accept my amendment, but if he should reject it, then this proviso as it stands will not aid the courts in the administration of justice, even though the proviso may appease the political appetite of Government supporters. But in considering my amendment the House should not overlook the fact that treason is not an unfamiliar offence to the courts in South Africa. One effect of that is that the judicial history does not lack evidence of the ability of our courts to handle such matters in the most difficult circumstances, even at times when attempts to overthrow the Government were being actively pursued by determined and dangerous men. But as I indicated our courts have always been equal to the occasion and they have left a record of the exercise of wise judicial discretion in the punishment of offenders, a record which is quite unsullied by political pressure and untrammelled by executive intervention. Therefore, as the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has also indicated, the matter can safely be left in the hands of the court. Sir, it has always been the prerogative of Parliament to express its assessment of the gravity of an offence by fixing a maximum penalty, but it has rightly always been the prerogative of the court to inflict whatever punishment it sees fit and not at the dictates of Parliament itself. For Parliament therefore to insist on fixing minimum penalties is an unwarranted invasion by the Legislature into the prerogative of the courts. One knows perfectly well that this has happened before. In the earlier stages of this Bill references were made to instances where it has happened before. References has also been made to where it has happened in neighbouring states. But, Sir, two or even more wrongs do not make a right. And I say that by reason of the past judicial record in the matter of the penalty for an offence of the nature set out in this Clause, the discretion to impose punishment can safely be left in the hands of the court. I would ask the hon. the Minister even at this late stage to accept that situation and to drop the proviso. The hon. the Minister saw fit during the Committee stage of the Bill to describe an amendment moved from this side of the House as an insult to the Attorneys-General. Sir, he was wrong in my opinion, but if he was convinced that it was an insult in that case, then surely he will realize that the proviso as it now stands is a very grave insult to the courts. I do not want to be a party to that insult and I therefore make a further appeal to the hon. the Minister to agree to my amendment and to drop the proviso.

I second.

I am rising merely because I have omitted to reply to one allegation by the hon. member, and that is the allegation that the proviso has been inserted in this Clause because I do not trust the courts. I reject that suggestion by the hon. member, and I wish to state very clearly once again to the hon. member that provision for this minimum period is made only so that Parliament—and Parliament has that right—can show its disapproval of these acts in that tangible manner. If the hon. member tells me that I do not trust the courts, then I reply: I trust every judge and that is why I am prepared to let every judge sit in respect of these acts. Under the United Party Government they did not trust every judge. They did not even trust Senator Fagan for he was not one of the picked judges who could hear those cases. I go further. In this case the minimum period is five years. In the period of the hon. member—and I never heard him complaining about it—it was compulsory for the courts in certain circumstances to pronounce the death sentence. They had no discretion at all in this connection. The hon. member may argue with me as to whether it is wrong or not to do so, but he must not charge me with not trusting the courts, for I can meet every charge he makes against me with ten others if it is necessary.

Question put: That the proviso to sub

section (1), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Bill,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—89: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F.H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J.H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L.J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha.P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee. H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd. H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke. J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment negatived.

Amendments in lines 54 and 55, and lines 28 and 29, page 17, made in Committee of the Whole House, put and agreed to.

I move the amendment which stands in my name—

Sub-section (4), paragraph (f) says—

And then it refers to certain sections of the Criminal Procedure Act. Sir, it is very interesting to see what those sections deal with. They deal mainly with the question of juveniles.

You have had all that.

Yes, we have had all that, but it has obviously had so little effect on hon. gentlemen on the other side that we are going to have it again. In any event it seems to have had a lot of effect on some people because the hon. the Minister of Defence wants to hang all the juveniles. He said that in a speech at Cradock.

Order! The hon. member must come back to his amendment.

The first section which is proposed to be deleted here is Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Act which provides that the court upon convicting a juvenile, that is to say, anyone under the age of 19 years, can in its discretion, having heard the evidence for the defence as well as for the State, having considered all the circumstances, if it feels that it would be in the interests of justice that the juvenile, the child, should be sent to a reformatory or placed under the supervision of a probationary officer and so on, make an order to that effect, instead of sending this person to the ordinary gaol for hardened criminals. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he will say what the object of the functioning of juveniles is. Is the object to reform them? Is the object to make the punishment a deterrent or is it the object to cripple the child forever so that it will be a lesson to everybody else. If it is, I do not know why he does not take up the suggestion of the hon. the Minister of Defence and just provide that they should all be hanged.

The next section which is dealt with is Section 345, which provides for the whipping of male children. I think hon. gentlemen opposite, when they make all the fuss that they do about our raising these matters, do not perhaps appreciate exactly what is involved. I know the hon. the Minister does appreciate it but do the other hon. Ministers appreciate what will happen to a child of 14 if he were whipped with the cane that adults are whipped with? I do not think they can, otherwise they would have prevailed upon the hon. the Minister to do something about this. But, Sir, we have not heard a word throughout the whole of this debate from the hon. the Minister of Justice to justify this. We have only heard from his bloodthirsty colleagues; we have heard nothing from the Minister, and I do hope that he will speak about it.

The next section is Section 352 which gives the court the power to pass a suspended sentence, to suspend part of a sentence and so on. That is also to be abolished. This tightens up the question of the minimum sentence. The court cannot give a man a sentence of five years’ compulsory imprisonment and suspend four years of it for three years anymore. I want to ask the hon. the Minister again: What is the object of tying the courts’ hands like this. Why only for juveniles? Why does he want to treat juveniles in the same barbaric manner …

I told you that over and over again.

I hope the hon. the Minister will tell this House once more and I hope he will at least deny that his policy is the policy of the hon. the Minister of Defence.

I second.

I should like to confine myself to the matter which is of vital importance to the farmers of South West Africa, and that is namely the marketing of meat, but I should like first of all to refer to a few remarks made by some of the previous speakers. The hon. member for King William’s Town for instance said: “If things don’t improve, the farmers will go out of business.”

Yes.

It is a very old story that all the farmers will go under and that the farmers are all going insolvent, and that the farmers can no longer make a living, and now we hear “They will go out of business”. It has happened frequently in the past that some farmer has had to discontinue farming operations, but it is a fact that as soon as one farmer leaves the farm, another farmer takes his place. I know of no farm that has no owner, and it frequently happens that the farmer who comes in the place of the one who could not make a living, makes a very great success of farming on that farm. Of course it depends on his knowledge of farming operations, on the capital at his disposal, on his experience, his organizing ability and his administration, his methods of operation and his type of farming. And then I wish to add that many of the farmers should never have been farmers. He has no training, he has no experience, he has no knowledge, he is no farmer, and then he falls by the way.

Why do you apply it to the maize farmers and not to the meat producers?

It applies to all types of farming. The hon. member may be sure that the farmers in South Africa will never go out of business. Then there was a remark by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) who said that the costs of production are constantly rising, but the prices of the farmer’s produce are continually dropping.

Yes.

Since when have the prices of the farmers dropped? It was in the time of the United Party régime that the prices continually dropped. I remember how we begged the then Minister of Agriculture on our knees to allow us an increase in the prices of meat, but it was only when the National Party came into power that the prices rose progressively.

Then the cost of living also rose.

I am coming to that. But is it correct that the costs of production rose while the producers’ prices dropped? Is it not the other way about? Must we not say that because the prices of the farmer’s produce rose, the cost of living and the costs of production rose? Is it not a fact that when the prices of maize are increased, the price of maize land soars? Is it not a fact that when wool prices are increased, the price of sheep land rises? And when the meat prices rose, the price of pastoral land rose. Nobody will deny that when the price of any commodity rises, the price of the land on which you produce that product gradually rises, and land prices is one of the basic factors in your costs of production. It would be more correct to say that the rise in the prices of products has resulted in a rise in land prices and that in consequence there has been a rise in the costs of production, and this is one way in which increased prices necessarily force up the costs of production. It is a spiral that continues. The higher you make the prices of your products, the higher your costs of production soar. Sooner or later there must be a turning point. It happens to be a fact that when you want to stop the cost of living, you must start with the price of your basic food, that is to say, with the price of your milk, butter, meat, wheat, maize, eggs etc. It is cruel to say so, but it is a fact that the farmer is then affected first. When the consumer has difficulty in obtaining the necessaries he needs, he can still economize on such things as clothing or other necessaries in his home, but he dare not economize on food. That is why he must be met as regards the necessary things he must have and there the prices must be brought within his reach. It is apparently for that reason that the Government has decided, at the turning point we have now reached, to reduce the prices of wheat and maize slightly. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for not having done so as yet with the prices of meat. Meat is one of the most difficult products to handle. We have heard here from year to year that the farmers are no longer going to produce meat because it does not pay to farm at the prevailing prices. What have we found? That there is a surplus of meat at the present time.

Is there a surplus of wheat?

There is presently a great surplus of meat and that refutes the allegation that the farmers are discontinuing the production of meat because it is no longer remunerative to do so. Your farmer is not so stupid as to continue producing a commodity if it does not pay him to produce it. As I have said, I want to thank the Minister for not having reduced the floor prices of meat.

However, we have the difficulty that we cannot market our meat when we wish because meat is a very perishable product, because we are aflicted with droughts, because we are afflicted with diseases, and I wish to say that at the present time we are experiencing a terribly difficult time in South West Africa. That is why I should like to urge the hon. the Minister to do everything in his power to accommodate as much meat as possible on the market. He will know how to do it. He is engaged on an export programme, and I shall be pleased to hear from the hon. the Minister how we are progressing with the export of meat. I should like to see the quota of South West Africa on the South African market increased. I know how difficult it is. I am not asking that the South African meat should be kept away from the market. I am merely asking that measures should be taken perhaps by bringing more centres under control, by the expansion of abattoir facilities, by expanding storing facilities, in order to help us. I may tell you that at the present time we have thousands of head of cattle ready for the market, but we cannot get it out. I hope the hon. the Minister will at least be able to console us by saying that there is a prospect that the increase in the exports of our beef without too great a loss will probably be brought about. [Time limit.]

