Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) the hours of sitting shall be:

1. (a) from Monday, 21st May to Friday, 25th May:

Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m., 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday: 2.15 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Friday: 10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m., 2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.;

1. (b) from Monday, 28th May, to Wednesday, 30th May:

2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m., 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.;

1. (c) from Monday, 4th June, to Friday, 8th June:

Monday: 2.15 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday: 2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m., 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.

Friday: 10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m., 2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.; and

1. (d) from Monday, 11th June:

Mondays to Fridays: 10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m., 2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m., 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.; and

1. (2) from Saturday, 16th June, Saturdays shall be sitting days, and on these days the House shall meet at 10 a.m., business being suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m., the House to be adjourned only upon its own resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I have to introduce this motion, but I am afraid I have no alternative. There is a lot of work to be done and, if at all possible, I would like to adjourn Parliament on the 16th June. There are a number of reasons for this, Sir. One of the reasons is not that I personally am anxious to get away. As far as I am concerned, it makes no difference whether Parliament adjourns in the second, third or fourth week of June. You see, Sir, in those days when I still hunted big game, I wanted to get away as soon as possible in June. When the leaves turned brown and the cold winter winds started blowing, I became restless. I would take out my big rifles and clean and fondle them, and I could not wait for the day when my Landrover pointed to the north and I would journey to the far-off hunting fields to hunt elephant, lion and buffalo. But now, Sir, I have put away my big rifles and I have deteriorated from an elephant hunter to a buck hunter, so there is no inducement to me to get away early. One of the main reasons why I think that Parliament should adjourn on the 16th June, if possible, is that some hon. members and a number of officials still have children at school being accommodated at school hostels, and as the schools break up in some provinces on the 15th, 20th and 22nd June, these parents would like to be back when their children come home.

Sir, the number of sitting hours from now until the 15th June amounts to 120. The time still required for financial measures amounts to 90 hours. Then there are the following Bills, apart from those on the Order Paper, that must be passed: The Miners Phthisis Bill and the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill, which are both before Select Committees; the General Law Amendment Bill, the Finance Bill, the Pensions Bills, the Native Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Amendment Bill, the Homelands Consolidation Proposals (North Cape, Natal and Transvaal) and the Bill to give effect to the Schlebusch Commission’s recommendations in regard to the Standing Committee on State Security. Some other Bills may be introduced, but the House will only deal with them if they are non-contentious and do not take up much time.

I know, of course, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition is going to oppose this motion, and I do not blame them. As a matter of fact, if I had been in the Opposition benches I would have done the same. But I want to anticipate some of their arguments. I will, of course, be reproached for adjourning the House early on some occasions before the recess, and it will probably be argued that if that had not happened and if Bills had been introduced timeously, this motion would have been unnecessary.

Hear, hear!

Sir, let us examine the position to see whether there is any substance in this argument. I would like hon. members to take out their pencils and to do some arithmetic. The number of sitting hours lost through early adjournments before the recess amounted to 14½ hours. That included 1½ hours for early adjournments during the No-confidence Debate. If the Criminal Procedure Bill had been introduced timeously, what would the position have been? When this Bill was introduced, I discussed a possible time-table with the Opposition Whips, and I was informed by the Whips that the Opposition required 13 hours, plus the time taken up by the Minister’s reply, for the Second Reading; 50 to 75 hours for the Committee Stage; three hours for the Third Reading, plus the time taken up by the Minister’s reply, a total of a minimum of 68 hours and a possible maximum of 93 hours. The House has already spent 21 hours in discussing the Criminal Procedure Bill. Add these 21 hours to the hours lost before the recess as a result of early adjournments, namely 144, and we arrive at a total of 354 hours, so if I had decided to go ahead with this Bill during this session, there would still have been left approximately 324 hours or 574 hours for debate this session. Hon. members will see, therefore, that we are much better off than we would have been if this Bill had been introduced earlier and if I had decided to go through with it during this session. [Interjections.] Then, of course, Sir, we will have the argument again that this is a case of legislating by exhaustion. Let me take back the minds of hon. members, who were here in those days, to the position before 1965, before the amended hours were introduced in this House. In those days the House sat on Monday, Wednesday and Thursday evenings, three nights a week. Very often the 10.30 p.m. adjournment rule was suspended; the House sat until the early hours of the morning, and occasionally there were all-night sittings from a quarter past two in the afternoon until nine or ten o’clock the next morning. Every session a motion was introduced and passed by the House for additional sitting hours towards the end of the session; it was a regular feature in those days. We have had no late-night sittings or all-night sittings since 1965. In addition to that, Parliament now assembles one week later than Parliament assembled before 1965. Parliament used to assemble on the third Friday in January; now we assemble on the fourth Friday in January, or the first Friday in February. But, Sir, the most significant is that from 1958 to 1963 the sitting hours per session averaged 625 hours, whereas the average sitting hours from 1965 until 1972 amounted to only 507. In other words, Parliament has been sitting 118 hours less per session since 1965 than it did before 1965.

That is because the rules were changed.

It is not only a question of the changing of the rules. There are many other reasons that I could mention as to why Parliament has been sitting less hours per session since 1965. Sir, hon. members also have the privilege now of discussing a matter of importance, with the permission of the Speaker, during the last half-hour of every sitting day. In other words, hon. members are much better off now than they were before 1965 in regard to the length of the session, so that argument about legislating by exhaustion holds no water at all.

Then, Sir, the third argument, of course, will be that a promise was made that there would be no extra sitting hours after the introduction of the amended sitting hours. I have no knowledge of such a promise; there is no record of such a promise. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sauer, who was then Leader of the House, was the chairman of the committee that dealt with the amended hours. In 1965, while he was still Leader of the House, a motion was introduced to provide for 43 hours and 49 minutes extra sitting time for that session. So if a promise was made, Mr. Sauer, having been chairman of that committee, would certainly not have introduced such a motion providing for additional sitting time amounting to 43 hours in the 1965 session.

Sir, I trust that I have convinced hon. members that I am not acting unreasonably. I can assure them that I like sitting additional hours just as little as they do but there is a lot of work to be done and that work must be completed before the end of the session, and therefore I propose this motion.

I informed the hon. the Minister when he suggested this time-table that we would oppose this motion …

Speak up.

I indicated, that we would oppose the motion because we would not accept these long hours. The Minister has referred to the Select Committee on the Rules. I served on that committee. There was an equal number of Government and Opposition members serving on that committee. As the Minister rightly says, Mr. Sauer was the chairman. The general understanding at the end of a series of meetings was that the new rules would cut down the long hours of Parliament. We not only cut down the hours of sitting but we also cut down the time during which members could speak. Before those rules were passed a member could speak for 40 minutes and when he had spoken for 40 minutes he could get an extension of time. Today the position is that only the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition get unlimited time, plus the Minister introducing a Bill. We have cut down a lot of talking in the House and we should be able to get through the work in time. The Minister indicated in the beginning of this session that he had a list of proposed Bills for the session but unfortunately he has been let down either by his Cabinet or by his staff because some of those Bills have not come forward yet, although some of the Bills that still have to come forward are what the Minister calls “non-contentious Bills”. I think the decision as to what is contentious and what is non-contentious lies in the hands of the Opposition and not in the hands of the Government. Where there has been a Bill which was not controversial we have not wasted time, but time was certainly wasted in the beginning of the session when we had several early adjournments. But there is certainly no need to accept this resolution. The Minister can carry on for another week or two and get through the business. It is his own fault and I am sorry that I cannot commend him as I did last year. Last year I commended the hon. the Minister because he introduced his Bills early; throughout the session there was good contact between the Whips, as there has been this session. The Minister indicated the date on which he wished to end the session; we worked out a suitable time schedule and we kept to our part of the bargain and the Government kept theirs. Therefore it was my privilege last year to compliment the Minister for having arranged the session in an orderly manner and I am sorry that he has now fallen from grace. It is quite clear that he has fallen from grace because he is reminiscing now about the good old days when he could go hunting. But today he is in no hurry and obviously he must be concerned about this otherwise he would not have taken such a long time to explain his reasons for moving this motion, if he had no doubts as to the correctness of his case. For those reasons we do not propose to support this motion nor will we adopt delaying tactics after today except of course when the occasion justifies it. We are not going to be bound to talk less on any Bills on the Order Paper than we have to. We hope that between now and the end of the session all outstanding Bills will be disposed of. It is not fair to the Opposition to come here with a technical Bill and expect it to be rushed through. That is one of the reasons why this Criminal Procedure Bill is not being proceeded with and must be delayed. Had that Bill been given to us in the beginning of the session we probably would have had it out of the way by now. Sir, the Opposition will co-operate in future if it is in the interest of Parliament but we do not intend granting the Minister any concessions if it is not in the public interest. For that reason we oppose this motion and will vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I fully want to support the previous speaker. I also shared in the good old days which the hon. the Minister spoke of, during the first few years I was here. In those days there were also early adjournments. Then it was said that we must adjourn early because legislation was not ready to be placed before the House. This year we adjourned early on more occasions than in any year since I have been here. To tell the truth, the Other Place has almost been in recess more than in session. That is an indication of how little work has gone through. Our session began very late this year. We convened on 2nd February and we began with the actual business of the House on 5th February. This is virtually a week later than in previous years. We nevertheless had to adjourn early from time to time, and on the occasion of those early adjournments we protested and warned the hon. the Minister. We were then scornfully referred to as “work fiends”. We were never work fiends; never more so than the hon. the Minister himself. However, we foresaw the situation we are now in and we issued a warning. The reason why we are in this situation is because the hon. the Leader of the House has apparently lost control over the hon. Ministers who have to prepare the legislation. [Interjections.] There was a time when they heeded the cracking of the whip, but now they take no notice of him; they leave him in the lurch. That is why we have landed up in this position.

In making a speech such as this, you must really present us with a serious look on your face.

We have heard from New Orleans that the hon. the Prime Minister reshuffled his Cabinet in order to rejuvenate it to get better work done. To look at them, they appear to be young, but judging from their actions, they are very old.

Your M.P.C. also says that about you! [Interjections.]

Just look how the hon. the Leader of the House is struggling to get them going! The productivity at the beginning of a session is far too low. With this tight programme that is now coming into operation, the House cannot do its work properly. If the hon. the Minister had announced this programme, which he announced today, at the beginning of the session, we would have thought that it had to be a long session. We have only a month left in which to get through this work. The hon. the Leader of the House mentioned “legislation by exhaustion”. It is half-baked “legislation by exhaustion” because it cannot be otherwise. There is still a mass of work to be done, The hon. the Leader of the House is at present the member with the longest period of service in this House, and he should guard the dignity of the House. I am sure he wants to do that. He surely does not want us to be simply a rubber stamp. He would surely not want us simply to let Bills go through because certain people are in a hurry. He mentioned the school holidays. What he said is quite true, but the work of this House is more important than the school holidays. [Interjections.] It is much more important that this work be done properly. At this late stage I want to advocate to the hon. the Minister that he withdraw this proposal. What does it matter if we remain here a week longer, or even up to the end of June? It would make no difference, and those who have children at school can, in fact, make other arrangements. We must not allow the dignity of the House to be undermined by such haste.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? We note that the hon. member for Wynberg is never in the House any more. I just want to ask the hon. members whether they have too little time to hold caucus meetings because they have to sit here?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinetown said that there was a general understanding that there would be no additional sitting hours during any session after the Standing Orders were amended. What is the actual position? In 1964 the House sat an additional 42 hours and 13 minutes. In 1965 the House sat an additional 43 hours and 49 minutes. In 1966, which was an election year, the House sat an additional 18 hours and 15 minutes in the first session; in the second session of 1966 the House sat an additional 13 hours and 33 minutes. In 1967 the House sat an additional five hours and 16 minutes; in 1968 an additional 13 hours and five minutes; in 1969, 22 hours; in the first session of 1970 an additional 25 hours and 13 minutes; in the second session of 1970 an additional 28 hours and 29 minutes; in 1971, 13 hours and 30 minutes, and no additional hours in 1972.

Hear, hear!

I think that that was quite an achievement, but it was mainly due to the fact that, as always, there was very good co-operation between the two sides of the House. I had the heartiest support and co-operation from the Opposition, as I always get as a matter of fact, but we had less work to do and less legislation. That accounted for the fact that we could adjourn Parliament without any additional working hours. The hon. member has said, quite rightly, that since the Standing Orders have been amended to provide for the present sitting hours, the speeches have become shorter; some other improvements too have been effected. I think he will agree with me that since then Parliament is much more efficient than it was before. I think it was to the general advantage of the House that those changes were brought about.

Why spoil the record?

I do not have control over the record. If I had control over the record I would not have spoiled this record at all. The hon. member said that if the Criminal Procedure Bill had been introduced earlier this session, it would have been out of the way by now. I did give the hon. member and the House an indication of the number of hours that the Opposition wanted for the discussion of this Bill. Just imagine, they want 75 hours for the Committee Stage alone, 13 hours for the Second Reading, and three hours for the Third Reading.

We have done a service to the country.

No, I have not done a service to the country.

No, we have.

If the hon. member wants to fool us by saying that they are doing a service to the country, he is welcome to do it. However, the fact remains that that Bill is standing over to the next session.

It is a big baby, but it is your baby.

Oh yes, it is our baby, and it is a very big one, but it is a baby which will have to be treated very well, which will have to be fondled and which will have to go through during the next session of Parliament.

*The hon. member for North Rand says that we have adjourned early on more occasions this year than in the past. That is not so. I have already said that only 13 sitting hours were thereby lost, apart from the 1½ hours that were lost with the earlier adjournment during the discussion of the motion of no confidence. It is therefore nothing extraordinary. In the days before I agreed to have one additional day given to the discussion of the motion of no confidence, we always adjourned at about half-past two on the Monday afternoon. The hon. member knows this to be the case. It was even the case this year, and the custom was introduced as far back as 1965. The hon. member also said that I have lost control over the Ministers. I do not have any control over my colleagues. The only person who has any control over them is the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

Then he does not have any either.

I cannot instruct my colleagues …

But I am in control of you, Vause; so how could I not have any control over the Ministers?

As I have said, I do not have any control over my colleagues, and as I have frequently explained to the hon. Whips, there are very good reasons why Bills are frequently not submitted immediately or within a reasonable period of time. There is a long procedure that must be employed. There are frequently bottlenecks as far as the legal advisers are concerned. All these problems crop up. That is why a Bill cannot always be submitted in time. I can give hon. members the assurance that my colleagues sitting here are all very anxious to submit their Bills as quickly as it is feasible to do. From the nature of the case, the quicker a Bill is discussed, the quicker we can get it off our backs and the more pleasant it is for the Minister concerned. That is the reason. In respect of the work that must be done, I am afraid there is no alternative; the House is compelled to sit these additional hours.

Question put and the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have come to the Third Reading of this Bill which originated in the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. I think it is important in view of the controversy that raged over it that a junior member of the Standing Rules and Orders Committee should try to put the matter in the correct perspective. One thing that the opponents of this Bill should realize, and that my hon. friend, the member for Houghton should realize, is that this is not a Government measure, nor is it an Opposition measure; it is a parliamentary measure. It is a measure that originated in your office, Sir, and it comes to Parliament via the Standing Rules and Orders Committee. Anybody who opposed it is not opposing the Government or the United Party, but is opposing Parliament, because this Bill is sponsored by Parliament. It has the authority and the imperium of Parliament behind it. I am therefore not surprised that people who oppose this Bill have had to indulge in the most remarkable extravagances and have had to exaggerate their case almost beyond recognition. It is necessary that we should appreciate what this Bill is about. I cannot see in this Bill, as one would gather from the writings in some of the newspapers and some of the speeches of one Member of Parliament, that there is now a general invasion against the right to protest and demonstrate, or even a general prohibition or a ban upon what is commonly known as street democracy. All that happens, is that there is an attempt to ensure that whatever demonstrations take place in the vicinity of Parliament, provided they are legitimate, will be orderly and controlled. I do not think that anybody with any respect for the institution of Parliament can object to that.

