Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

1. (a) (i) during the period of the currency of any agreement, award or determination which in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act is binding on the employees or employers who are or would be concerned in the strike or lock-out and any provision of which deals with the matter giving occasion for the strike or lock-out; or
2. (ii) if any order or wage regulating measure (other than an agreement, award or determination referred to in subparagraph (i)) which is binding on the employees or employers who are or would be concerned in the strike or lock-out, contains any provision which deals with the matter giving occasion for the strike or lock-out and which has been so binding for less than one year as at the date of commencement of the strike or lock-out or the date of the instigation to strike or lock-out, as the case may be; or.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

A year or two ago I came to this House in order to take measures to check and avert, in so far as our own country was concerned, the danger of drugs which was at that stage rolling over many parts of the Western world like a tidal wave and leaving appalling traces in its wake, and which in certain countries even assumed epidemic proportions.

On that occasion I dealt with the matter in detail and informed the House on the position in our own country and also elsewhere. At the time we also took up the standpoint that the danger of drug addiction and its consequences were sufficiently serious for drastic and purposeful steps to be taken against them and especially against drug peddling. The measures which we asked for on that occasion and in fact placed on the Statute Book, also intimated in no uncertain terms in how serious a light we were viewing the problem.

At the time I also made it very clear that we would not tolerate the spirit of permissiveness which lay at the root of the problem of drugs in so many of the countries of the world, and that we would not give way to any pressure to sacrifice the moral standards and codes of our country in the fine-sounding name of individual freedom. Nor did we leave any uncertainty as to the fact that we would maintain law and order here in our country.

As hon. members will still remember, the then official Opposition, with a few exceptions, lent its support to the measures proposed by us. In fact, the Opposition stated explicitly that it would not for one moment hesitate to support the principle of that Bill and that, to use the words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, it agreed whole-heartedly with some aspects of the Bill, aspects in respect of which the Opposition promised its unqualified support. We still have appreciation for that.

Hon. members will still remember, too, that the Opposition, just as we did on this side of the House, took a very strong stand indeed against the drug pedlar, regarded his case as being sui generis and stated unambiguously through the Leader of the Opposition that in their opinion the drug pedlar bore such great resemblance to a murderer that they were prepared to ensure that the minimum penalties proposed by us would be applied to him.

But I do not wish to create the impression that while the legislation in question was being dealt with in this House at the time everything was lovely in the garden. There were of course other sounds as well, both in this House and in the Press, which, as is its wont, tried to sow suspicion and wrest matters from their context. We had those who did their best to conjure up spectres in regard to the so-called repressive measures which a National Party Government was supposedly taking as well as the alleged excessive powers it was supposedly appropriating in order to combat the problem.

Surely, all of us still remember the fuss that was kicked up about the discretion of the courts which had allegedly been removed and the suspicion-mongering to the effect that magistrates were allegedly not making use of the provisions on mitigation of punishment that were contained in the Bill.

Bugbears were created at will in regard to the so-called injustice being perpetrated in the name of this Act, and even though we said time and again that those who were conjuring up these bugbears had never read the Bill, those people persisted in this practice.

Is it necessary for me to quote by name those with whom these wicked bugbears originated, or can hon. members recognize by the mere mention of this the roar coming from Houghton?

And now it is two years later. None of those alarming bugbears have seen the light of day, and we are not aware of one single case where any person has been wronged in the name of the relevant Act, nor are we aware of one single person who has been oppressed in the name of that Act.

On the contrary, to judge by the malicious din that went up shortly after the commencement of the Act when a number of sentences were altered by review, it was only too clear that the strongest opponents of the Act had in fact not read it while it was being dealt with in this House. They were totally unaware of the fact that the power of the courts to suspend sentences had been left untouched by us and that their discretion in this respect had by no means been restricted.

It stands to reason that we were not prepared to change the prescribed penalties, and we emphasized that it was our intention that drastic action be taken against the drug pedlar. But, as I fully explained and stated in the course of the debate on my Vote last year, we never had any doubt about the fact that the power of the courts had been left untouched in this particular connection. But what happened when the truth dawned on the liberalists for the first time? They rejoiced and shouted for joy because of a fancied loophole which, according to them, existed in the Act. Then the Act suddenly became a law " … through which the Supreme Court has driven a coach and four”. Would those who reasoned this way really want to suggest that the Supreme Court appropriated powers which the legislature did not confer upon it or leave to its discretion? Do they want to suggest in that way that in spite of the wishes of Parliament, the court would take it upon itself to disregard or water down the wishes of the legislature in order to adapt them to the so-called humanistic views of certain liberalist schools of thought?

I have never viewed the conduct of the courts in that light. In fact, I want to state explicitly that the courts have been interpreting the law, as they found it in the Act, in the best traditions of the administration of justice in our country. Hon. members will recall that in the statement which I made last year, and to which I referred earlier in my speech, I dealt fully with the judgments which had by that time been handed down in regard to the application of the Act. I do not wish to repeat now what I said at the time, but I just want to point out in passing that I made it clear on that occasion that the power of the courts to suspend sentences was nothing new to us, and that I also indicated in what respects I differed with the approach in some of the judgments. I stated very explicitly that it was by no means my intention to interfere with the functions of the courts, but that if we were convinced that the legislation introduced by us did not reflect our intention correctly, we would take steps to remedy the position.

†The Act has now been in operation for just over a year and we have had an opportunity of determining its effectiveness. I have, even at this early stage, no hesitation in saying that I am more than ever convinced that we have acted timeously and that I have no reason whatsoever to withdraw any of the penal provisions enacted in 1971. According to reports received, there has been a decrease of 10,5% during 1972 in the number of prosecutions for drug offences in our country as compared with the figures for the previous year. As far as dagga is concerned, the amount of dagga seized by the police dropped by over two million kilogram.

I am aware that the cynics and fault-finders amongst us might interpret this as proof only of the problem having been driven underground. But let us, without subscribing to this view, accept for purposes of discussion that they are right. What does it then mean and what have we achieved by enacting the legislation that we did? If the drug culture has been driven underground, then surely it follows that drugs are no longer as readily available as before and, consequently, that less people, especially young people, are exposed to its dangers than before. In other words, substantial progress has been made in protecting our people against a menace which has in many parts of the world defied every effort to avert it.

But what is more, reports indicate that drugs have in fact, even in the underworld of crime and drugs, become less readily available than before. We of course do not claim that we have already succeeded in completely suppressing the drug problem. On the contrary, we are but too aware that the price of success in this sphere is nothing less than eternal vigilance and a continuous and energetic effort to make the lucrative drug market as risky and as unprofitable as we possibly could.

Somehow we must bring it home to the drug pedlar and to the potential drug dealer that the stakes in the drug market are exceptionally high and hazardous. What might seem to them to be profitable in terms of hard cash, must be outweighed by the price they will have to pay in terms of liberty and other personal values when they are overtaken by the long arm of the law. The drug dealer must be left in no uncertainty as to what his fate will be when he is found guilty of one of the most abhorrent crimes that man can perpetrate.

For this reason we come to this House to ask for the powers contemplated in clause 3 of the Bill before this House. For this reason we consider it necessary that every drug dealer and potential drug dealer should know in advance that he can expect no mercy when he is convicted of a crime which is so hideous that it has no parallel in a decent society.

As I have intimated before, I have no axe to grind with our courts. This clause is not and is not intended to be an intimidation of our courts. On the contrary, I can assure hon. members that there are judges of our Supreme Court who themselves are concerned over the fact that drug pedlars are still sometimes too leniently dealt with, and I have reason to believe that although they, like their brothers, place a high premium on the unfettered discretion of the courts, will have no objection to the steps now contemplated in this regard.

What is more, the legislature as the one and only sovereign power in this country has the undeniable right and, may I add, the duty to adopt such legislation as it deems fit and proper to protect its peoples and to curb an evil which respects no boundaries and creates untold miseries in the lives of especially those members of society who are the future of our country. If there walks a man who, in spite of what we have said and in spite of the assurance we have given, still points the finger at us and still thinks it proper to represent the provisions of clause 3 as exclusively inspired by a desire to divest the courts of its inherent discretion, let him by all means amuse himself with his own thoughts.

For my part, I cannot be deterred by baseless and frivolous insinuations from doing my duty and what I believe right and, as in this case, necessary. We on this side of the House, believe that the provisions of clause 3 will psychologically and otherwise be of invaluable assistance in our fight against the drug problem especially at a stage when drug pedlars from abroad think that the risk is not too great to attempt to fill their pockets with the proceeds of the deepest misery which they try to dispense to our youngsters. I want them to see the writing on the wall and to understand and accept that in South Africa there is no place for them and that they will not be tolerated in a society which still cares sufficiently for its children to take, if needs be, even unpopular steps to safeguard its own.

I am aware that the exclusion of children under 18 years from the operation of the provisions of clause 3 might induce the master minds in the illegal drug market to use the gullible young to carry on their trade. To them and to all concerned I would like to say in advance that we will keep a close eye on developments and that further steps will be taken if and when necessary. This Government will not relax its vigilance against the drug problem but will do everything in its power to curb and eventually destroy this menace.

*Mr. Speaker, I think the other clauses in the Bill hardly need any comment, but I nevertheless want to explain one or two of them briefly on this occasion.

Clause 4 is self-explanatory, and all it actually does is to create the machinery whereby research in regard to drugs may be carried out. A great deal of research in regard to drugs is most probably being done in countries abroad, but we feel that we, too, have a contribution to make in this regard, and I believe that hon. members will therefore welcome the provisions in question.

As hon. members know, the position at present is that the emphasis on the application of section 21(3), which deals with the registration of registered rehabilitation centres, falls more on the building than on the treatment, etc., taking place in the building. By clause 7 we are now moving the emphasis to where it actually belongs by providing that the director shall only register an institution if he is satisfied that such institution will be so managed and conducted that the reception, maintenance, treatment and training of the inmates may be entrusted to the management of that institution. Hon. members will understand that in a case where one places the lives of people in the hands of an institution such as a rehabilitation centre, we must ensure, in so far as this is possible, that they are not subjected to methods which may be harmful to them.

The only other clause which I should like to explain is clause 9. As section 36(2) reads at the moment, a prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment for a period shorter than six months may not be transferred to a rehabilitation centre even if he is in need of treatment at such a centre. It appears furthermore, that a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for a period exceeding six months may not be so transferred either, i.e. if he has already served six months of his sentence—even if, for instance, he still has to serve another 18 months or two years. We should like those people who are in need of treatment to receive such treatment as far as possible; consequently we are amending section 36(2) so that the general right relating to the transfer of persons, which is conferred in terms of section 36(1), may only be disregarded in the case where a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for a period exceeding six months has less than six months of that sentence left to serve. This restriction is necessary, otherwise it would mean that a person who only has a small part of his sentence left to serve and has been in prison for a long time, might be transferred to a rehabilitation centre shortly before his discharge.

Mr. Speaker, I have spent a great deal of time on once again stating the Government’s standpoint unambiguously on a matter which, no matter how strange it may sound, is still being raised in some circles as a controversial question. I make no apologies for the measures we have taken in this regard up to now, nor for those which are being asked for at the moment. We are in earnest about tackling and overcoming the problem of drugs without any permissive complaisance, and it is not our intention to budge an inch from the course we believe should be followed in this regard.

We find ourselves in good company. When we piloted this Act through two years ago, there was a different approach in numerous Western countries and it was argued that one should not take such strict action because one would not achieve anything by doing so. The past two years have proved indisputably that South Africa was correct, for the United States of America, Canada and Britain, which advocated lenient methods and measures at the time, are at present advocating steps against drug pedlars which are as strict as those we had the wisdom to foresee as far back as 1971. Once again we are putting great emphasis on the treatment of the drug addict and on his rehabilitation. For the most part we are in actual fact devoting our energies to the rehabilitation centres and the rehabilitation of these people, but we show no mercy to the drug pedlar who makes his living out of the downfall of others, and the legislature wants to state its standpoint in no uncertain terms, i.e. that we do not want to show any mercy.

We on this side of the House have listened with interest to the hon. the Minister introducing this Bill and we have also taken into account the fact that we had the opportunity of studying the problem through the Commission of Inquiry into the Abuse of Drugs in 1970, and in 1971 we supported the legislation that came before this House. The hon. the Minister has indicated that a degree of success has been achieved by the provisions of the 1971 Act, the principal Act, and we are indeed pleased to know that progress has been made in regard to this very serious problem of drug abuse and the other crimes that go with drug abuse. We believe that it is necessary that greater research should be undertaken. This was indicated in the Grobler Commission’s report. Mr. Speaker, we welcome the clauses of this Bill with the exception of one clause, and that is clause 3.

Looking at the various clauses and at the whole problem of dealing with drug abuse, we believe it is highly necessary that a great deal of research should be undertaken. That is why we wholeheartedly support clause 4 of the Bill, which enables research to be undertaken in regard to these dangerous dependence-producing substances. We know that a good deal of research is about to be undertaken and we know that this measure is necessary for that research. This is an aspect of dealing with this problem which is of vital importance. In regard to those persons who are serving imprisonment, such as the hon. the Minister has mentioned, clause 9 of this Bill will bring about a greater facilitation in regard to the transfer of persons who will be able to benefit by rehabilitation in a rehabilitation centre. We believe that every effort must be made to facilitate the rehabilitation of these people.

The principal Act, the Act of 1971, which has been in operation for just over a year, has had some difficulties in regard to the interpretation of certain aspects and of certain sections. We know that a panel of experts was appointed to assist the courts and to advise the courts particularly in regard to the differentiation between a person who is an addict and a person who is an outright pedlar and drug-pusher. The panel of experts which is mentioned in the first annual report of the National Advisory Board on Rehabilitation Matters indicates that this type of work can be undertaken by professional people, by social workers, by persons connected with medicine, by psychiatrists and people in other fields, in order that expert opinion can be obtained in assisting the courts to come to a decision. We understand that this panel of experts is to be extended to all the major centres and to centres where there is no panel of experts in existence at the present time so as to assist the courts in the decisions that have to be taken. This will be done particularly in view of the severe penalties that were provided for in the 1971 Act. These penalties differentiate between persons who are in the possession of drugs and persons who are dealing with drugs. We want to reiterate what we said in 1971 when the principal legislation was before the House. We condemn the drug pedlar and we think that he plays a loathsome role in the sordid affair of drug muggling, the abuse of drugs and the horror that it brings upon humanity, particularly amongst young people of the world. That is why we supported the 1971 Act which lays down that minimum sentences of five years on first conviction and minimum sentences of ten years on a subsequent conviction up to a maximum of 25 years should be imposed. These measures indicated to the courts the severity with which Parliament, this legislature, considered the crime of dealing in drugs.

We have before us now a clause, clause 3, which goes beyond the provisions of the 1971 Act. We feel that the hon. the Minister has not made out a case as to why we should go beyond the provisions which were provided for in the 1971 Act. We believe that the discretion of the courts should remain as they were since the introduction of the 1971 Act. The hon. the Minister has claimed success with the implementation of the provisions of this Act but, as he has said, there is one exception. That exception is that there is a difference with the courts. There is no doubt about it that judging from the public statements made by the hon. the Minister, he has been frustrated and irritated from time to time when he has heard of sentences being suspended or postponed in certain cases. However, the provisions of clause 3 bring about a change, indeed bring about an abrogation of the discretionary powers of the courts. We are not able to support the principle which is involved in this Bill. In spite of the other provisions of the Bill which, as I said earlier, we welcome, we believe that it is the main aspect of this Bill that we have to take into consideration. This is the principle involved in clause 3 and therefore we on this side of the House intend voting against the Second Reading of the Bill. We believe that the position which is now going to obtain as a result of the proposal before us whereby, in terms of this clause, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act will no longer apply, will mean that these persons will no longer be dealt with at the discretion of the courts, and this is unsound. Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, will not apply to a person who is over the age of 18 years and who is charged in terms of the previous clause as a dealer. This position will certainly mean that those persons who have been convicted of an offence as a trafficker in drugs will also be subject to a retrospective portion of this clause. This is another aspect which we on this side of the House condemn.

Subsection (2) of the proposed section 2A indicates that any person who is convicted of an offence prior to the date of coming into operation of this particular provision will still be subject to the provisions of this clause as outlined in subsection (1). In other words, those persons will not be able to be protected to the extent that the discretionary powers of the court will be maintained because now any decision of the court to suspend or postpone a sentence or discharge a portion or reprimand will be prohibited in terms of clause 3.

Therefore, as I have said, we believe that this matter should be left to the discretion of the courts. We believe there has been no great difficulty involved as far as sentences were concerned. For these reasons we are unable to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal in greater detail with the proposed amendment which is being introduced by means of clause 3 of this Bill which, as has been indicated by the hon. member for Umbilo, we are not able to support. What is more, in view of the change, which the hon. the Minister is introducing under this clause, being of such a serious nature for reasons on which I shall elaborate presently, we cannot support this Bill. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister at the outset that it is most unfortunate that he is placing the official Opposition in the position of not being able to continue to support the Government on this very important legislation, namely the Act which is on the Statute Book, in order to curb the spread of the menace of drugs in this country.

We are at one with the Government—I want to make this very clear to the House —in viewing the drug problem in South Africa with the utmost seriousness. We believe, as does the Government, that severe measures are necessary in order to prevent this problem from gaining a foothold in this country and undermining our nation, particularly our younger people. It is for this reason that we supported the Government in 1971, when the original Bill was introduced in this House. We even supported a provision which normally we would not be prepared to support. I refer to the imposition upon the courts of minimum sentences, thereby removing, to some extent, the discretion of judges in regard to punishment.

Let me make it quite clear at this stage that it has been traditional in our law in South Africa throughout the ages that punishment is pre-eminently a matter within the discretion of the judicial officer presiding at the trial and that such discretion must not be fettered by prescription of or adherence to any scale or tariff of desirable punishments without reference to the individual and the particular facts of the case in question. This has been traditional in our law. It is a sound principle which ought normally not to be departed from. In the case of the original Act we were prepared, as I have said, to depart from this principle to the extent of agreeing to the prescription of minimum sentences for certain offences, e.g. on conviction of those who are pedlars and dealers in drugs because, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, we took the view that this offence is on a par with the most serious offences, including murder. But, Mr. Speaker, we were able to support a minimum sentence for these serious offences in the knowledge that in appropriate cases the judiciary had the opportunity of being able to suspend these sentences or even to discharge with a caution a particular accused if the circumstances warranted, it, in terms of section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Act. This provision is now to be removed in terms of clause 3 of this Bill. It now means that the courts will be left with no discretion whatever in regard to the minimum sentences. This is a provision which we can under no circumstances support. This does not mean to say that we are in any way becoming soft on the subject of drug abuse. We are quite satisfied with the way in which the 1971 Act has operated in practice up to date. I wish to emphasize that we are quite satisfied with the way this Act has been operated in practice by the judiciary. We are not impressed by the agitation against the Act which has been taking place in the newspapers. We are therefore not prompted in any way to ask this House and the Minister to change the 1971 Act in any way save for improving the rehabilitation provisions which the rest of this Bill does. But so far as the punitive sections of the 1971 Act are concerned, we are not in any way prompted to ask this House or the Minister to change those provisions. We are satisfied with the way it has operated in practice.

I hope we will not hear the argument advanced against us that we are getting soft on drugs or that we are influenced by the agitation which has been taking place outside. But let us be clear as to why the Act has operated properly in practice. There is only one reason and that is because of the existence of section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Act which has made it possible for judges in appropriate cases to suspend the whole or part of sentences. It is foolhardy to suggest that one can introduce a blanket provision providing for a minimum prison sentence of two years in some cases and five years in other cases, without leaving a discretion with the judges to suspend these cases where they deem it necessary. The circumstances of particular cases vary considerably.