I do not wish to follow the hon. the Deputy Minister, but he has made one statement here which I cannot allow to pass, for it is the first time I have heard such a proposition. I have never heard it made by an agricultural economist, I have never heard the proposition made by the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, and I have never heard any other hon. member of this House making it, and that is the peculiar proposition the hon. the Deputy Minister made here that the costs of production have risen because the prices of the farmer’s produce have risen. It is the most peculiar statement I have ever heard in all my life. The only example the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned, is that the prices of land have risen and that it has now contributed to increased costs of production. But surely you cannot tell me that the increased price of say fertilizer is attributable to the increased prices of the produce of the farmer. Surely you cannot tell me that the increased prices of agricultural implements is the result of the increased prices of agricultural products; that the enormous increase in the prices of spares is due to the fact that the prices of farming products have increased. And what about fuel, tractors, and mechanization in general. Can it be said now that the increase in the price of the farmers’ products have caused the increase in the prices of those articles and that therefore the costs of production have increased? Among the items I have mentioned are the most important items in regard to the increased costs of production in farming. Nor have I ever heard the hon. the Minister or any agricultural economist doubt that there is a narrowing down in the cost price pincers. It is a fact that the margin of profit for the farmer as a result of the increase in his costs of production, and his agricultural requirements, and on the other hand the tendency of lower prices, not only in South Africa, but everywhere, that that narrowing down in the cost price pincers is one of the greatest problems we have to cope with. And then the hon. the Deputy Minister comes along here this afternoon and he wants to tell us just the opposite story, and tell us that it is dangerous to increase the price of farming products, for if you do so, you will increase the costs of production. I should like to say a word or two about what the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has said. He said that this side of the House is trying to break down the Marketing Act. The hon. member for Nelspruit (Mr. Faurie) also said by implication that this side of the House is no longer satisfied with the Marketing Act. He said that the Marketing Act is an authorizing Act, which of course no one doubts and that it is not the Minister who fixes the prices. Let me put it very clearly now: I do not believe there is one single responsible farmer in the country, or in this House, who wants to interfere with the principles of the Marketing Act, that is to say, with the basic principles of the Marketing Act. Any farmer worth his salt and any member of this House worth his salt, knows that the Marketing Act is an authorizing Act which enables groups of farmers who wish to have their products controlled under the Marketing Act, to apply for that and then an accommodation Act can be made to declare their product a controlled product. Let me put it very clearly that as regards this side of the House, and I think in the same way as the other side of the House, that we stand by the basic principles of the Marketing Act, and we shall stand and fall by it. If there is criticism from this side of the House, it will be criticism of the Administration and the application of control as exercised by the hon. the Minister, who is the responsible Minister who has to keep an eye on it and who has to administer the Marketing Act. He, together with the Marketing Council and the control boards must manage the whole matter. The Marketing Council is not here and the control boards are not here so that they may be criticised by us. The Minister is the embodiment of those control boards and we have to criticise him if we think things are not going right.

I have on more than one occasion already said that the Marketing Act is not an Act that is there merely for the benefit of the farmers. It has been introduced for the benefit of all the strata of the population, the consumers as well as the farmers. If you want to test the Marketing Act, you must inquire whether it was to the benefit of consumers in the days when the world prices of agricultural products were so high that it was a menace to the consumers in South Africa if those prices were maintained. That is the one test. The other test is when world prices of agricultural products have fallen so much that it is no longer profitable to the farmers and the country to produce at those prices. Then the test is whether the Marketing Act serves its purpose of giving the farmer a living price when the world price of agricultural products that are controlled in South Africa, have fallen to such an extent that the farmer can no longer produce profitably. Now I say without hesitation this afternoon, that in the days when world prices were so high that certain controlled products in South Africa, if sold internally at those prices, would not have been to the benefit of the consumers—that in those days the Marketing Act passed its test and protected the consumer. To-day the Marketing Act has to pass its test in favour of the farmer. The picture is just the other way about. That is why I say, when I criticize the Minister this afternoon, that because world prices of agricultural products have fallen too much, he shows a tendency to allow the prices of agricultural products that are controlled to drop too rapidly. I add to that that if he does that, the Marketing Act will not be able to pass the second test it has to pass, that control has to pass, and then the Marketing Act will fail. [Time limit.]

In the few minutes at my disposal I do not wish to follow any former speaker in his arguments, for I should like to bring the few points I regard as of great importance, pertinently to the attention of the hon. the Minister, because I feel the time has arrived for us urgently to rectify matters there. I should like to confine myself to the maize position to-day. Surely there is not in South Africa at the present time a community of farmers that does not feel the pressure of the price cost pincers which is closing in through out the world, and breaking the farmer inside. I am thinking of the dairy farmers and other groups of farmers, but the maize farmer in particular to-day is feeling the pinch and received a terrific pinch this year. I should like to mention a few points which I think may help to bring relief in that position. I wish to mention at the outset what I regard as urgently necessary, and that is that where to-day we are subsidizing a bag industry in our country for the sake of the welfare and the benefit of the country as a whole, the cost of the establishment of such an industry is being imposed virtually only upon the farmer who uses bags. In normal times it would not be so bad, but if I as a maize farmer wish to buy a bag to-day, I have to buy one of the locally produced bags for 42c and at the same time I could obtain one at an import price which may be 27c or 28c. It means then that the average price of the bags amounts to 35c a piece, that is to say 3s. 6d. per bag. It is very hard when one section of a community is burdened with establishing a national industry, which is established in the interests of all. I mention a second point. We take fertilizer. The fertilizer industry in South Africa is an important industry. In the past we imported fertilizer. Fertilizer, raw phosphates, may be exploited at Phalaborwa to-day. Where in the past the fertilizer factories were built at the coast for the sake of the importation of the raw materials, we now have to move the factories to the interior. That requires enormous amounts of capital. I hope the Minister will be the mediator of the farmers who have to use that fertilizer, that that fertilizer industry will not be imposed upon the shoulders of only the farmers who to-day buy the fertilizer. We had the experience this year still that while prices have to fall considerably as a result of overproduction, etc., the price of fertilizer has risen. Those are the things in regard to which I should like to make a special appeal to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to mention another point, and that is railage. Here in Cape Town there is a grain elevator. The production of maize is 1,000 miles from here, but yet the maize farmer is expected to rail his maize to Cape Town’s elevator, and to pay 50c per bag, whereas he can send it to other harbours at nearly 15c per bag cheaper. It is not right and fair that it is expected of that handful of maize growers in the interior to bear the cost of the establishment standing in Cape Town’s harbour in order to make it remunerative. I once again want to appeal to the Minister of Agriculture that he should act as our mediator with the Government to see what can be done about it. I would suggest that we fix that railage at a fixed rate, irrespective of which harbour the maize is transported to. Mr. Chairman, we have to bear in mind what those export mealies are worth to the country. Last year we brought into the country about R45,000,000 or R50,000,000 which we needed urgently and direly. That was new money that came in. That is not all. As the maize industry stands to-day, it may be able to maintain South Africa’s economic prosperity at a time when tremendous pressure is being exerted upon our economy. And if we are going to strengthen and secure that economy of the country as a whole at the least cost, then it is worth doing so. I should like to make a very strong plea to our hon. Minister and his colleagues sitting here, to assist the mealie producers and to see that these unreasonable burdens are removed. I am convinced that it would have been the wisest policy to-day to have reduced the export railage. To-day we are paying much more railage for the export of mealies than for internal consumption. But I should think that in these circumstances, and in order to keep the industry going and sound, we will very urgently have to do something in that direction, without causing a loss worth mentioning to the railways. For I say that the manner in which the Maize Control Board arranges exports, it is done in such an economic manner that not a single railway truck runs empty. We have a chain service, and as they go down so they return and they are loaded again. Full trains are running. It is not as if we couple up a few trucks here and a few trucks there. We provide the Railway system with full trains. That probably makes it possible to have the maize conveyed at a lower tariff.

Fourthly, I wish to mention that this is a time in which our farmers are seriously faced with surpluses and are looking for markets, and yet we find that there are restrictions, and you, Mr. Chairman, will be amazed there in the Chair to hear this, that we may not dispose of a refined product of the mealie. But our people and our Bantu can use imported meal coming from Canada to bake white bread. That the Bantu can buy and eat, but refined mealie products, e.g. baker’s spread, may not be manufactured here in this country. We may not manufacture it. Are we not hopelessly behind the times, Mr. Chairman? The world is moving forward and the eating habits are also advancing, and that is why we are limiting our market if we do not permit this processing and refining. I should like to make another plea to our hon. Minister. We know how anxious he is to assist us wherever he can do so, but I would like to ask him to remove that limitation and to say to the mealie producers of South Africa: Go into the market and supply the needs wherever you can. Then it will be a good day for South Africa, if we could dispose of more refined maize products in our own country, instead of importing wheat from Canada and thereby sending our money out of the country. We can use our own food here, for which there is indeed a market in the country. I should like earnestly to bring these few small points also to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of South West Africa who is not here now, participated in this debate and told us that the cost of living should now be reduced in South Africa, and that the best way of achieving that, is to begin with the farmers, the poultry farmers, the egg producers, the dairy farmers, the wheat producers, etc. Having said that, he came along and told us that it would not however, be necessary to reduce the prices of the meat producers. And he wished to thank the hon. the Minister for not having done so. I cannot understand the argument of the hon. the Deputy Minister at all, namely that the cost of living should be reduced at the expense of the wheat producers, the dairy farmers, but it is not necessary to start with the meat producers. Let me tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we on this side are not in favour of any reduction of the prices of any farmer, whether it be an egg producer or a dairy farmer or a meat producer, at all as long as there is a constantly rising tendency in the costs of production. That is our whole argument on this side of the House. That is the argument also—if the hon. the Deputy Minister will not accept my word that it is so, he can look at the report himself—of our own Secretary of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. In this periodical that was issued some time ago, namely “Agricon” he says what the position of the farmer is. I read from page 15—

And then the interesting remark—

According to the hon. the Deputy Minister for South West Africa the farmers are living in a wonderful land of milk and honey, and there is no question of their cost of living being reduced.

Mr. Chairman, if the cost of living in South Africa is to be reduced, why then should a start be made with certain selected farmers only? We can understand that in the position we have, there is a surplus of produce, and that when there are world surpluses of products, a reduction in the price of the products must necessarily follow. But what is the position in regard to wheat for instance? Is there a surplus of wheat in South Africa? There is a surplus outside, yes. There may be a surplus in America. But in our country we still have to import a considerable quantity every year to provide for our own requirements. And what happens? The hon. the Minister gives his approval to the Wheat Control Board to reduce the price of wheat for the next ensuing season. No, the whole approach of the hon. the Minister and the Government to the farmer’s problems at the present time is that they are experimenting with the welfare of the farmers, and that is definitely the wrong thing.

Must the prices be raised?

There is no agricultural product the price of which is being increased.

But what do you suggest?

If the hon. the Minister is prepared to see to it that the costs of production in South Africa are reduced—as his own Secretary says here, unless that happens, the profits of the farmers are being reduced—if the costs of production are reduced, nobody will have any objection to a reduction of the prices to the producers.

But you have just objected to a reduction in the price of wheat.

We object to the reasons the Minister gives for reducing the price of wheat. The reason is that the costs of production have been reduced as a result of the greater return.

Of course.