I think the area involved is probably 0.001% of the total area of South Africa. It is hardly a square mile, and there are 400 000 square miles of South Africa’s territory where this right is not affected in any way. It is related specifically and particularly to the Houses of Parliament and to the protection of the procedures and activities of Parliament.

The cardinal fact about this Bill, we should realize, is that it does not ban street protests. Street protests can take place with the permission of the Chief Magistrate of Cape Town, as always. I think that most of us have sufficient confidence in the man who holds the office of Chief Magistrate in Cape Town to know that he will not prohibit any gatherings, demonstrations and public meetings, unless he has cause to be concerned about the maintenance of law and order and unless he has cause to believe that the dignity and the activities of Parliament may be adversely affected as a result.

Why should this prohibition be effective all the year round, when in Britain it is limited to the days upon which Parliament sits and in Belgium it is limited to the period during which Parliament is in session? For the very simple reason that we have in South Africa something that is missing in Britain and in Belgium, namely people who would like to exploit every possibility to try to convince their own supporters and the world outside that we are a police state and that we deny democratic rights to the people who participate in the functions of Parliament. If we did not provide for this prohibition to be operative all the year round, it would mean that every year when the enactment is repeated, whether by regulation under an enabling act of Parliament, or by some police order as in Britain, one would find that the agitation we are experiencing at the moment would be repeated. Year after year there would be an attempt to discredit democracy as it exists in South Africa in the eyes of the world. I feel that we as a responsible Parliament have to take action to prevent this annual recurrence of irresponsible propaganda against our desire to maintain the dignity and the function of Parliament. There is irresponsible propaganda against this measure, against Parliament, and against the attempt of Parliament to preserve its orderly functioning and its own dignity and reputation.

Now I want to remind you, Sir, of a speech made in this House yesterday on clause 3 of this Bill, when my friend, the hon. member for Houghton, waxed wrathful over this clause, and suggested that a newspaper would not be allowed to report a demonstration held within the precincts of Parliament, nor mention the fact that a demonstration would take place in defiance of a refusal by the Chief Magistrate to give permission. I would, if I may, remind you, Sir, of the words, the extravagance and completely unjustified allegations of the hon. member for Houghton. She said:

A very important point to her is a legal quibble. She goes on, with uncontrolled irresponsibility, to say this—

Every person who visits South Africa, Sir, and who is as critical of the Government as I am, says that what amazes them is how free the Press of South Africa, is. I challenge any responsible newspaper to say that in any essential field the Press is not free in South Africa. But she says: “As it is, the freedom of the Press is restricted in South Africa …" In which respect, Sir? I want you to see, Sir, the sort of allegation this hon. member makes when she says that the freedom of the Press is restricted in South Africa. When she has to substantiate it what does she say? She continues: … in that they may not report on prison conditions.” Full stop! Sir, I think the Press should be allowed to report on prison conditions, but it is such a limited restriction on the freedom of the Press that, although I may disagree with it, I would be dishonest …

But they can report, provided it is a true report. That is the law.

Sir, I do not want to go into detail. I want to say, as a matter of principle, that even if this were correct it is so limited in its application that no responsible person could argue that this is a restriction on the freedom of the Press in the great, important sense of the word.

But she objected to that too.

Please, I am trying to make my own speech. [Interjections.] There are various defence measures and official secrets, etc., on which the Press may not report. Sir, I believe that the mother of democracies is the United Kingdom, Great Britain, the Parliament at Westminster. They have an Official Secrets Act; they have a Defence of the Realm Act which imposes similar restrictions to those which we have in South Africa. But again, nobody can argue that the Press in the United Kingdom or the Press in South Africa is not free. The criticisms that have been directed against this Government by the Press exceed anything that a responsible Opposition in Parliament could offer. I have never known them to be limited. I have never known them to be restrained. I have never known them in any way to be denied that freedom, even to be irresponsible. But this is the sort of nonsense we have from the hon. member for Houghton. She says—

The official Opposition, Sir, would not agree with this form of censorship if it existed. What is more important, the official Opposition agrees that the hon. member for Houghton is talking nonsense. Sir, let me read to you clause 3(b) of this Bill—

May I say in passing, Sir, that we do not even prescribe a minimum punishment as they do in Belgium; we only prescribe a maximum. The court could be satisfied merely to caution people who transgress against this measure. Sir, where in this clause do you see any prohibition on the Press to report that such a meeting is to take place, that a magistrate has banned it or that, in spite of the banning by the magistrate, some irresponsible person is going to hold a meeting in any case? Where do you find anything in this clause that says that if that meeting is held in spite of the banning, the Press may not report on that fact? You may as well say that the Press may not report any crime. Of course, if people break the law, the Press can report it. Where does the hon. member for Houghton find anything to substantiate this charge that the freedom of the Press is being attacked because people are not allowed to demonstrate in a small square mile surrounding the Houses of Parliament? Obviously, Sir, the courts would have to take into consideration the subjective approach of the person who makes the report. Obviously, if somebody publicized such a meeting with the intention of attracting people to it, it would be a crime, but equally obviously, if the Press factually reported the fact that certain people intend to conduct an illegal activity, they would be entitled to do so because by giving that information, instead of advertising the meeting, they would be warning people against attending it and taking part in an illegal activity. But the hon. member for Houghton does not see that because she is prejudiced, and for the sake of her prejudice she is willing to ignore the facts and even the very terms of the Bill before her. Sir, I think people should take notice of that. I think that in assessing the value and the weight of the opposition of the hon. member for Houghton to this Bill, we should consider the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton to the Parliament of South Africa. She is a Member of the Parliament of South Africa, and it is on record, Sir, that on occasions I have, in the face of criticism, defended her rights as a Member of the Parliament of South Africa.

Have you really?

I have; and in that regard we on this side of the House will not change our attitude; as a member of this Parliament she is entitled to all the rights and privileges of Parliament and all the protection to which a member of the South African Parliament is entitled.

Naturally.

Sir, I hope the hon. member will speak after me, because at the moment she is speaking with me, and I am not quite sure whether she agrees with me or whether she disagrees with me because she does not speak; she mumbles; so I hope that when I sit down she will get up and speak.

I certainly shall.

I shall listen to her with great attention, because I am satisfied that she will continue to confirm what I am saying about her at this moment. The difficulty with the hon. member for Houghton, Sir, is that her roots in South Africa are very shallow indeed. She is a member of this Parliament; she is in this Parliament, but she is not of this Parliament. She does not identify herself with the democratic institutions of South Africa as they exist, and she takes every opportunity to discredit the institution of Parliament and its membership. When, Sir, by agreement, after careful consideration, even with the support of a judicial commission—and she is an advocate of judicial commissions, if I am not mistaken—we decided, for example, that the time had come to reconsider the emoluments of members of Parliament, she alone held out—the great, courageous Joan of Arc on the white charger—and then when, in spite of her opposition, those increased emoluments were granted, she accepted the increase. Sir, she is a member of Parliament, but I do not know of one instance where she has sought a seat on a Select Committee of Parliament. But she reserves the right to damn and to condemn the activities of Select Committees of Parliament, even to the extent of making statements about their procedure; even to the extent of suggesting that Select Committees are interested in things that do not concern them yet she, as a member of Parliament, has the fullest right to attend any session of any Select Committee of Parliament and to determine what actually happens at those Select Committees, but she never does that. However, she reserves the right, in ignorance, or with the authority of ignorance, to criticize the activities of our Select Committees and of Parliament. Sir, her approach to Parliament is flippant. Her approach to Parliament, as her attitude towards this Bills shows, is always superficial and, above all, it is grossly impertinent and grossly arrogant. Quite recently a Select Committee appointed by this House —against the vote of our side of the House, but appointed by this House—was converted into a commission and it produced a report, the third report of the Schlebusch Commission.

What has that got to do with me?

It has a lot to do with the hon. member’s attitude to Parliament, which is the point we are discussing. This third report of the Schlebusch Commission contains something like 180 to 200 pages of scientific evidence by prominent scientists, by religious leaders on South Africa and was tabled in this House, I think, on the 25th April, and the hon. member stood up and this is what she said—

I want to emphasize that—

After a ten minute glance at it that is her attitude to a parliamentary institution, and since then other people who have had more time than ten minutes, like the Archbishop of Cape Town and the Archbishop of Johannesburg, leaders of the Methodist Church and leaders of the Unitarian Church, and the Society of South African Psychiatrists have found that this was not a lot of half-baked nonsense but something which requires urgent attention. But that is the superficial, the flippant and the irresponsible approach of the hon. member for Houghton towards Parliament and the work and the functions of Parliament. I would appeal to the people of South Africa to see the hon. member in her conduct. She is a very fine woman in many respects but her conduct as a member of Parliament is that of a person who wants to be in Parliament but who refuses to identify herself with a South African institution like Parliament. I appeal to the people of South Africa to assess her judgment in the light of that fact.

Mr. Speaker, I must apologize for my voice but if hon. members use their ear-phones they will clearly hear what I have to say. I was very interested to listen to the hon. member for Yeoville this afternoon. I do not at all blame the official Opposition for putting in a new batsman. I must say their first two failed lamentably in arguing on this Bill. [Interjections.]

Order!

Now we have the hon. member for Yeoville devoting himself to a personal tirade against me as a member of Parliament and my alleged non-identification with Parliament, and he managed very successfully even to bring in the third interim report of the Schlebusch Commission … [Interjections.] I want to take this opportunity immediately to say that I did say that the report was given to me “about ten minutes ago”. In fact, that was a figure of speech. I had the report at 2.25 p.m. and I spoke just after 3.30 p.m., as the officials of this House can bear out.

Then we must not believe what you say in Parliament?

The hon. member himself has said a lot of things in Parliament which he should have withdrawn, but we will leave that to one side. But I simply want to say I have not changed my line at all about the third interim report of this Schlebusch Commission. [Interjections.] In fact, the same comment which I levelled against it at the time I would level against it again today if that were the matter under discussion, but it is not. I intend to get back to the Bill which we are discussing, but I would like to say this to the hon. member that I will certainly not go along with this House, the Government and the official Opposition, in collaborating on Bills —no matter what kind of Bills they are— of which I disapprove, and that may be Bills to increase members’ salaries, Bills which abrogate the rule of law or Bills like the one we are considering today, and including Bills on which hon. members are now co-operating in regard to the so-called internal security which now apparently extends as far as the wild goings-on at Wilgespruit in 1970. I am not interested in supporting such issues. I will oppose everything in this House that comes up which I feel deserves opposing, and in so doing I am not, I would inform the hon. member for Yeoville, representing myself but I am representing all enlightened opinion in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. member devoted himself to a personal tirade against me, and I do not blame him because I must say I have given him a pretty hot time over the last few months, in Parliament and out of Parliament, and I intend to continue doing so. He is quite entitled to retaliate and I do not take umbrage at that at all.

The trouble is that you are too modest.

He devoted the rest of his discussion this afternoon to clause 3 of the Bill and my condemnation of that clause about which I stated that there was certainly a question of legal doubt. It was open to different legal interpretations. I want to tell the hon. member that I have taken counsel’s opinion and the opinion that I have taken differs indeed considerably from the opinion which he pronounced this afternoon as far as advertising a proposed meeting is concerned. There is very considerable doubt as to whether or not the Press would in fact legally be entitled to do so. No one has argued about the general so-called freedom of the Press in South Africa, but it is by no means unlimited. There are various limitations on the freedom of the Press. I stated yesterday, and I repeat today, that this Bill could be a further extension of those limitations.

I am not going to counter the arguments which he used about the Chief Magistrate and his wisdom because I did that yesterday in replying to the hon. member for Durban North. I should like to point out, however, that absolutely nothing has happened during the Committee Stage of the Bill or during the Second Reading debate which has in any way caused me to alter my original assessment of this measure. On the contrary, I am absolutely strengthened in my determination to oppose this measure. I intend to move the same amendment at the Third Reading that I moved at the Second Reading. I am not interested in whether this Bill emanated from the Standing Orders Committee of this House. As far as I am concerned this is a measure which has been brought to the floor of Parliament and which has been introduced by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Police as a member of the Government and not as a member of the Standing Orders Committee. I stand here as a member of the Opposition and I am going to oppose this Bill again and therefore move as an amendment—

All the arguments to which I listened both at the Second Reading and the Committee Stage of this Bill have made it patently clear to me that, in fact, this Bill really has very little to do with protecting the rights, privileges and safety of Parliament, which in any case, as I have pointed out, have to my mind never been threatened. At lunch-time today there was another demonstration on the Cathedral steps. I wonder whether any members of Parliament felt themselves unduly threatened by this … [Interjections.] … or nervous perhaps, like the hon. member for Durban North, of entering the precincts of Parliament just because there were a dozen ladies of the Black Sash demonstrating at the gates of Parliament near the Avenue? I do not believe that any member of Parliament has ever felt threatened, and had members in fact felt threatened, I am sure that we would have heard about this Bill long ago. I want to point out that members of Parliament are already protected by municipal by-laws which give them protection against any persons loitering or persons who obstruct access to Parliament. I should also like to point out that section 10(3)(h) of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act lays down that Parliament may summarily punish any person who, while Parliament is sitting, creates or joins in any disturbance in Parliament or in the vicinity of Parliament whereby the proceedings of Parliament are or are likely to be interrupted.

This Bill has nothing to do with the inalienable right of the messenger boy of the hon. member for Durban North. I might tell the hon. member that if he did feel threatened in any way, he could also have recourse to section 10(3)(e) of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act. That would give him some protection as an individual. I give him this bit of legal advice pro Deo. The Bill, in fact, has nothing to do with messenger boys. It has nothing to do really with protection of Members of Parliament. What it has to do with, is what the hon. the Deputy Minister freely and frankly admitted during the Second Reading debate and that is the prevention of student demonstrations.

That has to do with the dignity of Parliament.

This is what the hon. the Deputy Minister said—

That has to do with the dignity of Parliament.

I am quoting the hon. the Deputy Minister’s own words. He said:

This Bill has to do with student demonstrations, and student demonstrations only. And I believe it has to do with the further suppression of freedom of assembly, of speech and of public protest in South Africa. I do not want to repeat the arguments which I have already used to show that there are many and considerable differences between this Bill and the relevant Act which was passed in Britain—I said in 1839 but I actually meant 1817: There were two legislative measures in Great Britain in this context, namely in 1839 and 1817, but the 1817 one is really the relevant Act. I moved an amendment yesterday in the Committee Stage in order to try to bring this more in line with British practice since Britain is always being quoted as the mother of Parliaments and the mother of democracy. I moved the amendments to bring this Bill more in line with the 1817 British Act, but, of course, all those amendments were defeated. I want to point out that in any case in Great Britain permission to hold meetings within the one-mile radius of Westminster is very frequently granted, whether or not Parliament is sitting. Will that be the case here? I wonder. I very much doubt if the Chief Magistrate of Cape Town would ever dare to go against the advice of the police who invariably will rule that there is a danger of disturbance of law and order, as indeed any meeting may be a danger to law and order if one takes it to its extremes. Only two examples were given in the debate of other countries which have measures such as this. The one was Great Britain and the other was Belgium. Yet, in the course of his speech, the hon. member for Durban North said that every Parliament in the world had taken steps to prevent this. What does he mean by that? Does he mean countries behind the Iron Curtain? I would like to know what other examples can be given. Let me tell the House that in the greatest and certainly the largest democracy in the Western world, the United States, demonstrations are held outside the White House practically every day and demonstrations are very frequently held right on the steps of the Capitol Buildings, that is where the Congress and the Senate sit.

The hon. member for Zululand asked whether I would have any objection if a demonstration were held by persons with views differing from my own. To that I said “No” by way of interjection yesterday. I want to repeat most strongly today that my reply to that is “Of course not”, because I believe that to demonstrate, to assemble, to protest and to voice views which may differ from my own are the very fabric of democracy I would have hoped that hon. members on both sides of this House would agree with me. I would like to remind hon. members of the words of Mr. Justice Black, that it cannot be too often repeated that freedom of speech, Press, petition and assembly must be accorded to the ideas we hate or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas that we cherish. I may hate the ideas of people demonstrating against me but I would never for one moment deny them the right to express those ideas by way of demonstration or gathering.