I wish to point out to the hon. the Minister that he himself said that he was quite satisfied with the way in which the courts have interpreted this legislation and that he does not agree with those people who have suggested in the past that the Supreme Court has, in his own words, “driven a horse and coach through this whole Act”, implying in other words that the courts have minimized the serious provisions which this Parliament saw fit to pass. The hon. the Minister made it quite clear that he was entirely satisfied with the way in which the courts have operated this Act in practice. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that he took up this attitude, because it is our opinion that it is in fact so. The courts have taken into account the view taken by the legislature of the seriousness of the offence of drug dependence or drug abuse. This is perfectly clear from many judgments of the courts. I wish to refer briefly to one only. This was the case of the State V. Shangase and Others, which was heard by a full bench of three senior judges of the Natal Provincial Division and is reported in the South African Law Reports, 1972, 2SALR on page 410. This was a series of cases of offences under this Act which came under review. The Supreme Court was asked to consider the whole question of convictions under this Act in the light of the minimum sentences imposed by the Legislature. The court had regard to the fact that the Legislature viewed these offences very seriously, and at paragraph H, on page 414, pointed out—

Then the court went on to consider the nature of the punishments which the Legislature thought fit to impose, and pointed out that in the case of—

In the case of the prison sentences, the court pointed out that the maximum sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment had previously, in practice, been regarded as one which would be imposed only in exceptional circumstances. Having regard to all these factors, the court stressed the fact that the Act is one of manifest and unique severity, and that in imposing the sentences on accused persons, the judiciary had to view the matter in that light. So it cannot be argued that the judiciary failed to accept the view which this Legislature took as to the severity of the crime. Now, bearing in mind all this, the court—when I say “the court”, I should emphasize that it means the courts throughout the country—had frequently imposed sentences which the magistrates and the judges have seen fit to suspend. We unfortunately do not have the statistics available as regards the number of suspended cases. But anyone who practises in the courts will know that there have been quite a large number, which, if one accepts that the magistrates and the judges concerned have acted properly, as they saw fit, stresses the fact that those persons, experienced magistrates and judges in most cases, considered that in the specific circumstances with which they were faced, a suspended sentence was appropriate. Unless one is prepared to argue that these judges and magistrates acted improperly, there is no justification, no logical basis whatsoever, for removing the power from them of imposing suspended sentences where they see fit. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that there are many circumstances which can make it appropriate to suspend a sentence either wholly or in part. One cannot refer to all the circumstances which are possible; they are many and varied, but some of the more important ones were mentioned in this judgment which I have just referred to, at page 423. I quote—

The word “include” is in italics, stressing the fact that there are many other possibilities—

1. (1) The age of the accused and his condition, particularly in regard to his cultural, physical, mental and emotional states, and any established immaturity whether attributable to such states, lack of sophistication or education or the like.
2. (2) The factual context in which the crime was committed and the motive of the accused, for example the absence of premeditation, any degree of temptation to which he was subjected, the absence of any tendency for his conduct to deprave others.
3. (3) The limited quantity and nature of the dependence-producing substance in his possession, including the fact that dagga is almost certainly not as dangerous and harmful as some of the substances with which it is coupled in the relevant penal provisions of the Act.

I may say at this stage that these cases dealt specifically with dagga, which obviously is regarded as a less harmful drug than some of the others with which one has to deal.

They are all harmful.

I accept that. We have never suggested that dagga is not harmful, but I think, to be realistic, one must accept that dagga is less harmful than some others that can be mentioned. I continue with the quotation—

1. (4) The absence of previous convictions or, if any exist, the nature, number and dates thereof and the time which has elapsed since the last relevant conviction.
2. (5) Whether or not the accused is in regular employment and has dependants.
3. (6) The local conditions and incidence —including the falling off of the crime if the Act should desirably achieve its effect—of the specific crime in the area in question, as indicating that severe penalties are not particularly called for.
4. (7) Any pressure exerted on the accused by persons in authority over or having influence upon the accused, for example orders or perhaps even requests from an employer, parent, husband or the like, as well as duress or intimidation.
5. (8) As a limited and transient consideration, the question whether or not the offence had been committed so soon after the coming into force of the Act that a particular accused was unlikely to have been aware of the new and more drastic approach to the whole question of dagga.
6. (9) The probable effect upon the accused of a long and substantial period of imprisonment.
7. (10) Any other factor bearing on the commission of the crime which reduces the moral blameworthiness of accused.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I merely refer to these as possibilities. The Minister and the House may or may not agree that each and every one of these ought to be taken into account. This is a matter of opinion which I hope we shall not be debating this morning.

I mention this specifically to show to the hon. the Minister and to this House that there may be circumstances in some cases which would make it an injustice not to suspend either the whole or part of the sentence in the particular case, and surely, Sir, this House cannot be a party to creating injustices in the administration of justice. I wish to stress this point, Mr. Speaker, because this is precisely the possible effect of what the hon. the Minister is doing by removing from the judges the possibility to suspend sentences in appropriate cases, bearing in mind that the minimum sentences imposed by the Act apply equally to a first offender; there are obviously more severe penalties for other offenders.

The hon. the Minister, in introducing the Second Reading debate, said that there are some judges who are concerned that some persons have been getting too lenient sentences. Sir, there is no evidence of this. This is merely a statement by the hon. the Minister. It would be interesting to hear from him on what ground he makes that statement. It would be even more interesting to hear from him his justification for his subsequent statement that in his view judges will have no objections to the steps which are now being taken in terms of clause 3 of this Bill.

Some judges.

Yes, some judges; I beg your pardon. Mr. Speaker, perhaps he would be kind enough to tell the House who these judges are and in what way they were consulted to get this information. But clearly the hon. the Minister cannot go so far as to say that this is the general view of judges, even of judges of the Appellate Division, because it would surprise me if the bulk of our judges were prepared to agree to a measure which undoubtedly will have the effect of creating injustices because it ties the hands of the courts to the extent that they cannot pass appropriate sentences in particular cases. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will reconsider his attitude to this clause at this late stage. The hon. the Minister is trying to push this Bill through rapidly in the dying stages of this session. He is entitled to make use of the time of the House in this way, but I suggest that he ought to reflect more carefully on this measure. There is a great deal of talk, Sir, of consensus at this stage. I do not think that some of the people who use this word are entirely ad idem as to what they mean by it. One thing that seems to be valid to me is that in dealing with the more serious problems that we have in this country, it is to the advantage of the Government and the Opposition to be ad idem on the approach which should be adopted. I believe the drug problem is one of these problems. I think it is to the advantage of the Government, I even go so far as to say this, to have had the support of this side of the House for the provisions of the 1971 Act which, as I have explained, support which we were able to give because the discretion of the judges was not entirely removed. But we are not able to support this Bill because that discretion is now being removed entirely. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will reconsider his attitude and make it possible for this House, for the Official Opposition, and this Government to continue to adopt a common approach to the drug problem. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider his attitude to clause 3 in the light of what I have said. We are entirely in agreement with the remainder of the Bill and we would be happy to support the hon. the Minister in passing this Bill through all its stages before the House rises should he be prepared to remove clause 3. In the light of what he himself has said, namely that he has no quarrel with the way in which judges have exercised their power, I cannot see why he cannot do that. If he believes that there has been too frequent resort to the suspension of sentences, that is surely something which Attorneys-General can deal with by briefing the prosecutors to present the evidence to the court of where abuse has taken place as a result of suspension. I believe that the hon. the Minister has referred to a case in which an Australian citizen, having had his sentence suspended, promptly left the country. If this is the case—and if this is one of things which is worrying the hon. the Minister— it is something which can be dealt with quite simply by presenting the evidence in future cases where there is a danger of this happening. I have no doubt whatsoever that presented with such evidence, the courts would exercise their discretion by not suspending the sentence. With respect to the hon. the Minister, I think he is viewing the problem not so much in too serious a light, but he is overlooking the fact that the ability to exercise these provisions properly rests in the hands of the Attorneys-Generäl who can simply present the evidence before sentence is passed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the official Opposition, I am not going into a long explanation as to why I am opposing this Bill. I am quite sure the hon. the Minister expected me to oppose this Bill because of the insertion of clause 3. I want to say at once that this is, in fact, the reason why I am opposing the Bill. To me it is the major clause of this Bill. I think the hon. the Minister himself recognizes that fact. When he introduced the Bill this morning this was the first and main provision with which he dealt. I opposed the principal Act in 1971 for various reasons, making it quite clear that I was against the peddling of drugs and that I was against the use of drugs which were dependence-producing drugs. I made that quite clear in the course of my speech although I must say that in the ensuing years I have been accused both by the Government and the official Opposition of being in favour of the use of dependence-producing drugs. I dismiss that sort of accusation with the same contempt that I dismiss other extravagant accusations which have been made against me both in this House and outside this House. I moved an amendment at the time stating clearly that while I was against the use of dependence-producing drugs I was going to vote against the Second Reading for various reasons, one of which was that the Bill interfered with the discretion of the courts of law. There were other reasons, inter alia, that the Bill introduced detention without trial for persons suspected of knowing something about the peddling of drugs. This Bill simply removes what remnants of discretion have been left to the courts as far as pedlars are concerned. It now takes away from judges the right to give suspended sentences in their cases. The hon. the Minister says he is satisfied, or, rather, the hon. member who spoke before me, said that the Minister had said he was satisfied with the way the courts were handling these cases. I must say I got a different impression, judging from statements the hon. the Minister has made since 1971 when the principal Act came into operation. I gained the impression that the hon. the Minister was dissatisfied with the way in which judges were handling cases which had come to them on appeal, in that they were setting aside sentences where magistrates had sentenced certain persons to imprisonment, and were giving suspended sentences instead. The Minister made the statement that if these loopholes were going to be used, he was going to see that they were closed. So, I do not subscribe to the attitude that the hon. the Minister has in fact been satisfied with the way in which the Act has been administered by our courts and, indeed, the amendment introduced today is evidence that the hon. the Minister is not satisfied. Otherwise, why does he come to the House today and ask for this far-reaching amendment? He stated also that some judges had stated that they would be satisfied to have the discretionary right withdrawn and that they would approve of the change he is introducing today. I will produce evidence from judges who do not approve, but disapprove very strongly in principle of interfering with the discretionary right of the courts. The first judge I wish to quote is Mr. Justice Steyn of the Cape Provincial Division, who stated—

And then there is the Judge-President of the Cape Provincial Division, who is about to retire, Mr. Justice Beyers, who condemned the inclination of the Legislature to encroach upon the discretion of the courts. He said—

He was addressing the Society of University Teachers of Law in Pinelands, and he said—

Then I have a judge who has often been quoted in this House as being a firm upholder of law and order, Mr. Justice Snyman. He had a different criticism to make, and that is that the Black population was being unduly hit by the provisions of the Act. That is why he said that judges in the main had tried to soften the blow of the harsh penalties by making use of another law to suspend sentences and he said that he understood that this was to be interfered with one of these days, and he went on to say that if it was they would have to accept it. Well, of course the judges would have to accept it. I would like to point out here, in reply to what the hon. the Minister said about judges—he did not use the word “subverting” but I think the implication was there—subverting the intention of the Legislature in that they gave suspended sentences to dealers in drug cases. The hon. the Minister ought to know by now that it is not the duty of judges to look at the intentions of the Legislature. Indeed, they are precluded from doing so. They only examine the law as it stands on the Statute Book and therefore the hon. the Minister should not have been surprised at the fact that judges would use the law as it stands on the Statute Book. It is because of the way they have used it that he is now changing the law, and he is now telling them exactly what he wants. I accept that. Well, if that is what the hon. the Minister wants, it is certainly not what I want and that is why I am opposing this measure. It is not what I wanted in the original Act and that is why I opposed that Act on principle, although there were many laudable provisions dealing with rehabilitation, which in any case I felt should be separate from the measure prescribing penalties involved in the use of and the dealing in drugs.

I wonder why the hon. the Minister does not believe that judges and magistrates share our aversion to drug pedlars. I mean, we here are unanimous on that, although we are not unanimous on how to handle drug pedlars. I am even in favour of harsher maximum penalties for drug pedlars. Let me make that absolutely clear. I said so in my speech on the Second Reading of the original Act and I can read it to the hon. member if he wants proof, but he can take my word for it. I said I would be in favour of harsher maximum penalties for drug pedlars but I am not in favour of restricting the discretion of the courts and laying down minimum sentences, which is exactly what the principal Act did. Now, if we are all unanimous in our aversion towards drug pedlars and the evil effects they have on the population, why does the Minister assume that judges and magistrates do not share that aversion? On what basis does he do that?

I am not worried about that.

But it seems to me the hon. the Minister is worried because if he were not worried he would leave this discretion in the hands of the courts. Why does he not believe that judges are as averse to the evil-doings of drug pedlars as anybody else in this House? Of course they are, but they are there to take the circumstances of each case into consideration, and as one judge said—I do not have the particulars with me but I can supply it if I am challenged on it—he did not consider that the ordinary drug pedlar for instance should be treated on the same basis as an African mother who was selling a certain amount of dagga in order to feed her starving children, when she had no other means of support. He felt there ought to be a distinction between the treatment of that woman and the treatment of the real pedlar who was out simply to make large profits out of young people. I agree that this is not the right way to make a living but I must say that if my children were starving, many factors would come into my mind which would not occur to me otherwise, and judges should take these things into consideration.

I want to make another point which also concerned me very much indeed when the principal Act was passed and which concerns me very much now. That is the fact that no distinction whatsoever is drawn between the penalties that apply to persons dealing in or possessing—and here the presumption clause comes in—in dagga and other dependence-producing drugs. I argued this across the floor with the hon. the Minister at the time the principal Act was passed and we had another rather unfortunate and acrimonious argument last year, but I hope that the circumstances are different this time. I produced the evidence, and I can produce it to the Minister in the form of the findings of commissions on drugs, like Pres. Nixon’s official commission on drug abuses, which is anything but what I would call a wild-eyed, radical, permissive society type of commission, there was also the Canadian commission on dependence-producing drugs and there was the Wootton commission in Britain years ago. All of those recommended distinctions between the use of cannabis and the use of hard-line drugs like heroin and opium and all these really dangerous hard-line drugs, and the reason was that after extensive investigations they came to the conclusion that no conclusions really could be drawn as to the real dangers of cannabis, or dagga as we know it here. They all agreed that it probably creates hallucinations. None of them recommended the legalization of cannabis, but all of them said that a distinction ought to be drawn in the treatment of people either using or dealing in or possessing this sort of drug. I want to say that our presumptions clause lays down that anybody who is found in possession of more than 115 grammes, I think it is, of dagga is presumed to be a dealer. The onus of proof that a person is not a dealer falls on the accused. Another thing to which I object is this transferring of the onus of proof.

In South Africa, as we all know, the use of dagga is to the indigenous inhabitants of this country a long-established habit. Even the hon. member for Durban North who went round the country accusing me of being in favour of our young people being subverted by drugs after the original Act was passed …

“Experimentation with dagga.”

No, not experimentation with dagga. I said it took place and anybody who knows anything about modern society knows that it is taking place. The hon. the Minister has enough sense to know that there are lots of kids who try dagga for kicks who are not dealers, not pedlars and who are not even addicted to it. However, in terms of the Bill, they could fall under severe penalties unless the magistrate finds that there are mitigating circumstances.

That remains.

I am glad to hear that that remains. As I wanted to say, the hon. member for Durban North went around making his wild accusations about me. Even he admitted—I have a quote of his words …

Order! Is that relevant?

Yes, it is relevant because I am trying to prove that we should distinguish between dagga and other drugs in this Bill. It is a new Bill which is being introduced and it gives the opportunity for the hon. the Minister to do so. Severe penalties are going to apply, the suspended sentences are going to drop away as far as the possessors of more than 115 grammes of dagga are concerned. I believe there should be a distinction. I am only using the words of the hon. member for Durban North to support this, more particularly as far as Africans are concerned. However, if you do not want me to use those words, I shall leave it at that. I want to say that if one looks at the figures of the persons who have been charged and convicted of being in possession of or of peddling dependence-producing drugs—as I say, one should not forget that being in possession of 115 grammes is assumed to be peddling the material—one finds that the vast majority of people to have gone to gaol both for using and for peddling dagga have been Africans and Coloured people. There are thousands upon thousands of them. While we are emptying the gaols on the one hand—no, I am afraid that is an exaggeration. While we are reducing the number of Africans who go to gaol because of pass offences on the one hand, we are filling the gaols now with Africans and Coloured people who are found guilty under this very harsh Act of being in possession of dagga.

Why do you make a colour distinction?

Because it so happens …

But why do you make a distinction?

I am giving the figures; I am not making a distinction. Quite obviously I want the lesser penalties applied to everybody. What I am trying to say is that it is among the Black people particularly and among Coloured people that the use of dagga is a long-established practice. Medical opinion, just as good as any that the hon. the Minister can produce, holds (a) that it is not necessarily addictive, (b) that it is not necessarily harmful. Indeed, it is a good deal less harmful than alcohol and we do not have the position that users of alcohol go to gaol with minimum sentences, with the discretion of the courts removed. I can warrant that there are more people killed on the roads by drunken drivers in South Africa than there are killed by people who have been smoking dagga.

The Nixon Commission did not recommend legalization and I am not pleading for legalization, but what it did recommend was that criminal sanctions should not apply to persons in possession of cannabis for their own use. Even if it is 115 grammes, I still believe that it could be assumed that it is for the person’s own use if he is a hardened smoker.

What were Mr. Nixon’s reactions?

Oh, Mr. Nixon turned it down, but the effect on the courts has been dramatic. I am informed by persons who have been studying this subject on an expert basis—in fact, by the commissioners who were out here—that there has been a chain reaction in America in the passing of sentence for the possession and use of cannabis. They are just not sentencing people to gaol for this offence to anything like the same extent. In New York, I think, the practice of sentencing people to gaol for private use of cannabis has almost disappeared entirely. I am referring to cannabis and not to other drugs. I want to make that very clear. The Woolton Commission wanted a definite distinction drawn between different types of drugs. The Canadian commission put forward the same recommendation in this connection. Indeed, in Canada they have gone very far on this. I wish to quote from an official news release of the Canadian Government dated July, 1972—

In England, too, I think that an examination of the sentences passed would also reveal a very much more lenient attitude following on the revelations by medical societies and expert commissions. The sentences are very much lighter in the cases of dagga. Even the very conservative American Medical Association—I can assure hon. members that this is a highly conservative medical association—has recommended the end of criminal penalties for personal possession of insignificant amounts of the drug. I know that we are dealing with dealers and with persons in possession of 115 grammes of dagga. However, I mention all this to state the attitudes that are developing overseas. I do think that the hon. the Minister, when he talks about the heavy penalties which are being inflicted in Western countries on users and pedlars of drugs, should draw the distinction …

No, not users.

All right, pedlars. The hon. the Minister is quite right; this does only apply to pedlars and as I said, to possessors of 115 grammes. However, the hon. the Minister should raw a distinction between the attitude towards hardline drugs and towards dagga which is the major cause of offences in South Africa in this regard. If you look at the convictions, you find, thank Heaven, that there are remarkably few prosecutions and convictions for hardline drugs, both for users and the pedlars, compared to other countries on a pro rata basis as far as population is concerned. It is not really a tremendous problem in this country. The other point I want to make is that the Act which the hon. the Minister promulgated in December, 1971, arose out of the recommendations of the Grobler Commission. The hon. the Minister knows perfectly well that the Grobler Commission in fact explicitly excluded an investigation into non-Whites and dagga, and yet it is precisely on non-White users of dagga that the full weight of this Act has fallen. I think that is a terribly important factor to bear in mind. If the hon. the Minister would only rid himself of his conviction that there is no difference between hard-line drugs and dagga, we may come to some agreement. I know what he is going to tell me. I know he is going to say that there is a difference between our dagga and the dagga overseas.

That is one of the arguments.

Yes, it is one of the arguments he is going to use. What makes the hon. the Minister think that dagga users overseas only use their own home-grown variety? There is no such thing. I have a fat book which has just been issued by the National Commission of Inquiry into Drugs of the United States which shows that enormous quantities of cannabis are imported from all over the world into America. It is smuggled into that country, including no doubt South African dagga. So the argument does not hold. I am told in this book for instance, that the Afghanistan type of cannabis is stronger than ours. That is therefore no argument. People do not only use the stuff that they grow in their backyards, but they get hold of smuggled varieties which are just as strong, and sometimes even stronger, than our South African dagga. Everywhere in the world, in England. Canada and Australia, attitudes towards the use of dagga or cannabis are changing. They are changing because there is no hard and fast medical evidence to conclude that this drug is anything nearly as dangerous as the hard-line drugs. I cannot understand why this particular substance remains in Part I of Schedule A. It ought to have a certain distinction. That largely covers what I wanted to say. I agree with the hon. member for Umbilo who referred to the question of the retrospectivity of the second part of clause 3. I strongly object to that as I have done on every occasion on which retrospective legislation has been introduced. For all these reasons I am unable to support the Bill. It contains to my mind a clause, a principal clause, which is highly objectionable. For that reason I shall vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister in introducing this measure rightly drew attention to the success that has been achieved in South Africa in combating the drug menace in recent years and in recent months. I think one should take that as the result of the combined activities of this Legislature, the judiciary, the police and social welfare officers throughout the country. There is no doubt that in some quarters the criticism of the 1971 legislation has been dispelled. But it worries me if an hon. member, such as the hon. member for Houghton, can today suggest the soft line in so far as dagga is concerned. The hon. member in 1971 became almost lyrical about the hundreds of young people who are going through a stage of adolescent experimentation in the use of dagga. I have not with me the Nixon Report to which the hon. member has referred. I have, however, in front of me the report of the International Narcotics Control Board of the United Nations. The result of this tolerant attitude towards dagga is shown when one sees what is in this report. I am referring to the 1972 report. One finds for instance that in the Federal Republic of Germany, which took this tolerant attitude, an official report describes the position in Germany as being in the nature of an epidemic. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we do not go along with the hon. member for Houghton in her attitude that there should be a soft line in so far as the use of dagga is concerned. I thought when she stood up that she had now at last seen the light as the general public had seen the necessity for the 1971 legislation.