The hon. the Minister says that the costs of production have been reduced. But here the farmers had a meeting at Malmesbury and elsewhere, and even an hon. Senator had to speak at that meeting, and they say that the returns that are made are quite incorrect. The hon. the Minister is a leading agriculturist in our country. He is a big wheat producer. Can the hon. the Minister mention one item in regard to the production of wheat, to show that the cost of producing wheat has been reduced in South Africa? Does the hon. the Minister mean to tell me that the price of his tractors has been reduced?

The return per morgen is greater.

I know the hon. member will now hide behind that. I know the return per morgen has been improved. But the cost of production per morgen has not dropped. Here the position is such that the better you conduct your farming operations, the more you are penalized for those better methods of production you apply. Here we have it that Mr. de la Harpe de Villiers, the chairman of the S.A. Agricultural Union, tells us in his Chairman’s speech—at the congress of the Orange Free State Agricultural Union—in October 1961—

That is precisely what is happening to-day under the National Party Government—the better the farmer, and the more productive they are, the more they are penalized for their enterprise and efficiency they show. And, Mr. Chairman, a policy of that nature, or an approach of that nature, will not help us to keep our prospective farmers and our present farmers on the land.

Let us now examine the approach of this Government in respect of agriculture in South Africa, and in this connection I should like to mention something to the hon. the Minister, in the latest report of his Secretary that has been given to us, he says this on page 2—

Then a few sentences further on—

But if we look at the Report of the Secretary of Agricultural Technical Services, what do we find? What does he say about the position of agricultural production?—

Mr. Chairman, there is no policy. Nobody knows whether the utterances of the Secretary for Technical Services are correct, namely that we are heading for a nutritional catastrophe unless we increase production, or those of the Secretary of the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, who tells us that in some cases production will have to be discouraged somewhat. That is the position we have in South Africa at the present time… [Time limit.]

I do not intend dealing with the negative speeches on agriculture which we have had from the other side of the House. Nor will it be any use giving the facts to prove to them what progress there has been in the agricultural field and how the production and the income of the farmers have increased; it will be useless to give those facts because their minds are attuned in such a way that they cannot grasp positive things. It is like a bullet against an armour plate; it ricochets off. They are attuned to deliver adverse criticism; they build on negative criticism. Nor do I wish to change those negative option of theirs. I want them to be as they are at the moment, because they are destroying themselves with their attitude. The germ of destruction has taken such a hold of them because of their negative approach to everything which is presented to this House, that the hon. member for North East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) had to call out in distress: If we do not get a shock from outside the United Party will never again be able to take over the government. I agree that that is the position …

Rather talk about agriculture.

I am talking about agriculture. The hon. member has made his speech and I say that we also found that negative attitude in the speech which that hon. member made. However, Mr. Chairman, I want to get away from that idea. We are dealing with something serious. In spite of the fact that certain parts of our country are hard hit annually by droughts or hail or plagues the country has nevertheless treated us well. We have always had sufficient good food to feed our people. As other hon. members have said, we have had dairy products, maize and meat. There are many other products which I could mention but my time is limited.

I want to confine myself more in particular to the meat surplus. I want to know whether the time has not arrived for us to do something in this connection. I do not want to start a fight, unlike my hon. friends on the other side, but I want to know whether the time has not arrived for us to do something. There is a surplus. Something must be done. By increasing the price you will not change the position in regard to the surplus. That is why I want to know whether the time has not arrived for us to look for the reasons around our kraal, here where our stock sleep, why there is such a huge surplus of meat. Has the time not arrived for the farmers to decide to send a younger animal to the market than the animal which they put on the market to-day? Has the time not arrived for us to find out why it is not possible to market a younger animal? I know it will be said that it is not easy to have the animal which is best suited to our country, ready for the market at the two-tooth stage. I agree with that, but there is a reason for that, Mr. Chairman. There is a reason why that is not possible and we have to find that reason. The reason for it is simply this that there are certain periods in the life of an animal when he needs help. There are certain periods in the life of a calf when he requires more attention than he is getting. There are times during which he needs our help and if time allows me, Sir, I should like to refer to those times and in that regard I should like to make certain suggestions for what they are worth.

If we protect the calf properly during the time that he drinks on his mother, if we protect him during his weaning period, if we protect him properly during the time that he loses his teeth, there is no danger whatsoever that that animal will not be ready for the market at the four-teeth stage. If the calf remains with its mother for 24 hours out of 24 hours he will grow into the type of calf which we often see in this country—he will be hard and long-legged with the shape of wild buck; his coat will be beautifully smooth but there will be no meat on his bones. If the calf looks like that you should know that something is wrong; he lacks body. Why does he lack body? Because the calf does not eat enough, not only not enough to make him lively and to make him grow, but not enough ultimately to make him fat. If that calf is kept away from the cow at least during the night, not caged off, but if he is kept in a proper camp, it will not be necessary for that calf to subsist only on the little milk which he continually tastes the whole day, milk which satisfies him with the result that he does not eat grass, but when that calf is alone with the other calves in the open veld it will start to eat grass, and when those cows go to the watering place the following morning that calf will be met by a full udder, he will empty it and be particularly full. That calf will drink enough to make him lively, to make him grow and to make him fat. I notice my old friend opposite shaking his head—he knows nothing about cattle.

If we look after that calf when it is being weaned—1 want to hasten—and we see to it that a week before the weaning starts, he is enticed to the manger to see if there is something for him to eat and when the cow is taken away to another camp five or six days later when he has become used to the manger, that calf will know where to go for his food. The cow should be taken away, and not the calf, as used to be the practice. The calf should be left in the place to which he has become accustomed. At eleven o’clock to-morrow morning he will expect his mother but the mother will be in another camp. A little fodder is put in the manger and that will attract the animal and reassure him.

Then you get to the stage where he loses his teeth. He loses two teeth and if the calf eats grass it chafes that gap. It makes his mouth sensitive an.d tender. The animal does not eat enough. To bridge that period fodder should be kept on the shelves, and a little concentrate should be added as well. The half a bag which was left over from the weaning period should now be added. If that animal is guided through those periods, you can be quite sure, Sir, that when it reaches the four-tooth stage, it will be ready for the market.

I now wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to test these suggestions properly at a few of our experimental farms—also for the sake of that hon. member opposite who is laughing and who does not know anything about this. Let it be thoroughly investigated and then the Department can explain to the farmer what should be done to get the young cattle ready for the market. Mr. Chairman, if the young ox is marketed we will also be able to export that meat with the result that meat will not accumulate at our markets. That old ox is the reason why our markets are overstocked; that meat cannot be exported.

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to say this in conclusion. We have sufficient breeding cattle which must go to the market at a certain time for us not to allow the young cattle to become too old so that their meat cannot be exported either. We should ensure that the young animal which must still grow up, is in a proper condition to be exported, and the other animals will ensure us a sufficient supply of meat. In those parts of the country where they do not have the necessary facilities, they can continue with the existing system, but we want a sufficient number of young animals for export purposes because there is a surplus in the country.

The hon. member who has just sat down, told us one thing and another in regard to how animals will sooner be ready for the market and in a better condition. The hon. member also told us that one should lengthen the period during which the calf drinks on its mother. If we have to judge according to size and we look at the hon. member you would really think that the hon. member has not yet been weaned. I was saying that the farmers of South Africa did not know what the approach of the Government was at the present moment. I had quoted from the report of the Minister’s secretary and also from the report of the Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services. The quotations which I have read point to the vital spot of the problem confronting both Departments. But those are, however, two entirely different points, and that is precisely the difficulty with which the farming community is faced to-day. They do not know whether they should produce more. In the second place, they know that if they produce more the tendency on the part of the Government is to reduce the prices of the products. The farmers find themselves in an unenviable position at the present moment. I want the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite to realize that our agricultural industry is the most important sector which is passing through a very difficult period at the present moment. We must realize that there are approximately 120,000 farmers in South Africa. We must realize that there are approximately 8,000 White workers on the farms. We must realize that there are approximately 8,000 non-White workers economically active on our farms. We must realize that they, together with their families, total between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 souls. Those people are dependent on the agricultural industry. We must realize that approximately R4,000,000,000 is invested in the agricultural industry. We must also remember that the total income of our agricultural industry was approximately R800,000,000 last year. We must realize that plus minus 40 per cent of our total exports are still agricultural products. Nobody in this House should, therefore, underestimate the importance of this industry.

We are, therefore, asking not only the hon. the Minister, but all hon. members opposite, with all the seriousness at our command, to face squarely up to the problems which face the farmers to-day. We are tired of the patch-work which we have been getting from the other side of the House. We are tired of the experiments which have been conducted. I will refer the hon. the Minister to one experiment which he conducted last year. What experiment did he conduct in regard to the meat industry About a year ago he told us that he wanted to do away with permits.

“Strauss must go”!

I do not think it is any longer a question of “Strauss must go” but a question of “Uys must go as well”. We were told last year that the permit system should be abolished. We had the position for months on end that thousands and thousands of sheep and cattle accumulated every week at the markets in the controlled areas. For months and months even the animal protection societies said that the position was untenable. For months and months the municipal authorities had to face a position where their own slaughtering facilities were insufficient to cope with the tremendous number of stock which was sent daily and weekly to the markets in the controlled areas. This happened to such an extent that last year, from the end of September to December, the position was untenable. The hon. the Minister knows about it; it is not necessary for me to give him the figures. He knows what the position was in Cape Town, that it sometimes took ten to 14 days before stock could be slaughtered. Lorries could not be off-loaded. The hon. the Minister has waited nearly a year and now he comes forward with a new quota system.

I think it will be appropriate for me to reply at this stage to certain arguments which have been used, and particularly to the speeches of hon. members which have dealt with policy.

But we are not yet finished.

