Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate briefly what the intention is as far as the business for today and next week is concerned. Incredible as this may seem, Sir, there is a possibility at the moment of the Committee Stage of the Publications Bill being completed today. Once we have done that, we shall proceed with Orders of the Day Nos. 2-12, as printed, with the exception of Orders of the Day Nos. 4, 5 and 8.

†On Monday we will immediately start with the Defence and Foreign Affairs Votes. After the completion of these two Votes, for which we have set aside two days, we shall start with the Third Reading of the Publications Bill, and thereafter with Orders of the Day Nos. 4, 5 and 15.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Jeppe yesterday dealt with the necessity of defining the nature of the influence which was to be prohibited in terms of this clause. In order to determine the desirability and the effect of this clause it is necessary for us at least to consider it in some detail. I want to say, firstly, that when one looks at clause 42, it provides, firstly, that no person shall do anything calculated to influence either a committee, the directorate or the appeal board in its decision in relation to any matter which has been or is in future to be submitted by that particular person for a decision by that committee, the directorate or the appeal board. Sir, there is a proviso that this clause shall not restrict the rights of the person concerned to make representations to the committee or to exercise his right of appeal as provided for in the Bill. In effect, therefore, a person who requests a decision of the committee, or the person who is the appellant against a decision of the committee, is restricted to activities permitted by the Bill. What can such a person do? We are now dealing with the person most vitally concerned with the decision. In the first instance, in so far as the committee is concerned, all that happens is that he can submit an application. In terms of clause 10, which has been approved, a person desiring a decision of a committee on the undesirability or otherwise of an article or a publication may submit an application. This includes the cautious publisher who is about to import a book; it also includes the director himself who has been requested by some outside person to submit a publication or an object for a decision; and also includes anybody of the public at large who might read books in cafes etc., who then desire a decision. They, too, can only make an application.

Let us assume now that this is a bona fide, a genuine, case of an application being made for review. That person is, in the first instance, limited to submitting an application. The committee then decides in terms of clause 11, without hearing any person whatsoever, including the applicant, the director or the bona fide objector to a publication, who also has no say whatsoever and can also not be heard by the committee. The committee then comes to a decision. The decision is arrived at then without representation for or against banning. In other words, the position at the present moment is that the powers that are contained in this clause, are merely in respect of submitted applications while the person who might be affected has no opportunity of making any representation whatsoever. But if this request were to be made by an outside person who feds that some publication or some edition of a magazine is undesirable, this does not apply to the author. If the publisher out of caution makes the request, neither the author nor the opponent is silenced. In other words, if the author makes the application, neither the publisher nor the opponent is silenced by the provisions of this clause. But the person who is directly and vitally concerned is the one who is shut out, who is silenced and has no further say in regard to the proceedings. When it comes to the appeal board, a person submitting the request or a person having a financial interest may, in terms of clause 13, which has already been approved, appeal against the banning or the director may initiate an appeal against an approval by a committee. In the first instance, all that the appellant is entitled to in terms of clause 13, is that he can merely lodge grounds of appeal. Again, the man who is the author, the producer, or who has a financial interest is limited solely to lodging grounds of appeal unless the board in its discretion allows him, in terms of clause 36, to adduce evidence. One then comes to the situation, if this clause is to be adopted, that the public at large through the Press or in any other way whatsoever, can create a campaign, a polemic, as to the desirability or not of some particular play which has become public knowledge as a result of overseas reports on the production. A polemic can be created by those persons without being affected by this clause whatsoever. However, the person who has requested the decision is the one who may not influence. I hope that the hon. member for Vereeniging who has just shaken his head, will concede that in terms of clause 42—

The polemic can be blown up by those who are opposed because they have a view one way or the other in regard to what the decision should be, while the person directly affected is precluded from bringing any influence to bear on the committee. This is certainly not a sound approach to this matter. The playwright is silenced if he is the appellant, but the opponents to his production, those who feel that it is undesirable, or who are the self-appointed guardians of public morals, can start a polemic. The person financially involved or the person whose writing ability is concerned can do nothing whatsoever to influence the board. He cannot be heard except if the board makes an ex gratia decision to allow him to be heard.