You have seen the light.

The hon. member said that she was really only opposing the Bill in 1971 because of the various legal provisions. Let me remind the hon. member that she accused the Government of introducing the Bill in a precipitate manner. It verged almost on the hysterical. She asked: “What was the great emergency? What was the problem that needed this legislation?” She went on to say: “Why not let the young people experiment with dagga; why should they be so harshly treated?” She went on to say that there were tens of thousands of them who were trying dagga once or twice. What she did not realize and what the country has realized is that there are tens of thousands who tried it once or twice but who could not stop there. I will leave the hon. member for Houghton and return to the Bill which is before us today.

As has already been indicated to the hon. the Minister, this side of the House supports all measures which are necessary to combat this drug evil, but the hon. the Minister has not in my submission made out a case for the proposals contained in clause 3 of the Bill, other than to indicate that there is a difference of opinion between him and certain judicial officers. Perhaps that difference of opinion was made more apparent to him when there was some irresponsible Press comment suggesting that the judiciary, because they were exercising judicial discretion, were driving a horse and carriage through the Bill which was passed in this House. In fact, the hon. the Minister’s own satisfaction with the progress that has been made, itself negates the necessity for this amendment suggested in clause 3. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister— I think it was mentioned by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations yesterday in another context—that one should be careful not to legislate merely because of a specific case. If the facts as mentioned by the hon. member for Musgrave are correct, namely that this is necessary merely because one pedlar was allowed to escape penalty and return to Australia, then I say this is not a sufficient reason.

Sir, you have had many arguments put to you this morning, and I will endeavour to avoid repetition. I agree with the suggestion which came from the hon. the Minister himself, namely that although clause 3 will not apply in so far as persons under the age of 18 are concerned, the provisions of clause 3 itself, in my opinion, are likely to create a great danger of children under 18 being dragged into the network of pedlars of drugs. It is customary to use the person most unlikely to be suspected to act as a runner. So, if there is a possibility that youngsters under 18 can still get away with a suspended sentence, while those over 18 are debarred from that possibility, I believe with the hon. the Minister that there is a real probability and possibility for youngsters to be involved in drugs traffic.

Our attitude towards drug pedlars was stated quite categorically in the debate in 1971. My hon. Leader said that he felt that the pedlar or dealer in drugs was so like a murderer that he was prepared to see minimum sentences applied to him. My hon. Leader went on to refer to the fact that even the death penalty is subject to discretion in the light of possible extenuating circumstances. The hon. member for Durban North, in dealing with the matter in the Committee Stage, said (Hansard, col. 6186):

An amendment had been proposed to the clause—

It is clear that we on this side of the House at the time when the legislation was introduced, had in mind that these measures would be subject to the right of the courts to suspend sentences in appropriate cases. Their attitude today does not justify the acceptance of these new proposals, which will mean that that power to suspend, is removed from the judiciary. From time immemorial the fact has been accepted that all cases relating to the same crime are not identical in circumstances. Each case of peddling, of murder or of assault presents its own composite set of facts as regards the time, premeditation, place and circumstances. Each convicted person presents to the judicial officer and to the State a personal human problem of his position in or out of society. Throughout the years in the whole of the Western world the Legislature had fixed either a maximum penalty—that is the more common—for crimes and offences. There are places in this Bill, upon which we are agreed, to set a minimum sentence. By the mere use of the expressions “maximum” or “minimum”, it is being left to the courts to impose penalties within the limits of the prescribed maximum or minimum sentence. But in the principal Act, the prescribed minimum sentence left unfettered the inherent and traditional powers of the trial court, the latter being aware of all the circumstances of the particular case, to either postpone or suspend sentence. When we want to fetter the discretion of the courts, we must not lose sight of the truism that the punishment must fit the crime—not the crime as a category of crime, but the crime in the circumstances in which it was committed and by the person by whom it was committed. We cannot legislate according to the Biblical injunction of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We have accepted, as part of our judicial practice, that not all crimes are committed in identical circumstances, for identical motives or with identical results. It is thus that the judiciary is clothed with these discretionary powers in the determination of sentences. This discretion does not intrude upon the function of Parliament, the Legislature. It does not intrude upon the function of this House. The Legislative powers of Parliament and the powers of our independent judiciary are complementary, one to the other. I believe that this is a factual position which has been maintained in South Africa and which should be jealously guarded and preserved.

There are vast areas in which Cabinet Ministers are vested with discretionary powers to do this or to prohibit that or to vary some specific taxation. This can be done when in the opinion of a Minister, it is considered advisable. The hon. the Minister himself knows what the position is. He takes the circumstances into account; he deals with passports and other matters in his capacity as Minister of the Interior; he formulates an opinion and exercises a discretion. Let me assure him—and I am sure he is aware of this fact—that whether a discretion is exercised by a Minister of the Cabinet or by a judge no exercise of discretion ever has unanimous support. There are always critics of anybody who exercises a discretion. The actions of the Minister, in exercising his discretion, are subject to criticism and comment by this House, by Parliament. Parliament can question why this was done or that was done. Parliament can set it right if it does not agree with the Minister’s exercise of his discretion. The judicial discretion is similarly subject to control. It is subject to the control of the next superior court to that in which the discretion was exercised. There is the right of appeal against a sentence either as regards its severity or otherwise. That discretion is therefore not an unfettered discretion; it is subject to the control of a higher court. I believe that, just as in the case of discretion of Ministers in the exercise of their powers, so this discretion in the courts is an essential part of our law.

For those reasons, Sir, I believe that it is an unnecessary step which the Minister wishes to take. It is an unnecessary step in the light of the success which has been achieved in combating drugs with the legislation as it now is. In addition, I believe it is an unnecessary interference in the judicial aspect of the carrying out of the laws which this Parliament has thought fit to pass in combating the drug menace. For these reasons I cannot support this particular clause and therefore the motion of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I should like for a few minutes to dwell on the attitude that has been adopted by various hon. members opposite and then in conclusion to put the official Government standpoint in connection with this matter. The hon. member for Umbilo said that I had not made out a case as to why we need clause 3. We heard the same refrain from quite a number of members on the Opposition side. The fact remains that in our opinion as Parliament—because this legislation carries the stamp of Parliament —we place such a high premium upon the protection of our youth and we feel so strongly about this danger which threatens our youth as a result of what we see happening in other countries, and because of the way in which these problems are increasing in other countries, that we want to make the wording in which we are seeking to transfer this matter to our courts, quite unequivocal, so that there can be no doubt in this regard at all. I want to deal immediately with the arguments of the hon. member for Umbilo in connection with clause 3. He said that the discretion of the courts should not be interfered with. My view. Sir—and I accept the fact that this is also the view of the general public of South Africa—is this: In a democratic State like South Africa there are three different powers by means of which the country is governed. In the first place, there is the legislative authority or the legislative power in terms of which representatives elected by the people come to this House and to the Other Place and have the automonous power to make laws, to write provisions into those laws which in their opinion are necessary to govern the country, and to make the necessary measures available for the maintenance of law and order. It is their undoubted and irrefutable right to make laws, and they have a responsibility towards the people outside who can say to them at an election: “You made the wrong laws; you have followed the wrong policy and we are going to kick you out.” The people are the highest authority in a democratic State. In other words, eventually it is the people who govern. In the second place there is the executive authority in every State. A number of persons are chosen from this legislative body—in our case it is the exclusive prerogative of the Prime Minister to select a number of persons to form the Cabinet—who have to give administrative effect to the laws made by Parliament; who harness officialdom to administer the country; who have to ensure that the necessary funds are made available by the State to implement the laws that have been passed and the policy that has been determined by this highest body. Therefore the Cabinet is the second authoritative leg on which the State stands. The third is the judicial authority, from inferior courts to regional courts and local Supreme Courts and eventually to the Appeal Court. This then is the third leg upon which this edifice stands. Their function is to apply the laws made by Parliament; to punish offenders against these laws and to act as determined by this House by legislation. That is the basic concept as I see it. In connection with the specific task with which we are faced at the moment, it appears to me that the courts that have to apply this Act and impose penalties, do not in all respects see the matter in as precisely serious a light as the legislator saw it originally. In other words, I blame the legislator; I blame myself and this Parliament because in 1971 we did not say sufficiently clearly, precisely how seriously we viewed this problem, and that is why we are now effecting this amendment. The hon. member for Houghton was quite correct when she said that the courts are not interpreting the intention of Parliament, or what Parliament had in mind when the Act was passed. Their interpretation is confined to what is contained in the Act and that is quite right; that is how it must be. The interpretation of the courts is that, as the Act stands at present, the position is that there may be extenuating circumstances in the case of drug pedlars and that these people can then be given suspended sentences. [Interjection.] Yes, the Opposition also adopt that attitude, and I fully support it; that is so; the courts can only take notice of what is actually contained in the Act. But I feel that in this case perhaps the legislator did not convey clearly enough in the Act what he had in mind when the Act was passed. I want to make a few quotations, not from my speech, but from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition who himself spoke on behalf of the Opposition in 1971 when the Act was passed here. He was the first speaker on the Opposition side and I greatly appreciated the fact that the Opposition viewed the matter so seriously that the Leader of the Opposition was the very first speaker on the Opposition side. I quote from Hansard of 6th May, 1971. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had this to say—

So I have the wholehearted support of the official Opposition in this connection. He went on to say (col. 6088)—

Sir, I am only making random quotations from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition—

The Opposition put that principle very clearly.

Read the next sentence.

He went on to say—

A minimum sentence under all circumstances. Now, I just want to say a few words about the question of penalties in other countries. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred to this matter and I shall therefore use the facts that he mentioned rather than the facts that I have obtained in the meanwhile. He said (cols. 6087-8)—

This is how seriously the Leader of the Opposition viewed the matter in 1971, and I want to support him wholeheartedly. Sir, let me tell hon. members opposite that as far as the drug pedlar is concerned, these penalties have been further increased since 1971 in three of the Western countries that I have just mentioned, namely America, Canada and the United Kingdom. I have the proof here and I shall produce it during the Committee Stage if hon. members wish me to do so. The penalties for drug peddling have been increased in other countries because they have not been able to contain the evil; because it was getting out of hand; because, like a snowball, it was simply growing throughout those countries without their having any control over it. Because America had to deal with thousands of returned soldiers from Vietnam who were heroin addicts and who created an impossible social problem in America, very strong action indeed was taken. Sir, the Legislature in South Africa sees this problem in such a serious light, and the public of South Africa, no matter what their language or political beliefs may be, see this problem in such a serious light that we want not only to say so unequivocally in this Parliament, but to write it into the legislation so that the courts of South Africa will know exactly how strongly the legislator feels. That is why I want to write it unequivocally into this Act today by effecting these amendments.

Don’t minimum sentences achieve that?

Yes, there are minimum sentences but they are often suspended. I accept the fact that there are problems in connection with the suspension of sentences. I think that the question of suspension also places the courts in a difficult position because we find that, with all due respect, various yardsticks are used. One court may suspend half of the sentence; another court will suspend one-third and a third court will suspend two-thirds of the sentence, and some of them suspend the entire sentence.

Because of the different circumstances.

Yes, I accept the fact that the circumstances may differ, but even this creates problems for the courts in the imposition of sentences. An inferior court suspends a sentence for three years and then the High Court comes along and suspends four years of that sentence. In some cases the total sentence is suspended and the man leaves the court scot-free after he has been found guilty by that same court of having used drugs or of having smuggled drugs.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Because of this lack of uniformity in passing sentences, have the judges not recently laid down certain guide-lines for the lower courts?

In spite of that the courts still have this problem. Initially the cases were handled by magistrates—they will, of course, continue to handle the cases —and various regional courts have from time to time on reviewing the sentences tried to lay down broad guide-lines, but in spite of this we still have that variation and variety in the passing of sentences. Sir, one wants to leave no doubt at all in regard to this matter. We must know with whom we are dealing here and I think that I must spell it out clearly for the record. There must be no doubt as to who this man is. This man whom we are pinning down under clause 3, is only that person who in terms of the provisions of this Act is eventually sentenced by a court which has fully considered all the evidence before it and which has heard evidence from all quarters, as follows: I find you guilty of having dealt in drugs that are classified under the First Schedule to this Act, namely, the dangerous drugs which include LSD, heroin and dagga as well. In the full exercise of its judicial duties and authority and after it has heard evidence from the State, from the defence and from whoever it may be, the court has passed judgment in terms of the Act, and it is its exclusive right to find that man guilty or not guilty. I do not wish to interfere in that regard at all; I do not want to touch that. The legislator has no say in determining whether a man is guilty or not guilty. That is the exclusive prerogative of the court. But after that court, with all the evidence before it, has passed judgement that this man is guilty of having dealt in this particular group of drugs that I have mentioned, the strong drugs, and secondly, if that person is older than 18 years of age and therefore not a minor, then I say, and this is the attitude that we are adopting now, that it is the legislator’s right to say that after the court has found that man guilty on the evidence before it of this terrible deed, he feels so strongly about the penalty that no suspended sentence should then be possible. That is all that I want to say and that is all we say in the clause The right to decide is the prerogative of the court. If it finds him not guilty, then clause 3 does not apply, but if it condemns him, if the court finds him guilty, then it is our right as legislators to say that we feel that this should be his punishment and that a suspended sentence should not be possible. When a man is found guilty under these circumstances, I do not ask what the circumstances are. The hon. member mentioned the example just now, the human example, of a Bantu woman who sells dagga in order to provide for her hungry children. Must I accept that the end justifies the means? Is that a sound principle? That Bantu woman has many other ways in which she can feed her children. She can apply for assistance to Social Welfare or she can do a job of work. She can do hundreds of other things. Why must she sell dagga to provide for her children to the detriment of other people? In the process she may also rob other children’s parents of their life’s task and cause their children to go hungry because the parents do not work as a result of using dagga.

In the light of these circumstances we feel that we want it clearly stated through the medium of this Bill that the intention is clear and that when a person is found guilty of that specific offence, it is the legislator’s wish that this should be the penalty and that no suspended sentence should apply. It is in that wording that the legislator now wishes to convey his opinion to the courts of our country which have up to the present handled the Act as it stands on the Statute Book with great discretion and with great distinction.

I want to say immediately that there are a few other reasons for this outspoken attitude I am adopting now on behalf of the Government. I had hoped, in all honesty, that, as in 1971, the Opposition would once again agree with us, because I want to admit immediately that it is in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of the whole world that we should show a united front in this sphere to the outside world because by so doing we would be telling the world unequivocally how strongly South Africa feels in connection with this problem. Therefore I am sorry that the Opposition does not see its way clear to support us in this connection. They have reasons, and I want immediately to accept the fact that they have reasons, but I think it is a mistake and a very big mistake. I think that psychologically it will have the effect that the drug smugglers will say that once again it is only the Government that is seeking to pin them down and that the Opposition does not support the Government in this. I am very sorry that the Opposition has adopted this attitude. I would have welcomed it if they had again seen their way clear to agree with us in regard to this Bill. I do not wish to quarrel with the Opposition in this connection. It is their right and privilege in this democratic order to contradict this side, but the fact remains that the Act has been in operation now for 18 months and I have already mentioned the results in his connection. I am greatful for the development that has taken place and for the success that has been achieved. The excuse that people did not know how heavy the penalties were and how serious the offence was, even in the case of dagga, must therefore gradually fall away after 18 months. People cannot plead innocence any longer and say that they did not know that it was an offence. That is why I have no objection to our having acted in this way in the initial stage, but now that 18 months have gone by and quite a few new channels for the possible smuggling in of hard drugs have been added as a result of a number of other developments that have taken place, such as new airlines to South Africa that have been started, airlines which fly from certain countries known to be the outlets for those drugs, we must make our laws stronger and act more convincingly and more vigorously in connection with this matter. That is why the attitude that I have unfortunately to adopt is that I do not see my way clear to leave the matter be, and that I must therefore, in spite of the representations, continue with the Bill.

What about dagga as compared with the hard drugs?

The hon. member for Houghton wants me to discuss the question of dagga as compared with the hard drugs. If you will permit me, Sir, I shall do so quickly. The fact is that no matter how much evidence she can produce to say that dagga is not as dangerous, I can produce just as much to show that people think that it is just as dangerous. I know people who have to deal with this matter every day. I know a person who at the moment, now, is making an intensive study of dagga, with an intensive analysis of South African dagga in all its constituent parts, from its seed down to its roots, including every leaf and flower, to ascertain just what is poisonous about dagga; to fully investigate the matter further and to support our argument that this is the case. My problem with dagga is this. I said it last time and I want to repeat it: Dagga is the starting point on a road which results in the death of the person who starts using it. I want to say immediately that this is the crux of the matter. We are now making investigations ourselves—we can do this ourselves and we need not go to other countries in this regard—and in our rehabilitation centres—we treat young boys and girls from 18 to 20 years of age, the wonderful youth of South Africa who are destitute as a result of this drug evil—after one has gained their confidence and one asks them questions by way of examination, one finds that 90% of them say that they began by experimenting with dagga. [Interjections.] The difference is that when a person starts with dagga it satisfies him initially because it has a certain attraction, but in due course it no longer satisfies and because he is a person who has the necessary contacts and the necessary channels as well as the necessary financial means to obtain the stronger drugs, he obtains them and then starts using those stronger drugs. Now, we cannot make laws and say that they are not of application to Black people. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that I cannot do this. That is why this legislation must stand, because it is the starting point of a one-way street which will eventually end in death.

Sir, with your permission I should like in conclusion to deal with one further small matter. Forgive me for making use of this opportunity to do so, but I think that it is a good thing that I do make use of it for this purpose. People are so concerned—let me say immediately, not in connection with this specific matter but in regard to our youth and our children and their future, their need of care and the necessity to protect them spiritually and otherwise against other dangers—that I received the following letter some extracts from which I should like to quote. I want to quote them, as they appear here, so as to convey the good spirit in which it has been written (translation)—

The letter goes on in this way. I do not want to quote it in full. The farm is 318 morgen in extent and 30 morgen are under irrigation. It is being donated to the State for this purpose. I quote the concluding paragraph in all reverence (translation)—

I have received this letter from you, Mr. Speaker, with great reverence and gratitude. It was directed to me as Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, [interjections.] On behalf of South Africa, on behalf of the State and on behalf of the Government I want to thank you for this donation of your wonderful farm of 318 morgen to the State for this praiseworthy purpose. It is a privilege for me to accept it on behalf of the State.

Hear, hear!

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 W. M. Sutton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendment of three Acts is being envisaged by the introduction of this Bill. The substitution of the words “heads of education” for the expression “educational heads” in the National Education Policy Act, 1967, is a linguistic improvement on the translation into English of the Afrikaans word “onderwyshoofde”. The Director of the Language Services Bureau endorses the proposed improvement. The definitions of “department” and “secretary”, which have been rendered out of date by later developments, are being brought up to date. A substantive amendment is being effected to the aforementioned Act by means of the addition to the definition of “head of education”, of the following words “and includes, for the purposes of section 6 only, the Director of the education branch of the Department”. By the addition of these words the Director of the education branch becomes a full member of the Committee of Heads of Education. At present he is not a full member of the Committee, but attends the meetings of that body as an adviser. However, since he enjoys the same status in the department as the Director of Education enjoys in a provincial department of education, I am of the opinion that he should become a full member of this Committee. That is what is being envisaged by clauses 1 and 2.

In addition to this, the Advanced Technical Education Act, 1967, is also being amended in order to bring similar definitions up to date and to provide for a valid arrangement in accordance with which colleges may assist universities in the matter of offering courses for the training of persons as teachers for secondary schools. It is provided in the first-mentioned Act that such training for secondary schools may only be provided at a university but that the Minister may grant permission for it to be provided at a college for a period determined by him.

On 11th July, 1970, notice was given in the Government Gazette that such training could be provided at certain colleges up to 31st December, 1976, on condition that as from 1st January, 1972, and as from 1st January, 1973, no one could be admitted for the first time to a four-year course and a three-year course, respectively. However, because certain universities had neither the facilities nor the staff to provide that training in all the subjects, it was necessary for them, for the purposes of certain types of training, to avail themselves of the facilities and staff at the colleges. In this way the Natal College for Advanced Technical Education was allowed to assist the University of Natal as from the 1972 academic year on the basis for which provision is now being made, viz. for assistance given by the college during 1972 in respect of the National Teacher’s Diploma (Art), which is a four-year course and for which first-year students in Natal could only enrol at that university as from 1972.