Hon. members will have another opportunity to speak and I shall reply again as well. But it has become clear to me that there are only one or two points of criticism which hon. members opposite can submit. One of these has been submitted by the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren), namely that the Minister exercises certain powers over the boards which supposedly makes it impossible for the boards to act as they should act. A second criticism which he has submitted is that the costs of distribution of foodstuffs are extremely high and that it is the duty of the Minister to see to it that they are reduced. A third point of criticism related to the price policy, and this is the main point which various hon. members have made. Certain proposals have been made, and particularly one by the hon. member for King William’s Town with which the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Con-nan) has associated himself, namely that there should be a restriction of production or a quota system, as a means of remedying this position. They want to lay down what part the State should play during this period when there is a surplus of many agricultural products, and we have to compete with overseas prices that are lower than ours. In the first place I just want to associate myself with the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Swart) who has enunciated the principle underlying the Marketing Act. He has said that it is an enabling Act, and all sides of the House accept this legislation as the best arrangement which we can make for the sale of agricultural products under the prevailing circumstances. It is an Act which has been placed on the Statute Book in order to achieve orderly marketing. Under this Act we have the various boards. On these boards the producers are in the majority, but other interests are also represented, and the hon. member for Florida was quite correct when he said that the Act should be implemented in the interests of the producers as well as the consumers. One of the basic premises, besides the fact that we want orderly marketing, is that the ordinary channels of distribution for agricultural products should be retained to the largest possible extent. When hon. members criticize the boards, and especially the Minister, and blame the Minister for the high costs of distribution, especially as regards products which are not under full control, but also in many cases in respect of products which are under full control, it seems to me that hon. members consider that the board or the Government should take over the function of distributing foodstuffs. It seems to me that they are levelling the charge at the Minister that the costs of distribution are high and that they have in mind that the distribution should be undertaken by the board concerned under the authority of the Minister, and that he is responsible for distribution. I want to ask hon. members opposite: If that is their standpoint, then they must say so, because it will definitely be a change in our whole outlook and policy as regards the implementation of the Marketing Act. Hitherto the Act has always been implemented in such a way that the ordinary distribution channels have been used to undertake the distribution after the board has collected the product concerned through its agents and has delivered it to the distribution channels. When hon. members speak of a reduction in the costs of distribution, they expect the Minister or the control board, to effect that reduction, particularly when the prices are not fixed. But when there are floor prices, as for example in the case of meat, what then? If that is what they want, hon. members must be honest and urge that the agricultural boards should handle the distribution of agricultural products. But although hon. members have put forward this criticism, I am certain that is not what they want. Why am I certain of this? It is because in those cases where we have compulsory co-operation in various branches of agriculture and the co-operative societies undertake the distribution, there is always criticism of the powers exercised by such co-operative societies. The Marketing Act was in fact introduced because the compulsory co-operative system in the past, under which the co-operatives themselves undertook the distribution, was not a success, and because that system entails certain problems and eliminates certain persons in the distributive trade. That is the very reason why the Marketing Act was introduced, namely to keep these people in the trade. If hon. members want the Minister to undertake the distribution in an economical way, then they must also urge that the Minister and the boards should have the power to undertake all aspects of distribution. If they do not want to advocate that, they have no reason to criticize the high costs of distribution and to hold the Minister responsible for them. [Interjections.] Even in the case of products for which there is a fixed price level—this does not apply to all the products under the Marketing Act, but only to certain, such as for example wheat, mealies, dairy products and certain winter cereal varieties—the producer is assured of a fixed price and the product is controlled throughout until it reaches its destination, namely the consumer. Even the costs incurred by the distributor are controlled. We so often hear the argument that the boards can provide the surpluses at a lower price to the poor people, rather than withholding it from the market. Then it always seems to me that hon. members are under the impression that if the producer were to supply his product free of charge to the distributor, the consumer could still obtain that product for nothing or for practically nothing. But I just want to refer to one of the controlled products, namely fresh milk, and to show hon. members what the position is. As regards this product, the distributive margins are fully controlled, and only a minimum margin is permitted, to such an extent that the fresh milk distributors in Cape Town who fall under such a scheme, suffered losses last year on their distribution activities—I am referring to some of the largest distributors. And then the House must remember that they only take that part of the milk which they can distribute. They need not take more than that from the board. They need not take the surplus. I just want to give a few figures to show what the costs of distribution entail in an industry which is fully controlled and the costs of distribution of which are fully controlled. Take the producers’ price in the case of fresh milk. The producer receives 2¾ cents per gallon. The ordinary levy for administrative purposes is ¼ cent per gallon, and the special levy here in Cape Town is 1½ cents. In other words, the purchase price in the case of the distributor is 28½ cents per gallon. The selling price in the case of the distributor, if he sells more than 48⅞ gallons per day, is 37½ cents per gallon. In bulk he therefore receives a margin of 9 cents per gallon. If he sells from 10 to 15 gallons, he receives an additional 1½ cents in respect of distribution costs, and this is already 39 cents. If we go further down the line and he sells between 5 and 10 gallons, he receives an additional cent in respect of distribution costs, and this already totals 40 cents. If he sells from ⅞ths of a gallon to 5 gallons he receives a further 2½ cents. But if he sells the milk in 2-pint bottles, he receives an additional 3½ cents per gallon, and this already totals 46 cents. If he sells his milk in ½-pint bottles, as many people buy their milk, there is an additional charge of 10 cents and then the total cost is 56 cents. And these are not prices which have arbitrarily been laid down; the costs of distribution are carefully calculated by the Marketing Council and by a cost accountant, and the distributor is allowed the minimum profit margin. In other words, to distribute a gallon of milk in ½-pint bottles, the farmer receives 26¾ cents, and when it reaches the consumer, it costs 56 cents. In other words, the distribution of milk costs more than the price the producer receives. And I am now referring to items the costs of which are controlled, to such an extent that in Cape Town last year one of the big distributors suffered a loss. It is so lightly said that the State or someone else should ensure that the surplus food reaches the public, but even if we were to give people in Cape Town their milk as a present, that milk would still cost the consumer 30 cents per gallon. I am merely mentioning this, and this is also the position which we find in the case of bread which is controlled and mealies which are also controlled. The distribution margin is calculated so finely that only small profits are permitted.

One can argue that these people need not make a profit and that the board should undertake the distribution without a profit margin. If that is their attitude, hon. members should be prepared to say that they want to change the policy embodied in the Marketing Act and they should then say that they are prepared to use the Marketing Act in order to abolish the ordinary channels of distribution. But if one advocates this principle, why do so only in the case of agricultural products which happen to be foodstuffs and why not do so in the case of all agricultural products? One Opposition member in the Senate advocated this principle the other day. He submitted the argument that vegetables sold on the Cape Town market should be bought up by the State and distributed by the State in areas outside Cape Town. But if one advocates such a principle, why not apply it throughout? I am certain that the K.W.V. will be able to supply us with liquor at a far lower price than the retail trade is doing so to-day, and it is also an agricultural product.

Yes, and it is also food.

I now ask hon. members opposite whether that is what they are advocating, when they criticize the Minister and say that he is responsible for the high costs of distribution? Are they advocating that the State should intervene or that the board should intervene in order to reduce these costs? Because they can be reduced, but then they must say so.

A further criticism which has been submitted relates to the price policy which the Minister and the Government follow through the boards. It has been argued that the Minister is lowering the prices of all products. Which prices have been reduced?

Mealies and wheat.

There we have two prices which have been reduced. The one is the price of mealies and the other that of dairy products, and they have been reduced for a very important reason, namely because there is a large surplus over and above the country’s requirements, which must be exported, and the overseas prices are relatively speaking far lower than the domestic prices. But the prices of other products have not been reduced. The floor price of kaffir corn has not been reduced.

Is there a surplus of wheat as well?

Just wait a moment. Meat prices have not been reduced. When we relatively speaking do not have a large surplus, and when the stabilization funds are strong enough to carry the export of the surpluses, the prices have not been reduced.

But there is no such example.

What? I shall give the hon. member four examples: kaffir corn, groundnuts, meat and fresh milk. But the hon. member only knows about wool and he knows nothing about the others. When we discuss a price policy which is being implemented, we must determine which products we want to control under the Marketing Act. There are various products which are under control. The first category are products which are used mainly for domestic consumption, such as wheat, mealies, meat and milk. There are products which are mainly exported. There are others, a large proportion of which are consumed locally but in respect of which the export trade is also important. For these products the price policy has never been the same. In the case of wheat, mealies, winter cereals and dairy products, we have a fixed price to the producer. In the case of others we have floor prices for the producer. In the case of others again we have pool prices. They are pooled under the Marketing Act and exported and the price obtained overseas is pooled, and that represents the price paid to the producer. These are the three different methods of dealing with products under the Act. Our basic premise has always been that the price of a product in respect of which a fixed price is maintained, is determined more or less by the average costs of production, plus a reasonable wage for the entrepreneur. That is still the policy to-day. But we cannot close our eyes to realities. Every producer produces to supply a market, to supply a demand, and if the demand is not there, one has to do one or two things. One has to try to create a further demand, or one has to try to increase the local demand. We now have the position in which we find ourselves to-day, particularly as regards mealies and dairy products. There has been no change of policy as regards the determination of the mealie prices for our local market. As regards that part of the mealies which the local market can absorb, a price is still fixed and this price is paid to the producer in respect of the local market. But they are now producing 40 per cent to 50 per cent more than the local market can absorb with the result that a loss is incurred on the surplus. The board has to make a recommendation regarding the price determination to the Minister, and what recommendation can it make? It can only do one of two things. The one is to impose a levy on the local price, and then to use that levy to meet the export losses. The other alternative is for the State to subsidize exports.

It seems to me you are doing both.

That just shows how little the hon. member knows about the whole business. I say these are the only two methods. Now, seeing that we have to pay R10,000,000 alone in order to encourage local consumption and seeing that we are exporting mealies on this scale, any producer can calculate what the State would have to pay in subsidies on 56 million bags if a loss of 5 cents per bag or a 5 cents increase in the general price has to be met from subsidies. The hon. member for Gardens has now said that the Minister has stated that the people must adjust themselves to the new circumstances and that the Minister should not say that; how can he expect the farmers to adjust themselves? He has criticized the Minister for doing so. But let us take other products such as dairy products. In the case of dairy products in respect of which there are serious marketing problems, the Government has in fact intervened and said that because we cannot create a bigger market and because such a market cannot be found either, it is pointless saying: We have a surplus and what of it. We must take action; the producer must be paid; and to pay him there is only one of two things we can do. We must reduce his price in order to reduce his losses in respect of that part which he can still sell abroad, and we must reduce the price in order to create a bigger potential market locally. The Government has intervened and said that we do not want to impose all the burden of a price reduction aimed at developing a larger market on the producer; we shall only burden him with half, and the Government will pay additional subsidies to meet the difference in order to reduce the price to the consumer. The Government already subsidizes butter consumed locally to the extent of 5 cents per lb., and approximately 90 million lbs. are involved. I am only mentioning these matters to show that when we do not have a foreign market, because the British market which is our only market has imposed quotas on all the countries of the world which sell on her markets, the only thing to do is to develop a local market. And how are we going to do so?

Pay the people better wages.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) says that we should pay the people better wages, but then the hon. member for King William’s Town complains, when we increase the wages, that the Government has raised the costs of distribution. [Interjections.] The hon. member for King William’s Town referred to the high costs of conveying goods by rail, and the hon. member for Yeoville is advocating an increase in the wages of railwaymen. I now ask him how he is going to prevent food prices rising? [Interjections.]

What about the profits made by the Railways?

If the Railways make a profit, the hon. member will be the first to say that those profits should be used to pay higher salaries to railwaymen.

The hon. member for Gardens has objected because I have said that there are only two ways in which we can market our surpluses, namely firstly by exporting them and secondly by selling more locally through a lower domestic price. He has, also criticized me because I have said that our producers must adjust themselves to these conditions. The hon. member says that I am wrong in saying that the farmers should adjust themselves. But I want to ask him: What about the products which do not have a fixed price? What about the products which are exported under refrigeration? If overseas prices fall, must they not adjust themselves? What about the wool farmer if his overseas price falls? Must he not adjust himself?