I believe that this is an extraordinary situation which has arisen. A party who is as directly concerned, as the applicant to a committee or to the appeal board, is to be silenced or muzzled by clauses 11, 13 and 36. However, the self-appointed guardians of public morals or those who would go to the other extreme and say that there should be no control whatsoever and that the particular publication should accordingly be published, are not silenced. To provide that the party who is financially and directly concerned should be restricted to a request only or to stating the grounds of appeal is wrong. As such this clause is a further curtailment on the fair and equitable administration of the Bill and for these reasons we shall oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, in his argument the hon. member for Green Point failed to take into account one very important clause which has already been agreed to. I refer to clause 37 which provides that—

In other words, Mr. Chairman, there is another provision concerning the appeal board which tells all persons other than the person referred to in clause 42, that they may not anticipate that finding of the appeal board nor do anything aimed at influencing the appeal board. After all, this is nothing new in our law. It is only a paraphrase—in clauses 37 and 42—of the normal sub judice rule. As far as committees are concerned, in practice it is not publicly known when they are going to consider a book or film. In effect this is done administratively without public knowledge. It is only after they have passed judgment that it becomes a matter of public knowledge that they have considered a book or film. What really renders me speechless with astonishment this morning, is that the hon. member does not even apologize for having given an interpretation of clause 42 which was diametrically opposed to that of the hon. member for Jeppe who spoke about it last night. The hon. member for Jeppe did not say that it was only the person who complained who fell within the ambit of clause 42. What did the hon. member for Jeppe say about this? He said—

He went on to say—

And here comes the hon. member for Green Point, with a more correct interpretation of the clause—that I want to concede immediately—without apologizing, and says that this clause is too narrow in scope with regard to those who are prohibited from exercising influence in advance. This is a diametrically opposed viewpoint and in my opinion we cannot let it pass unnoticed. A second aspect which needs to be emphasized, is that this clause clearly requires that there should be intent on the part of the person committing an infringement before it can be regarded as an offence. No one shall do anything “calculated” to influence a committee, the directorate or the appeal board in its decision. The operative word is “calculated”. One cannot therefore be guilty of an offence under this clause merely through negligence, without having the intention of infringing the sub judice rule.

Against this background, however, I want to emphasize that there is no prohibition in this Bill of criticism by any person in regard to the finding of a committee or of the appeal board. In the nature of the matter, this takes place afterwards. The sub judice rule states that one may not anticipate it, that there must be an unbiased decision, whoever it may be who has to pass an opinion. Surely that is what is intended. We had it this morning in the reply of the hon. Minister when it was stated that replies to a question could not be furnished then because the matter was sub judice. And in this case one wants an objective decision by the committee and by the appeal board, which has legal representation before it and which hears all arguments Thus there are channels through which to put one’s case, to motivate one’s case, even to adduce evidence. One then gets an objective decision. But if public pressure is brought to bear while a decision has to be taken, then the objectivity of the decision may be called into question by public opinion. Everything, therefore, is directed towards arriving at an unbiased, objective decision, and after that it is open season and anyone may criticize the finding of a committee or of the appeal board at will and to his heart’s content.

Sir, the hon. member for Vereeniging is trying to have this argument both ways. He says, first of all, that those persons whom I said would now be free to make what representations they wished or to create such public discussion or controversy as they wished, will be prohibited from doing so by clause 37 which we have already passed. When I suggested that, a little earlier, the hon. member had another view; he said that this was a necessary clause to stop unreasonable interference with the proceedings. But, Sir, the fallacy in the hon. member’s argument is this: Not by any stretch of the imagination can the sub judice rule be applied to a board such as this.

Why not?

Because this is not a legal court. The sub judice rule applies where a matter is before á court of law.

You are doing your best to create that impression.