The object is to empower a university and a college, also as far as the future is concerned, to come to an arrangement in order to grant the students of the university concerned access to the college, so that use may be made of the premises and the equipment of the college, and, at the same time, to empower the college to make available, by agreement with the university, a member of its staff to the university to assist with the teaching and training concerned. Since the training is usually provided on the premises of the college and since it is the intention that members of the staff who give assistance, should also teach students of the college, the members of the staff are made available on a part-time basis.

Will this be the position only up to 1976?

The Act provides for this arrangement, and, if necessary, it will continue to exist.

The legal provision providing for the establishment at a college is being amended in pursuance of the amendment effected this past session regarding the establishment at subsidized schools, and a further improvement is in fact being effected in that all administrative doubt is being removed. As the Act reads at present, it may happen that the various colleges could apply different prerequisites and also that such conditions of appointment for one section of the staff could differ from those of another section at the same college. It is essential that all persons comply with specific requirements on appointment, such as those in regard to language qualifications, medical fitness, appointment on probation, etc., because these requirements affect, inter alia, the national policy in general. Where the essential training of professional manpower is concerned, for the purposes of which qualified lecturers are not available in this country, as in the case of taxidermists to be employed in a natural history museum, and the colleges at present still have to fall back of necessity on lecturers from abroad, such lecturers could always be appointed on a temporary basis, in other words, on contract. However, in the course of discussions held with the colleges in the past, they pointed out that uniform requirements ought not be arranged administratively as in the past, but should be laid down by regulation. That is now being complied with.

The Minister is being empowered to prescribe by regulation the conditions on which and the circumstances under which the employees of a college may be obliged to become and to remain members of a medical scheme as contemplated in the Medical Schemes Act of 1967. Those regulations, as now inserted, and the existing regulations, are to be determined henceforth in consultation with the Minister of Finance. To conclude this section, provision is being made for the application of the obsolete regulations of the time up to the date on which the present regulations were made, i.e. 24th April, 1970. Clauses 3 to 6 have now been dealt with.

†Amongst the amendments to the Educational Services Act, 1967, Mr. Speaker, hon. members will find amended definitions on lines similar to those already outlined, and also a provision that the Minister may transfer the control of a subsidized school to the Government only after consultation with the governing body in question. The latter amendment is being introduced as a result of repeated representations from several governing bodies for a provision in the present Act that the Department at least take over a school only after consultation with the governors.

In terms of section 16(1) the Minister determines the establishment at a school on a basis. By implication this means that complete bases are to be determined for all types of posts. For some types of posts at schools, such as handyman, maintenance officer, laboratory assistant, etc., it is attempting the impossible to complete it fully. Such posts are usually created according to need. The contemplated amendment of the section will enable the Minister to institute such types of posts without necessarily determining a basis. Provision is also being made for consultation with the Minister of Finance when conditions of service at schools and other related matters are being determined by the Minister under section 17.

Paragraph (a) of section 18(1) in regard to subsidized schools, is being amended for the same reasons as those I already adduced for section 16 regarding schools, while a new paragraph is added to provide that the salary, the scale of salary and the allowances of any person appointed by the governing body for service at its subsidized school, be determined by the Minister on the recommendation of the commission and in consultation with the Minister of Finance, deleting from paragraph (b) the present provision under which the governing body determines salaries and salary scales. The present provision, in terms of which the governing body shall determine the salary and salary scale of any person appointed for service at a subsidized school, albeit subject in each case to the prior approval of the Minister, had already caused problems in the past. It was therefore considered essential that this function should rest with the Minister in order that all salaries and salary scales could be determined according to accepted bases. It will also ensure uniformity between subsidized schools inter se as well as on interdepartmental level.

As I have just indicated, Mr. Speaker, in my reasons for amending paragraph (b), the determination of salaries, salary scales and allowances of persons in the service of a subsidized school is now being entrusted to the Minister. The Public Service Commission, having requested that departments amend similar legislation in order that remuneration be determined in consultation with the Minister of Finance, this is being done in the additional paragraph. It is the intention to make a single approach to the Minister of Finance for approval that bases applying in respect of staff at departmental schools be applied to this staff. In the past the Secretary, and not the Minister, determined the bases on which the salary of staff at schools was calculated, e.g. in recognition of previous service, qualifications, age, etc. This procedure was not authorized by law. The delegation being provided for in section 42(1) is therefor essential, in order to obviate the need for the submission of all these bases, some of which have been in existence for a very long time, to the Minister for approval. This delegation will also reduce the flow of work to the Minister. The delegation of section 18(1)(bA) is also necessary, for the reasons already given, just as the power granted in section 18(1)(b) is delegated at present. The foregoing outlines what is being aimed at in clauses 6 to 12 of the Bill.

*The clause amending the National Education Policy Act, 1967, requires a subsequent amendment of the English text of the Education Services Act, 1967, by introducing the correct expression, “head of education”. Section 43(1)(jA) of the latter Act is being made retrospective to 1st January, 1968, so that the validity of regulations made in terms thereof in regard to compulsory membership of a medical scheme may be put beyond all doubt.

Clause 15 contains the short title of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as the name of this Bill indicates, more than one of the existing Acts are being amended. The two most important ones being amended, are the Advanced Technical Education Act and the Educational Services Act, both of 1967. There are a large number of clauses which, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, are of a purely incidental nature—they are merely consequential amendments—resulting from changes in the terminology used in our educational services in past years. In this way, for example, the words “head of education” are being substituted for the words “educational head”. From a linguistic point of view this is a correct alteration. In Afrikaans there is also a change from “Departement van Hoër Onderwys” to “Departement van Nasionale Opvoeding”.

The important amendments proposed in this Bill have regard to two matters, which have been explained by the hon. the Minister. The first is that it is going to be made possible for universities to utilize the staff of, inter alia, Colleges for Advanced Technical Education for certain services, to be more specific, with regard to the training of teachers for secondary schools. I can appreciate that a problem has arisen in the past year or so with the transfer of the training of this particular category of teacher to universities. For this reason it is perfectly understandable that provision should be made for the two bodies to be able to make use of each other’s facilities and staff. Therefore I feel that this is a provision which should have been written into the original legislation and that we are now really coming along with retrospective legislation in this regard. I accept that in practice these two types of institution have in fact made use of each other’s services and staff. As the hon. the Minister knows, we on this side are rather opposed to any measure of retrospective legislation; but I can accept that in this case it was in fact necessary, in the interests of education and the training of our future teachers, to make an arrangement of this nature.

The other important point dealt with in this legislation, is that the definition of “establishment” is being amended in regard to colleges, schools under the control of the hon. the Minister’s department and State-subsidized schools. According to my interpretation of the Bill, this does not give any wider powers to the Minister than he already has. His powers in this regard are merely being defined more clearly. The definition of “subsidized, schools” is, I think, as laid down in the Finance Act of 1945, as amended by the Educational Services Act (Act No. 41 of 1967). As far as “schools” are concerned, this represents schools for higher education, as laid down in the Financial Relations Act. This includes, inter alia, schools, music schools, agricultural schools, mine schools, etc., as well as institutions at which pupils can pass a higher standard than standard 10.

There is another point which has been put to me, and I should like to put it to the Minister, in order that there may be complete certainty in regard to this matter. Certain people perceive the possibility of a danger in one or two of these clauses. I must say that I do not interpret it in this way. But an assurance in this regard from the hon. the Minister would be appreciated in this case. To be specific, the problem is the extent to which his powers will affect the private schools in South Africa, schools which are also subsidized or receive grants-in-aid from the authorities. To what extent are they being bound as far as the conditions of service, establishments, etc., are concerned? An assurance from the hon. the Minister and an explanation of the extent to which those schools are being affected, if at all, would be appreciated. My interpretation is that no wider powers are being given to the hon. the Minister in this regard.

†The hon. the Minister mentioned that he wanted to have uniform qualifications with regard to teachers who were joining the medical fund. He also wanted uniformity in the language qualifications of persons permanently appointed to these institutions under his control. I should like more information as to what the actual changes are which he envisages with regard to the language qualifications of teachers appointed to these institutions. One can well imagine the need for highly qualified personnel for the training and education of persons in highly technical fields such as television, for instance. Some of this personnel has to come from abroad. I take it that at the present moment the position is that they are appointed temporarily, but I would like to know in more detail what the hon. the Minister does envisage as regards the language qualifications he intends laying down by regulation, so as to make such qualifications uniform. I trust that none of these qualifications to be laid down will in any way hinder the advance of training and teaching in some of the very important scientific fields that lie ahead for us in years to come.

Apart from these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate that we on this side support the Second Reading of this Bill. We may have one or two further remarks to make during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for Orange Grove for the support he has given to this Bill and then I want to reply briefly to the questions he has put. In the first place he referred to the provisions enabling universities to enter into certain agreements with Colleges for Advanced Technical Education in regard to the training of teachers. He expressed the idea that provision should really have been made for this in the original Act. Perhaps we could agree with that; it would perhaps have eliminated an unnecessary amendment to the Act if we had in fact foreseen it, but the fact of the matter is that it did not happen at the time, and experience has now proved it to be essential. One does not want to duplicate facilities. One would not like to duplicate at our universities the facilities which exist at Colleges for Advanced Technical Education for the more practical subjects in particular. Furthermore, this would encroach unnecessarily on the availability of trained staff. That is why this provision is essential now.

Secondly the hon. member asked me how the powers now being granted to the Minister would affect the question of the subsidization of private schools. I can set the hon. member’s mind at rest in this regard. His interpretation is quite correct. The private schools, in so far as they are being subsidized, in point of fact receive their subsidies from the provinces. Here we are more concerned with the subsidized schools involved in special education, which are subsidized by my department. No amendment is being proposed in this regard. All that is being envisaged is to have it take place on a legal and properly ordered basis.

The third point raised by the hon. member, was in regard to the language ability of teachers. There, too, I can set his mind at rest; there is no intention to deviate in that respect. It is our endeavour that all our teachers should be able to understand both national languages, but here we are really concerned with specialists. For example, I could mention the case of the hotel school started at the Witwatersrand College for Advanced Technical Education. It was not possible to find in this country a suitably trained person whom we could appoint for this purpose. Consequently someone was appointed from abroad, in the knowledge that he was unilingual and could only speak English. But because it was possible to appoint him on a contract basis so that he could train other people to take the task over from him, this problem was solved. It is the intention to proceed in this way. The system works perfectly well. When one really needs a specialist, it is possible for one to obtain his services in this way. If it should be his wish to remain in the country and to learn the other language of the country, then, of course, that would be a gain for us, but if he does not want to stay here, then we are able to solve the problem in this way.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions before us at present are aimed at facilitating the application of the existing legislation and furthering efficiency, and therefore I appreciate the support I have received from both sides of this House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, the definition of “head of education” is being extended by the addition of the words “and includes, for the purposes of section 6 only, the Director of the Education branch of the department”. I have no objection to this director being treated on the same basis as the other directors of education, but why is this being done only in respect of section 6?

Mr. Chairman, section 6 of the National Education Policy Act provides for the constitution of a Committee of Heads of Education. In terms of that Act, therefore, this is a statutory body. The constitution of that Committee of Heads of Education is set out in section 6. Originally provision was made for the Secretary of the Department to be chairman of that committee. The Directors of Education of the various provinces are members. In the past few years a post has been established in my department, the Department of National Education, namely that of Director of Education. All that is being done here now, is to make him a full member of that committee, since his position in the Department of National Education is comparable to that of the Directors of Education in the provincial education departments.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister just give us one or two examples of posts “in respect of which the Minister is of the opinion that no basis can be determined and which he may establish from time to time”? Does this relate to the kind of fragmentation one sometimes has in a particular subject?

Mr. Chairman, I shall mention a few examples with pleasure. At our schools there is a post which is known as that of “factotum”. Such a person is a handyman. To draw up a proper definition for such a post, so that it complies with the provisions of the establishment, is extremely difficult. For example, one cannot lay down the man’s educational qualifications. It is more a question of his dexterity. Then there is the case of bus-drivers. Sometimes a school for the handicapped wants to introduce an additional post for a bus-driver to collect the children in the morning. It is, of course, possible to determine certain requirements in such a case. One could say that the man should have a driver’s licence in order to occupy such a post. That is obvious; but for the rest it is really a matter of personal negotiation by the management of the school before requesting a new post of this kind.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the Bill I first want to convey my gratitude and appreciation to the chairman and members, on both sides of the House, of the Select Committee who submitted this amended Bill, for the time and energy they devoted to it.

As in 1965 the Select Committee has once again reached unanimity on a matter which affects all of us. That the Select Committee has succeeded in reaching an agreement in the drafting of this Bill indicates, in my opinion, that the members placed national interests above the interests of individuals and political parties.

The Bill deals in the main with the amendments of the Constitution Act and the Electoral Act, with consequential amendments of certain other Acts.

In the first place the Constitution Act is being amended in respect of the delimitation of constituencies. This is the first major objective of the Bill.

The movement of voters from the rural areas to the cities is continuing, with the result that it has once again become necessary in the dividing of the Republic into electoral divisions to protect the rural aeas in relation to the cities, and consequently the provinces which are constantly losing voters in relation to the provinces which are constantly gaining voters.

After careful consideration of relevant factors such as the latest available electoral statistics, the value of the urban vote as against the value of the rural vote, the fact that, proportionately, the number of voters in the Cape and the Orange Free State are not increasing as rapidly as the number of voters in the Transvaal and Natal, that it is in the Cape and the Orange Free State in particular that the voters in the rural areas have diminished considerably, the Select Committee recommended that the electoral divisions in the various provinces be determined as provided in clause 81 of the Bill viz.

In order to do this it was necessary to increase the number of constituencies in the Republic by five to 165. Furthermore it was recommended that this fixing of the number of constituencies for the various provinces shall remain unchanged for a period of ten years.

This procedure of fixing the number of constituencies per province for a certain period is not an unknown or new principle. In 1910, for example, the number of constituencies per province was also fixed at a certain minimum number for a specific period and the provinces in which the number of voters at the time increased more slowly in relation to the Cape in which the number of voters, in those days, increased more rapidly, were protected.

This opportunity is being used to amend the proviso to subsection (3) of section 43 by metricating the minimum size of the so-called area constituencies and at the same time reducing them in size somewhat by rounding them off to 25 000 square kilometres. The instruction that as an alternative the number of voters in these constituencies may be reduced to 8 000 if this is more than 70% of the quota of the Republic, is being deleted. In future a delimitation commission will only be able to reduce the number of voters in these area constituencies to 70% of the quota of the Republic.

The second major objective of the Bill is, through the amendment of the Constitution Act and Electoral Consolidation Act, to make it possible to hold the general elections of members of the House of Assembly and of members of the provincial councils in all the provinces on one and the same day.

The simultaneous holding of these general elections on the same day was in the past only possible in the Cape and the Transvaal where the divisions of the House of Assembly corresponded to those of the provincial councils.

In Natal and the Orange Free State the divisions of the House of Assembly do not correspond to those of the provincial councils owing to the fact that in these two provinces a minimum of 25 members of provincial councils have to be elected, while the number of members of the House of Assembly who have to be elected in these provinces, are less than 25. Consequently it has been necessary in the past for delimitation commissions to delimit these two provinces separately for the House of Assembly and the provincial councils.

In view of these circumstances it was not possible in the past to conduct the general elections of members of the House of Assembly and of the provincial councils in these two provinces on the same day. There were insurmountable administrative problems and it would have caused serious confusion among voters if the general elections in these provinces were conducted on the same day.

To make the simultaneous holding of the general elections of the House of Assembly and the provincial councils in all the provinces possible, it is being proposed in clause 84 of the Bill that section 68 of the Constitution Act be amended to provide that if a province has less than 20 members of the House of Assembly, the provincial council of that province shall consist of twice as many members of the provincial council as members of the House of Assembly. Section 69 of the Constitution Act is being amended by clause 85 to provide that in such a province every House of Assembly electoral division shall be divided into two provincial council electoral divisions.

The result of this will be that at the next delimitation of constituencies, the number of House of Assembly electoral divisions and provincial council electoral divisions in the Cape Province, Natal and the Transvaal will be the same, but that in the Orange Free State the number of provincial council divisions will be twice as many as the number of House of Assembly electoral divisions, viz. 28 provincial council electoral divisions as against 14 House of Assembly electoral divisions.

To make it possible to hold general elections of the House of Assembly and the provincial councils on the same day, it is also necessary to amend section 71 of the Constitution Act, as is being proposed in clause 86 of the Bill, to provide that the State President may dissolve the provincial councils at any time during their existence. At the moment the relevant section of the Constitution Act provides that the provincial councils shall only dissolve by effluxion of time.

Because the position may arise that the various provincial councils may dissolve by effluxion of time on dates which fall shortly before the House of Assembly is dissolved by effluxion of time or by the State President, it is in addition being provided that the State President may by proclamation in the Gazette extend the duration of a provincial council by a period not exceeding 18 months.

Mr. Speaker, it is hardly necessary to motivate these amendments of the Constitution Act. Hon. members on both sides of the House will realize what a great saving in cost and effort it would entail for political parties if the general elections of members of the House of Assembly and of the provincial councils were held on the same day. For the Government it would entail a saving of approximately R850 000.

In passing I want to draw attention here to the fact that in terms of the provisions of the relevant legislation which applies to South-West Africa, every electoral division of the House of Assembly in South-West Africa consists of three electoral divisions of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory, and that if the House of Assembly dissolves during the existence of the Legislative Assembly, then the Legislative Assembly dissolves on the same date as the date on which the House of Assembly dissolves. Consequently no statutory amendment is required in respect of South-West Africa.

However, to put the position beyond all doubt, it is being provided in clause 80 of the Bill that a reference to an electoral division of the House of Assembly which is divided into two provincial council electoral divisions, shall be construed in the case of an electoral division of the House of Assembly in South-West Africa to be a reference to a division of the House of Assembly which consists of three electoral divisions of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory. It is also being provided that in the case of South-West Africa the voters’ list for an electoral division of the House of Assembly shall consist of three parts which are compiled for the relevant three divisions respectively of the Legislative Assembly of which the electoral division of the House of Assembly could consist.

†Mr. Speaker, I now turn to the amendment of the Electoral Act, which is being amended in two major aspects. There is also a number of minor amendments as well as many consequential amendments.

The first major amendment of the Electoral Act is to reconstruct that portion of the Electoral Act which details the procedures to be followed in conducting elections. This portion of the Electoral Act was originally constructed to prescribe the procedures followed when holding the general elections of the House of Assembly, and of the provincial council independently of one another. Now, however, the procedures had to be adapted to the conduct of both general elections on the same day. Changes that had to be effected to the present election procedures are, for instance—

1. (a) the State President (and no longer the Administrator concerned) will in future also proclaim the general election of the provincial councils;
2. (b) one nomination court will be held for the nomination of candidates in both the genera] elections of the House of Assembly and of the provincial council concerned in respect of the electoral divisions in question;
3. (c) the returning officer and his officials will conduct both elections in the respective electoral divisions for which they have been appointed;
4. (d) voters will be issued with two ballot papers, one for the House of Assembly election and one for the provincial council election in question—the ballot papers will be of different colours.

The other changes that had to be effected to the present election procedures will, if necessary, be explained in the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the second major amendment to the Electoral Act is the introduction of the system of continuous registration of voters and supplementation of the voters’ lists as opposed to the present system of four monthly supplementations of the voters’ lists compiled after a general registration of voters.

The new system entails that new registrations of voters, i.e. 18 year olds and new South African citizens who register as voters, and voters who register at new addresses, will continually be added to the voters’ lists for the various electoral divisions, whilst the names of voters will continually be deleted from the said voters’ lists, that is, those who have died or who no longer qualify for registration as a voter or who have moved to new addresses.

It is provided that political parties be furnished monthly with lists of the names of voters so added to and deleted from the voters’ lists. It is also provided that whenever a general election or a by-election is proclaimed, the voters’ lists for the electoral divisions concerned, as supplemented and adapted up to the last day of the penultimate month preceding the month in which the election in question is proclaimed, shall be the voters’ lists to be printed and to be used at that general election or that by-election.

Before leaving this aspect, I may add that the introduction of the new system was made possible by the fact that the registration of voters and the updating of the voters’ lists are now being done by computer. It was also made possible because of the fresh voters’ lists which were compiled after the de novo general registration of voters last year. These lists together with the supplementary voters’ lists which came into operation on the 1st May this year, will form the basic voters’ lists which will be supplemented and adapted as I have explained.

*Mr. Speaker, there are many other amendments of the Electoral Act which are being incorporated in the first 79 clauses of the Bill, but I think it would be sufficient if I were to indicate only the most important of these. The others will, if necessary, be explained during the Committee Stage of the Bill.