At all times and at all places?

Certainly, as long as it is non-violent. The hon. member for Zululand, who I might say evinced very touching concern for my safety and access to Parliament yesterday, equated the messenger boy with the man in the street and he defended the right of the man in the street to go about his business. In other words, he was not concerned with the man in the street coming to and from Parliament or parliamentarians having access to this House. He was concerned with the right “of the man in the street to go about his business”. I am quoting his own words. What am I to understand by that? Is he now pleading for the prohibition of all open-air meetings? Because he knows perfectly well that this measure is confined as it is to a certain radius from our Parliament. What about the right of the man in the street elsewhere? What about the man in the street of Pretoria or Johannesburg or in any other centre, for that matter, of South Africa? What on earth was the relevance of an argument like that? What about the right of provincial councils to sit safely and the right of their messenger boys to come and go without being obstructed in anyway?

I want to say a word or two about the hon. the Deputy Minister’s most extraordinary reaction to the remarks I made about Miss Gladys Lee. I raised the example of Miss Gladys Lee in order, of course, to highlight the patent absurdity of having a measure of this kind which defines a demonstration as consisting of one or more persons. I pointed out to the hon. the Minister that therefore Miss Gladys Lee demonstrating on her own, as she frequently does, falls within the purview of the Act. The hon. the Minister said: “Die arme ou tannie,” or words to that effect, “Of course, this was not aimed against her”, which I agree it was not, but nevertheless she falls within the purview of this Bill. He then said that he would request the police not to see Miss Gladys Lee when she was protesting. I pointed out that the hon. the Minister’s reaction was utterly illegal; that he was making a blatantly illegal suggestion. He was, in fact, suggesting that the police should ignore a measure which he himself was putting on the Statute Book. I said that he was no doubt doing that in order to save the Government from the embarrassment of having to arrest Miss Lee. When I pointed this out to the hon. the Minister, he called it “verlinkse maneuver”—a very good expression. In other words, it is apparently only the “far left” that wants the law obeyed once it is on the Statute Book. What a silly remark! I can tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that his second reaction was a “far right reaction”, when he spitefully said that in that event he would cancel the instruction or request that he was going to give to the police and that he was not going to tell them that they ought to arrest Miss Gladys Lee. He added that it would be my fault if they did that—it could not of course be ascribed to the measure that he had put on the Statute Book! I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that it is not his business as a deputy Minister to instruct or request the police in carrying out the law. That is not his function at all. His function is just to see that the laws that he puts on the Statute Book are not made so ridiculous that he himself has to run about seeing that they are not implemented fully. Surely, that is obviously the point. It is certainly not his function as a Deputy Minister to make suggestions to the police and then withdraw them when someone points out that he has made a blatantly illegal suggestion.

Finally, I want to say that I wonder whether it is generally appreciated by the hon. member for Yeoville who, unlike me, is part and parcel of this House, of Standing Committees, Select Committees and commissions of inquiry, and whether it is generally known by this House how severe the penalties are for infringing this measure. They go very far beyond the penalties that are laid down in clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 3 of the Bill lays down that any person who shall be guilty of an offence, shall be—

In point of fact, if one examines the law a little more closely, should anybody offend and be convicted in terms of this law by holding a gathering on demonstration of protest in the defined area without the permission of the Chief Magistrate, he or she will be liable to prosecution under the very stringent penalties laid down by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, No. 8 of 1953. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with that. Section 1 of this Act says that—

1. (a) a fine not exceeding R600; or
2. (b) imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years; or
3. (c) a whipping not exceeding ten strokes.

In other words, anyone convicted of taking part in an unlawful gathering or procession is not only subject to the penalties of the actual Bill we are examining today, but further could in fact be found guilty under section 1 of the “Whipping Bill”, as it was commonly known at the time. I may add that the penalties can include any variation; in other words, a whipping and a fine, a whipping or imprisonment, or imprisonment and a fine. I would like to point out too that this Bill not only prohibits all gatherings in the open air within the defined area throughout the entire year. It says nothing about public places in the open air. It goes much further therefore in some respects than the Riotous Assemblies Act, because it also prohibits open air meetings on private property within the defined area. That would include the Cathedral steps and the Cathedral garden and the city campus of the University of Cape Town. I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister would be as frank as he was in admitting that this measure was largely against students demonstrating and admit that one of the purposes of this Bill is to avoid a confrontation with the church about the use of the private property of the Cathedral, which is within the vicinity of Parliament. It is much easier to forbid all open air meetings whether they are held on private property or whether they are held on public property. When the United Party used to have huge open air rallies and was proud of them as one of the major means of persuading the electorate to use its power at the ballot box to try to change the Government, open air meetings were not considered “street democracy” in those days. Open air meetings were held by the United Party from the days—and that is long enough ago, heaven knows—when I still was a member of the United Party. There were open air meetings to try to persuade the electorate to change their minds. We did not talk about street democracy in those days. I wonder whether the hon. member for Green Point, who spoke on this Bill at a previous stage, and the hon. member for Gardens, realize that if they want to hold election meetings, or any sort of meetings for that matter, in any outdoor area, within the defined area, they would have to get the permission of the Chief Magistrate, even to hold an election meeting.

So what?

It is one of the infringements of his rights as a member of Parliament to try to persuade the electorate to change their minds and to vote the Government out of power and to put— although there is hardly any difference these days between them and the Government—the official Opposition into power.

I intend moving the same amendment I moved at the Second Reading. I do so because I am firmly convinced that the measure which we are discussing today is yet another erosion of our steadily eroding civil rights in South Africa. I have no doubt whatsoever about that. Because I would like to be able to give the Young Turks, or perhaps even the not so young Turks, the middle-aged Turks, among the United Party the opportunity of striking a blow for freedom by voting with me against this Bill, I have moved my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin quite mildly by saying to the hon. member for Houghton that I have listened to her very carefully and that I find that she is not the sole fount of political honour in South Africa, nor the sole representative of democratic principle.

Nor of enlightened opinion.

There are other considerations which apply when one sets out to defend democracy in the 20th century.

It is very simple and very tempting, particularly amidst the increasing strains of the 20th century and the complexities of modern life to be able to rule a straight line between right and wrong, between positive and negative, between good and evil, between the democratic society and the authoritarian society. It is particularly tempting to do so if one’s own instincts are wholly on the side of the traditional freedoms and the full enjoyment of civil liberties and if one’s fears and suspicions have been aroused over the years by the cruelties and barbarities of fascist and communistic systems. It is even more tempting when one has no responsibility for the maintenance of public order, no real part to play in the eternal conflict between the preservation of human freedoms and the self-discipline which alone can preserve those freedoms, to pose in shining armour as the sole champion of liberty and to take a stand on unqualified principles. We envy the hon. lady the intellectual luxury she enjoys. In fact, Sir, it is not as simple as that.

Every modern State, every Western country, is at grips with a fundamental dilemma. It is a feature of modern society and the nightmare of modern Statecraft that the sources of anarchy, Communism, terrorism and change by violence or paralysis by the abuse of freedom, have grown more prolific and subtle with the passing of each year. If they flourish and succeed, democracy will die. If they are allowed, by battening on democracy and by exploiting the civil liberties it cherishes, to achieve their purposes, we shall stand condemned before history as naive fools who acquiesced tamely in their own destruction.

The hon. lady may protest that the contingency is so remote as not to need to be taken seriously. This may well seem so at times, until yet another plot is discovered in Australia, Canada or South Africa, or as recently happened in West Germany. In the final count-down, the struggle continues and will continue.

On the other hand, our civil liberties, as we know them, are the product of a long defiance against tyranny, the final reward handed down to us by the efforts of heroes and martyrs through centuries of political struggle. In the parliamentary democracy that we enjoy, is that democracy so vulnerable that it has to be dismantled in order to protect it against the depredations of these outside forces? If we dismantle our liberties in order to defend our liberties, who stands to gain and who stands to lose? If we believe that the State is the servant of the people, why then must the people curtail their liberties in order to defend the State? These are the questions we have to consider. This is the other side of the coin, and this is how one of the great dilemmas of our society arises. It is the paradox which every modern civilized State is trying to resolve. How are we to keep the democratic heritage if, in order to safeguard it, we must sacrifice part of it to keep the barbarian at our gates? It is not a simple matter to resolve, either in the domestic or in the international community.

We have seen in recent years the outbreak of a new form of violence against peaceful existence on this planet. We have seen the phenomenon of hijacking, of piracy in the air and of terrorism.

So they are going to hijack Parliament.

It is intolerable that this threat should continue. Now, Sir, attempts have been made at the United Nations to deal with this particular threat. The international community has been set the task to try to resolve this particular threat. What it has done, is to try to do this by, in fact, withdrawing an ancient right, the ancient right of asylum, which has been created over the centuries and which is granted to people who are accused of political activities, political terrorism if you like, against the Governments of their day. It is precisely because certain countries give protection to the hijackers that the very countries which created the right of political asylum have had to seek to limit it. They have had to seek to limit it, because the countries which give protection to the terrorists are countries which claim that those very terrorists are freedom fighters and deserving of protection as political fighters in their own countries. I make this point to illustrate that even in the international community those Western countries which over the past centuries have set up the right of asylum and protected it, are the countries which now, in defence of certain civilized principles, are having to seek to curtail those very rights in order that the freedom of international transport may be guaranteed. In their domestic situation these very same countries, these Western countries, these civilized countries, are facing the same difficulties; they are being confronted by the same unhappy choice between the preservation of hard-won liberties and the restriction of certain of those liberties in order that democracy itself may be protected. It is a cruel dilemma in which we are placed, and one not solved by the parrot-like repetition of the slogans of the Left or of the Right.

There are fundamental guide-lines, basic principles, by which one may chart one’s course through this very difficult area. Will the restriction of certain liberties do less harm than the harm which may otherwise result? That is one guide-line. How to preserve the greatest good for the greatest number; that is another. It is easier to state the principles than to draw precise boundaries. This is the difficulty we have before us today; not the question whether Parliament should be protected or whether its dignity should be protected, but how the rule should be defined and where the boundaries should be drawn. We know that in this country we may face troubled times before we finally work out a just and universally accepted solution to the problems of our diverse and complex country. How do we preserve, through these times, the principles, the rights, the liberties, which we must eventually bequeath to all our people? Can we bequeath the right of Parliament if, meanwhile, we hesitate to protect it? Can we bequeath impartial courts of justice if we fail to use the very severe laws which now defend their authority, their independence and their dignity? Can we bequeath the rights of free speech, of free association and free assembly if we stand ready to surrender them to the mob?

In the particular law we are considering today, it is proposed that the right of free assembly, specifically that of gathering and demonstrating in the open air in a defined area, should be subject to a permit. All other assemblies remain lawful. The purpose of the permit is to ensure that any gathering which does take place in this area in these conditions, will be a peaceful one, in which case it also will be lawful. That is all that is essentially contained in this Bill. We serve notice now that we shall be the first to protest if the provisions of this law are unreasonably administered. This is a parliamentary measure and, as we see it, it is essentially a discretionary measure. All gatherings are still in fact permitted, with one proviso, and that is that in the case of certain open-air meetings—that is to say those not exempted by clause 2—a permit is required at the discretion of a judicial officer, the Chief Magistrate of Cape Town. This is therefore a discretionary power within a precise and limited scope. It is on this understanding that it became an agreed measure of Parliament. We shall continue to subject the administration of this measure to constant scrutiny, and I believe that the hon. the Minister would expect no less. We shall not be silent if it is employed in an arbitrary and capricious manner. We shall not acquiesce if, as happened yesterday, the Deputy Minister withdraws an exemption previously granted merely because the hon. member for Houghton had succeeded in irritating him in some way. Sir, that is most capricious action, I agree.

In her usual silly, irresponsible way.

[Inaudible.]

We do not believe that this kind of law should be administered in a capricious manner by a Minister acting on the basis of whether or not he has taken umbrage at a remark made to him. This Bill confers reserve powers for employment in the protection of Parliament where necessary. If Parliament is not in session, the permissive discretion can obviously be far more liberally interpreted than when Parliament is in session. We shall support the Minister if he employs the powers that Parliament has given him in a fair and reasonable manner, with due regard to the freedoms and rights of private citizens, for the justifiable protection of Parliament. We shall not support the hon. the Minister if he administers this law capriciously, unpredictably, partially and with no visible purpose other than to avoid inconvenience and embarrassment to the Government. The Bill we have before us, Sir, is not a Bill for the comfort of the Government; it is a Bill to protect the safety and dignity of Parliament. We therefore support it.

Sir, I am rising to reply, in the first place, to a few of the points made by the hon. member for Houghton. But I should first like to put this question to the hon. member for Houghton: Every time she rose she referred to the right which the Chief Magistrate has to allow a protest or gathering did she not? It seemed to me as though the hon. member for Houghton was questioning the impartiality of the Chief Magistrate. I want to ask her whether she would or would not be satisfied with the possible action of the Chief Magistrate. She must tell us honestly …

How can I possibly judge? He will go by what the police tell him to do.

The hon. member said: “He will go by what the police tell him to do.” Is that the reply of the hon. member? She thinks the Chief Magistrate will not have the sense to be able to decide for himself what is right or wrong under the circumstances. Is that correct?

He is not in any position to judge.

Are you in a position to judge?

The hon. member says the Chief Magistrate is not in any position to judge. Why should he not be in a position to judge if certain facts are submitted to him?

In Johannesburg a procession was stopped by the Chief Magistrate because he was told that certain people were going to disrupt the meeting.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Sir, it is quite clear to me that the hon. member has no confidence whatsoever in the judgment of the Chief Magistrate of Cape Town or the Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg because they put a stop to certain illegalities, certain illegalities which, it seems to me, the hon. member would have preferred to allow to continue; that is the actual position.

Nonsense!

Order! The hon. member for Houghton may not continue to make interjections and speeches; she has had her opportunity.

Sir, the hon. member for Von Brandis referred to freedom fighters and terrorists, etc., and it would be interesting to find out where the hon. member for Houghton stands in respect of this measure which is aimed at protecting the dignity of this Parliament and at ensuring the smooth functioning of this Parliament. I should like to ascertain from the hon. member what she calls those terrorists. [Interjection.] Would the hon. member just give me a chance. Does she call them terrorists, as we do? Does she call them guerrilla fighters, or does she call them freedom fighters? I should like to ascertain from the hon. member which of those names she would prefer.

Terrorists.

I am pleased to hear that she also calls them terrorists, for that at least brings us to a point where we know that the hon. member also feels that those people are terrorists. Is that correct? I can predict even at this early stage that she is going to be hauled over the coals by her friends for having called those people terrorists. I can predict that now. The hon. member referred to the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, and referred to section 10(3)(h) of that Act, which reads as follows—

1. (h) While Parliament is sitting, creating or joining in any disturbance in Parliament or in the vicinity of Parliament, whereby the proceedings of Parliament are or are likely to be interrupted.

The hon. member said that we had this Act which we could fall back on, and that we did not need this Bill. But what the hon. member forgot is that in terms of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, the trouble must already have started. That is precisely what we want to avoid. We want to prevent trouble ever developing at any time in future. We have enough legislation to put a stop to this kind of thing once it has begun. But we want to prevent any trouble arising when Parliament is in session, or while Parliament is in progress, or even afterwards, while the people working in Parliament are engaged in their activities.

May I ask a question? How does the hon. the Deputy Minister interpret the words “or likely to be interrupted” in the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act?