Sir. what does this board have to interpret? There is nothing objective in the approach of the committee or the board.

You cannot be serious.

The board merely, has to look at something and form an opinion as to whether it is undesirable within the definitions contained in this Bill, and those definitions have regard to what the public’s attitude is. Sir, what do we want to do in this clause? The Board or the committee must not have any inkling as to what the public attitude is; they must make their decision and afterwards members of the public can say whether they think it is the right decision or not, and if the public does that and perhaps feels aggrieved by a decision and says so in explicit terms, then under clause 37 an offence is committed because you are then belittling the judgment of the board or of the committee. The hon. member’s argument is a fallacious one. I know that he is endeavouring to justify a course, which represents the majority attitude as far as the commission was concerned, but, Sir, it is not a decision which carries the support of the general public. Sir, in litigation a decision affects two people, the litigants. The sub judice rule applies where there is a dispute between two people or between the State and an individual. But, Sir, what will this committee do? It will not only adjudicate as against the publisher or the author or the producer of a play; it will adjudicate against the public at large; its judgment will affect the public at large. Every citizen is a litigant in the strict sense of the word in every matter which comes before this board. I put it to the hon. member for Vereeniging that the public at large, the litigants, the parties to the action, will be the ones who will be affected, but, Sir, they must have no say; they must not under any circumstances bring any influence to bear on the decision that may be made by the board or the committee. Sir. I believe that the whole basic approach of the Government to this matter of censorship is wrong because what is going to happen in effect is that the committee or the board will decide what is right or what is wrong, without the public at large having had an opportunity to express an opinion, and with the public at large then being dictated to as to what they may read, see or hear.

In spite of the soothing assurances we have had from the hon. member for Vereeniging—and I am sure we will have more such assurances—I have very serious apprehensions and misgivings about this clause. I think it is so vague and so wide that it could well have the effect—and I say this seriously—of stifling any intelligent discussion of art, literature, sculpture, films or any matter which is of any controversial nature whatsoever. It could make the life of newspapers, to take one example extremely difficult, because not only does it talk about matter which has been published or which has been submitted to a committee, the directorate or the appeal board, but also about matter which is to be submitted. How can a newspaper allow any kind of discussion within its columns if it does not know what is going to be submitted? Take a controversial film which is shown overseas and which as a matter of course is reviewed by newspapers’ correspondents for publication in this country. If it is a controversial film it will almost certainly be shown here and it will almost certainly be submitted to the board or to one of the directorate’s bodies. What will the position of the newspaper be? Will it be allowed to publish any kind of review? Will it be allowed to say what is in it, or to make comment on it in any way? In doing so, will it be influencing one of these various bodies? I do not know, Sir. This seems to me to make life almost intolerable, not only for newspapers, which will be faced with the difficulties of interpreting this law, but it will deprive the serious film-going public also of the right to know about controversial films or art or publications. A similar position, I suggest, would apply to books published overseas and which may be regarded as controversial here. Can newspapers publish reviews of such books before they are on sale here and before they have been submitted to this body? How are they to know? According to a legal interpretation which has been given to me, clause 42 precludes anyone from lobbying, from writing letters to the Press, from organizing petitions or making any representations other than to the statutory body before the hearing, with the intention of making known the views of the general public concerning the decisions of the committee, directorate or appeal board. There is no provision for the rehearing of an appeal until two years later, so any representations made after that are virtually valueless. Does all this not mean, Sir, that no adverse comment may be published concerning the proceedings of this entire hierarchy? That seems to me what it comes down to.

That is normal.

One may not even be aware of a pending committee decision; so if you comment that too, is prohibited. Now, what is the purpose of this clause? The appeal board and its members have already been wrapped in layers of cottonwool in clause 37, and now this protection is taken further. No breath of criticism of this bureaucratic body’s activities is going to be allowed. What state of affairs have we reached? It seems to be a form of authoritarianism which no self-respecting nation can tolerate.

May I put a question?