The first of these amendments is the increase of the deposit to be paid by candidates upon their nomination for an election. This is being increased from R400 to R600. In addition it is specifically being provided now that a candidate may, instead of the payment of a deposit, submit a bank guarantee or a deed of surety for the amount which is acceptable to the returning officer.

Important amendments have been effected in respect of the conditions under which a voter qualifies for a postal or a special vote. In the first place the requirement that a voter will on polling day be outside his electoral division and not within 10 miles of the nearest polling station within that electoral division by the nearest practicable route before he qualifies for a postal or special vote, is being abolished. He now qualifies for a postal or a special vote if he will throughout the hours of polling on polling day be outside his electoral division.

The following voters will also qualify now for a postal or special vote, namely—

1. (a) the helpers of a candidate who on polling day will be on duty at a polling station in another polling district than the one in which they are registered; and
2. (b) persons who on polling day must perform essential hospital, police or fire brigade service and consequently will not be able to visit a polling station.

It is also being provided now that a special vote shall not be rejected by a returning officer if the application form for the special vote concerned was not completed in full as a result of the negligence of the presiding officer for votes of special voters, or if the aforesaid presiding officer has not affixed either his office stamp or his signature to the back of the special ballot paper in question. However, if neither the office stamp nor the signature have been affixed to the back of the special ballot paper concerned, that ballot paper shall be rejected.

It is also being provided now that it will be possible to register as voters persons who are in the service of statutory bodies and who are doing service in countries outside the Republic, or public servants who have been seconded to the service of the government of any other country, and that it will also be possible for these persons to vote in elections in the Republic as special voters.

Furthermore, it is being provided that at an election a person may, in addition to his identity card, also submit his identity document, drivers’ licence or passport as proof of identity and, if he cannot submit any of these documents, his identity can be proved by way of an affidavit by another voter who has proved his own identity by way of submission of any of the aforesaid documents. It may be added here that this requirement of submission of proof of identity by a voter upon the issuing to him of a ballot paper at a polling station has not yet been put into effect. However, it is being envisaged to make the relevant provisions applicable prior to the next general election.

The requirements in regard to the display of the name and address of the producer of articles and reports in newspapers during elections are being stated more clearly. This is being done to prevent newspapers from continuing with the practice of placing an omnibus notice in which it is stated that all the articles and reports of a political nature in the relevant newspaper were written by a certain person or group of persons. We are now insisting that the name of the responsible writer be affixed to every report. This opportunity is also being taken to streamline the administration of the Electoral Act in respect of the registration of voters and the preparation of voters’ lists and the holding of elections.

As hon. members are aware, the provisions of the Electoral Act, with adjustments, are applied to the registration of Coloured voters and the election of the Coloured Persons Representative Council in the Republic and the establishment of a Elected Coloured Council in South-West Africa.

It was necessary in certain respects to bring the legislation governing these matters into line with the amendments which are now being effected in the Electoral Act. This adjustment of the relevant legislation is being incorporated in clauses 87 to 90 of the Bill. I shall proceed to mention only the most important adjustments.

The deposit which has to be paid by candidates in the election of members of the aforesaid Coloured Persons Representative Council and the Elected Coloured Council is being increased from R60 to R100.

In addition it is being provided that a Coloured voter will be entitled to a postal or a special vote if he will at no time during the hours of polling on polling day be within 10 kilometres (previously it was five miles) of the nearest polling station within the electoral division for which he is registered. I just want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that I shall move in the Committee Stage that the ten kilometres be reduced to eight kilometres at the request of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, to whom this Bill was submitted.

In one important respect the legislation governing the registration of Coloured voters has not been brought into line with the proposed amendment of the Electoral Act, viz. the system of continuous registration of voters and supplementation and adjustment of voters’ lists has not been introduced in regard to the registration of Coloured voters and the compiling of Coloured voters’ lists. Here the existing system of the periodical compiling of supplementary voters’ lists will still apply.

The reason for this is that no new general de novo registration of Coloured voters recently took place, as in the case of White voters, after which it could have been possible to compile updated voters’ lists which could serve as a starting list for the system of continuous registration of Coloured voters. The last general registration of Coloured voters took place in 1968, and does not, therefore, lend itself to this purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that the Bill, in regard to which unanimity was reached by the Select Committee, will have the support of hon. members on both sides. Once again I want to convey my gratitude to the Select Committee for the hard work which they have with great success completed.

Mr. Speaker, when the Bill which was referred to the Select Committee was first published and one found the reaction of the hon. members of both sides of this House and of the public to the proposals in that Bill, there might well have been doubt as to whether the period of agreed measures as far as elections and electoral matters were concerned had come to an end. However, as the hon. the Minister has stated, the Select Committee was able to come to agreement on the measure which is before the House today. A great deal of the reason for that success in finding agreement and a basis on which we could come to the House today with the recommendation was due to the activities of the Chairman of that Select Committee, the hon. member for Parow, and also to the continued diligent work and ready assistance which we had from the Secretary for the Interior and those of his officials who were working with us in the Select Committee.

This being an agreed measure, I believe the best assurance there is that no political party is able to steal a march on the other is the fact that, as is well known to all hon. members who served on the Select Committee, care has been taken to see where the grain or advantage would be and on which side. We have this measure before us which in the opinion of the Select Committee, and I hope in the opinion of this House, will be accepted as serving the best interests of the country.

There is obviously a necessity for the further revision of our electoral procedures and our electoral laws. This is by no means a final decision or final Bill which has been produced by the Select Committee. The necessity for that further revision will be obvious from the terms of the Bill itself and also in the light of the population growth and the movement of population within the Republic and particular provinces. We cannot today envisage what the position will be, say, in ten years’ time. I think one will have to have another look at the development of the country and where the development takes place. There are large projects which will influence the movement of population in the years ahead, such as the Saldanha Bay project, the Richards Bay project and others.

The recommendation, which I welcome, is that this Bill provides for a ten-year period. The number of seats is fixed for a period of ten years. The opportunity will be afforded to consider whether this is the right method of dealing with the determination of the number of seats which ought to be in this House in the future.

There are proposed amendments to which the hon. the Minister has referred in regard to the procedures for absent voters and postal votes. Here again I do not think that the position is by any means final and there are feelings that there should be further consideration as to whether the postal vote system, for instance, can be disposed of entirely and substituted by the special vote system. That is a matter for another occasion. At this stage it is merely incidental to the amendments which have been introduced. There are provisions which I think are essential to ensure that no voter loses his right to vote merely because of an administrative error when officials complete the documents which accompany his ballot paper when he votes as a special voter. As the hon. the Minister has indicated, there are many provisions. I do not propose to deal with them in any unnecessary detail. The amendments which have been suggested now are not making it mandatory but are making it possible to hold the parliamentary and the provincial council elections simultaneously.

I believe that this measure which is before the House is a greatly improved piece of legislation to the Bill which was originally published. The principles upon which our electoral system is based continue to require reconsideration from time to time. Unfortunately this Bill came rather late in the session. It was referred to the Select Committee on the 13th April and the Committee obviously was obliged to finish its deliberations by the end of May to have the Bill available for presentation. Certain matters were canvassed, as will be seen from the report of the Select Committee, in respect of which no principles have been accepted or adopted by members of the Select Committee from either side of the House. There is, for instance the question of the loading and the deloading and the consequent disparity in votes value which was canvassed before the Select Committee. In countries where a similar system to ours applies there have been tendencies towards closing the disparity in the value of an urban and a rural vote. The conditions are different in each country, but this matter continues to need attention. This raises a matter which was also raised in the course of the evidence before the Select Committee and that is to get our minds clear as to what the primary powers or functions of a member of Parliament are. Is he to serve the voters who have elected him, or is he to exercise his position as a member of the House and vote on matters of national issue? The question arises which one is the primary consideration. If he must serve his voters then there are obviously the questions of transport, of the area he represents, etc. If, on the other hand, it is his vote in this Chamber which is paramount, then there are considerations of the number of persons he represents, etc. I do not want to take the matter further than that except to say that this question arose during the course of the evidence which was given before the Select Committee. It is a matter which will again need consideration in the future.

In regard to the simultaneous parliamentary and provincial council elections, we on this sdie of the House were not happy about the proposal to hold them like that and to make it mandatory, but we have accepted the provisions as they exist in this Bill. What this Bill allows now is that joint election, a simultaneous election, can be held. Then one will be able to judge the consequences, e.g. the benefits as against any disadvantages which may arise from the application of that power to hold simultaneous elections. The matter is then in the hands of the State President in so far as future elections are concerned, i.e. whether they are to be held and to be proclaimed simultaneously or whether they will have to be held separately. In introducing this measure now we are creating the opportunity of testing out the validity of the argument of the considerable savings involved and the considerable convenience, it will bring to the political parties in having the elections simultaneously against the possible effect of submerging provincial politics by national politics. We also know that there are various provisions which were in the original draft but which the Select Committee has found necessary to depart from. I do not mean to go into those in any detail, but I want to say that we were able to come to this compromise on what we felt is in the best interest of the country and in the best interest of our electoral system.

In conclusion I want to make two appeals to the hon. the Minister and to the Government. The first is that the hon. the Minister give serious attention to—I hope he will accede to this request—introducing a consolidated Act in regard to electoral laws in the next session of Parliament. I believe it is purely an administrative matter. If you consolidate and produce a consolidating Act it will be of considerable assistance not only to those of us who are directly involved in elections, but also to the public. It is quite difficult now to find one’s way through the maze of legislation and amending legislation.

The second point is that I believe, as the hon. the Minister himself will agree and as was also the terms of reference of the Select Committee, that this is a measure which is intended for the next ten years. The hon. the Minister through his department or his successor will ensure that, say, after the next five years, at least five years before the next delimitation, a Select Committee will be appointed to go into these measures. I assure the hon. the Minister that if fortunes are such and we are on that side of the House after the next general election, we will certainly give that undertaking and I trust that he, similarly will give the undertaking if he is fortunate enough to be the Minister after the next general election. In other words, there should be a timeous opportunity for a Select Committee to reconsider this measure before it comes operative for any period beyond the ten years. We support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I should also just like to link up with the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Green Point and express my appreciation to all the members of the Select Committee on both sides of the House for their team effort in making a success of this legislation and, in the best tradition of Parliament, agreeing about matters such as these we are now dealing with here. I want to convey my special appreciation to all the members of the Select Committee, and I cannot but mention here that we had the very fine assistance of Mr. Fourie, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, and also Mr. Pretorius, in particular, who gave us a very great deal of support with the functions of the Committee. I consequently also want to convey a special word of thanks to them.

I also want to endorse the hon. member for Green Point’s plea that the electoral laws, which have now been in existence for quite some time, which have been amended several times and are very difficult to interpret today, be consolidated, if this is at all possible, even before the next general election. This is a matter affecting all of us in this House. I do not think that such a matter need take up much of the House’s time. I think that at the same time a few smaller amendments could very profitably be introduced into the procedure when this consolidation is undertaken.

I just want to make one remark in connection with the hon. member for Green Point’s speech, and that concerns the question of simultaneous elections. The position is simply that with the advent of the Union of South Africa the provincial councils were directly involved in high level politics in that provincial councillors were asked to participate in an electoral college that has to elect senators. Senators are elected on a political basis. Therefore provincial council elections have, from the very first day, been out and out political elections. This has been our experience of the position throughout, and it is something we must accept. The Minister mentioned here that with simultaneous elections the State would save about R1 million. I want to state that when there are simultaneous elections this will result in a saving of almost R¾ million in each election for the two parties, or rather for the various parties that take part in the elections. I also just want to point out that in the evidence of the Transvaal it is mentioned that a random test was carried out in the Transvaal in which 981 people were involved, people who were asked whether they wanted simultaneous elections or not. 89,2% of the 981 persons who were approached were in favour of simultaneous elections being held, while 10,8%, said that it did not matter to them all that much because it was something they were not very interested in.

The basis on which the number of constituencies in each province is going to be drawn up in terms of this Bill is not explained anywhere in the Select Committee report. For that reason it is perhaps necessary for me to say a brief word about that. It is probably clear to all of us who know a bit about these matters, that they have not merely been determined arithmetically on the basis of the number of voters in each province. I also want to emphasize that the concept “one vote, one value” was not accepted as a formula by the Select Committee either. The concept “one vote, one value” has never been applicable in South Africa—not since the advent of the Union of South Africa. Neither do I think that in a country like South Africa this can ever be accepted, for practical and obvious reasons, as a formula according to which constituencies are to be allocated to provinces. Nonetheless this slogan “one vote one value” has been heard since 1910, and we shall still always be hearing it in the future. Prof. A. C. Cilliers, who gave evidence before the Committee, specifically drew the Committee’s attention to a paragraph from the diary of F. S. Malan, which had the following to say about the relevant slogan of “one vote, one value” (translation)—

In his memorandum Prof. A. C. Cilliers also pointed out to us that in 1910, with the allocation of constituencies to the various provinces, the Transvaal was treated about 36%, more favourably than the Cape, the Free State 35% more favourably and Natal 100% more favourably. At the time, for example, according to the merits by which constituencies were allocated, Natal qualified for not more than 12 constituencies, while in reality the province obtained 17. In the Cape’s memorandum before the Select Committee it was pointed out that from 1910 to 1957, when the Coloureds were on the common voters’ roll, the Coloured voters were never brought into the calculations when the number of constituencies were being determined for the various provinces. After the constituencies for the provinces had been determined, the Coloured vote was loaded on to the various Cape constituencies as an extra loading.

The Committee did, in fact, find a basis for agreement in the approach that a vote in comparable constituencies and in comparable areas in all provinces should, as nearly as possible, have the same value, i.e. a situation in which one would have nearly the same number of voters in comparable constituencies, for example an urban constituency in one province which is comparable to an urban constituency in another province, let us say Sea Point in the Cape and Hillbrow in the Transvaal. And in a wide area constituency like Waterberg in the Transvaal, one must also have just as many voters as in a wide area constituency in the Cape like Prieska or like Fauresmith in the Transvaal …

In the Free State!

Oh, of course, in the Free State. [Interjections.] I apologize for this terrible slip.

The same is true with respect to the rural and peri-urban areas in each province. When such constituencies are comparable they must, as far as possible, carry the same number of voters. The number of constituencies for each province, as provided in this Bill, is calculated on the basis of “one vote, one value” in comparable constituencies and comparable areas.

With a view to enabling the Delimitation Commission to implement this idea in practice, it has also been provided that one and the same criterion will be applied in all the provinces when it comes to delimitation, and for that reason the national mean quota, which is about 13 300 voters, will be used as a criterion for the delimitation of the constituencies. With a view to achieving the said objects, the delimitation commissions can then, proceeding from the national mean quota, use the provision of loading and deloading. It is a pity that according to this formula, which does take proper account of the numbers of voters in the provinces and the limited increase in the number of members of this House, i.e. an increase of only five members, the Free State could not retain a minimum of 15 constituencies. I also want to acknowledge here today, as the hon. member for Green Point has done by implication, that I am afraid that this formula is no long-term solution to the problem of the slower growing provinces. But this allocation of constituencies, which has been made for a period of ten years, is now creating a breathing space. Sooner or later, however, it will only be possible to stop this trend, of an increasing disproportion that is occurring in the political representation of provinces, by a constitutional guarantee of a minimum number of constituencies for each province. The determination of a specific number of constituencies for a province or an area is not foreign to our system either. In the commonwealth democracies, in whose company our constitutional development took place, we find in the United Kingdom, for example, that the number of constituencies for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, has been fixed by law; that in New Zealand a minimum of 25 constituencies is guaranteed for South Island, and that in Canada a province shall not have fewer than a certain number of constituencies. In our own Constitution, too, provision has not only been made for the fact that the smaller provinces will thus far have a minimum of 25 constituencies. In the original Constitution there was a provision which read as follows (it is preceded by the determination of the constituencies according to the position in 1910)—

This provision guranteed that up to 1932 the Free State and Natal would each retain 17 constituencies.

And there is just one other idea, i.e. the question of the holding of simultaneous elections, which was the second big principle that was embodied in the original legislation. To make these simultaneous elections possible, we had to find an arrangement that would apply in the case of Natal and the Free State, where the number of provincial and House of Assembly constituencies were not the same. From the evidence before the Committee it was very clear that they did not very much like the idea of the number of constituencies being doubled. In reality the Province of Natal was in no way in favour of a doubling of their number of provicial constituencies. By drawing the line at 20 constituencies instead of 25, we have now bridged the problem as far as Natal is concerned. There will now be 20 provincial and 20 parliamentary seats. We have now come to the stage where, in three of the four provinces of the Republic we shall no longer have this problem of an unequal number of provincial and House of Assembly seats. We are still saddled with this problem in only one province where we have had, of necessity to accent the system of doubling. The extension of constituencies there involves, in any case, a trifling number, i.e. only three. A more practical arrangement would have been, of course, to fix the minimum number of provincial constituencies at 18 in order to bring the positions in line with what is operative in South-West Africa. If we were to fix the number at 18, the Free State would also have to be given at least 18 House of Assembly constituencies. That is the real solution to the situation and I think that we shall still be heading that way at a later stage, in which case we shall then also have to enlarge the House of Assembly to about 200 members so that the other provinces can also obtain proportionately more constituencies. Sir, for a country like South Africa, with its wide areas and its problems 200 members in this House do not constitute an extensive increase at all. I do not know where all the hon. members will sit. These cross benches could perhaps be used. They have a special name, Mr. Speaker, which I shall tell you of at a later stage. However, they will not be enough; we shall have to let the senators sit somewhere else so that we can also occupy that back portion of the Chamber. So much, Sir, for the changes in the Constitution.

I want to conclude by saying a few words about the question of continuous registration. I want to tell you now, Sir, that this continuous registration is being made possible, as you have heard, by the use of a computer. This makes it possible for us to introduce continuous registration again. We had it, but it was a hopeless failure and we had to relinquish it. I now want to issue a very clear warning in this connection. Whatever this departmental computer may be capable of, if the Government of the day does not ensure the implementation of this system of compulsory registration, on which the success of the system rests, the system is doomed to failure in advance. We shall have to enforce compulsory registration at all costs. In saying that we must enforce it, I want to point out that the previous system of continuous registration failed as a result of the fact that voters simply took no notice of the provisions in respect of compulsory registration. The ruling parties of the day have thus far been hesitant to bring these people to book. I am saying that the Government of the day will have to prosecute and punish those people who do not pay heed to the provisions in respect of compulsory registration. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, not only will this system of continuous registration fail to work, but we shall also make a flop of the modernizing of our election system and we shall make a flop of the sytem of identity documents, in respect of which we have such high hopes. But if it succeeds—and I think it can succeed—we could, in using the computer to maximum efficiency and with the identity documents at our disposal, establish in South Africa an election system that would compare with the best in the world.

Mr. Speaker …

Oh!

Hon. members will just have to be a little patient. This is practically Custer’s last stand. They will have to put up with me just once more this session. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to support this measure. I am very sorry to introduce a note of discord in this atmosphere of agreement that we have had here, but I intend to oppose this measure at the Second Reading, even though it is an agreed measure from the Select Committee. I wish to move an amendment immediately which will set forth my reasons for opposing this and then I will go into it in some detail. I want to move as an amendment—

1. (1) perpetuates the existing disparity between the values of the votes of urban and rural electors;
2. (2) introduces a disparity between the values of the votes of electors in the different provinces; and
3. (3) may reduce the importance of provincial issues by submerging them in the politics of national elections.”

Nonsense!

Sir, hon. members can shout “nonsense! ” as much as they like, but that is the amendment I move, and if they care to listen to my reasons, I will give them to them. If they do not care to listen, then as far as I am concerned they can go. I want to say at once that I think two provinces have been very lucky indeed in having representatives of the calibre of the hon. member for Parow and the hon. member for Durban Point representing them on the Select Committee. There is no doubt whatever that both the Cape and Natal have emerged very favourably from the recommendations of the Select Committee. I cannot, however, say the same for the poor old Transvaal, which happens to be the province that I come from, and as far as I can see the four Transvaal members, three of whom belong to the governing party and one of whom belongs to the United Party, have served their province very badly indeed. The Transvaal province emerges from the Select Committee recommendations and from the provisions of the Bill which we are discussing in a most unfavourable light vis-à-vis the other two provinces. As far as I can make out, the Orange Free State is more or less in the position in which it should have been.