The words “or likely to be” refer to a situation which is already in progress, and which could possibly disturb the business of Parliament. But this is a situation which is already in progress; it is not any future situation, vent here with this Bill is a situation which could, even in future, disturb Parliament in its work. That is the reply. The hon. member for Houghton accused me of being opposed to the students. I can tell her candidly that I have nothing against the students as students, but it remains a fact that the disturbance which occurred here in the vicinity of Parliament was one caused by students, and for that reason this Bill is aimed as much at students as at any other demonstrators who would possibly want to demonstrate. But she need not think that I shall run away from this because these are students, and that I will not say that it was students who caused a disturbance here last time. That is true. It was students, and for that reason this Bill is aimed at putting a stop to student demonstrations of that kind. There is no doubt about that, and let the hon. member understand this now. This has to do with student demonstrations, and other kinds of demonstrators as well. It includes student demonstrators. Sir, the hon. member for Houghton who is constantly making a speech while I am speaking, was concerned about the Press. She said, and I am quoting her words from Hansard—

That statement is obviously in error, and I hope the hon. member has now had time to ask her law advisers, who advise her in regard to this matter, and has found out that she made a fool of herself when she made this statement. Because, the words of the Bill are quite clear. They read as follows—

But this entire situation is qualified by the constant use of the words “proposed gathering”. It means a future gathering, in regard to which an agitation may not be launched. Should it be launched in a newspaper, it is unlawful. Should it be advertised in a newspaper, it is unlawful. But if a demonstration were to be held, and newspapers were to report those facts, it cannot of course be regarded as a contravention. This statement the hon. member is now making, that the newspapers will supposedly not be able to report any demonstrations which occur, is therefore an incorrect statement and a distorted image of what is stated in the Bill.

I think that is about all I have to reply to. However, I also want to say to the hon. member, just to dispose of the question of Miss Lee finally, that since she has now accused me, and read me a moral lesson on how I should run the department and do my work as Deputy Minister, I do have advisers, who are quite good enough, on this side of the House. Her kind of advice I do not need at all. That I can tell her right now.

That is no answer.

I said that I would ask the police—this was a request I would make to the police—but the hon. member then distorted this by telling me that I had allegedly given orders to the police. That is absolute nonsense. I said that I would, from a humanitarian point of view, request the police to look the other way. Whether it was a Deputy Minister or someone in the street who told them that they should simply look the other way, does not make any difference. All that we meant by that was that this Bill was not aimed at bringing to book an elderly person who, if I may express it thus, has become a little cranky about demonstrations. That is the view I take of the old Lady.

But you still should not have it on the Statute Book.

Order!

I said that I had thought of this old person, and wondered who would want to see her off the streets. We do not need a Bill to do that. The hon. member then began to become terribly legal and juristic, for she apparently received some or other legal advice that I was not entitled to say that a person could contravene an Act, and that the police should not take cognizance of that. My reply to that—with this I am coming to the hon. member for Von Brandis as well—was that if the hon. member for Houghton felt that way, I would withdraw my request to the police. I would not then make such a request to the police and if they then arrested the old woman, the police would have to understand that the hon. member for Houghton had requested me to make certain that Miss Lee was arrested, for it was the hon. member who was eager to see the Act being applied as it should be applied. If that elderly lady is arrested, it will consequently be the hon. member’s fault. That is all I have to say on this point.

I want to tell the hon. member for Von Brandis that when I act in a humane and courteous manner, it is not necessary for a member of the Opposition to want to chide me about this. Does the hon. member for Von Brandis want that old lady to be arrested?

Mr. Speaker, I object …

It would be more fitting if the hon. member for Von Brandis were to find out where the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Wynberg are.

What has that to do with the matter? [Interjections

Order!

I think I have now replied to all the questions.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion, and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, Question declared affirmed.

Bill accordingly read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the Third Reading of this Bill and as we have indicated earlier, we welcome the administrative aspects of this Bill which cover various aspects of the Public Service. I must, however, utilize this occasion to draw attention to one aspect which perhaps has not been fully canvassed during the previous discussions on this Bill. I refer to the introduction by this Bill of a schedule containing a list of departments from which non-White officers and employees in the Public Service can be transferred to non-White authorities. That in effect means that we have now introduced into the Act certain specified departments in which non-Whites who are employed as officers and employees in the Public Service of the Republic can now be transferred to continue their work in the Public Service under non-White authorities. Hon. members will notice that the Third Schedule as inserted by clause 7 refers to certain departments where this can now be done. The departments named are the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, the Department of Bantu Education, the Department of Forestry, the Department of Health, the Department of Prisons and the Department of the South African Police. These transfers will, of course, be subject to certain safeguards. Firstly, the transfers will be made on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, and secondly, they can only be made with the consent of the non-White officer or employee concerned. We on this side of the House hope that this opportunity for training non-White public servants will be speeded up in so far as the Public Service of South Africa is concerned in order that those non-Whites who can now be transferred to non-white authorities to continue their work in the Public Service with those authorities, will be able to play a greater part in the administration of the affairs which are of intimate concern to themselves and in their own interests. As has been recently announced by the hon. the Minister of Defence, I trust that this provision and the application of this provision to these departments will not only raise the grades and the positions to which non-Whites can now aspire in the Service, albeit not in the Public Service of the Republic then in the Public Service of the non-White authorities, and that they will be encouraged to enter in greater numbers into the Public Service for the benefit, firstly of obtaining the training within the Public Service of the Republic generally, and, secondly, to be able to fulfil responsibility as trained and qualified persons in the various departments of the non-White authorities. Personally, one welcomes the departments that are mentioned, but I do want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that serious consideration be given to the inclusion of two further departments, i.e. the Departments of Justice and of Social Welfare and Pensions. I believe that if there is an increased tempo in the training and equipping of non-Whites through the experience we obtained in our own Public Service, it will help considerably in dealing with the problems of their own people.

During the course of this debate we have all concentrated on the question of the participation of the civil servant in politics. We on this side of the House would have wished that certain amendments could be introduced to this legislation—we introduced these amendments during the Committee Stage—before it became law. Although those amendments have not been accepted, I think the air has been cleared considerably in the discussion that took place across the floor of this House, and for that reason we will not oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, despite the fact that those amendments have not been accepted.

I feel I should analyse just one or two aspects which have now evolved from the debate. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree with my assessment of the position as it now exists. Firstly, the Bill we have before us at the Third Reading clears away the ambiguity and uncertainty in the Public Service which arose from the non-enforcement of the present provisions of the law, namely the present prohibition on the membership of political parties by public servants. That has been honoured in the breach both by the public servant and by the heads of government departments. Secondly, I believe that the Bill before us indicates, both from the terms of the Bill and the discussions which have taken place, that whilst public servants may become members of political parties and may participate in the management of those parties, this Bill is not an open sesame to public servants to demonstrate their political affiliations openly and publicly within and without their departments. In other words, these provisions in the Bill still remain. The hon. the Minister was good enough, in the Committee Stage to refer to one of the provisions of an amendment moved by the hon. member for Von Brandis. There is an existing provision in the law as it stands which prohibits actions which would injure the reputation and standing of the Public Service. Many a senior public servant believes that open, public manifestation of political affiliations, one way or the other, would be such an act so far as the Public Service is concerned. Here, particularly, I believe that the question of the dividing line between the public and private activities of the public servant with regard to his political affiliation is essential and is determined by the maintenance of an impartiality of public servants towards the public they serve and especially towards their fellow civil servants with whom they work, who should neither be penalized nor be in a more favourable position, be they juniors of the officer concerned, because of their political affiliation. No public servant should feel that his position is detrimentally affected nor that he is likely to receive promotion merely because of his political affiliation. I think that that is an essential requirement for a harmonious Public Service.

We on this side of the House, and I am sure that all hon. members in this House, have every confidence that these standards, which are necessary with this innovation, the permission of overt membership of political parties, will be maintained by the overwhelming majority of public servants. I believe that the public servants themselves, through their own organizations and by exercising their own discipline, will react and react unfavourably where a public servant transgresses the spirit and the letter of this Bill by letting the enthusiasm for his political convictions exceed his discretion as to where he expresses that enthusiasm and where he co-operates. The hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated to me at the Second Reading that they did not feel that it was the responsibility or the Government to take steps with a view to codifying in some way what political activities can be undertaken not only within the Public Service as defined restrictively in the particular Bill before us, but also in the wider sphere of all public servants and of all servants of State departments. The hon. the Deputy Minister indicated that he did not feel that that was an obligation of the Department of the Interior. I would like to utilize this opportunity to make an appeal to the Public Service Association, the Post Office Staff Association and the Railways artisans and staff associations to take the initiative themselves to ensure that there is a uniform attitude and approach throughout the Service. I believe that this would avoid possible misunderstanding when a man is transferred from one department to another who is perhaps not aware of the differences applicable to his political activities. I believe it is an ideal worth striving for. It is an ideal that has been achieved in other countries and I think it is an ideal which would give to the Public Service an added lustre of impartiality, an added lustre of service to the State as a whole, whilst at the same time affording public servants an opportunity of exercising their own democratic rights of belonging to and supporting the political party of their choice.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point raised two points in this Third Reading debate, in the first place the question of the schedule which is being added to the Act, and the way in which it is being done. I assume that the hon. the Deputy Minister who took charge of the Second Reading because I could not be here—I am grateful for his doing so—has already furnished the reasons for our doing it in that way. At present it is being done by way of proclamation in the Gazette, which does not form part of the Act, and consequently it can very easily escape the attention of the eye because it is from time to time announced by various Government departments. This Third Schedule means that one now has it included in the Act, and that one has to keep it constantly up to date. It will still be done by way of proclamation by the State President in the Gazette, but then it will of course have to be inserted in the Third Schedule so that we will be able to know from time to time what departments are being affected. I want to say to the hon. member at once that as the development in the homelands proceeds, and as we from time to time adopt the resolutions that certain powers may be transferred, and as it becomes necessary for officials to be transferred to homeland governments, more departments will be added.

What about the Coloured Persons Representative Council and the Indian Council?

The same situation will probably apply there. The two departments which he mentioned, namely the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Justice will of course receive the necessary attention when the time for that is ripe.

In regard to the political rights I want to say at once that officials are now being granted the right, and the hon. member gave credit for this and quite rightly so, to exercise their basic political rights, and are now no longer contravening the Public Service Act in that respect. One need no longer connive at their continuing their activities, and pretend that nothing was happening. I think it is also better for the officials themselves. In fact, numerous officials have at times discussed this matter with me personally and have said: “We take exception to the fact that when we become members of political parties we are charged with misconduct.” We are now affording the public servant the full political civil rights which any citizen of South Africa has and can receive. I feel it is justified and necessary that an official should receive these rights. I want to say immediately that this measure now confers on them the right to do so. However, I have such confidence in our officials that I know that they will use their discretion and that they will not create unnecessary embarrassment and will not take advantage of their position and suddenly get out of hand. I know our officials, and I have the highest regard for them. I know that they will handle this matter with good judgment, and that they will of course not create embarrassment for the Public Service, or anyone else for that matter. On the contrary; there is a very clear provision to the effect that if they take advantage of their position, it will be possible to take steps against them. In the second place, if they really create an embarrassment for the Public Service, through any action whatsoever, or if they use buildings or property belonging to the Public Service for political activities and purposes, they are contravening the provisions of the Act as it reads at present. For that reason I think that we need have no doubts whatsoever in regard to this matter. The hon. member also put a question in regard to their behaviour towards the public. Of course an official is not expected to cram his political convictions down the throat of a member of the public. He is there to serve the public and for that reason the name of this sector is the Public Service—it is there to serve the public of South Africa, regardless of to what political party those specific members of the public belong with whom they are dealing. I think we have the highest praise for our officials for their handling of matters of this nature. During all the years I have been here, and previously too, I received no complaints in regard to the handling of the public by officials on a political level. The high standards of objectivity will be retained; I am convinced of that.

In regard to the question of codification, I want to say to the hon. member at once that I do not think it is incumbent on us to codify what we now understand under political rights which they may and may not avail themselves of, and to specify in detail what may and may not be done.

Those which apply to the Public Service as a whole.

We have furnished the general guide lines, but it varies from one department to another. Some departments are, politically speaking, far more delicate departments than others. Certain departments have this problem and I want to mention an example immediately. I cannot imagine a magistrate of a certain town participating actively and publicly in political matters tonight, and sitting on the bench tomorrow, giving a judgment between two people. That would be politically misinterpreted. But I know that our people have enough experience not to take advantage of their position in this regard. Therefore I want to say to the hon. member at once that the codification as such cannot be done by us. If the public servants wish to do so themselves, it is their affair. But even now I want to admit honestly that I do not hold out much hope of a specific codification system being introduced.

I am grateful that the Opposition supported this measure during the Third Reading stage, although they voted against certain provisions during the Committee Stage. This illustrates to us that we have made quite considerable progress along the political road in South Africa. In conclusion I just wanted to tell the story of the two officials who in 1948 were sitting in the office where they had both worked together for many years. When the final results were known and it was realized that there had been a change in Government, the United Party official asked the National Party official: “and what are you going to do with us U.P. officials?” The National Party official then said: “Man, probably the same you have been doing to us all these years.” To which the United Party official replied: “Woe is us, under those circumstances.” Those were the products of the war years; let us not revive old disputes now. I do not think the Opposition has a very good past history as far as this is concerned.

Sir, I am pleased that the Bill has now been piloted through its final stage and I want to tell the officials on behalf of the House and the Government that we hope, know, believe and trust that they will make full and correct use of these rights and powers which are now being conferred on them and, that no embarrassment is going to be created for us. We do not begrudge them the right as citizens of South Africa also to have political rights.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated during the Second Reading debate, we have no objection to this clause in principle. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister, however, whether it was really necessary to exclude his formal permission for changes in international tariffs. After all, any action by the Postmaster-General should actually imply his formal permission. Was it really necessary to exclude it in this instance? About the clause itself, I can say that it is a good thing to see that we in South Africa are adhering, on our side, to the international postal conventions and that we are trying to do our duty in regard to this important international means of communication. It has been said that, with all the troubles, political or otherwise, in this world, there are only three issues of agreement among all the nations of the world. The first one is the Red Cross, the second one the control of light-houses, and the third the control of the postal services between the different nations. I am glad to see that we are doing our duty as a country in regard to this matter. My only problem is whether it is really necessary to exclude the Minister’s formal permission as in any case, I take it, he will be responsible for anything that the Postmaster-General does.

Mr. Chairman, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the internal and foreign services and to have other provisions apply in the various cases because, in actual fact, we are merely the victims of rates abroad. These are levied without consulting us. We must merely take note of the fact and implement it. That is why it is not necessary to adopt the same procedures in respect of foreign services as in respect of internal services.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, we do not have any objection to this clause either. I hope that when the new fines are determined for persons who transmit postal articles without sufficient postage stamps being attached, the hon. the Minister will be long-suffering enough and not make the fines much more than twice the amount levied in the past. The hon. the Minister says he is now also giving effect in legislation to the integrity system which was introduced at some time or other. I think that system has been greeted with general satisfaction and even appreciation by a large percentage of the public. It is applicable when someone accidentally posts a letter without the correct postage and the Post Office then decides—I hope I am right now—to deliver the letter in any case and then to send the writer a note subsequently stating: “We have now delivered the letter. You requested, for example, that the postal article be sent by airmail. We have done so. You have paid too little. Would you now please pay us the correct postage.” The last part of this clause makes provision for reading matter for the blind to be transmitted free of charge now. This provision meets with our approval. I think that the hon. member for Umbilo, who has throughout the years shown great interest in this, will also want to say a few words in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, we are very grateful that this legislation makes provision for the continuation of the concession allowing blind persons to transmit their braille post free of charge. But now there is another cause for concern in these institutions, and that is the question as to whether the concession that existed, i.e. that tape recordings may be transmitted free of charge, will continue to exist. There are three bodies who provide these tape recordings to the blind, i.e. the School for the Blind at Worcester, the South African Library for the Blind and Tape Aid for the Blind in Durban. These bodies furnish a very great service to our blind readers, and for that reason I want to ask the hon. the Minister to clear this matter up for us. I should like to know whether this concession, which did exist, will continue to exist.