No, the hon. member can speak later. I suggest that these two clauses, 37 and 42, taken together, could—I say “could”, not “would’—produce a cultural desert in so far as open, intelligent public discussion is concerned. It may even in future confine this kind of discussion only to the most harmless matters.

No, Sir, this Bill, I submit, is strewn with vague and nightmarish clauses and I think clause 42 is about as nightmarish as anything could be. I certainly pity any newspaper editor who will have to interpret this clause.

Sir, I am not going to reply to what the hon. member for Jeppe said last night. The hon. member for Vereeniging was quite correct when he pointed out that the hon. member for Green Point had contradicted that hon. member outright in regard to his view of this clause. But it is also interesting that when this Act was amended in 1971, too, this provision was widely framed, and I want to quote it.

What clause is that?

It is the old section 9(4)(a). It is the wording proposed then which I am now going to quote—

And then there is (c), but that is not really important. The United Party objected to that. The United Party objected to that widely framed principle of no one being able to object. Then this paragraph (a) was inserted—

At that stage the provision was framed less widely. Now the hon. member for Green Point is again complaining about the very same thing since we are using precisely the same words.

We still voted against that provision.

Well and good, they did still vote against it, but we can continue to argue about this matter. The clause as it stands at present, prohibits no one from commenting on or writing a review of a film or a publication. Now the hon. member for Parktown says that it could occur that there is a film abroad and we do not know whether it is to be exhibited in South Africa. Now no one may say a word about that film. Why not? Because no one knows whether that film is in fact going to be exhibited in South Africa, why should one not be able to comment on it? The comment one passes then, is not intended to influence this body, because one does not even know whether it is going to be submitted to this body. The position is precisely the same with regard to a foreign publication. If one were to express one’s opinion on it in writing without knowing whether it was going to be submitted in South Africa, his opinion would surely not be calculated to anticipate a finding of the committee or the appeal board. Any person may therefore air his views on the matter. He is entirely free to do so. That is, except, as the hon. member for Vereeniging put it, when that publication is under consideration by the committee. Then the matter is sub judice and the sub judice rule is written into clause 37 with a view to the appeal board. Therefore the proposition that the free exchange of ideas in connection with productions—whether they be films, publications or other material—is now going to be smothered altogether, is one with which I am unable to agree. Interested persons who wish to write the usual reviews on them, and give their impressions in regard to a film which they might have seen overseas, may do so since they do not even know whether that film will in fact be submitted in South Africa, because it would not be calculated to influence the committee or the appeal board in any way or to anticipate their decision. I am therefore unable to agree with the hon. gentleman opposite nor can I accept the amendments of the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Jeppe.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister in referring to a provision in connection with films which is in the existing Act must realize that that provision was accompanied by an entirely different set of procedures to what will be the position now as far as this matter is concerned. When the hon. the Deputy Minister refers to films, he must realize that under this Bill which we are considering the film is taken from port of entry to the laboratory. If he wishes to, the owner can come along and ask for permission to see it but, if he is given permission to see it, he is not there when it is cut. What is the present position? The would-be exhibitor of the film is there participating in the whole process of the initial viewing and of the subsequent review by the Minister. In fact, Ministers in the past invited hon. members on this side of the House to accompany them to these viewings and to express their opinions as to whether any particular film should or should not be approved. That will not happen in terms of this Bill. There was an openhearted approach in relation to the owner of the film with the importer and the cinema proprietor present who entertained the members of Parliament who were assisting the Minister in his review proceedings, and we sat around and discussed the whole matter. That will not happen under this proposed provision, and that is the difference.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause 43:

Mr. Chairman, this clause involves many aspects on which I should like to address the Committee. In this clause we have an attempt to separate two categories of offences. In the first instance it deals with those offences which are to be considered as being of a more serious nature in that they will be subject to heavy initial penalties and to increasing penalties for subsequent offences. This indicates the desire of this House that they should be punished more severely in respect of recurring convictions. Under that category, which is the first category in clause 43(1), fall clause 8 cases. Clause 8 as it stands contains five different bases of offence. Clause 8(1 )(a) refers to the production or publication of undesirable matter. Clause 8(1 )(b) refers to the offence of distributing undesirable matter. Clause 8(1)(c) refers to the distribution without a permit of that new category of publication, the banned unseen future edition of a periodical. Clause 8(l)(e) refers to the importation without a permit of the banned unseen future editions of a periodical. Then I should like to refer to clause 8(l)(d). This paragraph determines the crime which is now created. viz. the crime of being in possession of a banned article if it is one of the listed articles or undesirable articles whether that possession is innocent or otherwise. The only safeguard which exists under this paragraph is that the particular charge shall not be made unless it has the approval of the Attorney-General. To put the crime of possession in the category of the more serious offences is a wrong approach. I believe that clause 8(l)(d) should be eliminated from the first category of offences and should be placed under the second category. Therefore I wish to move the first amendment which appears under my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The intention of this amendment is not to have the whole clause 8 applicable, but only the subsections specified in this amendment. This then would exclude the offence of possession. The question of possession is a matter with which I do not want to burden the hon. the Deputy Minister at this stage, but I should like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister to be good enough—even now at this stage of the Bill where we are dealing with the crime of possession—to have regard to certain decisions. I want to refer him to a fairly recent decision, viz. the case of The State vs. Brick, 1973 (2) SALR, which is taken up in the South African law reports. In this case there was a long discussion by the Chief Justice, Justice Ogilvie Thompson, Judge Potgieter who was with him in the Appellate Division and Mr. Justice Jansen on the question of possession. The question of possession is a type of offence which is going to be extremely difficult to handle and can lead to grave injustices. All I can suggest in clause 43 is that that crime of possession should not be made subject to the increasing penalties as is stipulated in the first part of clause 8.

Let us now go to the next offences for which penalties are prescribed, i.e. that stipulated in clause 19. Clause 19(l)(a) provides that no person shall exhibit to any person any uncensored film intended to be exhibited in public. Clause 19(1)(B) contains the strange provision that no person shall exhibit any film in public. Here one has to position that a person can be prosecuted and that increasingly heavier penalties can be imposed for the showing of a film which may be a quite innocent one. We know the problem of the hon. the Minister, because hon. members of this House have had the opportunity with the assistance of the Minister of Justice to see some of the foulest possible films that are being produced in this country by amateurs as “family snaps”. We know that like us the Minister and his department are anxious to see that that type of pornography is not permitted to be shown. But by including clause 19(1)(b) in the heavier first category you are also including the person who has taken a film on a holiday and who then shows it to a number of his friends. He will be exhibiting it in public and it will be uncensored. I therefore request the hon. the Deputy Minister to give serious consideration to the amendment I wish to move in this regard. In addition to my second amendment I also now move amendments (3) to (7), as follows—

1. (2) In line 20, after “19”, to insert “(1) (a) or (c)”;
2. (3) in lines 25 and 26, to omit “not less than five hundred rand and”;
3. (4) in line 31. to omit “less than one” and to substitute “more than two”;
4. (5) in line 32, to omit “less than six” and to substitute “more than twelve”;
5. (6) in line 35, after “section”, to insert “8(1)(d)”; and
6. (7) in line 35, after “18 (3)”, to insert 19(l)(b)”.

The object of my amendments is to bring the omitted provisions further down in the same clause so as to subject them to other categories of penalties. For example, my sixth amendment is to insert “8(l)(d)” so that this provision will be taken up in the second category of offences, while my seventh amendment has the same aim, namely to include clause 19(l)(b) in the second category.