Now, Sir, I want to give some examples. In 1965 this House passed a Bill which increased the existing load/unload factor in the far-flung seats to 30% or 8 000, whichever was the greater, and I might say that the arguments which I used then in opposing that measure, which I did although it was also an agreed measure, were related to the question of one vote, one value. Those arguments in fact are equally applicable here, because this Bill perpetuates the existing disparity between the value of votes of rural and urban electors. I would not have repeated those arguments if in fact this Bill had brought about any improvement. If anything, it seems to me that the situation is slightly worse. It is only slightly worse, but it is slightly worse, because as far as the far-flung seats are concerned, under the old measure they only had to measure 10 000 square miles, and now they only need to measure 25 000 square kilometres in order to qualify for the bonus, instead of the 25 899 square kilometres, which is in fact the exact metric equivalent of the 10 000 square miles under the old measure.

Now, Sir, why it was not brought up to 26 000, which after all is the nearest 1 000 when one converts square miles to square kilometres, I cannot understand, but it certainly gives an additional advantage to the far-flung seats because now with a lesser measurement they gain the same bonus that the larger areas covered formerly. All the arguments against the loaded vote system are certainly apposite if one considers the proposal to introduce, as this Bill does, a disparity between the values of the votes in the different provinces over and above the disparity which exists by virtue of the loading and unloading system which we have had for a number of years and which was of course increased in the 1965 Bill. Now I can only reiterate some of the arguments that applied then as now, for example the statement of the Sixth Delimitation Commission which stated that equality as between all electoral divisions is a principle which is the Legislature’s cardinal injunction. Each vote, in other words, should have as nearly as possible the same value. Now, why we are constantly in this country increasing the value of the rural vote as against the urban vote, is quite beyond me. I am not going to use any material arguments, like the relative contributions to national income in this regard because I do not think such arguments are particularly relevant, but I certainly say this, that the majority of the White electorate of South Africa, well over 80%, are now living in the urban areas and yet we have a Legislature which is heavily weighted in favour of rural constituencies whose representatives, I maintain, know little or nothing about urban priorities. That is one reason, I would say, why we so often pass legislation which is unrealistic in many respects.

Nonsense.

Saying “nonsense” every few minutes is not much of an argument. [Interjections.] The South Africa Act was after all concerned with there being equality between electoral divisions as far as possible. There obviously always must be some slight inequality because we cannot get exact measurements, but it was implicit that equality should really be the rule and that any disproportion should be the exception. Now, year after year, or delimitation commission after delimitation commission, I should say, we have found that the tendency to load or unload up to the maximum is in fact becoming axiomatic rather than the exception. If one examines the various graphs which have resulted from the recommendations of delimitation commissions, one finds that commissions have tended more and more to make use of the discretionary right which was allowed them in the load/unload factor and in the drawing of the boundaries.

The density or the sparsity of the population is after all only one of five factors laid down and specified in the Act, and the sixth added in 1965, but that particular factor seems to be the one which prevails. Certainly one would think that the commission by now should almost have discarded the whole question of communications because of the tremendous improvements in communications in South Africa as between 1910 and now. Whereas unfortunate parliamentary representatives had to cover vast areas by horse and cart, they now have roads and motor-cars and train services and air services and telephones. All forms of communication are now at their disposal, not to mention, of course, television, and the unfortunate elector sooner or later will have to sit and watch the parliamentary aspirants performing right in their parlour without moving. [Interjections.] Well, then they will have to watch me. They will have to choose, I am afraid, between the beautiful countenance of the hon. member for Durban Point and my extremely unattractive countenance. [Interjections.] I have learnt to be modest. I have no option. During the whole of this session I have been told how old and ugly I have become and I accept the situation now although I really could not care less about it. In any case, the point that I am making is that communications have greatly improved and therefore this factor ought to become less important. The Delimitation Commission appeared to be using the density scarcity factor almost to the exclusion of all the others.

Now, Sir, I want to examine the position of the seats in the different provinces as they should have been and as they are going to be under this Bill. I must say that the mathematics are not mine. I have relied on an expert for the mathematics, and I have every confidence in this expert. He was so good an expert that he presented evidence for the United Party at one such Delimitation Commission some years ago. At present there are 160 parliamentary seats in this Parliament. There are 73 parliamentary seats in the Transvaal; 54 in the Cape; 18 in Natal; and 15 in the Orange Free State. Under the law as it stands at present—based on general registration figures—the allocation of seats between the provinces would have been, i.e. still on the 160-seat basis, as follows: 78 for the Transvaal; 50 for the Cape; 19 for Natal; and 13 for the Orange Free State. These figures are confirmed by Senator Horak’s evidence to the Select Committee.

You are basing it on the general registration.

Yes, I am.

But those figures are out of date.

Wait, I shall give you the latest figures, including the supplementary figures. Just have a little patience. That would have been an honest deal, based on general registration, of 160 seats. Now the House is to be increased to 165 seats. By the way, I object to this too and I shall come back to the reason why. Accepting that the increase is taking place, on the present methods of dividing up the seats between the provinces, this would have meant: 80 for Transvaal …

Nonsense.

… 52 for the Cape; 20 for Natal; and 13 for the Orange Free State.

You are talking utter nonsense.

You can stand up after I have finished and tell me where I am wrong. Now, Sir, we find however that the new methods of dividing up the seats is going to give to the Transvaal 76, and Cape 55, Natal 20 and the Orange Free State 14.

Will you tell us on how many voters in each province your calculations are based?

I shall tell you in a moment. I say that this new method whereby the Transvaal is going to lose four seats, which it should have had, the Cape is going to gain three, Natal is exactly the same and the Free State is getting an extra one, is nothing less than an arbitrary allocation by party politicians which is going to remain for ten years.

Under the Bill there will be a Republican quota to be worked out. I make that to be round about 13 180.

13 375.

Well, I make it 13 182 which is based on the 1972 general registration plus the supplementary for March for 1973. That quota, as far as I can see, is only going to operate after ten years. It is going to operate in those seats where the 70% is going to apply. Based on an average number of electors on the latest registration the position would be: Transvaal, 14 138; the Cape 12 274; Natal 12 225 and the Orange Free State 12 930.

Now, Sir, why have the Transvaal members of the Select Committee and the Transvaal members in this House agreed to this discrimination against the Transvaal? On what possible basis could they justify this? The Cape will have 55 seats at this figure of 12 274. That means that it kicks off with an unload of minus 6,9% on the quota. The Transvaal with 76 seats at 14 138 will kick off with a load of 7,25%. The Free State with 14 seats at 12 941 will have an unload of minus 1,9% while Natal with 20 seats and an average of 12 226 will have a minus unload of 7,26%. I want to know why it is that on the Select Committee the hon. members for Ermelo, Rissik, Benoni and Germiston District did not put up a fight for our province. Why did they allow the wily talents of the hon. members for Durban Point and the hon. member for Parow and the hon. member for Green Point to overcome any loyalty which they might have for their province?

You are totally crazy. It has no relation to the facts.

Well, you can stand up and tell me. I want to know why the urban Transvaal seats are going to be particularly badly off, because obviously there are more urban seats than there are platteland seats in the Transvaal. Therefore this load and unload system is going to fall heavily on the Transvaal urban seats.

I want to know why we need additional seats at all in Parliament. Why do we need them? At present each of us represents on an average something like 13 595 voters. I do not think that that is an enormous number for us to represent. Under the new delimitation with 165 seats each member in the Transvaal will represent over 14 000. I cannot imagine why we cannot stay as we are. In Britain, as we all know, they have constituencies some of which range up to about 80 000 voters and in the United States they are even greater.

If you compare what we are giving the White electorate in this country proportion-wise in representation with what, in fact, we have given to the Coloured people in the Coloured Representative Council, then it becomes really quite laughable. There are more than two million Coloured people—not all of them are voters, of course—but there are 50 seats for those people and only 30 constituencies, because of the 50 seats, 20 are filled by nominated representatives. Here we are with roughly four million White persons represented by 165 M.P.s. I think we have 54 senators and with the new dispensation we shall have more than 170 M.P.C.s.

I now come to the third leg of my amendment and that is that I oppose this Bill because it may—it need not, but I have an idea that one does not put in this provision, this permissive provision of allowing the joint elections without having some intention of implementing it—lead to joint elections. Obviously it is going to be implemented.

Yes.

The hon. the Minister says “yes” and therefore we are going to have joint elections for the provinces and for Parliament. I agree 100%. I have said this before and I say it again that there is no doubt that it will be more convenient for everybody from the point of view of expense and the actual mechanics of running an election, about which I happen to know something. There is no doubt that it is more convenient. However, the issues which are facing people choosing their representatives in the provincial council are quite different from the issues facing people choosing their representatives in this Parliament, although there is a tendency, I admit, for people to vote on party lines, but never mind that. The fact is that the issues are different and that these differences should be accentuated; they should not be blurred.

The hon. member for Parow said that provincial elections have always had a national context in that provincial councillors sit in a joint electoral college in order to elect senators. Well, that may very well be so, but that is post hoc their own election. In other words, the people who elected them did that before they had to join the electoral college. When they were being elected the fact that they were later going to sit in a joint electoral college to elect senators is, I submit, completely irrelevant to this argument.

My party happens to advance for South Africa’s interests a federal system of government. We have done this from the beginning. We advanced a federal system of government on a geographic basis completely different from the race federation of the United Party. We want provinces or states, multi-racial ones as the provinces are at the moment, on a geographic basis. All the voters will be on a common roll for the local legislatures, the State legislatures, on a common roll, on a qualified franchise basis, but with the ability to attain the qualifications open to all, and for the federal parliament which will control important matters like defence, fiscal policy and so on.

Where do you read this in the Bill?

Tell me how many voters you will have on your voters’ roll?

I am coming right back to that now. I cannot tell you that, because I have not worked it out.

You do not know, do you?

It is not important; it is the principle that is important. If hon. members on that side will only realize that if they stick to principle, life could be so much easier for them.

You do not care how many voters you have.

They vary their principles every time when a measure comes to this House. You can never judge what they are going to do, because they vary their principles so much.

My point is—and that is where it is relevant to the Bill, for the information of the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior— that under a federal system power is devolved to the different provinces and we want that to continue. We want that to be accentuated. We want that to be the direction of policy. We do not want an accentuation of unitary control. My contention is that by holding joint elections for the province and for Parliament on the same day, the tendency in politics in this country will be to submerge provincial issues in the maelstrom of national politics. That is why the federal issue is an important issue in this regard.

What about the United States?

Oh, the United States have a different system altogether.

They have a federal system.

Yes, but goodness me, their voting system is quite different. I mean, their …

It is all on the same day.

No, it is not all on the same day. Some of them are sometimes on the same day.

Order! The hon. member need not pay attention to these interjections.

I will give the hon. member the details of their voting system.

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to argue with you …

The hon. member must just ignore these interjections.

I just wanted to tell the hon. member that he is quite wrong and that their elections are not always held on the same date. I believe that instead of South Africa’s political dispensation moving towards a decentralized federal system, we are by this Bill today—which makes it possible, and indeed probable, that we are going to have our elections for the provinces and for Parliament on the same day —in fact moving in exactly the opposite direction. We are moving in a direction of more uniformity which is imposed by the unitary system. As I have said, there are different issues which should be affecting the provinces yet all their diversities are now going to be submerged in national politics. I am supported in this by no other person than the United Party leader in the Transvaal. What did he say in this regard?

Who is he?

He is Mr. Harry Schwarz, and I quote from The Argus of the 12th April this year—

He was referring to the joint elections—

He agrees with me and I must say that I think he is absolutely right in this regard.

He quite often agrees with you.

He often does agree with me, or I agree with him. You might say that we are kindred spirits, even though we do not get on particularly well.

Except in …

Except what? I cannot hear what you are saying.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

The original Bill was thrown out. This is a new Bill.

Yes, but whether the old Bill has been thrown out or not, the new Bill introduces the same principle of joint election and that was what he was talking about.

Order! I have told the hon. member just now that she need not listen to these interjections. She should deal with the Bill.

Sir, I am dealing with the Bill, and this is one of the clauses of the Bill.

Oh no, the hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I am dealing with the joint elections, but I have said what I wanted to about this, so I will now pass on. I know that some members are wishing that I would rather pass out. [Interjections.] I have no intention of doing that at the moment.

What I cannot understand is why, after the excellent evidence which I read in the report of the Select Committee and which was presented to the Committee by Senator Horak on the “one vote, one value” issue, the United Party is now supporting a measure which perpetuates and, indeed, accentuates the disparity between the “one vote, one value” concept.

What do you know about compromising?

The hon. member says that I do not know what is meant by “compromise”, and on basic principles he is absolutely right. I can accept this Bill under no circumstances. I see no justification for the Government’s coming along as it does every so many years, and always just before a delimitation, and changing the rules of the game. That is what the Government has done on every occasion. Last time they came along with the increase of 30% in the loading and unloading of constituencies. Now it is coming along again, just before another delimitation and it again changes the rules of the game.

You always agreed with it.

This is my whole complaint. I do not blame the Government for taking advantage of the stupidity of the official Opposition. But I object very strongly to the official Opposition selling that part of the people in the country which opposes the Government down the river.

That is a ridiculous accusation.

Order! The hon. member is not taking my advice, namely to stick to the Bill and not to listen to these interjections. She has allowed herself now to be led astray by the Minister by means of interjections.

It is blindingly obvious that the Government has changed the rules again in order to try to prevent the disappearance of a few more platteland seats in the Cape and in the Orange Free State. That is what this Bill is doing, because if it had not been for the laying down of the exact number of seats and the complete putting aside of the Republican quota in this regard, the Orange Free State would have lost seats and so would the Cape. Those seats would be lost on the platteland and I think the hon. the Minister will agree. Those areas should have lost seats, because the people have disappeared from those areas. So why on earth should we retain representation for areas from which people have disappeared because of the urbanization process which has gone on in South Africa, a process which I believe to be to the advantage of all of us because of the rising standards of living which have accompanied that. I think it is high time that the Transvaal fought for its rights in this regard and fought against the increasing disparity in the value of the votes of the Transvaal electorate. More so, I think it is high time that the Transvaal urban members fought for their votes, because they are the people who are most discriminated against in this Bill. I want to know what is the point of the hon. member for Green Point telling young people all the time that they must change the Government through the ballot-box and then sitting by, and here I refer to evidence in the report of the Select Committee, while the Government changes the effects of the ballot-box. I mean the ballot-box is only valuable provided the rules are adhered to, but if they are being changed every time just before an election by a delimitation committee, then I think members should fight against it. I could quote what was said by the hon. member for Wynberg about the “fuss” that urban voters ought to kick up in order to see that their rights are being maintained and protected. I could quote a long article written by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout which was entitled “Every vote ought to be equal”. It is a long article and I only want to quote one paragraph from if. He said:

He was referring to the disparity between the value of the votes of rural and urban voters. He went on:

I have quoted experts who agree with the point of view I have put forward today and I intend to voting against the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, if it were not for the fact that the hon. member for Houghton’s bosses will splash throughout South Africa her fight for “justice” and “democracy” in South Africa, I would have let her speech go without comment. But she is guilty of having made so many statements which bear no relationship to the facts that I think some of those facts must be put on record.

The first fact that I want to put on record is that the Progressive Party were invited to give evidence before this Select Committee of Parliament which considered the measure. I should like to ask the hon. member for Houghton why her party thought so little of democracy that they did not take the trouble to prepare a memorandum, let alone give evidence before the committee. [Interjections.] That is how concerned they were about getting a good Bill. All they are interested in is getting headlines in the newspapers, but when it comes to the hard work, when it comes to getting down to a job of work, they are conspicuous by their absence. When it became time to produce the Bill in this House, that party was conspicuous by its lack of interest in what was happening, but when it comes to making speeches in Parliament and getting headlines in the Sunday Times, they are the great defenders of democracy.

The second thing is that the Committee worked on the latest possible available figures. The hon. member for Houghton quoted the general registration figures. I want to ask her to tell me by interjection how many supplementary votes were registered in the Cape and in the Transvaal respectively. She does not know, but yet calculated constituencies just now in the House. She said the Transvaal would have 80 constituencies but she cannot tell this House how many supplementary registrations were effected in the Cape and in the Transvaal respectively. I challenge her to tell this House.

Come on Helen!

You see, Mr. Speaker, that is the measure of her responsibility. She tries to create an impression when she does not even have the figures on which to base that impression; she does not even know what the figures are, but yet she is prepared to stand up in Parliament and make allegations which impugn the honour of the Select Committee, a Select Committee which sought to work on facts. I will tell you, Sir, that there were 110 068 supplementary registrations in the Cape Province and 89 425 in the Transvaal, which has many more seats. When you add that to the original general registration, you get a completely different balance between the two.

I want to tell the hon. member something else which she obviously does not know and is not interested in: The law as it stands now, does not divide the number of voters in South Africa mathematically by a certain figure and suddenly produce a number of constituencies; it takes into account seven qualifications laid down by the Act governing delimitation. In terms of those qualifications the position under the existing law would have been that the Cape would have had 53 seats, the Transvaal 75, Natal 19 and the Orange Free State 13. That would have been the distribution under the existing law. The hon. member quoted 80 seats for the Transvaal. Why does she do so?—To try to create the impression that the United Party has gerrymandered with the Government in order to destroy the Transvaal. Her speech was another Schlebusch Commission effort to try to smear the Opposition as being collaborators in dishonour with the Nationalist Party. I am not prepared to allow that to go on record without correction. The position is that by increasing the number of seats as the Select Committee has recommended, the Cape will in fact get two more than it would have had under the present law, the Transvaal will get one more, Natal and the Free State each will get one more than would have happened under the existing law. The reason why we recommended that is—unlike the hon. member for Houghton and her party who do not care about facts and were not even interested enough to put in a memorandum—that we sought to achieve a balance. Under the increased number of seats, instead of having a discrepancy of some thousands of votes between seats of exactly the same sort in one province and another, it will now be possible to bring those seats nearer together. An urban Free State seat can now have approximately 14 500 odd votes against an urban Transvaal seat with 14 700 This could not be achieved under the so-called “fair delimitation” of the hon. member, because she does not know the law. She does not know how you apply delimitation. We added these five seats with the object of achieving exactly what that hon. member pretends to want, namely to balance seats of an equal size. The result is going to be that there is going to be a smaller discrepancy between rural and urban areas. That is what we have achieved.

I do not want to waste any more time on a speech which was irresponsible in the extreme and designed with one object only. I think it is necessary that South Africa should know that the hon. member for Houghton made a speech without knowledge of the facts on which to base that speech.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you very much to the hon. member for Green Point who adopted a standpoint and supported this legislation on behalf of the Opposition. I also want to express my thanks on behalf of the officials whom he thanked here— they cannot make speeches. My Secretary for the Interior, Mr. Fourie, and Mr. Pretorius, his assistant, have done excellent work. They are two first-rate officials, and I am very grateful for the fact that we have them at our disposal. I want to thank the hon. member for his fine words to these departmental officials and to the Select Committee in general. I think this Select Committee has done good work, in spite of the criticism of the hon. member for Houghton about which I shall say a few words in a moment. The few other matters, which the hon. member broached, I shall deal with systematically, one by one, at the end of my speech.

As chairman of the committee the hon. member for Parow deserves particular credit for his share in its activities. It is not easy to get people from various provinces together. I am now just speaking with affection about the question of provincialism which we would prefer not to have, but which, speaking in terms of human beings, inevitably does exist. That he managed, as a Capetonian, to lead not only the representatives in our party from all the provinces, but also the United Party representatives from the various provinces, to the acceptance of one standpoint, is an achievement that is virtually impossible in South Africa. I wholeheartedly want to congratulate him on an achievement which actually appears to be impossible in practice. I shall say a few words later about a few matters which he broached.

I now want to devote a few words to the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Durban Point replied to one of the aspects, i.e. the question of the various provinces. But there are two other aspects to which I want to refer and about which I just want to say a few words. Firstly, the hon. member’s first objection, as embodied in the amendment at present before the House and which we are now discussing, is that the Bill perpetuates the existing disparity between the values of the urban and rural votes. I immediately want to tell the hon. member that the position in practice is such that except for the fact that it has been calculated arithmetically how many seats there will be for each province, upon which the hon. member has apparently based her whole argument, there are also other provisions, to which the hon. member for Durban Point referred, which very clearly point the way for the Delimitation Commission. One of those provisions is very clearly that they must take into consideration the practical possibility of one person being able to represent so large an area, the physical capacity to cope with something like this. I now want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she has any idea of how large 10 000 square miles or 25 000 square kilometres is. She sits in Houghton, a compact constituency. I myself have a small, compact seat on the Rand. We have no idea of what it means for the M.P. or M.P.C. of those vast, colossal seats on the platteland to make physical contact with his people.

You would rather make it bigger and bigger.

I am speaking of the tremendous distances. The Namaqualand constituency alone is bigger than the whole Orange Free State and has only the 8 900 or 9 000 quota of voters. If we do not grant this protection, it means that the Namaqualand constituency must become even bigger. I am now very affectionately asking the hon. member: Can any person effectively represent such an area and do justice to all the various groups and towns? It is, surely, physically impossible in this case.