If I am also permitted to go further, Sir, I want to point out that individual blind persons also write to each other in braille. They have the concession allowing them to transmit these braille postal articles free of charge. There are several blind persons who correspond with each other by means of tape recordings. I wondered whether the hon. the Minister would consider also granting this concession to those blind people who correspond in this way by means of tape recordings so that they may transmit their tape recordings free of charge.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the hon. member for Worcester in his plea to the hon. the Minister regarding the proposed section 13 (5)(e), which reads as follows—

It is a fact that there are a number of persons, particularly newly-blinded persons, who find it extremely difficult to master braille. Consequently the only “reading matter” that is available to them consists of tape recordings. There are societies in Durban such as Tape Aids for the Blind which render a tremendous service to these people. I refer particularly to older persons who have become blind during the latter part of their lives and who find it impossible to learn and to read braille. It would appear that these people might be at a disadvantage, unless the hon. the Minister can give us an indication that his interpretation of “reading matter”, referred to in this clause, includes matter for those persons who are almost fully and entirely dependent upon tapes. These persons and the tape aid societies correspond with each other by means of tape recordings, and in many instances they have been successful in recording books on tapes. These blind persons have very little in the way of recreation and find it difficult to keep in touch with others; consequently they appreciate this means of communication.

I would also like the hon. the Minister to give us some indication of how this particular concession is to be administered. Reference is made merely to “reading matter for the blind”, and I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would indicate how he intends to administer this particular concession. Obviously there are persons who are registered as blind persons and who are receiving social benefits. These persons can produce evidence to show that they are classified as blind persons. There is, however, other general reading matter which is transmitted between blind persons, and it will be necessary for them to have clarity in regard to the administration of this particular concession. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to assisting these people. I know that this concession is greatly appreciated by these persons who are so afflicted.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Orange Grove, I want to give the assurance that as far as this integrity system is concerned, we do not intend to increase the fine. This is working very well. As I have already said on a previous occasion, we have actually achieved 70% success, which is quite encouraging.

In relation to the matter which the hon. members for Worcester and Umbilo raised, I want to inform the House that tape recordings of this nature, which are intended for the blind, can also be transmitted free of charge. These articles qualify fully for that. The tape recordings, or sound recording reading-matter, is, in fact, transmitted free of charge. Because this is so important a matter, affecting so many people, I think it would be a good thing if I quoted, for the sake of the record, the regulations relating to this. These regulations were issued in 1965, and I take it that there are not many people who have them in their possession. Therefore it will be a good thing if they could be brought to people’s attention by means of Hansard. Section 10 of the regulations deals with “reading-matter for the blind—articles accepted for free transmission and conditions”. Regulation No. 40 reads as follows—

1. (1) Letters in writing used by the blind and plates bearing characters of the writing used by the blind may also be sent as literature for the blind. The same applies to sound recordings …

These sound recordings relate to the matter to which the hon. members for Worcester and Umbilo referred. I continue—

1. (2) Literature for the blind shall be forwarded free of charge by surface mail provided that such articles—

1. (a) bear on the outside the indication “Literature for blind,” and the name and address of the sender;
2. (b) are posted either without a cover or in a cover open at both ends which can easily be removed for the purpose of examination; and
3. (c) do not exceed seven kg in weight or the maximum dimension prescribed for letters in Schedule A of these regulations.

That is the relevant regulation, and from that hon. members can deduce that this facility is, in fact, definitely available to the blind.

Mr. Chairman, may I just ask the hon. the Minister a question? I should like to know if individual blind people are also getting this concession in respect of the transmission of tape recordings to each other when they are corresponding. There are such groups of blind persons who have tape recordings made and who then send them to their friends. The concession to which the hon. the Minister has just referred, relates to official bodies—such as a library—which transmit tape recordings, but does this concession also apply to individual blind persons when they correspond with their friends by means of a tape recording? Can they also make use of this free transmission?

Mr. Chairman, in this case the requirement is that it should go through an institution. There must be control. This is a very great concession which the Post Office is making, and in respect of any concession that is granted in life, there must, after all, be control. Therefore, the requirement is that these articles must, in fact, go through an institution.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, this clause and clause 5 are the two clauses on which we on this side of the House have very great reservations. We believe that the repeal of section 16 of the principal Act can lead to interference with the rights of newspapers which have been registered in the past.

Order! I think the hon. member is now speaking to clause 5.

No, Sir, I am speaking to clause 4, which repeals section 16, and section 16 lays down when a newspaper can be registered, and that section is being repealed here. I know it is very difficult to distinguish between the two clauses and I shall do my best to confine myself to the actual implications of the two different clauses. Clause 4 itself, through the repeal of section 16, seeks to remove the present definition of a newspaper for the purpose of having it registered at the G.P.O. or by the Postmaster-General as a newspaper. It is a special type of definition of a newspaper; it is a special case in which it is used under the present Act. The existing legislation, as the hon. the Minister explained at the Second Reading, gave newspapers the right to very low postage tariffs as a service to society on account of the importance of newspapers to the public. Sir, we agreed in the past to this principle, which is now being removed to a certain extent by the deletion of section 16. Let us first of all see what this section says so that we can realize what we are now being asked to repeal. This section says—

if it appears at intervals of less than a month and if it contains a date and all that sort of thing. This is a special definition of a newspaper, and if a newspaper or a publication complies with this definition then it is entitled to special postal rates. A newspaper which felt aggrieved because these special postal rates were withheld from it could always rely on section 16 and say, “This is the definition of a newspaper in the law; we fall within it.” Sir, we must realize that this definition is a wide one. It does not only affect the daily Press. It affects weeklies and periodicals and, for instance, church publications.

*It affects publications of cultural interest and all kinds of publications and papers, as long as they appear once per month or more frequently. It is therefore an arbitrary definition of a newspaper which includes a great number of periodicals, and this arbitrary definition, which we now want to repeal, has been a protection not only to newspapers, but also to all those other papers.

†Sir, the second part of the definition of a newspaper which is now to be repealed is this: Any publication consisting of matter similar to that of a newspaper but which is also printed on sheets or pieces of paper and which is contained in the newspaper, can be deemed to be a supplement to a newspaper, and as such that supplement can enjoy the same facility of lower postal tariffs as the newspaper itself. In other words, a newspaper containing a supplement could rely on this section and say: “Here is the definition of a newspaper; this is our protection; we need not actually be newspapers; we can be periodicals or broadsheets or anything of that nature, as long as we fall within this particular definition of a newspaper.” Now, Sir, the danger is that if we repeal this particular section, then something else has to be substituted, for it. Just in passing, Sir, we know that in the next clause the hon. the Minister will be given arbitrary powers to define what a newspaper is. My objection is that section 16, which is safeguarding the interests of newspapers at the moment, is being repealed. I regard this as a totally unsatisfactory position.

Sir, apart from newspapers, there have been dozens and dozens of small publications which have been relying on this safeguard which is now to be removed without their knowing what the hon. the Minister is going to put in its place; but I shall deal with that when we come to the next clause. I say, therefore, that this is not only a case of what the Newspaper Press Union thinks. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has had any representations from the Newspaper Press Union about this. To me this is a factor which does affect the freedom of the Press. The Newspaper Press Union probably has a stronger Lobby in Parliament than any other organization, and I am rather surprised at the rather cavalier way in which this Lobby has treated what might be a serious infringement of their rights. However, I merely mention that in passing. We have had representations from smaller periodicals who are concerned about what might happen to them should this particular safeguard that they have at present be removed. I feel very seriously about this, and so do we all on this side of the House. We feel that it might give the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs powers with regard to censorship and powers with regard to restricting the freedom of speech indirectly, which could be misused by him, where we already have so many provisions in our laws of a similar nature which, as the hon. the Minister knows, we on this side of the House disapprove of most strongly.

The effect of section 16 of the Act, as it reads at present, is that a definition is being given of that papers can be registered as newspapers. The only real purpose of that is to give them this important special rate. We realize that this is a very important privilege, not so much for the dailies as for certain magazines, weeklies and monthlies, which would run aground if they did not have this special rate. Therefore we believe this to be an extremely important clause. But this side of the House can quite see that there are or were malpractices in connection with this matter and that certain people, for example, despatched articles which were nothing but mere advertisements, without any newsworthiness, and that they sent these as newspapers or as supplements to a newspaper which qualified for the same low rate. One can find no fault with the fact that the hon. the Minister wants to ensure that this type of malpractice does not take place, and therefore wants to change the definition. But because the provision in section 16 is so important a provision, and in particular because it also affects the taxpayer’s pocket in the sense that the Post Office is transporting this material at so low a rate that it must obviously influence the economic structure of the Post Office as such, there is also that interest which we must look after, and not only that of the magazines. We must also look after the interests of the Post Office as such, as see how the definition would affect the whole matter and how many are dispatched. It appears, according to the annual report of the Post Office, that the Post Office is transporting less and less of this type of post annually. One wonders whether it is uneconomical or whether people are no longer interested. But for that reason we prefer that definition to remain in the Act. If it has to be changed, let the Act be changed so that this extremely important matter can be discussed in this House and so that we may know to what purpose each change in the definition is being affected. At present this is being done by regulation, which means that, from the nature of the case, we are of course not entitled to discuss it before it is put into operation, but, in actual fact, only after it comes into effect. Therefore our basic disagreement is not that we necessarily want the definition to remain exactly as it is. We can find no fault with the fact that the hon. the Minister wants to change the definition to prevent malpractices. But we prefer the definition to remain in the Act and not to be changed periodically by way of regulation, because we believe it is an important privilege and that this House should discuss it before it is introduced.

The deletion of this provision is, of course, necessary because the next section replaces it, and the reason why this definition is being deleted in the Act is because it is too wide. The hon. member for Orange Grove has elaborated on that very fluently and said that it is a wide definition and that it offers protection for so many abuses that we simply cannot close our eves to this any longer. You know, Sir, this concession the Post Office makes to newspapers for their transmission at lower rates than printed matter, is a valuable one. Yesterday I mentioned the example of it costing one cent for the transmission of a newspaper weighing up to 500 grammes. The Sunday newspapers fall into that class. But printed matter of 500 grammes costs six cents. From that can be deduced how great a concession is being made to newspapers by virtue of the fact that they are being allowed to be transmitted at this low rate. This works out to an annual loss for the Post Office of the tremendous amount of R3,5 million as a result of this concession to newspapers. If we had had that R3,5 million, the Post Office’s deficit over the past year would have been considerably less. This is a very big concession which the Post Office is making by virtue of having lost R3,5 million over the past year in order to have newspapers, such as dailies and Sunday newspapers, transmitted more cheaply. I therefore think that the Post Office has every right to ensure that this concession is used as it was intended to be used. Since we now have ample proof of the abuse of this wide definition which hon. members are so eager to retain, that this definition, which is so wide that one could turn a wagon and a span of oxen within its limits, lends itself to abuses, I fear that we cannot retain it any longer. Unfortunately one must constantly have legislation passed to curtail people who abuse a concession. That is what we are trying to do in this case. For that reason I fear that I cannot but have this wide definition deleted and have it substituted by the provision appearing in the following clause.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Why does the hon. the Minister not have section 16 amended rather than delete the relevant provision and then make provision for regulations to be made in that connection? Why is a change in the definition not preferably being made?

Something of that nature would be too inflexible in the light of the tendencies we constantly detect in people to use every loophole that appears. It is very clear that loopholes were found in this definition, and it is now being abused. We cannot handle this situation by way of a definition. However, the hon. member need not fear that we shall not handle this matter with the necessary goodwill. If the Post Office loses R3,5 million per year as a result of a service, it is surely proof of its goodwill towards the newspapers.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister argues that the deletion of section 16 is necessary because of the misuse of the definition of “newspaper”. He says it is being replaced by the new clause 5. I do not think the hon. the Minister can argue that, because clause 5 is singularly lacking in a definition. However, we shall deal with that when we come to it. If there have been abuses of the provisions of section 16, then why does the hon. the Minister not simply amend section 16(3). Section 16(3) provides—

It was not necessary to delete the entire definition of a “newspaper”; just a simple amendment to section 16(3) would have done it. Newspapers are not going to have any protection at all if section 16 is repealed as clause 4 of the Bill seeks to do. We ask ourselves if clause 4 is accepted, what protection will any newspaper have. I do not want to anticipate arguments that we are going to advance when we discuss the next clause, but it is quite clear that newspapers and other periodicals will be placed in an impossible position. How are they going to find out whether they comply with Post Office regulations or not? The hon. the Minister was wrong, when he said that clause 5 of the Bill was going to do precisely this. This is not the case. We believe that it is absolutely essential that some defence should be accorded newspapers and other publications. Even assuming that there have been abuses, is that good enough reason to delete all definitions of newspapers? Surely not. Surely that will simply call for wider provisions and for regulations to be made, regulations that would appear in the Government Gazette and regulations that would be seen by the publishers. We can concede that it is probable that there have been abuses, but that is no reason to strip away all the defences that publications have. I believe that the hon. the Minister should look at this again and that he should try to ascertain in all seriousness whether he is doing the right thing by removing entirely any definition of a newspaper and in effect leaving it merely to the discretion of the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kensington made the statement that clause 5 of the Bill which is at present before us, gives no definition of a newspaper or a publication appearing in section 16 of the present Act, Act No. 44 of 1958. Section 16 of the principal Act is being repealed by clause 4 of the Bill. I now want to put a question to the hon. member. If one reads section 16 of the principal Act, it gives no definition of what a newspaper or a publication is. Section 16 only provides—and I raised this during the Second Reading debate of this Bill— what newspapers and publications relate to this article. No definition is supplied concerning what the nature of the content of that specific publication must be. That is why I am saying that section 16 of the principal Act gives no definition of a newspaper or a publication. In clause 5 of the Bill, which is replacing section 17 of the principal Act, it is clearly stated—

I now want to ask hon. members this question: What are the prescribed requirements which must be met? If hon. members look, in Act 44 of 1958, at the definition of a “provision”, they would see that it generally refers to a provision in terms of the Act or in terms of a regulation which is made and which is related to the content of the Act. When reference is made to prescribed requirements which must be met, this refers to the regulations made by the Postmaster-General and published in the Government Gazette.

While the old legislation refers only to a publication or a newspaper, without qualifying what the content of a newspaper or publication must generally or specifically be, we cannot argue in this House about its offering a definition in the particular section of the principal Act. I put it to hon. members that clause 5 meets the requirements in the same way as section 16 did in the old Act. For that reason I cannot understand why the Opposition wants to retain section 16 of the old Act, since it gives no clear definition. I have a very strong suspicion that the hon. gentlemen do not want the Postmaster-General to have that discretionary power to register a newspaper when it is placed before him for registration. So it would appear to me if I am to make deductions in respect of the Opposition’s attitude. The acceptance of clause 5 …

Order! The hon. member should just not deal with clause 5 and section 16 in too much detail, because we are now debating clause 4. The hon. member must not deal with them in too much detail.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, clause 4 only makes provision for the deletion of section 16. Further than that it has no content. The only content is that which is contained in section 16, and clause 5 is a follow-up of the content of section 16. Section 16 is being deleted; now one must place clause 5 in its stead. It has also been stated in this House that we are now dealing with this clause because, with all due respect, one cannot discuss the content of section 16, which is being deleted in this House, without also having to go further and referring to clause 5. But, Mr. Chairman, if you persist in your ruling that we must not discuss the content of clause 5, I shall keep back what I want to say for another occasion.

Mr. Chairman, since the Opposition is now criticizing the implementation of this concession, I wish to quote to them an old Boer adage for their consideration: One does not look a gift horse in the mouth. We are giving this concession to the newspapers of South Africa and it is costing us, as I have told hon. members, R3,5 million per year. That is a colossal concession if we take into consideration what it costs an institution like the Post Office, which is a business undertaking that must ensure that its accounts tally. What has now occurred, alas, is that there are some of these newspaper companies, now receiving this concession, who are going beyond the intention of this definition and of this legislation and who stuff those newspapers of theirs full of a lot of advertising material which would otherwise have had to be sent at the higher printing material rate.