Clause 43(l)(ii) provides for a minimum penalty of R500 for a second offence with a maximum of R1 000. In other words, the court is not permitted to exercise its judicial discretion in so far as a penalty up to R500 is concerned. Its discretion is solely as to how far it goes between R500 and R1 000. I do not think it is necessary for me to emphasize that we on this side have year in and year out opposed any legislation of this House which is intended to fetter courts of law with a minimum penalty. We accept the principle; it is not that we are against the principle that if an individual keeps on repeating an offence, the penalty should be increased. We accept that a court should impose higher penalties for second and subsequent convictions. We believe this is the correct approach. But punishment is a discretionary matter for the particular court handling the trial and it depends on the circumstances under which an offence has been committed. Therefore, if minimum sentences are decreed by Parliament, it results in a fettering of the discretion of the courts to judge what should or should not be a suitable penalty. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to look at this question as to whether it is really a necessity to provide for a minimum sentence. Over the years the courts have shown that they deal harshly with the purveyors of pornography. They have done that over the years in the application of various existive laws. I do not think it is desirable that one should depart from the age old accepted practice—although this Government has been doing this too often—of allowing the courts full discretion in regard to the penalties to be imposed. [Time expired.]

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

1. (1) In line 22, to omit “five” and to substitute “one”;
2. (2) in line 23, to omit “six months” and to substitute “one months”;
3. (3) in lines 25 to 27, to omit “less than five hundred rand and not more than one thousand” and to substitute “more than five hundred”;
4. (4) in line 28, to omit “six” and to substitute “three”;
5. (5) in line 31, to omit “less” and to substitute “more”; and
6. (6) in line 32, to omit “less” and to substitute “more”.

We finally come to the penalties relating to this Bill, and I agree very strongly with the recommendations and amendments by the previous speaker. I want to refer to clause 8 in particular. Sir, you will recall that we strongly objected to this clause. One of the basic problems in this whole Bill—which I shall not deal with at length, because it refers again to the principle—is that the definition of what is undesirable is very, very vague indeed. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give very careful thought to the amendments I have moved. The major thrust of these amendments is to try to reduce the initial and subsequent penalties attached to the offences, as set out in clause 43, which, of course, refers back to clauses 8 and 19, to parts of clause 27 and to clause 34. In clause 8 were read that “no person shall produce an undesirable publication or object.” This means that an artist, be he a painter or a sculptor—not only a publisher, a writer or a film-maker or distributor—could begin to work on an object which could be designated at a later stage as being “undesirable” and, accordingly, he may be found guilty in terms of this Bill. The penalty for the first conviction at the moment stands at not more—I admit—R500 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or to both such fine and such imprisonment. I am aware, of course, that this is a maximum penalty, but nevertheless, it can be seen as a guide, and may well be taken as a guide by those people who are prosecuting the said person. I hope therefore that the amendment, as it stands, namely to reduce this penalty to R100 and one month imprisonment, would be seriously considered by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Why?

Simply because, If you have a man or a woman producing, in his or her view, an artistic object but which might then be seen as undesirable, there surely ought to be a greater measure of leniency at a first conviction, rather than to make the penalty so very high and far-reaching. Paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) I think it is even more serious; because here you have a second conviction in respect of which the words “not less than” are used. It means, as the hon. member for Green Point has already reminded us, that we are not allowing the court the discretion which always ought to be its privilege. It is also true of paragraph (iii). Once again, in the case of a third or subsequent conviction, a penalty of “not less than R1 000, or imprisonment of not less than six months, or both” is provided for. I am convinced, and my party is convinced, that whenever one seeks to limit the discretion of the court, it is a very bad move indeed. I hope, that having now heard again and again over the last week the objections of the Opposition parties to this Bill as a whole, and especially now to the penalties and the vagueness of the description of what is undesirable and what is not, some discretion will be exercised, and that my amendments will be considered very seriously and accepted by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Chairman, earlier on there also appeared an amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Yeoville, but that amendment was included in those moved by the hon. member for Green Point. Those amendments were intended to ameliorate the penalty provisions in subsection (1). The amendments moved by the hon. member for Pinelands seek to do away with the imposition of minimum penalties for second, third and subsequent contraventions.