With respect to the question of the value of the urban vote as against that of the platteland vote, in a previous debate the hon. member was very eager to refer to what is being done in the Western world in respect of various questions. I do not want to refer to that debate now. But only this morning, in another debate, she was pointing to the good example of other countries. Now I want to give her the good example of Britain in this case, the mother of all democracies, from whom we inherited this system. The seat with the most voters in Britain comprises 126 000 voters, while the smallest seat in Britain, with exactly the same vote in Parliament, has 18 000 voters. What does that sound like for a difference in the value of votes in various areas? That is a result of certain specific circumstances.

The hon. member also referred to the question of loading and deloading, as originally written into the Constitution. She said that this principle was actually introduced with the idea that loading and deloading would only take place in exceptional cases, and that in general the values were more or less to stay the same. Then she came along with the accusation that this is now becoming the axiom rather than the exception. That was her argument. The fact is now that as a result of the tremendous areas we have, and as a result of the depopulation of the platteland which is still taking place from day to day, the problem is becoming greater by the day. For that reason it is essential for this protection to take place. But now she says that loading and deloading to the maximum is becoming the rule rather than the exception. What are the facts? In terms of the previous delimitation, the average loading of urban seats was 11,2%, while the maximum loading can be 15%. The average loading was, in other words, a whole 4% less than the maximum which the commission was entitled to apply. In the case of rural seats—I am now speaking of the ordinary rural seats and not wide area seats —deloading can legally take place, according to the Constitution, to a maximum of 15%, and there the average deloading was 5,8%. That was not even half the deloading which the Delimitation Commission was entitled to apply by law. As I have said, that was the position with the previous delimitation. Although the wide area constituencies can, by law, be deloaded by 30%, the highest deloading was 25%, and in the other cases the deloading in respect of those wide area constituencies was between 20% and 22%, which clearly indicates that these provisions of the Act are not being stretched to their limits. The fact remains that we are dealing here with the physical capacity of a person, an individual, to travel properly and effectively through his constituency and represent his people’s interests in this Parliament. When the surface area of a seat becomes too large, it becomes impossible for any person, even supermen, to cover such tremendous distances.

The hon. member for Durban Point has already dealt with the other question which the hon. member for Houghton raised, i.e. the question of the various provinces. What the hon. member did not take into account, except for the fact that she dealt with the supplementary list in her own fashion, is that in that supplementary list there are a tremendous number of duplicate registrations. There were 78 000 duplicate registrations in the supplementary lists. Thirty-eight per cent of the registrations which were submitted as supplementary registrations were duplicates which must be deleted before one can obtain the true figures. Seventy-eight thousand voters represent the voters of at least six constituencies. This consequently places the whole matter in another category; the position is therefore completely different. The fact remains that one is not merely arguing arithmetically.

I now come to the hon. member’s third argument. She said that that might lead to provincial matters vanishing completely and being made subservient to national matters. I now very honestly and correctly want to deal with this question at once. The legislation makes it possible for parliamentary and provincial elections to take place simultaneously. I now just want to tell the hon. member at once that it is the Government’s intention to have them take place simultaneously; there must be no illusion about this. What are the present facts, Sir? Since 1910 provincial elections have, from the nature of the case, stood in the shadow of parliamentary elections. Since 1910 we have discussed national questions on the platforms when it came to provincial elections. Her party and all the other parties did so.

But the Progs fight municipal elections on national issues. [Interjections.]

Now we come to the question of the simultaneous elections as such. The hon. member says that provincial matters will now be pushed even further into the background, and she apparently has the support of Mr. Schwarz, the leader of the United Party in the Transvaal, because she quoted him in that connection, and she also quoted two other persons from this House who supposedly agreed with her about that matter. But, Sir, what are the facts? Is she worried about her Houghton seat? If she is not, and provincial matters were to disappear, then she must surely welcome that measure because then she would have a Progressive provincial councillor elected in Houghton. If parliamentary matters are to be predominant, then under the system of simultaneous elections she will get a Progressive provincial councillor in Houghton, which she does not have at present.

I am trying to be objective.

Sir, I know it is not a matter of her own constituency. But the fact remains that we have had it this way from the beginning. The hon. member also comes along with the argument that it strengthens the unit state idea, while she would prefer to support diversification and federalism. Sir, this Government is not in favour of the federation scheme, not the geographic federation which she has in mind, nor the race federation which the Opposition has in mind either. This Government advocates the idea of a unit state. In 1910 unification was chosen and not a federation, and the great speaker in favour of that was the late Gen. Smuts. He was the strongest supporter of the idea that we should form a union of the four provinces and not a federation. In spite of the fact that we had an example of a federation in Canada and a federal system in Australia, and to a certain extent a federal system in America, our fathers, the founders of our State, chose a union, with the support of Gen. Smuts, Gen. Hertzog and John X. Merriman; we wanted a closer unit. The unit system is therefore being consolidated here. I immediately want to concede and acknowledge this fact; but we do not take exception to that; on the contrary, we think it is the right thing and that it is development in the right direction.

Then the hon. member goes on to say— I also read this in the Press and therefore I want to say a few words about it—that we change the rules before each election; people are so fond of saying that the National Party entrenches itself each time before an election. I am now sick and tired of that attack on the National Party. It is completely unjust. Each time this is spelled out in the newspapers—and the hon. member for Houghton has also done it here now—that suddenly before each election we change the rules to such an extent that we entrench ourselves anew and that the Opposition will never be able to lift us out of the cushions legally. Mr. Speaker, what are the facts? It is a tradition in this Parliament that each of these measures is an agreed measure; and to come along and fling it in the teeth of the National Government and this party that we entrench ourselves before each election, is simply the utmost nonsense and the greatest possible untruth. The fact is that South Africa is not a fully developed State and country like the older states in Europe that have 1 000 and 1 200 years of history behind them; that we in South Africa do not have the established position, the established communities and the stability that they have in Europe; that South Africa is still changing from day to day because of its tremendous potential, its tremendous vigour and the driving force of its people of which we have a very good quality. The pattern in our society, the pattern of our development, the growth in the cities and the platteland, the patterns of development in certain provinces where raw materials are available and the patterns of development in other provinces where they are not available, are changing every day, and therefore the Electoral Act, for realistic and practical reasons, must keep pace with these changes that take place in a fast-growing, developing country like South Africa. I accept the fact that a day will come, a few years or centuries from now, when South Africa will also more or less be established and when we shall consequently have more stability, but in this process of development it is simply logical that the present system must be preserved.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I want to state a few points in connection with the positive requests that have come from both sides of the House. In the first place I want to say a few words about the question of the consolidation of the electoral laws, which two or three hon. members have requested. I immediately want to say that during this recess we shall be giving attention to consolidating the electoral laws so that we can come along next year with a consolidated electoral Act. This will considerably facilitate the position for all parties; there will then only be one source that has to be consulted to determine what the law is; one would then also be able to remember and memorize the numbers of the various important sections; one would then not have the present position of memorizing the numbers of the important sections and then finding that as soon as one has done that the numbers are changed and one has to begin from scratch again. I want to add that we shall then also take that opportunity of carrying out metrication in respect of those clauses that are not being affected now. There are certain clauses that are not being affected now but we did not specially want to add them just to introduce metrication. This will be done when the Act is consolidated. We have consequently not metricated all the clauses in this Bill, but we shall do so next year when we reach that stage.

The hon. member for Green Point asked whether a Select Committee would be appointed in time for a reconsideration of the whole matter before the next election. I want to tell him, at this stage already, that it is in the Government’s hands at any time to appoint a Select Committee. I take it that it will again be done before that election in spite of the fact that it will again be regarded as an attempt to change the rules of the game again before the election, as the hon. member for Houghton argued. But it will be necessary to keep pace with developments as they are observed from day to day.

I am also grateful for the standpoint that was adopted by the Select Committee about the comparability, as far as possible, of the values of votes in various areas, i.e. to the effect that the value of a vote in Bloemfontein City can be compared with the value of a vote in Johannesburg, say in Hillbrow, and can also be compared with the value of a vote in a seat like Musgrave and in Cape Town in, say, Rondebosch, and that our rural seats can also, more or less, achieve comparability. To have been able to do this, it was necessary to accept the Republic quota as the criterion according to which this should take place, and I want to say at once that I think it is a sound principle to do this under the circumstances. I just want to add that I personally believe—and I know the Select Committee did not accept this— that the solution to this whole question lies in the Bill which I originally referred to the Select Committee, and I want to explain why this is so. One feels that as a result of the depopulation of the platteland, which takes place from time to time, one ought to fix the minimum for each province so that in spite of people leaving one can be sure that the member elected there will not have to represent an unrealistically large area. For that reason I think it is a good thing for one to peg a minimum for all the provinces. But secondly, to prevent this pegging from resulting in the penalization of certain provincies in which tremendously rapid growth is taking place, because the minimum absorbs a certain number of seats and therefore pegs down the others so that they cannot obtain more seats in spite of their growth, it was my proposal that we should leave the maximum open so that it could increase with the growth of the province. This would enable the growing provinces, those that are growing more rapidly than the average—I am speaking of the Transvaal and Natal—to get the number of additional seats to which they would be entitled, if we were to take this into account, while laying down the minimum would protect all the others. No one knows what the future holds. We could, for example, discover oil in the Karoo and then its population would grow out of all proportion. And we are hoping that oil will be discovered at some time or other. We may perhaps discover something else in one of the other provinces. The future is not in our hands, and we do not know where growth is going to take place.

The hon. member for Parow spoke, in conclusion, of compulsory registration. I just want to tell him that we have just had the de novo registration and the Government intends to enforce, if this is necessary and essential, compulsory notification of changes of address, which would prove essential if the new identity documents are put into operation. The whole computerized system of having peoples’ statements and knowing exactly who and where they are, is irrefutably linked up with the compulsory notification of changes of address. If one does not do that, the effectiveness of the whole scheme collapses, together with all the costs involved. You can now imagine that the compulsory notification of changes of address will automatically eliminate all problems. The moment a new address reaches the computer, that voter is automatically deleted from the voters’ roll and automatically placed on the new voter’s roll without registration, without any trouble to the parties and without any trouble to the voter. He is automatically transferred according to his change of address which he has submitted. The moment a person reaches the age of 18, he is automatically placed on the voters’ roll. The moment a person becomes a naturalized South African citizen he is automatically placed on the voters’ roll. The moment he dies, his name is automatically deleted from the voters’ roll. The voters’ roll is consequently kept up to date automatically by the computer. But an inexorable requirement for this is the compulsory notification of changes of address, something which is essential to the whole process. I think that would solve the problem.

In conclusion I want to say that I have listened to the hon. member for Houghton’s argument, but I am afraid I cannot agree with it and I hope that the Second Reading will now be passed by the House.

Question put: That all the words after “That” 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 and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 49—

Agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Committee Stage

Clause 79:

Mr. Chairman, this clause is a short one which aims at repealing section 181 of the principal Act, Act No. 46 of 1946. I would at this stage like to record my opposition to the repeal of section 181 of the principal Act. I will give my reasons why I wish to record an objection to this repeal. My reasons for objecting are mainly due to the fact that traditionally South Africa has respected polling day as being a day on which intoxicating liquor is not sold, either in public bars or in bottle-stores. The original Bill that was submitted to the Select Committee before Second Reading amended section 181 of the principal Act, but only on the basis of converting miles to kilometres. It came as a surprise that the amended Bill submitted by the Select Committee to this House did not contain clause 68 which was embodied in the original Bill. I want to indicate, too, that during the course of the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister himself spoke of traditions. I have endeavoured to trace some of the history of the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquor on polling day and tried to ascertain whether the situation has indeed changed, which would allow of this prohibition being dispensed with. Firstly, I would like to say that if one looks at the position in the Transvaal in 1902, one finds that in Ordinance No. 32 of 1902 specific provision was made that liquor would not be sold on certain days, namely Sundays, Christmas Day, Good Friday and parliamentary, municipal and divisional council election days. Bringing it up to date a little, but not very much, one has to look at the electoral laws. One appreciates that this matter which, as I have said, dates from 1902 was in terms of liquor legislation. The Electoral Act of 1918 had the following provision in section 139—

This position has prevailed since virtually the inception of voting at the polls in the Republic of South Africa and before that the Union of South Africa and even in pre-Union days. I believe that was a wise decision. I believe it is important to see that every endeavour is made on polling day to ensure that persons are not interfered with in any way when they record their votes and that a sober attitude is adopted. In this regard one must consider the vital importance of recording one’s vote in the government of your country.

We have the position that the sitting of a polling booth could be in the close proximity of a public bar, bottle store or licensed hotel. Difficulties could arise as a result of the fact that certain persons could by encouraged to partake of intoxicating liquor on election days in close proximity to a polling booth. It might even be an incentive to some people to partake of intoxicating liquor if it was available virtually at the door of the polling booth. I have in mind a polling booth in one of the Durban constituencies where a bottle store is right opposite the entrance to that polling booth. I believe that it will be unwise to have these public bars and bottle stores open on polling day. I believe that the position could become serious when you have peak hours between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. for instance and you have difficulty with persons who might have been partaking a little too much of intoxicating liquor.

It might be argued that persons will bring their own liquor, which indeed, does happen. That, of course, nobody can control to any extent unless such persons are under the influence of liquor and interfere with voters who are trying to make their way into the polling booth, particularly, as I say, during peak hours.

The question of unpleasantness that could be caused must also be taken into account. The onerous duties of policemen and police officers at the polling booths should also be taken into account. It would place an additional burden on the policemen who are on duty at polling stations during the course of polling day if they have to attend to disturbances which arise as a result of a person having taken too much liquor.

As far as the sacrifice is concerned of those people who believe that they should have the right to partake of liquor on polling day like any other day, I should like to point out that I do not think that it is a very great sacrifice when one considers that polling normally takes place once in five years as far as parliamentary elections are concerned. In terms of other provisions of the Bill and as the hon. the Minister has indicated, it is the intention to have simultaneous elections as far as provincial and parliamentary elections are concerned. Consequently there will not be an additional closing when an election is held for a provincial council, since it is intended to hold these elections simultaneously with the parliamentary elections. I believe that by repealing section 181 of the principal Act of 1946 this House would be taking a risk and I believe that it is not a risk that we should take lightly. I have endeavoured to ascertain whether any organization or any body of opinion has requested that public bars and bottle stores should be open on polling-day. I must say that I have not been able to find any evidence that there has been such a request. I realize that this is an issue affecting the electoral laws which are now being considered by the committee, and not the liquor laws. I feel that if we were dealing with an amendment to the Liquor Act it would be quite possible for a free vote to be allowed on both sides of the House, as has been the case on other occasions, such as with the extension of wine licences to grocers, the selling of liquor to Bantu and various other matters affecting the Liquor Act. I realize that this is not an amendment to the Liquor Act as such. Nevertheless, it is an important change in a situation which has existed for many years. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider this aspect. I realize that this is a difficult question and that it is not a decision that should be lightly taken by any member of this House. I am sure that it was not one that was taken lightly by the Select Committee. Therefore, at this stage, I merely indicate to the Committee and to the hon. the Minister my objection to the repeal of section 181 of the principal Act.

Mr. Chairman. I listened attentively to the hon. member for Umbilo and I want to assure him that I myself am very sympathetic to the ideas he raised. I also have a great deal of appreciation and respect for the standpoint he adopted here. I think there is not one of us who could say anything other than that we are pleased that our public in general is also represented in this House by such people. I want to point out to the hon. member that if he had read the report of the Select Committee, and I suppose he did, he would have seen that there were three members, i.e. the hon. member for Virginia, the hon. member for Ermelo and I myself who brought out the minority vote on that occasion. The said members and I myself basically adopted the same standpoint that the hon. member for Ermelo is now adopting. We chose to advocate the maintenance of the old custom and tradition that public bars should be closed on election day. Since Noah’s time we have frequently encountered problems with people who could not always make …

Judicious.

… judicious—thank you for the word—use of brandy, and therefore on such an occasion, which is frequently an occasion for celebrating one’s happiness or trying to forget one’s sorrows—as was the case with me last Saturday—one does not actually want to place one’s weaker sisters and brethren in such a position. The fact the public bars have been closed has, in my opinion, always had a sobering influence on the electorate on such a day, and it has always created an atmosphere of great responsibility when people have gone to make their crosses. I also want to tell the hon. member for Umbilo that as I understood the hon. members of the committee at the time, their attitude was that our people had achieved a high degree of maturity, that the public have Droved in the past that they can behave themselves well, that they can make their little cross in a responsible manner and that we consequently no longer need to close the pulic bars. I also want to tell the hon. member and the general public that they must not get the idea that the members of the Select Committee are reckless people. And they did not propose the deletion of this section because they were personally advocating licentious behaviour and because they want to give people an opportunity to have an injudicious drink or two. For that reason I think that we must support the clause at this stage, and our members who have voted against it will then also do so in the full knowledge that it is being done in a spirit and attitude illustrating the fact that we trust our public and are also assured that they will accept their responsibility with great enthusiasm. Lastly I just want to appeal to our general public that we continue to shoulder that great responsibility, although we encounter a changed situation with the next election, and realize that we should not abuse the abolition of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am much impressed by the arguments used by the hon. member for Umbilo and I want to support him in what he has said. [Interjections.] Yes, permissive old me, I am going to support him on this. I believe he is quite right that on the day of the elections, sober judgment is required. I think we have managed all these years without the pubs being open on the one day of the election and it would be a very good thing to continue with that. People already arrive with emotions heightened, shall we say, at polling booths and I envisage a good deal of violence breaking out around the polling booths especially those which are in the vicinity of a pub, but also those that are not. I do admit that you can get your own liquor and that there is nothing to stop you from coming fairly tanked up to the polling booth as it is, but this will make it easier for people to stop off at a pub on the way back from work to have a quick drink or two before pitching up at the polling booth to vote. I do not think this goes for good judgment and I do not think it is going to make for orderly conduct at polling booths on election day.

For those reasons I am going to support the hon. member for Umbilo. I am not going so far as to suggest that members who have supported the renewal of the restriction on pubs are all in favour of drunken behaviour and wild roistering at the polls, as hon. members are often likely to do if I make any objection to something which is about to happen. Because I am against the death penalty, I am in favour of murder; that is the sort of argument. Because I am against certain measures to combat drug abuse, that means I am in favour of drug abuse. I would just like to make the point that I am not turning these accusations against the hon. member for Durban Point who I think is responsible for this amendment according to the Select Committee report. I think that the arguments of the hon. member for Umbilo are excellent and I shall support him.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the arguments of the three hon. members who spoke, and in conjunction with them I also felt very strongly that I understood their misgivings in connection with this whole matter. The fact is, however, that we are now dealing here with an electoral law and not with a liquor law. This electoral law as such is an agreed measure of the Select Committee, and agreed measures of the Select Committee on electoral laws are traditionally accepted by this House. If I begin to meddle with this provision, which they have agreed upon, I am inevitably creating an opening for other clauses to be meddled with too. Such a measure would then be worth nothing as an agreed measure.

I just want to state clearly that this clause 79 repeals section 181 of the principal Act. I want to add at once that this cannot be implemented immediately even though it is being repealed in this measure, because this still clashes with a provision of the Liquor Act, which has not been brought into line with this provision. Therefore, even if this measure is now accepted here, that does not mean that if by-elections or an election were to take place, liquor would automatically be available. The Liquor Act still contains this provision that prohibits liquor. It is only when the Liquor Act is amended, if it is amended, that this provision will have any legal force. Clause 91 of this measure also places the Minister in a position to promulgate and put into operation various sections of the Act at various times. I therefore just want to say that clause 79 cannot be put into operation or promulgated before the Liquor Act is brought into line with this provision, if this is ever going to happen. The whole debate we have had can be conducted on an amendment to the Liquor Act whenever that may be necessary. I therefore want to say at once that because this amendment is a unanimous Select Committee recommendation, and I do not want to clash with that traditional practice, I accept the position as it is at present. I sympathize with the hon. members’ standpoint, but unfortunately I am not able to accept their request.

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

Clauses 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 and 86 agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 88:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

The matter was submitted to the Coloured Persons Representative Council and they requested that this should be the position. I should like to pay heed to that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 90:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Report Stage taken without debate.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Of all the Acts administered by my department, the Children’s Act, 1960, is the only one which does not apply to South-West Africa at present. Matters concerning children in need of care in the territory are still being dealt with at present in terms of the Children’s Ordinance, of the territory, 1961. The provisions of that ordinance largely correspond to those of the Childrens’ Act, 1960, but there are differences here and there between the statutory provisions of the Republic and those of the territory. The care and protection of children in need of care in the territory, however, does not require steps differing from that required for the care and protection of children in the Republic. Similarly, the misery of children in need of care is the same everywhere, wherever they may be. Consequently it is not necessary to regulate by way of more than one Act the care and protection of children in need of care within the area over which Parliament has legislative jurisdiction. The exclusive aim of this Bill therefore make the Children’s Act which applies in the Republic, applicable in the territory of South-West Africa as well. This will greatly facilitate administration and promote uniformity.