While the Post Office would therefore have been able to obtain a great deal more money from that, we do not even get the revenue from that advertising material because the material is rolled into the newspapers and not dispatched separately. This leads to a complete loss as far as the Post Office is concerned, which is unfair. What I really find strange about the Opposition, is that they carry on here a great deal about the protection which the newspapers must receive, but the protection which the Post Office must obtain in this connection they remain completely silent about. Our task in this House is surely to see to it that the newspapers are protected, that the public is protected, but then at least that the Post Office is also protected. The deletion of this measure and its replacement by the next clause is essential to protect the Post Office against people who abuse this R3,5 million concession.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the problem the hon. the Minister has. We appreciate too that the Post Office has sustained a considerable loss in affording newspapers this privilege, if you want to call it that, which is something which is really enjoyed not by the newspapers but by the reading public anyway. They are the ones who benefit because they save that much more. We also appreciate the hon. the Minister’s point that advertising material which should rightly have been sent at the normal postage rate, might well have been included in newspapers as a supplement.

Where we challenge the hon. the Minister is in the way he is setting out to cure the situation. Does he feel it is right, just because there have been some abuses, to withdraw the protection all publications had? We want to know exactly how newspapers are going to be defined and what newspapers will have to comply with. That should all be in the Act. I do not agree with the hon. member for Harrismith when he says that the present clause 16 is not a definition. To me it is a very good definition for the purposes of the Post Office. If anything should have been done, the hon. the Minister should not have wanted to delete section 16. He should rather have amended it as we have already suggested to him. He is going about this in entirely the wrong way. But anyway, we believe that section 16 should remain and it is an attitude we are going to stand by.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to reiterate that we are not withdrawing any concessions. This is not a withdrawal of a concession we have granted to newspapers in South Africa. It is merely that we are seeing to it that we get better machinery in order to implement this concession. We will of course continue with the concession. I think if I were to give notice here today that we will withdraw this concession and that newspapers will in future have to pay the same rates as are applicable to other printed matter, the Opposition and other people in the country would have had reason to object. Then they could have accused me of withdrawing a concession. But this is not a case of withdrawing a concession at all. We are continuing with this concession, but we are merely seeing to it that we have the necessary machinery in order to implement it for the purpose for which it is intended.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister will recall that in my previous turn to speak I already referred to the dilemma of the Post Office. Because it has such an important effect on the Post Office, we feel that that definition, which is going to affect the whole matter, should be in the Act so that it can be discussed here in the House before it is implemented. I want to ask the hon. the Minister this: When he drew up this Bill, he must surely have had an idea, which he must still have, of what the malpractices are which he wants to prevent and eliminate. If he knows what the malpractices are, he must surely have an idea of how he wants to prevent them. Whether he is going to give a definition of a newspaper in the Act, or whether he is going to give it in a regulation, the fact remains he must give a definition.

I can now ask the hon. the Minister whether he has such a definition. Can he make clear to us what his plan is at the moment, what he is going to do when this measure comes into operation, when it is accepted by the House? What definition of a newspaper is going to be given? If the hon. the Minister were to give us this, it would immediately put a stop to a lot of arguments. If he has already got to the stage of coming before the House with legislation, he must surely have an idea of what he is going to replace the deleted definition with. We would be glad if the hon. the Minister could now tell us what idea he has in respect of a new definition.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member would be able to form a very good idea of the way in which we are going to implement this in future if he sees it against the background of all our conduct in the past. He would then see that our conduct has borne testimony to our goodwill towards the newspapers of South Africa. That is why a change in the procedure, in the machinery, which we are implementing here, is not a cancellation or a deletion of that arrangement. Hon. members therefore have the assurance that we shall continue to offer our newspapers that necessary concession, but at the same time, however, we want to continue taking such action, not by way of a wide definition, but by way of regulations which we can change from time to time if abuses were to occur, that the objects of this legislation are carried out. That is the intention of this provision and the succeeding one.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, a moment ago we removed from the Post Office Act the safeguard given to newspapers and other publications that they will be defined as newspapers and given the advantage of special tariffs. Under this particular clause, we are going to discuss what the hon. the Minister wants to substitute for section 16 which we have just repealed. Sir, I am indeed alarmed at the extremely wide powers that the hon. the Minister is demanding for himself in this regard. The important words in the proposed new section 17 read—

“Any publication which complies with the prescribed requirements”—that and nothing else. I submit to you, Sir, and to this Committee that this is an extremely wide definition; that it gives the hon. the Minister extremely wide powers. He can now make regulations, and under those regulations he can decide what publications, whether they be newspapers or other printed matter, can be registered as a newspaper and can receive this special concession with regard to postal rates. On the other hand, he can also decide which publications to remove, and it is here that I fear that we may be giving the hon. the Minister powers which amount to a new form of censorship. Sir, let me make one thing clear. The old section already empowered the hon. the Minister to remove from the post any publication which contained indecent or obscene matter. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to call upon hon. members to refrain from conversing so loudly. I find it very difficult to follow the hon. member for Orange Grove.

In that respect, Sir, I am ad idem with the hon. member for Harrismith; I agree that that provision should be retained, but here we are not amending that provision relating to obscene and undesirable literature. That was contained in the old Act and it is remaining in this Bill and I am not objecting to that. I am only referring to this because the hon. member for Harrismith referred to it during the Second Reading debate. But what I am alluding to are these wide powers which are now being granted to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to decide which publications can be registered as newspapers. Sir, with this Government’s record with regard to publications and censorship, etc., one can use one’s imagination, possibly with profit, to prophesy what can happen, no matter how strongly the hon. the Minister may protest that it will not happen. Let me mention a few examples of what could possibly happen. Let us suppose that the hon. the Minister arbitrarily promulgates a regulation to the effect that any publication which has been declared objectionable by the Publications Board in respect of two or more issues during a period of 12 months shall not be entitled to be registered as a newspaper. The Minister is empowered to introduce such a regulation under this particular clause. Sir, that would be a dangerous form of censorship. The hon. the Minister will deny most vehemently that he will do it, but he could, for instance, under these regulations, which will now be under his sole control, say that any publication which is not published in either of the official languages shall not be registered as a newspaper. He will deny that he has any such plans but I ask: “Why give him the power by way of regulation to do this sort of thing?” He might decide arbitrarily that any publication which is published at longer intervals than, say, a fortnight, can no longer be registered in future. At present a publication which appears monthly can be registered as a newspaper, and let me just repeat that it is not an ordinary newspaper that is mentioned here, but any publication. Take Paratus, an excellent publication, which is registered at the Post Office as a newspaper.

*The hon. the Minister may, for instance, exclude a publication such as this one, or other monthlies, from the privileges in the future. Once again he will tell me, No, he is not going to do so; he does not intend working in that direction. But our attitude on this side of the House is not to grant the hon. the Minister such wide powers.

I may just mention in passing that we are also concerned about the words “prescribed requirements”. We believe that this could be phrased much more effectively by referring to the regulations which have to appear in the Government Gazette. In that regard, the hon. member for Kensington will propose an amendment. What makes me particularly concerned about the powers which we now want to grant the hon. the Minister here, is the speech made by the hon. member for Harrismith. You will recall, Sir, that I said the Minister might have the power now to ban a monthly or a weekly publication such as Scope for certain periods, just because two of its issues might have been banned by Mr. Jannie Kruger’s Publications Board. That possibility exists. The Minister will say that he has no such thing in mind, but the hon. member for Harrismith did talk about it. He went so far as to say that the Minister had to have the right to be able to ban a publication such as Scope by way of regulations, and he asked for special norms to be laid down in those regulations. What norms? Norms of censorship? Norms which he considers to be seemly for a newspaper or for a publication? That has never been the idea under the old Act, but now we are granting these most dangerous powers to the hon. the Minister today, and that is what we are taking very strong objection to.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move the following amendment—

If one looks at clause 5, which is a replacement for the present section 17, one sees that there has been a complete switch in emphasis here. This bears out what we have already said not only about this clause but also about clause 4. You see, Sir, section 17 says that the Postmaster-General shall cause a register to be kept of publications falling under the requirements of section 16. Those are the definitions which we have just repealed, and then it says that the proprietor, printer or publisher of such publication may on payment of the prescribed fee register the publication as a newspaper. In other words, the Postmaster-General is required to keep a register, because it says that the proprietor, printer or publisher may get registration if he wants it. But what is the position under clause 5 of the Bill? It now says that the Postmaster-General “may register”. There is no protection at all given to the person who wants to register. It says that the Postmaster-General may register on conditions laid down by him. Here is a complete switch about, a complete reversal of the old attitude as we have it in the present Act. However, it goes further than that. Our problem, especially now that the definition clause has been removed from the Act, is to try to find out from the hon. the Minister what exactly is going to be regarded as a newspaper in terms of the Act. We have heard his problems, but we have not heard anything from him to suggest how he is going to meet the problems of newspaper proprietors or publishers. It is all very well for him to say that this will be administered in a fair spirit, but I suggest that a fair spirit is not good enough. What we need and what the newspaper proprietors need is some clear setting out of exactly what is to be regarded as a newspaper and what conditions are going to apply to the registration of such a newspaper. This is precisely what my amendment sets out to do. My amendment seeks to establish that the Postmaster-General must, by regulation in the Government Gazette, determine the conditions upon which a publication may be registered. This is little enough to ask; in other words, a publisher must know what requirements he has to meet. If he has met those requirements, it follows that he should then be entitled to registration. Once he is entitled to registration, he must then have the benefit of the cheaper Post Office rates. This is a logical consequence. It is very difficult to see why it should be otherwise and indeed it is difficult to see how the hon. the Minister can argue otherwise.

Mr. Chairman, I rise, in the first place, to react to what was said by the hon. member for Orange Grove when he referred to what I had said in a previous speech in regard to the position of the publication Scope. I made it very clear that the point at issue was the contents of that publication, and that if its contents qualified for not being banned, that publication would not be banned.

Then we also have to deal with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington. Before coming to that amendment, however, I want to refer further to the hon. member for Orange Grove, who said that the hon. the Minister was appropriating certain wide powers to himself. That is definitely not the case, for if the hon. the Minister or the Postmaster-General makes any regulations in regard to this matter, such regulations must first meet with the necessary approval of the Postmaster-General, the Minister and the State President. That is the procedure which is being followed. The hon. the Minister acts on behalf of the Government. For that reason the hon. member has no reason to fear that wide powers will be appropriated by the hon. the Minister to himself. The hon. member mentioned another so-called case when he said that the hon. the Minister could make regulations by which a publication or a periodical would be forced to appear in both languages. I do not think that argument needs any further attention, for South Africa is definitely a bilingual country. This Government has been upholding that principle to a greater extent than any United Party Government would ever be able to do. For that reason I say that that is nothing but a specious argument.

The hon. member for Kensington has now moved an amendment to this clause. The suspicion I expressed in a previous speech, now appears to be true. By moving that the word “may” in clause 5, which replaces section 17 of the principal Act, be substituted by “shall”, the hon. member intimated very clearly that the wording of the clause, as it reads at present, confers too wide a discretionary power upon the Postmaster-General. They want the Postmaster-General to be obliged to do this; hence the word “shall”. By doing so they have shown that they have some misgivings about the Postmaster-General and the hon. the Minister, and that they think they will not be able to judge when they should take these steps and when they should not. I repeat: My suspicion appears to be true. My suspicion is that the real amendment that has been moved here, is nothing but a motion of no confidence in the Postmaster-General and the hon. the Minister. I hope the hon. the Minister will reject it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Harrismith has really delivered himself now of a specious argument in this House. It is extremely simple to understand what the hon. member for Kensington envisages by the amendment he moved here. The basis of sound legislation is, surely, that there should be security of justice in the country. In order to bring about security of justice, it is essential for the people affected by it to know what the statutory position is. That is what the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington seeks to do. It provides that that definition and those requirements which the Postmaster-General wants to lay down—it is entirely within his discretion to lay them down—and which are to be met by a publisher or a newspaper before that publication may be registered as a newspaper, shall be published in the Government Gazette so that everybody may read them. If that is done, any person who wants a publication to be registered as a newspaper will know that he has to comply with these or those requirements. This is merely done to ensure that those requirements will in fact be published and that the Postmaster-General, in laying down those requirements, will make known what they are. What these requirements are to be, is being left completely to his discretion.

Then we come to the second object of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington. Once the Postmaster-General has exercised his discretion in laying down the requirements for a newspaper, the person whose publication complies with the requirements is entitled to having that publication registered as a newspaper. We must, in other words, not have the position for which the present wording makes provision. In terms of the present wording the Postmaster-General may lay down requirements, and when one complies with the requirements, the Postmaster-General still has a discretion to determine whether or not one may register the publication as a newspaper. We believe, however, that when a person’s publication complies with the requirements, the Postmaster-General must register the publication. Then one is entitled to being registered, for then one will have complied with the predetermined requirements. That is the reason why, in terms of the amendment, the word “may” should be substituted by the word “shall”. If that is not done, there will be no security of justice and then it will be possible to discriminate on an improper basis. I am not saying that the Postmaster-General will do this, but I do say that this could happen. Why should we grant him another discretion? He already has a discretion to lay down the requirements. The requirements are left completely to his discretion, but if a person complies with those requirements, he is entitled to being registered. Then there is no further discretion that can be exercised. That person should then feel that since he has done his best and has done everything in his power to meet those requirements, he is entitled to being registered. That is the object of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington. I hope with all my heart that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to accepting this amendment, for I believe that it can only be to the advantage of the Post Office, the publishers and the general public in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, as one of the examples mentioned by the hon. member for Orange Grove to show that in respect of this measure I was demanding excessively wide powers for myself, he used the provision which is printed here, namely that the Postmaster-General may refuse to transmit any copy of an indecent or obscene publication.

I am not objecting to that

The hon. member did in any case object to its being contained in the Bill.

No.

No? Are you content with this having to be the position?

It was contained in the old Act, too.

That is true; it was contained in the old Act, too. It certainly is nice that we are now reaching such unanimity on the matter! I hope that we shall be able to reach the same degree of unanimity on the next matter. The next matter is in connection with the discretionary power which the Postmaster-General ought to have in order that he may determine in this regard what may be registered and what may not be registered. Since we have already decided that the previous provision should be omitted, this provision must take its place. In other words, it must now be possible to define by regulation what a newspaper is. The hon. member for Kensington wanted to know what a newspaper really was. He said I had not stated clearly what a newspaper was. The obvious thing is, after all, that for the purposes of drafting the regulation the Postmaster-General will use the old definition as a basis. The old definition, as it reads at present, will certainly be regarded as an important starting-point. But in drafting those regulations, the Postmaster-General will definitely have regard to the abuses which occurred and which obliged us to introduce this amendment today. Therefore, this old provision will most definitely apply in the whole formulation of a regulation relating to what is a newspaper and what is not. The advantage of the regulation is that it may be changed from time to time, as circumstances may require. If abuses of the regulation should occur, the Postmaster-General should have the right to change it. He can only do so if it has not been incorporated in the Act and if there is flexibility in respect of this matter. The sole intention here is therefore to give the Postmaster-General more flexibility in order that he may implement the intention of the Act properly. For that reason I fear that I cannot accept these amendments which were moved by the hon. member for Kensington.

Mr. Chairman, I should nevertheless like to submit a plea to the hon. the Minister in this regard. No drastic restrictions are being placed on him by this amendment. All we ask in this amendment is that when the hon. the Minister lays down regulations on what will be considered to be a newspaper for these particular purposes, he should publish those regulations in the Government Gazette so that people who wish to apply for a particular newspaper to be registered, may transmit their mail at a lower rate. They should at least know where they will be able to find the regulations. We should just like to have certainty in this regard. Mention is made here of prescribed requirements, but where are they prescribed? They are prescribed by the Postmaster-General. But this is not the usual terminology used in legislation; reference is made to regulations in legislation, regulations which will appear in the Government Gazette. That is why we want that assurance from the hon. the Minister. I know that he has the power to make regulations in terms of section 2, 3 or 4 of the principal Act. He has the right to make regulations in regard to things which are now going to appear in the Act, but it is not binding on him to make regulations in this regard.