He has done so.

That is precisely my point, namely that he must adjust himself. The hon. member for East London (North) (Dr. Moolman) says that the wool farmer has had to adjust himself. I say that the farmer who sends fruit abroad and receives a low price must adjust himself to the position. If the wool farmer can adjust himself, why can he not do so? But then the hon. member for Gardens says: But the mealie farmer and the dairy farmer need not adjust themselves. Can hon. members imagine for a moment that when the prices paid to farmers whose products are sold exclusively abroad, fall without anyone having any control over that fall, they have to adjust themselves, but the other farmers need not! Can the House see where our agricultural economy is heading? It is after all nonsensical for any member of Parliament to criticize the Minister because he has said that when we have surpluses and the only available market is abroad, the producers must adjust themselves to circumstances. It is irresponsible. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to make his speech.

But he is taking too many chances.

I now want to turn to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) who has referred especially to wheat prices. He has said that the wheat prices have been arbitrarily reduced by the Minister. He has said that in cases where we do not have a surplus, as in the case of wheat, we should not reduce prices. In the first place he advocates a principle of the Marketing Act, namely that of prices being based on the costs of production plus a reasonable profit, and here we have fixed the price on the basis of the average costs of production. But the hon. member says that if the cost of production fall, the price should not be adjusted, but when the costs of production show a rising tendency the price should be adjusted. I just want to say a few words about the wheat price. I am also a wheat farmer and for years I served on the Wheat Board, while the United Party was still in power. I just want to say what happened at that time. At that time the price of imported wheat, landed in South Africa, was between R8 and R10 per bag. In 1940-1 the producers in this country received R2.30.

What were the costs of production?

I shall come to that. But I am now not discussing the costs of production. I say that at that time when we imported wheat at between R8 to R10 per bag, the price in this country was R2.30. Then the United Party Government did not say that there was a shortage and that we should encourage our farmers, but they paid the farmers R2.30. I now come to the costs of production. The price at that time was calculated on the basis of the costs of production of a bag of wheat together with an entrepreneur’s wage of 4s. 3d., and the yield was 6¼ bags per morgen; in other words, 6¼ times 4s. 3d. Imported wheat can be landed here at R5 per bag, but the local price is R5.54. That is 54 cents higher, not R5 lower. But the price is also calculated on the basis of the costs of production, just as was the position at that time. But the yield to-day is no longer 6£ bags per morgen, but 9 bags, and the entrepreneur’s wage is no longer 4s. 3d. but 9s. 3d.—in other words, 9s. 3d. times 9.

Does the same apply to mealies?

I do not want to discuss mealies at all. When the United Party was in power, in 1948, they reduced the mealie prices, while there was a shortage of mealies in South Africa, and a National Party Minister, Mr. Le Roux, had to raise the prices. I do not want to reopen old wounds because they are so old that I do not want to discuss them. I just want to say that the hon. member should not expose himself to this type of argument.

I now want to tell the hon. member what the reasons are for the fall in the wheat price. The last survey of the costs of production was carried out in 1948; that is to say, more than ten years ago. When that survey was carried out, there were quite a few items which have now disappeared and which influenced the costs of production, items which have been adjusted over this period of ten years. The wheat farmers have asked for a new survey from time to time. Accordingly a new survey was carried out over the last two years and what has been the result of this new survey? A comparison between the new survey and the old shows that the costs of production of wheat have fallen by 20 cents per bag. [Interjections.] That shows how little the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) knows about the costs of production. In 1948 the wheat farmer still cut his wheat with a harvester; he still carried his sheaves by hand and conveyed them to the rick on a wagon. He still put his wheat into a threshing machine.

To-day we have less labourers on the farms.

Of course we have less. I want to tell the hon. member that as far as wheat production is concerned, he cannot teach me anything. There has been an increase of 11.3 cents in the price of farm equipment; that is an increase in the costs of production. According to the old survey the costs attributed to draught animals, such as mules for example, represented 20.5 cents per bag. I now ask the hon. member—I think he visits the Swellendam district occasionally—how many farms he can show me to-day where they still use draught animals.

There are no more.

Exactly. In other words, these draught-animals have disappeared altogether. I have just told the hon. member what proportion farm equipment represents of the total costs and what proportion draught-animals represented of those costs. Let me give another example. Take the cost of threshing. In 1948 it represented 9.1c per bag. What farmer to-day still incurs threshing costs? They all use their own combines to-day.

That costs more.

Exactly. But it has already been included under farming equipment. Although the price of land has risen so greatly, the new survey still shows a reduction of 19c per bag on last year’s price. Instead of transferring this whole reduction to the wheat farmers in one year—and this is a survey which has always been accepted by the wheat farmers in the past—the Government has not reduced the price by 19c, but by 12c. In other words, the price is still 7c higher than the actual fall in the costs of production. The hon. member is laughing, Sir, but if he is laughing about this, then he must reject the whole system which has been used hitherto. [Interjections.] Of course the wheat farmers will complain. Everyone in the country complains when his price is reduced. Have hon. members ever heard of a farmer who says: I am absolutely satisfied with the fall in price? It is nonsensical to expect it. If the hon. member received 150c for his wool during one year and 100c during the next year—which is still far too much—then he would say that he was receiving too little. After all that is human.

As far as the export of mealies is concerned, there is only one method that can be used, namely the subsidizing of prices. I now want to deal with the hon. member’s argument that the farmers should not adjust themselves. I now want to put this question to the hon. member: Where does he come by the argument that certain industries which produce mainly for local consumption need not adjust themselves? If other industries have to adjust themselves, why should these industries not have to adjust themselves? Then I put this question to the hon. member: Does the hon. member propose that our local mealie price should be based on the costs of production plus an entrepreneur’s wage which has always been paid on a bag of mealies, and that the Government should subsidize the losses incurred on the export of mealies? Is that what the hon. member is asking? Just say yes or no!

He says “ja nee” (yes-no).

I expect the hon. member just to say “yes” or “no”. It is after all easy to do so.

He said “yes”.

The only way in which we can retain in toto the price to the producer is for the Government to meet fully from subsidies the losses incurred on the export of mealies. There is no other method. Is that what the hon. member wants? I want to ask the hon. member whether he wants the Government to meet the losses on mealies by means of subsidies? That is after all a simple question; why does the hon. member not say “no” or “yes”?

He said“yes”, but now he is afraid.

I assume the hon. member means “yes”; otherwise he would not have said the farmer should not have to adjust himself. I now want to ask him this: Does he want to make the mealie farmer an exception in the agricultural industry? Or does he want to single out only the dairy farmer in agricultural industry? Must the Government only subsidize them? Must the Government not subsidize the other industries, which produce mainly for export, such as for example wool farmers, when their prices fall? Must those producers not adjust themselves either? I think the hon. member owes me an answer. [Interjections.] I want to say once again that under the circumstances with which we are faced….

Order! Hon. members must stop conversing across the floor of the House. If they want to put questions, they must do so in the customary way. If hon. members do not listen, I shall be obliged to forbid interjections.

I want to repeat once again to-night that, since, we have a relatively large surplus which must be exported in the case of certain agricultural products, producers will have to adjust themselves to the new circumstances. During the transition period the Government, as it has always done, will take the necessary steps by making contributions. It will also, as in the past, take steps to build up a larger local market for those products. If hon. members think there need not be any adjustment and that the State should intervene and meet these losses—as hon. members apparently think—the State will have to exercise far more control over the agricultural industry in South Africa. If the State has to exercise greater control, the basic liberties of the producers to which I have referred on a previous occasion, will inevitably be interfered with in this country. Because when a producer buys a farm and pays whatever he wishes for that farm, and when he produces what he likes and how he likes and how much he likes, the Government cannot be expected to ensure that he will receive a certain price without the producer needing to adjust himself. In such a case the Government will have to intervene and deprive the producer of those basic liberties; the so called free enterprise of the farmer will be curtailed. If the price of land is left to the free choice of the producer, and if the same applies to the way in which he farms, his methods of farming, and someone else is then expected to guarantee him a certain price, that body which must guarantee him his price cannot be expected also to allow him to retain his basic liberties, because land prices will always rise and the responsibility of the State will become ever greater.

The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) has discussed another method and has advocated it. This is a policy which also enjoys the support of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan), namely the quota system. The hon. member for King Willia’s Town has risen and accused me and the boards of destroying food. He has accused me of allowing the boards to destroy food. He has said it is a scandal, a “disgrace”, that food is being destroyed in South Africa.

I still say so.

The hon. member says that he still says so. Where is food being destroyed? Food is destroyed every day in South Africa. What the hon. member apparently has in mind is the bananas which the Banana Board could not market because the market was over-stocked. The hon. member says food was destroyed and it was a “disgrace”. But in the same breath the hon. member advocates a quota system. What else is a quota system but a system whereby food is destroyed? If the hon. member has a quota to produce 100 gallons of milk…

There are many methods.

Oh, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) knows nothing about these matters. I am sorry to tell him that. Allow me to ask the hon. member for Yeoville—he is perhaps the cleverest member opposite: If the hon. member for Yeoville produces 100 gallons of milk and he has a quota for 90 gallons and he cannot sell more than 90 gallons, what will he do with the remaining 10 gallons?

You can use it as fodder.

We are now talking about human consumption. Those bananas were also used to feed pigs. We are now discussing human consumption. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please cease making interjections. The hon. the Minister cannot hear himself speak and I am also trying to hear him. It is absolutely impossible. Hon. members must please listen to what I say.

The hon. member says he condemns the destruction of food, but in the same breath he advocates a quota system. And I say that a quota system in effect also entails the destruction of food. No farmer can produce exactly the quantity for which he has a quota. If the hon. member for King William’s Town has a quota for 100 gallons of milk, then with the best will in the world he cannot only produce 100 gallons. He will never manage it. He must then destroy his surplus production or what is he to do with it? This quota; system which hon. members are advocating is perhaps a very fine idea. It is perhaps a very fine idea to say that we should introduce a quota system. There are of course products which are produced in certain areas, such as wine which is produced more specifically in the Western Province, or fresh milk which is produced around the large cities, which can be made subject to a quota system. But if we were to apply this system to the whole country, then I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what will become of our agricultural industry? Hon. members must not think that the quota system will solve all our problems. The argument is often submitted that the quota system should be introduced in order to protect the small farmer. There are one or two products in respect of which we do have a quota system. We have a quota system in the case of the sugar industry in Natal; we have the system in the case of fresh milk in Cape Town and the wine industry in the Western Province. Does it protect the small farmers? In all these branches of agricultural industry it has always been the small farmer who complains that he cannot make a living. Jf the quotas are in general reduced by 5 per cent, it is always the small farmer who is the worst hit. His livelihood is the worst affected. It does not matter to a person who has a quota of 20,000 if he is faced with a five per cent reduction, but a five per cent reduction on a quota of 60 is a big bite out of a man’s income. But that is not all, Sir. If we introduce a quota system, that system must be introduced on a certain basis.