Unlike many other Acts, however, the Children’s Act cannot be made applicable in the territory without a large number of adjustments having to be made. As hon. members may probably have noticed already, the only aim of this Bill, in spite of its 26 clauses, is the application of the Childrens’ Act in the territory. Having said this, one feels that further comment on the Bill is in fact superfluous. Consequently I shall not insult the intelligence of hon. members by giving here a detailed explanation of all the various provisions of the Bill. In my opinion it will be sufficient merely to point out briefly that the fact that a Bantu children’s court is now being defined for the first time, does not indicate that a new course is being adopted, since we have had Bantu Children’s courts for years and they may be established in terms of section 5 of the Children’s Act. However, since it is the intention to make the Children’s Act applicable in South-West Africa as it is being applied here in the Republic, it is essential for concepts such as “Bantu children’s courts” to be defined more closely. In the territory, of course, these children’s courts will be known as “Native children’s courts”.

The only other provision in the Bill which may require elucidation, is the amendment of section 35 of the Act by clause 11. That amendment is essential because the Population Registration Act, 1950, to which reference is made in the section under discussion, does not apply in the territory. As far as the rest is concerned, I believe that hon. members will not have any problems with the amendments which are now being effected.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that the main provision or purpose of the Bill which is now before the House is to extend the provisions of the Children’s Act, 1960 (Act No. 33 of 1960), to the territory of South-West Africa. We on this side of the House have no objection to this Bill. It will obviously facilitate smoother administration as far as child welfare is concerned in the territory of South-West Africa. In terms of previous legislation that was passed affecting various social pensions, the Old Age Pensions Act, the War Veterans’ Pensions Act, the Disability Grants Act and the Blind Persons Pensions Act, were all extended fairly recently to South-West Africa. Since then, we have had the Social Pensions Bill before the House, which also extended provisions of the various social pensions to South-West Africa. I might say that we on this side of the House consider the Children’s Act, in the light of past experience, and the fact that this Act is regarded as the children’s charter as far as child welfare is concerned, as perhaps the most important piece of legislation affecting the care and welfare of children which has been placed before Parliament. Indeed, it was consolidated and amended in 1960, following the 1937 Act. We have at all stages indicated the necessity of having efficient legislation for the control of child welfare, as it is of such vital importance to the future of any country and to the care of children found by the children’s court to be in need of care, whether they be White, Brown or Black. This is why we have from time to time expressed our concern at the shortage of professional staff to implement more effectively the very fine provisions of the Children’s Act. The lack of sufficient qualified staff means that certain aspects of the Children’s Act cannot really be fully implemented; the true purpose and intent of this Act can therefore not be achieved. This Bill is now extending these provisions to South-West Africa, provisions which already exist in terms of the ordinances of the territory of South-West Africa. Child welfare in the territory is therefore already receiving the attention of the Government. We support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since the amendment of the Prevention and Combating of Pollution of the Sea by Oil Act, 1971 (Act No. 67 of 1971) by Act No. 92 of 1972 further representations were received from international and local shipping and insurance interests for additional amendments to the existing Act.

Although a number of the amendments in the Bill now under consideration have been included to accommodate these representations and to remove some onerous elements in the existing Act as far as they have a detrimental effect on the acceptability of oil tankers as insurable risks, the proposed Bill also contains amendments which will enable the Government to deal more effectively with oil spills, while others will facilitate the administration of the Act in general.

The main principles contained in the Bill are as follows:

Clause 1(c) provides that more than one oil spill from the same origin or cause will be considered as one spill, while it also places the liability of an oil tanker owner with regard to costs for measures to combat oil pollution beyond doubt.

In terms of section 2 of the existing Act, it is an offence to spill oil within the territorial waters or the contiguous fishing zone of the Republic, unless the master of the vessel can prove, inter alia, that at the time of the oil spill the oil in question escaped by reason of leakage and that such leakage was not due to any want of reasonable care and that all reasonable steps were taken to stop or reduce that leakage.

The amendment now proposed in clause 2 of the Bill imposes a further limitation on this exemption in that the insertion of the words “nor any delay in discovering it” will make it more difficult for the master of an oil tanker to prove that the oil in question escaped by reason of leakage not due to any want of reasonable care.

In terms of section 3(1) of the existing Act the Minister may require the master or owner of a vessel from which oil is being emitted to take certain steps in order to prevent or stop pollution. Section 3(1) read with 3(2), however, provides that if the master or owner fails to comply with a requirement of the Minister within a specified period the Minister may cause such requirement to be met at the expense of the owner.

In dealing with oil tanker mishaps along the South African sea-board, it became clear that consultation with the tanker owners concerned could cause undesirable delays and that such delays were inevitable even in cases where action was demanded through the masters or local agents, of vessels.

As it is imperative that action be taken immediately after an oil tanker casualty, it is suggested that section 3 of the Act be amended as proposed in clause 3(a) so as to enable the Minister to take immediate steps in cases where he is of the opinion that the master or owner of a vessel will not be capable of taking action as required.

The proposed new clause 3(4) provides that in the event of the State being partially or wholly responsible for an oil discharge, the State will be responsible in terms of the provisions of the Apportionment of Damages Act, 1956 (Act No. 34 of 1956) for a pro rata portion of clean-up and combating of pollution costs. This new provision will also limit the liability of the owner to the maximum insurable amount, provided, however, that if an owner refuses to perform an act the Minister requires him to do he will forfeit this limitation of liability, as well as the benefit of reduced costs on a pro rata basis in cases where the State has been co-responsible for an oil spill.

The proposed new section 3(5) provides that if an oil tanker owner complies with a requirement of the Minister and his resulting expenses exceed the maximum insurable amount, the difference will be refunded to him by the State. This provision is considered absolutely essential with a view to obtaining insurance on tankers.

*The existing section 4 of the Act authorizes a port captain to delay the departure of a ship if he believes on reasonable grounds that any provision of section 2 or 3 has been contravened. However, the reference to sections 2 and 3 relates only to offences as such, while it is in fact the intention that a port captain should also be able to take action as mentioned above, whether or not the oil pollution is the result of an offence. The proposed amendments in clause 4 will now provide for this.

This clause further contains an amendment of section 4(2) of the existing Act; in actual fact it merely puts the obvious in writing. It provides, inter alia, that deposits or guarantees which a port captain may require from the owner of a tanker to the satisfaction of the Secretary for Transport before allowing a suspect ship to depart, must be refunded to the ship owner in total or in part, depending on the expenses, if any, which have been or may be incurred for the removal of pollution. This amendment is being introduced for the sake of clarity, at the instigation of marine insurers and shipowners.

The existing section 5(1) of the Act places an obligation on a shipowner who has discharged oil into the sea on purpose or through negligence to remove that oil in such manner and within the time directed by the Minister. If the owner fails to do this, the Minister may take the necessary steps at the expense of the owner.

As has already been explained to hon. members, difficulties are being experienced in getting the owners of tankers to take urgent action, and consequently it is proposed that subsections (1), (2), (3) and (9) of section 5 be amended to authorize the Minister to have the pollution removed at once at the expense of the owner concerned, except that such an owner will not be liable in respect of the expenses if he can prove that the discharge of the oil was not due to any want of reasonable care on his part or on the part of his employees or agents.

Subsection (d) provides that if the owner of an oil tanker has taken reasonable measures or made sacrifices to prevent or reduce pollution of the sea in consequence of the discharge of oil, and the expenses incurred in this way plus the expenses incurred by the Minister exceed the maximum insurable amount, the expenses for which the owner is responsible are reduced by an amount which bears to that excess the same ratio as the Minister’s expenses bear to the total expenses. If the discharge of the oil was due partly to the fault of the State, the amount payable by the owner is determined in terms of the Apportionment of Damages Act, 1956 (Act No. 34 of 1956).

Clause 5(c) has a twofold purpose. In the first place it ensures that the expenses incurred by local authorities in respect of serious and identifiable cases of oil pollution will be recoverable from the international insurers concerned, while it provides at the same time that such expenses must be recovered through the Minister in order to ensure that the total of all expenses recovered does not exceed the maximum insurable amount.

In terms of the existing section 5(10) the Minister may have a ship detained until the owner has paid an amount owing by him in respect of the prevention and/or removal of oil pollution, or in default of payment he may seize and sell any goods of the owner on such ship or held by him in the Republic. In terms of the proposed amendment to section 5(f) the Minister will now be able to seize that ship as well and to sell it after notice in the Government Gazette. In addition, he will be able to seize and sell any goods or assets of the owner held on his behalf in the Republic.

Because there was some doubt as to whether moneys from the Fund could be used for any other purpose than the removal of pollution of the sea caused by a discharge of oil, the Bill now lays down beyond all doubt the already accepted principle that moneys from the Fund may be used for any purpose in connection with oil pollution, provided that the defraying of expenditure from the Fund shall not exempt the owner of a ship from liability.

As was explained to hon. members when the amendment contained in clause 3 was dealt with, the powers of the Minister are now being extended so that he may take action himself in cases where he is of the opinion that the master and the owner of the ship are not or will not be capable of complying with a requirement laid down by him in terms of section 3(1).

Consequently the penalty provision in the existing section 10(2), which provides for a fine not exceeding R100 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years in respect of each day on which certain offences continue, is being changed into a fine not exceeding R100 000 and/or imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years.

Clause 8 inserts a new section 10A into the Act, which is largely consequential on the proposed insertion of section 5(9A). Furthermore, any person performing salvage operations will be regarded as an agent of the owner, and neither such a person nor an employee of the owner will be liable to the State for expenses incurred in connection with pollution. The necessity for this exemption is obvious. This is not a new principle either, but is now being incorporated in the proposed legislation for the sake of clarity.

Further to clause 8, clause 9 inserts a new section 12(2) into the Act which provides that the Minister may exempt any person performing salvage operations in connection with a ship from liability to the State and/or to third parties in respect of possible oil pollution which may result from such salvage operations. This provision is essential because it may be necessary for the Minister to appoint a salvage operator in a case where a ship has been deserted and the owner cannot readily be located. Experience all over the world has shown that salvage operators are not prepared to undertake such operations unless they are safeguarded against any possible claims against them. In actual fact this new legal provision only confirms the attitude which has always been adopted by the Government as a matter of policy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by mentioning that the amendments referred to above were agreed upon after prolonged negotiations between the representatives of marine insurers, local shipping interests and the Departments of Industries and Transport, assisted by law advisors on both sides. It was inevitable that the negotiations had to be conducted on a basis of give and take, but the Government departments concerned and I am satisfied that South Africa’s position has in fact been strengthened by this and that in actual fact the amendments involve no principles which are not already contained in existing international conventions or legislation in other countries. Since we are concerned here with a measure which has international scope in that it deals with an international problem, it is essential to have co-operation on an international level, with due regard being had to South Africa’s rather unique position in this field.

On behalf of the United Party I want to say that we support the Amendment Bill for the Prevention and Combating of Pollution of the Sea by Oil. We would like to see the principal Act streamlined and rationalized as best as we can to make it workable and practical so that it will make provision for all the possible applications and also that it may cover all possible loopholes that may arise, to protect the South African territorial waters and the sea-coast against pollution. The United Party has done much in the past to promote the principal Act as well as the amendment Bills, especially by way of the interest taken by our chairman of the environment group, the hon. member for South Coast. It was also the belief of this side of the House that the prevention and combating of pollution of the sea by oil rested with the wrong Minister in the past, when it was the responsibility of the Minister of Economic Affairs. Several speakers on this side of the House in the past asked that the responsibility for oil pollution at sea be transferred from the Minister of Economic Affairs to the Minister of Transport as the logical Minister to deal with this particular question. The Department of Transport has the means of discovering oil slicks at sea and tracing their sources of origin by making use of the planes and ships under the control of the department. We pointed out that the Department of Transport controlled ships and planes which they could send out with chemicals and equipment to combat oil pollution at sea. They are also the department that could most effectively enforce the repayment of expenses incurred in clearing up oil pollution or the payment of fines, if necessary, by impounding cargo and ships.

The merit of the arguments was so strong that the Government could not do otherwise but comply as they have done in this amendment Bill by changing section 1 of the principal Act by the substitution in subsection (1) thereof of the “Minister of Economic Affairs” by the “Minister of Transport” as the responsible Minister. We support this change wholeheartedly. We also agree with the provision which exempts the owner of a ship from the obligations to remove such pollution and to confer further powers on the Minister to deal with the prevention and removal of such pollution in order to prevent delays. We do this in spite of the fact that we generally believe that the persons or companies that benefit or profit from the polluting chemical material or goods should be held responsible for the prevention and combating of pollution that it creates. The reason is that we realize in this particular case the practical reality of the situation. No master of a stricken ship at sea or the owner of a ship in distress living overseas more often than not, can effectively deal with the immediate situation of preventing or combating pollution. It is obvious that the help from shore will be needed with all the available sophisticated equipment and chemicals required to do a good job.

There are several points in the amendment Bill that are not clear to us and that do not seem to deal with all the requirements. The proposed amendment to section 5 of the principal Act by the insertion of subsection (9A) on page 10 of the Bill is a case in point. It reads as follows—

Why is the hon. the Minister so cautious and afraid to take responsibility? The clause provides that the Minister “may ratify” the incurring of any expense instead of that he “will approve” of the incurring of any expense by the State and “will repay” any local authority or other public body. As the clause stands, few officials will want to take the responsibility of going ahead. Many small local authorities cannot afford incurring expense. This wlil have a great inhibiting effect on the controlling and clearing of oil pollution.

There is another point. Why does the Bill in the same subsection allow the State, local authorities and other public bodies to remove oil pollution of only the sea and not of the beach as well and the intertidal zone? I know that the definition of “sea” in the principal Act includes the land between the high and low-water marks. This means that the State is prepared to reimburse local authorities and other public bodies for expenses incurred in removing pollution from the sea coast, the intertidal zone, the beaches and rock pools. If so, we would support the Minister wholeheartedly; if not, we would ask him to make it so.

What about intertidal lagoons polluted by oil coming in on the tides or blown in by the wind from the sea? Would the State make available its know-how, chemicals and equipment to the provinces and will the State be prepared to reimburse the provinces any expense they have incurred? We should like to recommend this.

The third point under the same subsection and under some of the others, is that provision is made only for pollution of the sea by oil from ships. What about other sources of oil pollution of the sea such as single-mooring buoys when oil is piped from ships to refineries? What about off-shore oil drills which would certainly materialize in the near future? Surely these sources of pollution could and should have been included in this Bill. These aspects were raised by speakers from the United Party before in this House and yet they were not included in this Bill. The time will come when the Minister will have to come back to us to ask us for our support to amendments aimed at the inclusion of these sources of pollution of the sea by oil.

Section 12 of the principal Act is to be amended by the addition thereto of the following subsection (2)—

Would this not encourage irresponsible action and practices without the necessary precautions that should be applied with the possibility of some kind of discipline? In addition to that subsection there should have been a proviso which could have read, as follows: “provided he was not irresponsible or negligent in performing his duty or action”. An irresponsible salvager could open hatches of sunken vessels or puncture oil tanks of tankers releasing the oil which would pollute the surrounding sea and coastline. As already indicated, this Bill does not go far enough to control oil pollution of the sea properly. As has already been indicated it makes no provision for other sources of oil pollution such as single mooring buoys and off-shore oil derricks. No provision is made for the prevention and combating of pollution of the sea by other types of oil besides any kind of mineral oil as defined in the Bill. There are other oils of animal and plant origin which are being transported in the holds of ships, such as cotton oil, sunflower oil, palm oil, olive oil, tung oil and obviously whale oil for which no provision is made in the amending Bill. It is not required that any ship in our territorial waters should give notice of the fact that they have polluted the sea. We feel that there should be such a provision. No requirements are laid down to deal with ships passing through our prohibited areas, which do not call at any of our ports, but may pollute the territorial waters of South Africa. It is possible to require such ships to make a deposit of an amount large enough to inhibit irresponsible action. In spite of the fact that there are means of treating bilge-water polluted with oil after the cleaning of the holds which are so often emptied into coastal waters by passing ships, no requirements are laid down in this amending Bill. It is estimated that one million tons of oil residue is dumped annually by the world’s tanker fleet which is the major source of oil pollution at sea and not the incidental spillages or major disasters that people so often associate with oil pollution at sea. Three researchers, Rosenberg, Reisfield and Gutrick developed a strain of oil-eating bugs at the Department of Microbiology at the University of Tel Aviv. It is a variety of bacteria known as arthrobacter. A particularly fast multiplying new strain was developed named RAG I, bred in salt water, enriched with phospherous and nitrogen compounds. The bacteria gobbles up paraffin or waxy content of crude oil, leaving droplets of dewaxed oil which breaks down quickly in nature to harmless carbon dioxide and water. These bacteria may even turn the ballast water into a profit. After having cleaned the tanks of a 200 000 ton super tanker the ballast could yield some 200 tons of dewaxed oil which could be turned into petrol. Beyond that they can be harvested to produce about 150 tons of high quality animal foods. This amending Bill should have made provision for the treatment of all ballast and bilge-water with bacteria in the ships’ holds to render it harmless before being dumped into the sea.

In spite of the fact that we find the amending Bill still not quite adequate to deal with the pollution of the sea by oil, we support it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, took the view that this amendment Bill did not provide for certain things. I just want to point out to him that the necessary provision is in fact being made for those things in the original legislation. Perhaps I should begin at the beginning. The hon. member referred to the fact that they, the hon. members opposite, were responsible for the administration of this legislation being transferred from the Department of Industries to the Department of Transport. I just want to put it to him very clearly that that is not the case and that this was a Cabinet decision taken after a very thorough consideration, for a variety of reasons which I do not want to go into now. However, the credit for this does not belong where he gives it.

The hon. member referred to clause 6. Where the source or origin of the oil pollution is not very clear, the original legislation already provides that in such cases the Government shall contribute 50% of the costs of combating pollution where it is undertaken by a local authority or a provincial authority. Provision is already being made for this in the original legislation, and the only reason for an amendment being effected in this Bill is to ensure that the money received from insurance or from the owner of the tanker, will be channelled via the Minister to prevent the possibility of over-payment or of a double claim being sent to the owner. Consequently it is channelled via the Minister so that, also when a division of responsibility takes place, the maximum amount may be handled by the Minister of Transport. That is the aim of the amendment, because the principle of the 50% of the expenses, which is accepted by the central Government in such cases, has already been laid; down in the Act. This refers to unknown sources in particular. Unknown sources can include a wide variety of sources, but they are chiefly tankers which are doing this in a variety of ways. It need not necessarily be a disaster. There is the system, and the hon. member referred to this in another context, of cleaning ships and holds. Waste products, chiefly comprised of oil, are then pumped out of the holds. I do not want to go into this matter in too great detail on his occasion, but certain measures are being taken in respect of navigation to keep those ships away, but if the ship is identifiable, it will be held responsible for that form of pollution as well. The same principle will apply in regard to unknown sources at loading places such as Durban, with its off-shore terminal and pump station. The immediate action is really the important provision introduced by means of this measure. Previously the position was that it was necessary for the owner, the agent or the captain of the ship to be notified and that these measures were eventually undertaken by him, and if he were unable to do so, the other principles of the Act came into operation. The most important principle embodied in this Bill, is that the Minister may, irrespective of any other considerations, order immediate action to be taken, go ahead immediately with measures for combating pollution, and only after that may the expenses incurred in combating pollution be recovered on a proportional basis, or on whatever basis it may be, whether through insurance or otherwise.

The hon. member referred to various other forms of oil pollution other than pollution caused by oil of a mineral origin, and the same principle applies there, too. He said something very interesting when he referred to the bacteria which were being developed and for which he has coined the term “oil-eating bugs”. This is a very recent development in bacteriological research, a new field with which, apparently, a great deal of success will be achieved in future. This is something which holds great promise. But I am concerned about the combating of oil pollution. Do we not sometimes cause more damage in combating oil pollution than the damage which would have result if the pollution had simply taken its normal course, after which it would be combated mechanically on the beaches? I should like to give the hon. member the assurance that my department is investigating this very thoroughly, that we are liaising with other interested organizations, and here I have in mind the C.S.I.R. in particular, and that we are considering all these aspects. The objective is to cause minimum biological disturbance of the sea-bed, the sea and marine life, and this also goes for the methods used in combating pollution.

I am grateful for the hon. member’s remarks, and I am very grateful, too, for the support given by that side of the House to this Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—