†I regard it as almost incomprehensible that the hon. the Minister does not want to accept a very simple and normal amendment asking him: “Now look, you are going to have regulations and you are going to have rules saying what will be regarded as a newspaper in future. Why don’t you lay down in the law that those regulations must be published in the Government Gazette so that everyone can know what they are?” Then indeed people will be able to see that his intentions are honourable in this regard and that they are not aimed at certain specific types of newspapers.

*The request we are making here is such a simple one, namely, just publish it in the Government Gazette. What is wrong with that request?

Mr. Chairman, I want to join the hon. member for Orange Gover in asking the hon. the Minister if he will perhaps reconsider his attitude. We can fully appreciate what he wants to do. He has said that he wants to give the Postmaster-General discretionary powers to determine which publications can be registered in terms of the Post Office Act. Let us go along with this. All that we are asking in this amendment is for the Postmaster-General to tell the public what regulations he is going to formulate and what the public has to comply with. We are not so very far apart; it is only a question of approach. Indeed, I think the hon. member for Harrismith got things entirely wrong when he talked a little while ago about “may” and “shall”. If he goes to the present Act he will see that section 17 makes it obligatory for the Postmaster-General to register a publication that complies with the regulations. That is the position at the moment. Section 17(1) states that the Postmaster-General shall cause a register to be kept and that the proprietor, printer or publisher of such a publication may, upon payment of the prescribed fee, register such a publication. In other words, the person is entitled to register it. Where the proposed amendment to section 17 represents a fairly drastic departure is that the Postmaster-General is now given the discretion as to whether or not he must register an individual publication. We suggest that this is wrong. What we want to suggest to the hon. the Minister—and I am sure he will agree with us that this is the right way to go about it—is that the regulation should be published in the Gazette. If it is found that these regulations are being circumvented, the regulations can be changed, as long as the public and the publishers know what the regulations are. Then we go to the next stage and say that once a person has complied with the regulations, he is entitled to registration. Once he is entitled to registration, he is entitled to the concessions. It is a simple sequence where the Postmaster-General sets out what he requires, and once these requirements are complied with the people concerned have the benefit of these concessions. It is the simplest thing in the world. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to look again at this to see if he will not accept it.

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. members are asking for is going to be done; in other words, these regulations are going to be published in the Government Gazette. That is the way we initially had it in our draft Bill; that is the way the Bill read originally. Then the legal draftsmen changed it and defined it the way it is printed here. I have now taken the opinion of the legal draftsmen on this matter, merely so as to have confirmation and to give hon. members the assurance that what they are asking for will happen. The law advisers have confirmed that this term “prescribed requirements”—these are the two words they have been talking about— means “prescribed by regulation”. The regulations will be published in the Government Gazette with the approval of the State President. Precisely what the hon. members are asking for now, is therefore going to happen. The definition of those terms, as set out in the regulation, will be published in the Government Gazette, and this will be effected under the provision in which the expression “prescribed requirements” is found in this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad we have come this far with the hon. the Minister but we are still worried about the wording of clause 5. In the first place, although the new section 17(1) refers to “prescribed requirements”, and it has now been said that it will appear in the Government Gazette, there is nothing in the Bill demanding it. By our amendment we are only seeking to ensure that the new Post Office Act lays down in law a procedure to be followed, which I believe is reasonable. I hesitate to say that we do not appreciate what the hon. the Minister has said, and we do believe that these requirements will be gazetted. But we still feel that this Post Office Act must set out very clearly what the law says and what the entitlements of people are.

Mr. Chairman, may I just explain our standpoint to the hon. the Minister? We are pleased that the Minister and the Postmaster-General intend having these regulations published in the Government Gazette, etc. But our further objection still stands, namely that this is merely a permissive power which he will have. He may do it, and we feel rather strongly that it should be laid down that he must do it under all circumstances. For that reason we have decided that the amendment will still be put.

Question put: That the word “may”, in line 40, stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendments dropped.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, clause 6 contains the same provisions in regard to foreign periodicals and newspapers as did section 16 in regard to local newspapers, but as section 16 has been repealed, section 18 of the original Act has virtually no meaning and is therefore suspended in mid-air, and therefore we cannot object to the repeal of section 18, but our objections in general to the principle still hold good.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, this particular clause empowers the Postmaster-General that any postal article which in his opinion is of little value or importance can be destroyed or disposed of in some or other manner. Now this goes a little further in regard to the definition of the type of article that can be opened and can be considered, etc., by the hon. the Minister’s department. In the past there was a provision in section 25 that any postal article could be sent to the returned letter office and be dealt with in the manner prescribed provided that any article which bears on the outside the name and address of the sender may on application be returned to him or delivered to him directly. It does seem to me that this is going a little further than in the past, where the hon. the Minister will now in terms of this clause be able actually to read the correspondence which has been opened at the returned letter office. In the past, if a letter came to the returned letter office and if it had the address of the sender at the back, the letter would be sent to the person who sent the letter at that particular address and if there was any money in it, they would try to find out how they could get that money returned, but the contents of that letter itself were the basic criterion. However, now the hon. Minister can decide whether a letter is of value or whether it is not of value. That means that he can now really thoroughly read every word in that letter, and I do not like this provision. I would like to have the assurance from the hon. the Minister that this will not give further rights to the Post Office to peruse private correspondence.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

The hon. the Minister wanted to rise in connection with clause 7. I have the same objections in regard to clause 8, and if the hon. the Minister would, in dealing with clause 8, reply to my objection to clause 7, I would be pleased.

I can give the assurance that we shall go through those letters with the greatest measure of discretion and good taste and not as people who are inquisitive.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, in terms of clause 16 the hon. the Minister now takes the power to declare the unauthorized use of the words “Post Office”, “mail”, “yellow pages”, “directory”, “telex directory” and “telephone directory” to be an offence. We agree with the basic principle contained in this provision. It is not right that any body or person, any independent company, etc., should be able to abuse Government facilities by giving out that that particular printed matter or book or directory published by him is actually semi-official, or that it should seem to be semi-official. Of course, this is absolutely wrong and we do not want this to happen. But there may in fact be cases where one may find an address book containing telephone numbers or some kind of directory and where the main object of that address book or directory is not to give out that it does in fact seek to infringe the rights of the Post Office and that it is an imitation of something published by the Post Office. Here, too, we just want the hon. the Minister to assure us once again that he will act cautiously in this case. We agree that he should in fact be given the right to see to it that the rights of the Post Office are not abused. However, one finds that publications which do in fact contain addresses and telephone numbers are often published, and we just want to have the assurance that they will not be punished under this particular clause.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I undertake to administer it in the spirit in which it was put by the hon. member for Orange Grove.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to ask why a provision affecting divisional councils has been inserted whilst such a provision does not apply to provincial councils as well. Is there any specific reason for having done it in this way?

Mr. Chairman, this provision is being included because we already have a similar provision which applies to provincial councils. In the Cape Province the divisional councils are in many respects doing the work of a provincial council, and that is why we felt that this provision had to be inserted in order that divisional councils might be granted the same rights which provincial councils have.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the definition of “controlling company”. In terms of the definition in the Bill a “controlling company” means, inter alia, a company which directly or indirectly has power enabling it to control another company. What is worrying me in this definition is the use of the word “indirectly”, because of the difficulty of interpreting and circumscribing what is meant by that word. The word “indirectly” is also used in the definition of a “controlled company” and I therefore move as an amendment—

I believe that if those words were included in the Bill, there can be no doubt whatsoever as to the manner in which the control should be exercised. The Bill would then contain in the definition of “controlled company” as well as in the definition of “controlling company” the provision that the control should be exercised directly or in the manner specified in my amendment. The word “indirectly” is used frequently in this Bill. During the Second Reading I mentioned the fact that there would be the problem of interpretation. I believe that where we can eliminate the very problem of interpretation it is desirable to do so. This is one of the instances and that is why I have moved my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I support the hon. member for Green Point in his amendment. We discussed this matter at the Second Reading at some length. We are all perturbed at the use of the word “indirectly” because its connotation is really not known to anybody. I think it would improve the Bill considerably if this amendment were accepted.

I want to pass on and move the following amendment—

I believe that here a fundamental issue is involved. It deals with the definition of “holding company”, “subsidiary company” and “wholly owned subsidiary”. A holding company is defined as a company which has 30% of the issued shares of another company, a subsidiary company as a company 30% of the shares of which are held by a holding company and a wholly owned subsidiary as a company where all the shares of the subsidiary are held by the holding company. I admit that the commission’s report deals with the provisions for issued shares and not equity shares. The commission supports the use of the issued shares and not the equity shares. The hon. the Minister dealt with this matter in the Second Reading debate. I must say that every single representation that has been made to us and I make bold to say that every single representation that has been made to the hon, the Minister, every article that has appeared by a financial editor and every article that has appeared in any financial newspaper queried the use of issued shares and not equity capital. This is the case because “issued share” in the actual operation of a business is a meaningless phrase. Where you have a company with a large preferent capital, the ordinary shareholder and those responsible for the running of the company are absolutely unconcerned with that preferent capital as long as the preferent dividend is paid and the preferent share has no vote. Preferent shareholders are not really a factor in the administration of a holding company, a subsidiary company or a wholly owned subsidiary in the commercial sense of the term. While it is perfectly true that the commission dealt with the pros and cons of the matter and that it came to the conclusion that we should not deal with equities but with shares, I say with all respect that I think they were wrong in this case. I believe that the practical application of these three types of companies depends on the power to control. You do not have that power to control when you include all the different classes of shares. For that reason I have moved this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (c) of the definition of “controlling company”. I would like to ask him whether these two sub-paragraphs are in any way explanatory of the term “indirectly”. I am not terribly sure whether they are or are not, although it could well be so. The objective of the amendment is to try to define a little more clearly what “indirectly” could possibly mean, because it might mean a considerable host of powers and in perusing particularly paragraph (c) (ii), which is rather involved, but also paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition, one wonders whether they are indirectly or merely, inter alia, part of the powers which enable the term “controlling company” to be applied to a company holding these powers.

Mr. Chairman, I think it would be unwise if we were to accept these two amendments at this stage. I think that these amendments are ones which one would prefer to refer to the advisory committee for consideration in the light of the discussion which has taken place here. In the first instance I want to refer to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point. We are talking here about “directly” and “indirectly”. What he seeks to do here, is to give a definition of “indirectly”. He does this by saying that the words “through or together with a controlled or subsidiary or sub-subsidiary company” should be substituted for that word. I presume that a sub-subsidiary company is a subsidiary of a subsidiary. It could not really be anything else. I want to say that the definition which he has tried to give of “indirectly” is probably as close as it could be to what I think it should be. My problem at this stage is that as soon as one mentions certain things in an attempt to define something, then that means that everything which one does not mention, is excluded; it is therefore quite possible that the intention was, and that it is desirable that the intention must be that the term “indirectly” should include also other matters or interests which would be excluded by the definition of the hon. member for Green Point, and since I am of the opinion that it is desirable to consider whether there should be a definition of “indirectly”, I think that it would be unwise to do so now in this way and that we should rather leave the term “indirectly” as it is.

I want to say at this stage that I am going to accept several of the proposed amendments but there are also some, such as this one, in regard to which I think it would be wiser to refer it to the advisory committee. The hon. member’s amendment relates to “equity shares”. He wants equity shares to be inserted where we mention “issued shares” only. I think that the hon. member’s approach in regard to this consideration differs substantially from the approach of the commission. The commission’s approach in regard to this “controlling company” has regard to financial interests. It deals with financial interests and not actual control through shareholdings. I therefore think that it would be wrong to insert “equity shares” here, when this should be related to financial interest and not to the right to vote which one obtains through the shares in question. In reply to the Second Reading debate yesterday I referred here to the commission’s attitude as set out on page 114 of the commission’s report. I do not want to repeat that here, but it is very clear that the commission had financial interest in mind. Since financial interest is not only related to equity shares, it would therefore, according to the argument of the commission, be wrong to make it equity shares. They therefore kept themselves to issued shares and I think that for the present we should rather leave it at that.

I welcome the Minister’s suggestion so far as my amendment is concerned, namely that this matter should go to the advisory committee. I think it is a reasonable suggestion on his part and on the basis that that will be done I want to withdraw my amendment with the leave of the Committee.

When one comes to the other amendment, the one moved by the hon. member for Parktown, one sees that it is in an entirely different category. What is a holding of preferent shares? A holding of preferent shares is a fixed investment at a fixed rate of interest by the person who invests in those preferent shares. That person has no say in the management of the company. It might well be that a company holds 50% of the total issue of shares of a company while at the same time it has no say whatsoever in the management of that company. One can imagine this with property companies, for example, where there might well be the existence of a substantial preferent share issue which is taken up by an investment company purely as an investment with a fixed rate of interest attached to those preference shares and as long as that interest is paid they are not concerned with the running of that company. A preferent share may in fact be a secured and not merely an ordinary unsecured preferent share. It could be well-secured by means of mortgage. Because of that holding and because of that investment the company that owns such a holding of preferent shares equalling 50% or more of the total nominal value of the share issue of that company, must then go through all the procedures of being a controlling company, although that has nothing to do with the company. It does not have a director on the board of that company, it has no say in the management of that company, but it must then go through the obligations of a controlling company, consolidate the accounts and attend to all those matters which flow from being a controlling company. For that reason I believe that the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown is a very important one. It is a very important one and if this Bill is promulgated in the form this clause is now I am sure there will be a large number of companies which will suddenly find that they will have to consolidate into their own accounts companies in which they merely have a fixed investment by way of a preferent shareholding. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will consider again the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to quote again the small piece I read out yesterday, regarding the attitude of the commission in this regard—

If this is the approach, one cannot limit oneself to equity shares but must take issued shares into account so as to tie up with the matter of financial interest. I therefore ask that in view of this discussion we refer this matter, too, to this advisory committee so that it may be given more attention.

Amendments proposed by Mr. L. G. Murray, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendments proposed by Mr. S. Emdin negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, this appears to be merely a printing error, and I accept that amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This amendment would appear to me to correct a fault in the Bill which, as I said at the Second Reading, provides in the next clause for the setting up of a standing advisory committee. In this clause this standing advisory committee is ignored. In terms of this clause, the State President may, by proclamation in the Gazette, from time to time amend or add to the provisions of the schedules to this Act. Sir, the schedules to this Act are amongst the most important provisions of the Bill. They are schedules which are going to cause a great deal of trouble to a great number of people. It would seem to us that there should be no amendments introduced haphazardly, by the decision of whom I do not quite know, because the State President acts on the advice, I presume, of the Minister. So the Minister will decide what the changes should be. Sir, what is the purpose of this standing advisory committee? Surely the standing advisory committee is a body that should consider any changes to Table A, Table B and the third and the fourth schedules. The fourth schedule, for example, which deals with the accounting provision of the Bill, the annual report, and so on, is a vital schedule, and one would think that there will be no amendment to this schedule unless it has been recommended by the standing advisory committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot accept this amendment. If one takes its interpretation far enough, it amounts to this advisory committee eventually having to take over our work, because the hon. member wants all that is provided for in clause 17 to be done only on the recommendation of the advisory committee. In other words, if the advisory committee should not recommend it, it could not be done. I think this would destroy completely the object aimed at in this clause. The hon. member’s amendment expressly provides—

In other words, nothing could be done without the recommendation of the advisory committee. I really cannot accept the amendment. The advisory committee is being established to investigate matters referred to it in connection with the Companies Act and to make recommendations in this regard. After all, the recommendations made by them are referred to the responsible Minister, who then, by virtue of his position as Minister of Economic Affairs, has to take decisions to implement the recommendations of the advisory committee. We can most certainly not be prevented from taking steps that have not been recommended by the advisory committee. Consequently I do not think that I can accept this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, this important standing committee, which is being appointed under this Bill, lies somewhere in status, I would say, between a commission such as the Law Revision Commission and a departmental or interdepartmental advisory committee. The chairman is to be a judge or a senior advocate. As the hon. the Minister has indicated, it is to consist of representatives of organized industry, such as the Federated Chamber of Industries, and of representatives of organized commerce and of the Stock Exchange, and it will also have on it senior State officials who are involved in the administration of the Companies Act. Then, Sir, it is to have a subcommittee dealing with Stock Exchange matters and it can appoint other subcommittees. It seems important to us that the recommendations of such a committee, not being in the position of a departmental or interdepartmental committee, should be submitted to Parliament; that Parliament should be entitled to know what has been undertaken by that committee, what its recommendations are and the motivation for any recommendation that it makes. I therefore wish to move the amendment as printed in my name on the Order Paper—

1. (7) The standing advisory committee shall annually not later than the first day of March submit to the Minister a report on all its activities during the previous year.
2. (8) The report referred to in subsection (7) shall be laid upon the Table in the Senate and the House of Assembly within fourteen days after it was submitted to the Minister, if Parliament is then in session, or, if Parliament is not then in session, within fourteen days after the commencement of its next ensuing session.