And on what basis are we to do so On the basis of the people who are in production today? If we introduce it on the basis of the producers who are producing to-day, what of the new producer who wants to enter the industry? What of the person who started with his farming on a part-time basis? What of the person who has bought land and who was not in production when the quotas were laid down? What of the body which must administer all these matters? When we speak of a quota system and of interference in agricultural industry, I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the State will have to interfere to an ever-increasing extent and that ever more control will have to be applied to the agricultural industry, in other words, there will be considerably increased costs. Then there is this question: To whom must new quotas be granted in future? On what basis must they be granted? Must the people who are not in production to-day be brought in later? I want hon. members to understand clearly in what position we could find ourselves with a quota system. In all the large consumer centres in the country, except Cape Town where there is a scheme, there are quotas for the sale of fresh milk. Most of the persons entering the industry are only given a quota after being in production for a year. At Port Elizabeth it is after two years, while elsewhere in the country a quota is given to a new entry to the industry only when the existing quota holders cannot supply the desired amount. I now want to show hon. members what the effect of the quota system has been on the production of fresh milk in Port Elizabeth. The hon. member may be interested because he lives there or at any rate he represents a constituency there. The effect of the quota system in Port Elizabeth has for example been that a new entry to the fresh milk market who can produce 100 gallons of milk per day on a quota, must surrender an amount of approximately R7,000 over the two years in respect of milk prices in order to obtain a quota. In other words, to obtain a quota of 100 gallons of milk, it costs a person in Port Elizabeth, his production for two years which involves him in a loss over the two years of R7,000. In other words, that quota for 100 gallons of milk costs him R7,000. He will have to maintain a production of approximately 150 gallons per day for a period of two years in order to gain a quota of 100 gallons.

I have received a petition from small milk producers in Natal. I just want to read to the House what they have written regarding quotas. This illustrates the problems with which we are faced. They write as follows—

This shows you briefly, Mr. Chairman, the problems which can arise in connection with a quota system. Apart from the fact that under a quota system there is a tendency to protect inefficient farmers and apart from the fact that a quota which has been granted in respect of a farm tends to push up the value of land and make the farm more expensive, there are all the other dangers to which I have already referred. The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Van Staden) has mentioned one of the industries in which the quota system works reasonably well. He has mentioned the K.W.V.’s quotas in the case of the wine industry. The hon. member has given a few examples. These quotas were introduced as at a certain date, namely the 21st June, 1957. The person who was producing wine on his farm at that date was entitled to a quota. A person who was not producing wine was not entitled to a quota. And do hon. members know what the position is? One of the producers alleged that on 21st June, 1957, he had vines. The K.W.V. alleged that he did not. An arbitration court was appointed to investigate the matter and they found that he did not have vines. But for two years that person delivered wine on a confiscation basis. For two years he delivered wine to the value of R8,000 to the K.W.V. which was confiscated because the quota was not granted. In the meantime he had a Land Bank bond on his farm and interest totalling R1,600 is now payable. Because his products have been confiscated and he cannot get his R8,000, he cannot pay his interest to the Land Bank and what must now become of him? Must he now go bankrupt because there is a quota system? I am merely indicating the problems. The hon. member for Malmesbury has referred to another problem, i.e. where a member of the K.W.V. produced more than his quota which was also confiscated. When we discuss the introduction of a quota system, I repeat that a quota system can only be introduced on a large scale in the agricultural industry. Once one starts with it, one cannot see the end. If a man cannot obtain a quota to produce wine, he produces table grapes for export. And if a surplus of table grapes arises, must they also be produced under a quota? If there is overproduction of that crop, he produces fruit and then this production must also be placed under a quota system. And if there is over-production of fruit, then he produces milk and if there is a surplus of milk, it must also be placed under a quota system. Where are we going to end? There is no end under such a system. When we suggest the quota system as a solution, we must remember that the freedom of the farmer will inevitably be curtailed. A State or a Government will not be able to take such action without interfering with the private enterprise of the farmer.

We are faced with these problems. These problems are due to the fact that large surpluses of certain agricultural products are being produced. What assistance can be expected from the State in order to tide the farmer over this period and to make the necessary adjustment possible? There are various methods. One of the methods is that, when certain producers, such as the dairy producers, are faced with difficulties the State makes a contribution in the form of subsidies in order to increase sales. Another method is to exploit potential local markets. But these markets can only be exploited at a price. And someone must pay that price. And the producer will have to be prepared also to make his contribution. We have a big country with developing industries and expanding industries and expanding industrial production, in which our industries to a large extent must still be given protection. In such a case the State cannot subsidize production to an unlimited extent. It can only give encouragement on a small scale and provide assistance where circumstances require it. We are not like the big industrial countries of Western Europe which only produce a portion of their agricultural requirements locally and import the rest, and which then stimulate their local production by means of subsidies. I believe that with the new development in our industries, the protection which we are giving our industries, the employment opportunities which are being provided and the increase in wages, our local markets will expand to an ever-increasing extent and that there will be an ever-increasing demand for our agricultural products. We can only develop this market by adjusting prices. From time to time we have sent missions abroad to study the possibilities of the overseas markets and not only merely to study but also to bring about increased exports. Two years ago we still had a shortage of butter in South Africa. It is only during the past two years that we have had a surplus. Until a year ago there was still a shortage of meat. Now we periodically have more meat than the local market can absorb. But we must not think that a product which is sold at competitive prices will always be bought by the producer. We must not imagine if we fix our meat prices at a certain level, that the consumer will buy that meat. We had the example last year here in Cape Town—a very good example. For a few months there were very good snoek catches. The price of snoek fell to 3s. 6d. and 4s. per snoek. Then the sales of meat by butchers fell by 20 per cent. This shows that the consumer replaces one foodstuff by another if the price of the second is lower. We have in creased our sales of cheese tremendously over the past year by means of advertising and other methods. As a result of the lowering of butter prices there has been a large increase in our local consumption of butter. As I have said, we shall have to make such adjustments. In this regard, Mr. Chairman, you must understand that while there are producers who have already adjusted themselves to prices which have been fixed at a level above that of the average costs, they will have to adjust themselves still further to the new circumstances. Many of them will suffer and many of them may fall by the wayside during the process. Because many of these farmers are good farmers and because it is in the interests of the country that they should remain on the land, the Government has taken measures to help these people by means of loans, etc. The hon. member for Gardens has referred to the loans and he has used those loans to show that it is due to the fall in agricultural prices that the Land Bank and the Farmers’ Assistance Board have had to advance far bigger loans to the farmers. But this position has not arisen as a result of the fall in prices. This position has arisen over a period. It has arisen particularly as a result of climatic conditions. The hon. member has quoted comparative figures relating to the assistance provided by the Land Bank and the Farmers’ Assistance Board to farmers. He has said that larger loans are now being granted and that this is proof of how much worse the position of the farmer is to-day. Bigger loans are being granted because we are following a new policy. A consolidation scheme has been introduced; existing debts have been taken over from other persons; the Land Bank is following a new policy. When the Minister of Finance announced the new policy of the Land Bank to this House, everyone welcomed it. But now members are saying that the bigger loans which the Land Bank is granting is proof of how bad the position of the farmers is. This is a nonsensical argument, Mr. Chairman. This adjustment will cause difficulties particularly for the small farmers who farm on small units. We are aware of that fact and the Government is prepared to play its part during this transition period, and it has already proved that it will do. A study group made recommendations last year and we are implementing those recommendations, particularly in the case of farmers who cannot obtain credit anywhere. The Government is making it possible for those farmers to obtain credit under certain conditions. If the Government must step in as a supplier of credit through the medium of the Land Bank, particularly to those farmers who normally cannot obtain credit, it will have to have greater control over the farming methods of those people. They will then have to farm on certain conditions. They will have to accept those loans on certain conditions. The Government cannot pump in money on the one hand and allow that money to be wasted on the other hand. Hon. members must also not be under the impression that the people who complain and say that the Land Bank or the Farmers’ Assistance Board or the Government is bringing pressure to bear on them, are all such angels or are so innocent. I just want to give hon. members one or two examples. I have examples of where the Farmers ’Assistance Board has come to me. I know of cases where people have obtained loans from the Farmers’ Assistance Board and could not pay their interest at the end of the year. Such a person is sent a reminder by the Farmers’ Assistance Board but does nothing. He is sent a registered letter but still does nothing. When he eventually receives a summons, he comes and tells one how badly the Farmers’ Assistance Board has treated him. Then one investigates the position. He could not pay his interest but during that year he built a wool shed costing £800; he built another building costing £4000; he made alterations costing £800 to his house and bought himself a new motorcar. But he could not meet his obligations to the Farmers’ Assistance Board. I had another case. The hon. member for Drakensberg is laughing, but I want to tell her about it. These are not exceptional cases. I have had a case of a person who, besides all his other products, delivered mealies to the value of R22,000 to his co-operative. But when the interest owing to the Farmers’ Assistance Board became payable, he could not pay. He then said that he had nothing with which to pay the Farmers’ Assistance Board. When his position was investigated, Mr. Chairman, we found that his wife had been overseas for four months.

Like the chairman of the Wool Board.

The Farmers’ Assistance Board requires its interest but if the hon. member must pay his interest and his wife has been overseas, then the Farmers’ Assistance Board cannot take over his wife.

May I ask the hon. the Minister, a question? How did it happen that the Farmers’ Assistance Board lent money to a man with so many assets? The Farmers’ Assistance Board was established to help people who could not help themselves.

The hon. member can apparently not draw a distinction between assets and liabilities.

Answer the question.

The hon. member will surely realize that if a man has assets valued at R20,000 and liabilities totalling R30,000, his liabilities are bigger than his assets. I say the Government has played its part and will continue to do so. The farmers of South Africa know this and have had experience in recent years of how the National Party Government has stood by them. They know that when droughts or other difficulties hit the farmer, the Government has assisted them from time to time. They know that when there was a drought in the North-West, the Government helped the farmers by means of loans to survive that emergency. The Government is once again assisting the farmers. Does the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) want everything to be given to them as a present? Does he want that?

I did not say that.

When there was foot and mouth disease in the Northern Transvaal, the Government assisted the farmers by loans to overcome their difficulties, and when they were hit by a drought, they received further assistance in addition to the normal assistance. In the Eastern Free State, where the farmers had poor crops for a few years in succession, the Government took action and assisted them over this difficult period. The Government stands by the farmers when they are experiencing difficult times. But, Mr. Chairman, I do not think we must exaggerate the difficulties. When one listens to hon. members opposite, one would say that all the farmers in South Africa are going bankrupt. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) has said: “The farmer in the Karoo cannot farm with sheep any longer because a bowl of food costs him so much and a Coloured costs him so much and at the end of the year he has nothing left”. And then he says that the Minister has acted wrongly in warning the farmers not to pay unduly high prices for their land. He says the Minister should not accuse people of paying unduly high prices for their land. I told our farmers that the land prices in South Africa under present-day conditions were too high and that we should be careful. The hon. member for Gardens knows that the land prices are too high. He has quoted examples of this himself. But why then does he not join us in saying that the land prices should not be forced up any further. We know there are farmers who complain and say that they are finding it difficult to make a living. But examine the prices of mealie land in the Western Transvaal to-day and see what they are to-day: £80, £100, £107 per morgen! To produce mealies! And if it is unremunerative? No, I repeat that while we have a stabilization policy under the Marketing Act and while prices are fixed on the basis of the average costs, there will inevitably be people in the industry who will become rich, and there will inevitably be people who will suffer, but we shall have to make these adjustments, and one of the main adjustments is to increase our efficiency in the agricultural industry.

That means nothing.

The hon. member says that means nothing. Can we fix a price for dairy products on the basis of cows which produce poorly? And can we then expect the consumer to pay for a cow which only produces half a gallon or a gallon of milk per day? The hon. member says becoming more efficient means nothing. But of course, if the farmer is more efficient, he can produce at a lower price. If the farmer has a bigger yield per morgen, he can sell at a lower price. Does the hon. member want to tell me that he is so stupid that he cannot see that? If he shears 8 lbs. of wool from each of his sheep and he receives 2s. 6d. per lb. for that wool, he can after all make more money than he could at the higher price by getting 15 lbs. of wool per sheep and selling it at 2s. 3d. per lb! And then the hon. member pulls a face when one speaks of efficiency. No, this making of political capital in respect of the agricultural industry will not benefit the United Party. I think the United Party must simply accept that they will not gain anything by these tactics. Of course any farmer is dissatisfied when his price comes down. But I nevertheless say that the farmer in South Africa still supports the Government wholeheartedly because he knows that this Government is the friend of the farmers.

May I have the privilege of half an hour, Mr. Chairman? Before I begin to reply to what the hon. the Minister has said, I should like to say something in reply to a remark made by the hon. the Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs. He and several other hon. members opposite virtually intimated that when we say that the farmers are having a hard time, or that half the farmers are having a difficult time, it is so much nonsense. The hon. the Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs said that there are so many unproficient people in agriculture that it is probably better that they leave it. for, he said, there are no farms without owners. All right, there are no farms without owners. But the tragedy of it is that there are so many small farmers who have left, while the old land owner without debts acquired more and more land and formed a monopoly. But that is not the manner in which agriculture can continue on a sound basis. The small farmer is a necessary cog in our whole organization and he must be kept going. He should not be bought out by the large farmers. The Deputy Minister knows that in South West Africa there is a greater danger than in our other provinces of the people going under, people who farm there. If they did not have the wonderful market in the Union on which to sell their beef, many of them will go under. Hon. members opposite say that there was under-production under the Smuts Government up to 1948, but now there is over-production, and now it is supposed to be the wonderful National Government that has brought that about. Do not let us be so naive. Come let us analyse the position. In which agricultural country is there no over-production at the present time? In countries such as America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada—everywhere there is over-production. In spite of the fact that the population of Australia has nearly doubled since the war, its wool production has nearly doubled, its exports of wheat has not decreased, its exports of meat have not decreased, and its exports of dairy produce have risen. Surely they did not have a National Party Government that was so good. The reason is simply that science and mechanization, and the industry of the farmers and the impetus of demand in the immediate post-war period led to increased production in all the agricultural countries of the world, irrespective of what Government was in power. There was increased production all over, and surpluses developed, and in our country there would really have been much bigger surpluses to-day than there are. But when I say that, it is nevertheless peculiar that Australia in the postwar years could step up its wool clip from 3,000,000 bales to 4,500,000 bales, that New Zealand pushed up its clip from 900,000 bales to 1,750,000 million bales, and in South Africa the pendulum here continued to fluctuate from between 800,000 bales and 1,100,000 bales during the past 25 to 30 years. What is the reason that our production has not been increased?

A poor Chairman of the Wool Board.

They should have got rid of you a long time ago.

Order! I want to ask hon. members not to interject so much. When the Minister was speaking there were no interruptions and hon. members owe the same respect to another member when he is speaking.

With reference to what the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) said yesterday, I should like to state emphatically that we on this side of the House have not the slightest intention of detracting from the Marketing Act, for we have struggled for long enough to organize marketing in our country and the last thing we want to make ourselves guilty of is to break down the Marketing Act, but the Marketing Act is an empowering Act and control boards are appointed in terms of it, and the duties of the control boards are set out. The control boards have to regulate supplies, must arrange for orderly marketing and also recommend to the Minister prices which the Minister has to approve from year to year. Now the Minister knows as well as I do—

They certainly over estimated you by far.

Order! The hon. member must not be so personal.

I repeat that in many instances boards made recommendations which the Minister did not approve or which the Marketing Council did not approve, and where he did not fix the prices recommended by the control boards or even the Marketing Council. Many cases of this nature may be mentioned. There are many other recommendations also, apart from the price basis the Minister has not accepted, heaps of them. When the Meat Board comes along and says: Mr. Minister, there is an excess of retail butchers trading licences, and no further licences should be granted, the people’s margin is such that they cannot eke out any longer, there ought to be less of them, and in this centre or that centre there are hopelessly too many, and in a very small town you get as many as six, then the Minister goes along, on the personal representations of people, and grants licences, and then the margin has to be so big and then the great cost of distribution also comes into the picture.

Will the hon. member repeat that sentence regarding personal representations?

I said on the representations of the retail butchers, groups or people who come to the Minister personally, licences are approved. So I could go on in regard to marketing of hides. The boards recommend that there should be curers, that there should be brokers and exporters etc., and eventually, when we wipe out our eyes the collectors become the curers and the curers are only the brokers and the broker becomes the shipper and the whole marketing scheme we had recommended for hides, similar to the wool marketing scheme and which we had thought would be a great success, because we expected to get the competition from overseas here to come and buy the hides from us—this whole thing turned out to be a fiasco.

What are you saying now?

This Government has had the most favourable period in respect of agriculture from 1948 to 1952. It was a favourable period for agriculture not only in our country, but throughout the whole world. The price structure was high, and the Government had the most wonderful opportunity to consolidate the position in our country that any Government has ever had, and we are now going to put the blame squarely upon the shoulders of the Government, that the Minister now at this stage comes along and for a whole hour levels destructive criticism at the whole agricultural structure, and then he has only two suggestions at the end of it all to rectify the thing. You must subsidize on a short term basis when there is a surplus of a product, and the producer should contribute his share to that by making the price of the product so much less that the internal consumption increases to such an extent that the surplus may be absorbed. No what, Mr. Chairman, we cannot just go along and tell this to the maize farmer in view of the surplus of maize we have now. The prices now have to be reduced on a short term basis and on the other hand the consumption must be encouraged in the country in such a way that we may absorb the whole surplus. At what price will we have to sell the mealies if we have to sell those 28,000,000 here also.

When did I say that ever?

Mr. Chairman, the Minister mentioned wool and he asked what had happened to wool. Mr. Chairman, wool soared in 1951, 1952 and 1953, and people paid as much as R50 and more for grazing for a sheep, £25. Shortly afterwards the market began to show a downward trend and agriculture quickly adapted itself and to-day, if you were to get R25 for grazing for sheep, you will be doing well, for the prices of land and capitalization had to adjust themselves to the price of the product—wool.

Surely you know that is not true. Your figures are completely wrong.

Order! The hon. member for Somerset East must not interrupt continually.

Sound agriculture and agriculturists you find to-day in the Eastern Cape, the parts that devote themselves to sheep farming and in the southern Free State, where the people have adapted themselves with their capitalization. The hon. the Minister says “yes”. That is so. If the same policy had been adopted in regard to agriculture in general, the position would have been better. And how many times has agriculture not been warned, and has the Minister not warned farmers not to pay too much for land. The hon. the Minister has referred to £100 per morgen for maize land. And what prices are not being paid in parts of the Free State? But, Mr. Chairman, there is no way of limiting capitalization other than to adjust the price of land to that of the products.

What about wool?

There the prices have been brought down. It happened in the case of countries producing agricultural products, after the war. They had to accept the adjustment of a measure of parity with world prices. As regards wool, the ratio of prices was maintained with overseas countries, and it could not be otherwise. The Minister is not concerned with the price of wool nor is that hon. friend, thank God. The price of wool depended upon what overseas countries paid for it. That is why also what the man could get out of his land was relative. But because a fictitious price existed internally for agricultural products, land values were permitted to soar so high. If this Government were as good as it pretends to be, and it knew that production would increase progressively, why did they not take steps? The Minister rightly says that there is over-production now as regards maize and dairy-produce and meat. It will not stop there. It will continue like that. What is the position in regard to maize. The reduction in the maize price looks like this: It is 27.5 cents on some kinds of mealies and 25 cents on other kinds, and calculated on this crop (I am now referring to the producers—prices) it is only the considerable little sum of R15,000,000 less the maize producers have to accept.

Than last year?

I repeat and say that with the amount per bag less they have to accept it amounts to the considerable sum of R15 million less the maize farmers have to accept this year, apart from what the Government has to subsidize them with in connection with the export market. The Minister said it is only those three commodities. But apart from the wheat prices, the oats price is lower, the barley price is lower, the rye price is lower, oil seed is lower, dairy produce is lower. Everything is lower. Now the Minister says in his Annual Report–

When does your speech start now?

Order!

If we have these large surpluses of maize and the price is depressed and it becomes uneconomic, then I ask hon. members opposite, what are we going to farm with then? Must we now go and farm with cattle in the maize lands? And there in the warm parts, are we going to produce dairy products or pineapples? But there is overproduction of that also already. It is no good saying that at the present time there are big surpluses of maize and dairy products only. The moment we bring down the maize production, the people switch over to something else, to meat, or to dairy produce or to oil seed, and then there is a still larger overproduction of those things. I ask whether we can continue to export and subsidize the large quantity of maize from our country with the prices we are getting? We have such a great need for it internally, in the first instance for feed in time of drought. If the person who requires it for drought feeding could get it at the subsidized price, he will buy it. I know the Minister“problems. I have already been asked by the officials: How must they distinguish between the maize that should be made available for drought feeding, and that which should be used for human consumption? Has the one kind to be red and the other white? Or what must be done? But irrespective of what method is adopted, I submit that if we want to export and subsidize 23,000,000 bags of maize, while we could save the drought-stricken parts of our country with the subsidized maize at the cheap price, it will be worth while to overcome the problems. I have said repeatedly that one of the most dangerous ways of feeding maize is to spread it on the ground and to have the animals pick it up there. We should process it in cubes. Is it not better to consume the maximum quantity of that subsidized maize in the country? I ask further: Are we doing the right thing by our own economy and our industries when we sell cheap maize overseas so that they can feed their people more cheaply and that they can produce industrially for export to our country and so squeeze our industries to death? Is that a sound kind of economy, if when you could use the maximum quantity of a product of which you have a surplus and which you subsidize, in your own country for your own people and your own animals. But as against that we are going to help other people in other countries to eat our cheap food and to enable them to compete with our industries and kill them here?