Sir, I do not think that this is an unreasonable request. If there are to be changes in legislation, then it is as well that the whole country should be advised by way of reports from this committee as to why these changes are recommended, and since this committee will be representative of a wide spectrum of our economic life in the Republic, I think the public should also be entitled to be advised why the Minister has not followed the advice of that advisory committee if such an occasion should arise. For those reasons I move the amendments which appear in my name on the Order Paper.

Sir, while we are now dealing with clause 18, may I just say that I gave an indication to the House yesterday of the bodies that should in my opinion be represented on this advisory committee. I did not mention the Federated Chamber of Industries on that occasion, and I have already had the reaction to that. Sir, it was an error, and I just want to tell this Committee, while this clause is under discussion, that the Federated Chamber of Industries should also be represented on this advisory committee.

Sir, I think the hon. member for Green Point is going a little too far when he refers to what is envisaged with this advisory committee. After all, it is purely an advisory committee. I think that if he investigates the reports that are tabled here, he will come to the conclusion that there is not really a similar body, that I can think of, the report of which is tabled. It is true that there are many boards with administrative duties which report on their activities during the year in a report that is tabled here, but they are not advisory committees like this proposed advisory committee. Sir, I should like to draw the hon. member’s attention to clause 11. Clause 11 provides for an annual report by the Registrar and then it provides—

In other words, the Registrar submits a report to the Minister, which is then tabled and in which we shall obviously refer to recommendations and activities of this advisory committee as well. I honestly think that this annual report can and will meet the needs envisaged by the hon. member for Green Point, and then it will not be necessary for the advisory committee itself to table an annual report through me.

I accept what the hon. the Minister has said and I assume that he will use section 11 for purposes of seeing that the activities of this committee are reported to the House. But the position which I think is not met is that a report can come from this advisory committee to the Minister, who is for the time being in charge of this particular portfolio, and can be pigeon-holed. The public would know nothing about it and the members who have served on that committee and have given of their time—and they are busy people, businessmen and industrialists —would like to know that what they do report on and their findings will see the light of day and will be made available to the House. That is not obligatory under the Constitution at present. I believe that is wrong. The wording I have used here was taken from the Law Commission Bill which we passed this session and which provides that it must report its activities and that its report must be laid on the Table. While I concede that this particular advisory committee has not been constituted by special legislation, as the Law Revision Commission was, it has a status very much the same. It has the same basis of persons directly involved in the effect of our company laws, and these persons have to work in high positions and important positions dealing with our company laws and they express community interests, with the interests of the different departments of commerce and industry. These recommendations and their deliberations I believe should be tabled in Parliament. The Minister has said that he feels it is covered by section 11, but we would like to see that it is made an obligatory duty.

I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point for two reasons. First of all, this is a very important committee. It may be only an advisory committee, but it is a standing committee and it is under the chairmanship of a judge. This indicates immediately how important this committee is regarded in terms of this Bill. It is not very often that we appoint committees where you are able to get a judge as the chairman, or a senior advocate. That is Point No. 1. But Point No. 2 is that I think the hon. the Minister’s reference to section 11 is exactly the opposite to what he tells us, because section 11 provides for a statistical report by the Registrar of Companies, in regard to the number of companies registered, their authorized capital, the number of shares, the number of windings up, the number under judicial management, etc. It is a typical departmental report giving statistical information. If I were the Minister I would say that my obligation here is to see that statistics referring to companies are placed before the House. But it does not link up with the type of report one would expect to get in terms of section 18, and I think it is absolutely essential that this report should be tabled, because the hon. member for Green Point hit the nail on the head when he said it is not only the legislation that is brought to the House that the House should know about; what is more important is the legislation recommended by the advisory committee which the Government in its wisdom decides not to proceed with. We have had numerous cases in this House where the recommendations of commissions have not been accepted by the Government. We have pressed them year after year sometimes, until finally some of the recommendations are put into effect. I think it would be in the interest of the smooth working of this Act if that report of the committee were placed before the House.

While one should like to have the activities of the advisory committee brought to the notice of the House, it seems to me that the amendment of the hon. member does not take into account the provisions of clause 18(6). This reads as follows—

Since this is an important function of the Registrar, one would have expected a provision dealing with the activities of the standing committee to be included under clause 11, which the committee has already dealt with. So I wonder whether we could not ask the hon. the Minister to consider providing in clause 11 that when the Registrar reports in terms of clause 18, he shall also report in full on the activities of the advisory committee. Provision can also be made under clause 11 for the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Parktown.

How would that affect the question of reporting to Parliament?

If I may reply to the question of the hon. member for Green Point, I want to point out that this would amount to a duplication of activities. The administrative official is none other than the Registrar, and for that reason it would be desirable if a co-ordination of activities could be obtained. Since there is already an obligation to report on all activities, I cannot see why this one facet of the activities should be singled out to be brought directly to the notice of Parliament. So it seems to me as if this should really fall under clause 11.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite an interesting suggestion which the hon. member for Bloemfontein West has made, but I do not know whether it necessarily complies with what we have asked. It should be borne in mind that this is an extremely important committee. We have precedents in our legislation and in our general governmental administration of other advisory committees to various departments. As the hon. the Minister has said, the commission of inquiry recommended the appointment of such a committee. The appointment of such a committee has not only been welcomed in parliamentary circles, but also in outside circles as a most important contribution on this most vital and important subject which plays such a great part in the whole of the economic life of the country. In other legislation establishing advisory committees provision is made that their reports should be laid upon the Table of the House. An example which is almost comparable is that of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council whereon a report is issued annually to the House. Comment is made on it by the Prime Minister. It is an important contributing factor in discussions of the finance and economic affairs of the country. I do not think that that council was established by means of legislation, but it is indicative of the value of this type of advisory committee to the workings of Parliament.

In this case we have a much more important aspect and that is that it deals with legislation which grows with the times and which undergoes changes with changing conditions. In Britain they have a standing committee on their Companies Act. I think the Lord Cohen Committee existed for years and there was also the Jenkins Committee. Such committees are constantly supervising the development of company life in Britain and reports are constantly tabled. We do not want to differ with the hon. the Minister in the sense that we want him to be bound completely by the recommendations in these reports, but we do feel that this would be a very important contribution in this particular matter. That is why we ask the hon. the Minister that this report should be tabled. We are not looking for opportunities to impose further obligations, but we should like him to bear in mind the very valuable contribution which can be made in Parliament in this important aspect of our economic life.

Mr. Chairman, I think the suggestion made here by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West merits the consideration of the hon. the Minister. However, I do not agree with the amendment proposed by the hon. members of the Opposition. I do not think that the idea of the Law Revision Committee is comparable with the situation created by this clause. I do not believe that this idea of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council can be seen in the same light and context as this standing advisory committee at all. I think that this committee is something quite different. If the task of this standing advisory committee had been comparable with the task of other committees, one would have found that this committee had a much wider task. This committee has a wider task in that it is going to advise on a continuous basis. This committee is going to supervise matters in an attempt to iron out practical problems. The committee is going to be engaged in drafting regulations and it is going to consider proposals submitted to it by persons and bodies. Consequently the task of this committee, as laid down very clearly in the Bill and as stated by the hon. the Minister at the Second Reading, is only to make and submit recommendations to the Minister. In other words, this committee will advise the hon. the Minister in respect of such matters as are referred to it, and specific provision is accordingly made to this effect. Consequently I think it is an open question—I do not agree with it— whether a report can in fact be drawn up and whether it should be done in this public manner. The question is whether it should be tabled and even whether it can be tabled. I say this because it implies so many other aspects which it would not be possible, in my opinion, to incorporate in a report on a formal basis. I refer again to the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister, in which the powers of this committee are clearly defined. The powers of this committee are to consider and report on the desirability of future legislation. In other words, it is of a purely advisory nature. For that reason I think it would be quite fitting to incorporate such a report in an official report to this House.

Mr. Chairman, there is not much I can add to what has been said here, especially after what has been said by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West. The hon. member drew the attention of the House to clause 18(6), in terms of which the administration of this advisory committee is placed in the hands of the Registrar. Under these circumstances I think we may agree that the report tabled every year by the Minister of Economic Affairs shall include a detailed report on the activities of the advisory committee. In addition we may agree that the advisory committee shall consider the matter itself. The advisory committee will probably have a lot of work to do this year and next year and particularly in the first few years after the commencement of this legislation, but it is hoped that the volume of work will subsequently be decreased. Then the advisory committee itself will be able to determine, in the light of its activities, whether it is desirable for a separate report to be submitted. For the present I fear that there would be some duplication and I also fear that it would entail a waste of money. Under the present circumstances I should prefer us to be content with the clause as it reads at the moment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 30:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

The hon. the Minister has done a very good job with clause 30 and I do not want him to spoil it, but to improve it. I think it is accepted today that professional bodies keep very strict control over their own members. Yet we are experiencing a development in this modern economic world of ours where these large partnerships are being established. We now have the right, in terms of the Bill, to have large partnerships of accountants, of lawyers, of engineers and of members of any profession to which the hon. the Minister agrees. However, there is another development taking place. I mentioned one example of it in the Second Reading, namely the case of chartered surveyors, architects and engineers. Where you have a big building complex such as the Carlton Hotel in Johannesburg, you must have different professions associated together to perform the task of getting that building erected. In such an instance one might well have a partnership of more than 20 people, but they would be barred in terms of this clause. There is another development taking place in the accountancy profession. Accountants are now going in for management. In management they are associating themselves with engineers, efficiency experts, etc. Again you are getting partnerships created which the profession itself allows—and this is the important thing. As a chartered accountant, I am not permitted to go into a partnership with anybody else except a chartered accountant, unless the rules of the society concerned so permits. The same applies in the case of the hon. the Minister who is a lawyer, and in the case of an engineer. I think it would be a good thing if we were to broaden this to take care of this modern trend, which is growing rapidly, where different professions are being associated together in a single project.

Mr. Chairman, I have considered this proposal very carefully and I must say that I feel inclined to accept it. But I still have some doubt as to whether this should be accepted and whether it would not have been desirable first to investigate the matter a little more fully. I am told that there is not the slightest possibility, for the present, at any rate, of there being an association of professions exceeding the number of 20. What the hon. member’s proposal amounts to is that it does not have to be only one profession, but that it may be an association of several professions. The proposal made by him is a fundamental one. I then asked myself what might flow from this, because I felt inclined to say that we should first consult the various professions to see whether any real need existed for this. I came to the conclusion that there was in fact a safety-valve contained in this clause. There is a safety-valve in the sense that it has to be approved by the Minister in any case. This is a very important safety-valve, which would in any case be able to prevent any danger which might result from this. Moreover, even if we were to provide for the plural “professions” instead of “profession”, and they did not want this to be so, they would simply not make use of it. If any dangers may arise from this, there is still the safety-valve in that the Minister has to approve the matter. Consequently I believe that it may in fact be possible in the future, particularly in view of the growing association of the various professions, as indicated by the hon. member. In the circumstances, with something of a question mark still hanging over it, I am prepared to accept this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33:

Mr. Chairman, the difficulty arises, and I think it has led to a considerable number of representations which both the hon. the Minister and we have received in connection with the interpretation and clarification of clause 33 read with clause 34 and with clause 52(1) of the Bill. I wonder whether some of the difficulties have not arisen because of the difference between the English and Afrikaans text, because there is no identical wording to coincide. For example, in the English text of the Bill we find that a company can be formed in terms of clause 32 of the Bill for a “lawful purpose”. In the Afrikaans text it is for a “wettige doel”. In clause 33(1) we do not have the phrase “main purpose” but the phrase “main object”, a differentiation between “purpose” and “object”, whereas in the Afrikaans text we have “hoofdoelstelling”. When we go further we find the phrase “main business” which in the Afrikaans becomes “hoofbesigheid”. Looking at the English text, I think there is a variation in the emphasis to what is meant as against what is expressed in the Afrikaans text. It is the same as the difficulty we have in translating “volk”, i.e. whether it should be “race” or “nation”. We have this differentiation between “purpose” and “object” and in the Afrikaans text it is “doel”. When one studies the dictionary in connection with this one finds that there is no difference between the two really. If there is a difference between them in the English language it is very difficult to define. One therefore has firstly this particular difficulty which arises in that way. If one says for what “purpose” a company is formed and what its “main object” is, one wonders what it would be in regard to a number of existing companies which are registered with a wide variety of activities. In this clause it is required that these companies should define what is their main object. I think the only one that would cover that main object would be that it is to make a profit, because it is so wide. In the drafting of this clause I feel that one should rather have said what a company’s capacity is and what it is able to do. In terms of clause 32, of which we have already approved, a company must have a lawful purpose.

We now come to the second condition, namely what its main purpose is. The only purpose I can see for a company to do this is so that the general public can have some indication of what the company is all about in order to decide whether or not to invest in such a company. But every company that offers shares must present a prospectus. Every company that desires to offer shares for subscription must issue a prospectus. That prospectus is a disclosure of the full intention of the company and what business it intends to take up. Is it necessary that that particular circumscribed description of its activities should be in its memorandum and its articles and that it must state what its main object and main business is? When one looks at some of the companies that have been registered one finds that it is almost impossible to determine what the main business of any company is. It is for that reason that I think one should simplify this clause. I do not claim authorship for the suggestion that I have here and for this amendment; it is an amendment from a very high legal source.

I am referring to the one which the hon. the Minister no doubt is aware of himself. Of all the suggestions that have come to us this one seems to me to be a practical one. In other words, we want it to read:

That is, for a lawful purpose—

Now, Sir, the formulation of this provision meets also with what is contained in clause 36; because the drafters of this Bill, I believe, have anticipated the problems of establishing whether the actions of the company are strictly within the boundaries of the main object or main business. For that reason they have drafted clause 36, namely to ensure that nothing which is done outside the ambit of its powers, according to its memorandum, are necessarily ultra vires, so far as operations are concerned. If that is so, if acting outside what is stated, is not to be ultra vires, why ask for these limitations to be applied in an attempt to circumscribe what the activities and the main business and objects of a company should be? I believe, therefore, that this clause, as it is drafted here, would need the consequential amendments to clause 34, which will be dealt with, and which I cannot deal with at this stage.

It was argued by the hon. the Minister that subscribers would be protected against the use of the company’s funds for more than the one main object. But, Sir, it will not only not be achieved, but I believe it is rather stretching one’s imagination to believe that, by merely stating the main object, that will be achieved. If a company states its main object, it is not going to limit itself to one particular type of activity. It will state that main object in the widest possible form that will be acceptable to the Registrar of Companies. If it can do that, in terms of Schedule 2 it will have powers to do anything necessary to achieve that particular object as stated. The shareholders will receive no protection in that the utilization of their money is limited to one particular activity, because if the operations of that company are contained in the last provision of Schedule 2, there is a wide discretion as to what can be done. Provision is made for matters incidental and necessary for the achievement of the first object. For that reason I hope the hon. the Minister will accept this very much more simplified statement of capacity, so far as a company is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I accordingly move as an amendment …

Order! I just want to point out that the hon. member may not move an amendment in this form. The procedure is that the hon. member may only move his amendment if this clause is negatived by the Committee.

May I then move that this clause be deleted and that this be substituted?

No, the hon. member may not. He may vote against the clause, and if it is rejected, I shall ask the hon. member to move his amendment.

Business interrupted in accordance with standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.