But surely that is the greatest nonsense?

I have now mentioned maize. Let us see now what is going on with meat. I have here an extract from the Report of the Meat Board. Beef carcases bought from January to March this year numbered 15,900; lamb carcases bought numbered 38,000 during the same period of three months. Do hon. members opposite know what has already been done with some of the stuff? I am not going to refer to the small number of lambs exported to England and for which they received 7 cents per lb.

Not lambs.

Mutton carcases. In 1960 we exported lamb carcases to Rhodesia at 9.3 cents per lb., a considerable number. In 1961 we again exported lamb carcases to Rhodesia at more or less the same price, and in January, 1962 we exported lamb and mutton carcases to Rhodesia at 9.56 cents per lb. and it was bought at 17.8 cents and 17.59 cents per lb. One asks oneself: Can there be a board that does such a thing repeatedly, that repeatedly delivers meat to a neighbouring state, the prices of which are known from day to day, at a loss in this manner? Can they export lamb at a loss of 8 cents per lb.? And they are continuing with it. And what does Dr. Fouché tell us? The Managing Secretary of the South African Agricultural Union–

Does the hon. member know that those people slaughter their sheep in a certain way only?

I know they slaughter in a certain manner only, but that can be done.

Must we take live sheep there?

The Minister must not try to confuse me now. I should like to refer to Lebanon, to Turkey, to Greece, Cyprus, Iraq, Iran and then the Minister must not tell me that all the sheep will have to be taken there alive and slaughtered there. He knows as well as I that is not so. You can send carcases there and certainly to Greece. And now I am not thinking of our meat alone. When you go there, you find that Australia not only has large sales houses there, and not only has consulates, but you enter a shop and what you see are Australian and New Zealand goods, whether it be tinned meats, jams, butter or whatever it is. But you can find nothing there that is South African, except cigarettes I managed to get in Cyprus. Are we developing markets where we can develop them? Are we really trying to build up our exports? The other day I said the exports to Britain last year were R320,000,000 and in my absence the Minister of Commerce and Industries said I was wrong. It is R311,000,000 and of that 40 per cent or 50 per cent is in danger, our wine, our butter and that kind of thing. Are we really trying to develop other markets, or do we only want to look around internally, as the Minister of Agriculture has said, to see whether we cannot build up a bigger market here.

I did not say that.

I want to conclude on this note: As long as this Government had the wind from behind, everything went well in agriculture and it managed to struggle on in a way, while the Government allowed things just to slide. God help us if the wind comes from the front and we still have this Government and this Minister in control.

The hon. member for East London (City) (Mr. Moolman) is a person whom I have known for a long time. In his O.B. days he made good speeches, but I have never heard him speak as badly as he did to-night! He spoke for half an hour and in that time discussed almost every imaginable commodity, but in respect of no single product did the hon. member make a constructive suggestion. Let me give a few examples of that. He made a great fuss about lamb being exported to Rhodesia at a loss of approximately 8 cents per lb. He wants to know how long that will continue. Now I want to ask him whether he wants us to reduce the floor price of one lamb so that the price will be nearer to the export price? How else does he think a price can be maintained in the country? The hon. member must give us a reply now. He knows that under the Marketing Act the procedure followed is that there is a fixed price for internal consumption and that the surplus has to be disposed of in some way. That is why we have levy funds as a stabilizing factor. The hon. member has attained a doctor’s degree, and one could therefore expect him to be acquainted with this basic standpoint adopted in the Marketing Act, and particularly in respect of the marketing of meat.

And a good one, too.

Yes, it would perhaps have been a good solution if the farmers had not had previous experience of that party. Unfortunately the farmers have had experience of them and that is why every farmer on the opposite side, except for the hon. members for Albany and King William’s Town, represent urban constituencies.

And what about me?

Very well, we will include the hon. member for Drakensberg amongst the exceptions. All the rest represent urban constituencies. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) quoted from an article to the effect that the surpluses could no longer be handled and that the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing suggested that the farmers should produce less. Why does the hon. member not read what the recommendation of the Department really was? I shall do so. The hon. member does himself an injustice by making the sort of statement he did. The Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing says the following on page 1 of his annual report for the period 1 July 1960 to 30 June 1961–

I have been listening to-night for 1¼ hours to the hon. the Minister, and now again for ten minutes to the hon. member for Somerset East, but on the part of neither of them did I discern any hope for the farmers of South Africa. The hon. member for Somerset East quoted from the report of the Secretary of the hon. the Minister’s Department, but got no further than that. And what did the Minister have to say in his speech? For 20 minutes he told us a story about distribution and asked whether it was the policy of this side of the House for the Government and the control boards to take over distribution. Heaven alone knows where he gets hold of such an idea.

Your people advocated it.

Which members? The Minister persists in alleging that members on this side of the House advocate it, but he cannot mention the name of a single member who in fact did so. Nevertheless he took up 20 minutes of the valuable time of the House. After that he spoke for some time about the control boards and contended that we on this side want to know nothing about the control boards. He tried to pretend that the prices were fixed by the control boards.

That is not so.

I have not the reports of all the control boards with me. However, I have the report of the Mealie Control Board for the financial year ending April 1960, in which it is stated–Representations were received from the South African Agricultural Union to consider the possibility of giving financial encouragement, by means of a special compensation, to those farmers who try to restore the fertility of their soil … In view of the fact that the entrepreneur’ wage has remained unchanged at 9s. 2d. a bag since 1956-7, whilst the cost of living and land prices have risen in the meantime and the provision made for interest, tractors, etc., is insufficient, the Board felt that the time had arrived to increase the entrepreneur’ wage. Although the actual increase is appreciably higher, the Board recommended an increase of only 3d. in the entrepreneur’s wage, but the Minister, however, did not see his way open to accept this recommendation.

Where do you get that from?

But surely the Minister ought to know that to-day there is even greater over-production than before.

Nonsense!

The Minister continued to say that things were going well with the farmers! And, as hon. members opposite like to do, he compared the present position with the position in 1948. He spoke about those products which have fixed prices, particularly dairy products, mealies and wheat. He made a great fuss about the price of wheat –what it was in 1948 and what it is to-day, and how much more the farmers get to-day.

I referred to 1943.

Very well, I accept that. But then the Minister said that we on this side are telling sob-stories in regard to the position of the farmers to-day. A greater sob-story than the hon. Ministers’ speech I have never heard before. It gives the farmers no hope or prospects. I am just sorry that every farmer in South Africa could not have listened to his speech.

It seems as if we are having a perpetual drought!

That is how the percentage of outstanding loans has increased. But now the Minister tells us of the case of a certain farmer whose wife went overseas whilst during the year concerned he delivered mealies to the value of R22,000 to the co-operative. But it is in that year that he obtained a loan from the Farmers’ Relief Board.

No, it A’as in the year when he had to pay his interest.

The farmers are given eighteen months in which to pay their interest and redemption. Does the hon. the Minister perhaps think that I do not know that? Of course the position of this farmer had to be investigated at the time the Farmers’ Relief Board gave him a loan.

But such an investigation did take place.

Then the Board should have been aware of the fact that he had been able to harvest such an enormous crop. The Minister may use that argument, but then we must take it that this particular farmer was not a good farmer and that his wife spent too much money. But are all the farmers bad farmers, because here we have the report of the Land Bank which shows that the percentage of outstanding loans is rising, and not only by 50 per cent but by 150 per cent, and that in a period of three years!

I do not intend replying to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Drakensberg. I am told that when you argue with a lady the only reply you get is “perhaps “and that takes you no further than where you were. I want to come to the hon. member for East London (City). He has shown us that it is also possible for a doctor to talk nonsense at times and to be very stupid in some respects. He said, for example, that during the régime of the United Party there were shortages and that it was only under the régime of the Nationalist Party that we have had surpluses. Surely that is a wonderful recommendation for the Nationalist Party! But in spite of the fact that there were shortages during their régime, prices already started to drop. The hon. the Minister has already pointed out that there was a shortage of mealies in 1947 in the country and that the price rose from 19s. per bag to 22s. 6d. per bag. The farmers did not have mealies to sell at that time. The following year, however, when there was a sufficient supply of mealies in the country and when the farmers had the mealies to sell, the price was reduced to 21s. 3d. The overseas market was much higher than the local market. We are now faced with a drop in the overseas market whereas the local market has remained constant. We are, therefore, still selling mealies on the local market at the same price for which we sold it last year.

I am pleased that this debate has now come down to a more reasonable level. The bright side about the farming industry to-day is that it is producing surpluses and building up the fertility of the soil at the same time. The Minister is faced with the problem that agricultural production has increased to an extent where it has bypassed consumption. Because there is a surplus of agricultural products on the world markets, we are faced with the necessity of placing greater reliance on our own local market. If these are developed, any surpluses can be used to the benefit of our own people. I believe that the problem is quite a simple one. What is actually happening under this Government, however, is that we have surpluses of food but three quarters of the population are suffering from malnutrition! We have surpluses of maize and lucern but cattle and sheep are dying of starvation! There must be something wrong and it is, consequently, quite right that we should ask the Minister what he is doing about it. We, on this side of the House, think that as far as agricultural matters are concerned, this is a fair weather Government. It cannot weather the storms of adversity. The United Party rehabilitated every farmer in this country. It is all very well for the hon. member for Somerset East to laugh. He himself was a ruined man during the gold standard debacle. As a matter of fact, no farmer at that time could say that he was not a ruined man. The United Party, however, rehabilitated every farmer, i.e. the large and the small farmer, and brought about stability and prosperity at very little loss to our Treasury. And the farmers know that we will be called on again to rehabilitate them. The hon. Deputy-Minister of South West Africa Affairs said the farmers had only themselves to blame for their present state because, he said, many farmers to-day were not worthy to be farmers. It is clear that the Government does not realize what practical difficulties confront our farmers. The hon. member for Rustenburg had a lot to say about the amount of milk a calf drinks, but his real problem is a surplus of tobacco in his particular area! And yet he had nothing to say about’ that!