†The hon. member has referred to the painter who starts with his creative work while his piece of art may subsequently be declared undesirable. In such a case the matter will still be in the hands of the Attorney-General to decide because he has that discretion. Instead of a fine of R5oo, to which the hon. member has referred, the Attorney-General may decide to impose a fine of R1. Another possibility is that the painter may only be cautioned.

*The fifth and sixth amendments moved by the hon. member for Pinelands, also have the effect of introducing maximum penalties for third and subsequent convictions. The amendments moved by the hon. member for Green Point seek to do the same. The amendments of the two hon. members more or less have the same thing in mind.

No.

Well, more or less because the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point also deals with minimum penalties, amelioration, and so forth. I am not going to go into every detail now.

Only the minimum penalties and not the maximum penalties.

Yes, the minimum penalties. I want to point out that with the inclusion of the penalty provisions in this clause, we have taken certain provisions from existing legislation and have ameliorated them. In the Bill the penalty provisions, as they have been incorporated in the existing legislation, are therefore being ameliorated. We have adopted this course of action in order to bring about a better relation in the legislation between fines and imprisonment. The contraventions referred to in subsection (1) and the penalties to be imposed in terms of the subsection for such contraventions, are of a serious nature, but the essence of this legislation is that we want to try and eliminate such contraventions from our communications media. That is why those penalty provisions are being laid down. No limitations as to the maximum penalties should be placed on the fine or imprisonment for a third or subsequent contraventions. I am afraid that we on this side of the House cannot accept the amendments moved by the hon. members.

I am grateful that the hon. member for Green Point has referred to a certain matter. I could not make out very clearly who was the claimant against the State in that case, but I could hear who the judges were. I want to tell the hon. member that we shall look into that matter.

This is the English for “baksteen”—Brick.

Yes, that is how I wrote it down, but I was not quite sure about it. We shall look into this matter to ascertain whether this is a good example and try and see whether it can help us.

I am, however, not prepared to make any changes in the penalty provisions as laid down in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to clear up right away any misconception which the hon. the Deputy Minister or any other hon. member in this Committee may have that we have gone soft on pornography. I want to say right away to the hon. the Deputy Minister that if he will look at our amendments, he will see that we have made it quite clear that we are totally opposed to the dissemination of pornography in any way at all.

“But”.

No, not “but”, “in any way at all”. I believe it is not fair for the hon. the Deputy Minister to say that the intention of our amendments is to soften the penalties for the purveyance of pornography.

But you oppose effective machinery.

Now, Sir, we have not opposed effective machinery. We have opposed machinery which we have told this House over and over again will not work. Remember those three words: “will not work”. But the hon. the Deputy Minister says he will be back next year and the year thereafter to amend it. And he will keep coming back to amend it until one day he will accept a system similar to the one recommended to him in the minority report. He will be compelled to do it. The Nationalist Party is doing it more and more, i.e. coming back and accepting what has been previously proposed by this side of the House. Now, having put the record straight about going soft on pornography, let us go on. The hon. the Minister says, yes, but the case mentioned by my friend, the hon. member for Pinelands, of the painter who creates something and is then taken to court where he can be fined R1. But there is an even more iniquitous provision which the hon. the Deputy Minister forgot to talk about, i.e. the provision of subsection (8)(4)(b). This means that that poor unfortunate painter, having painted his picture in all good faith, is now arraigned before the court and has no defence at all; he is not able to argue. If the hon. Whip would leave the Deputy Minister alone perhaps he could listen to my argument.

Do not try to be funny.

The poor unfortunate painter, arraigned before the court, has no defence at all when a certificate is produced from a committee saying that it considers his painting to be undesirable. So whether he is fined R1 or R500 in terms of this clause, he has no defence. And the hon. the Deputy Minister wants, for a second and a third offence, still to continue with minimum penalties. He wants to impose a minimum penalty on someone whose defence has been completely removed in terms of this iniquitous legislation. That is what this hon. Deputy Minister is doing and hon. members on that side are supporting it. That is one of the reasons why we believe that the minimum penalty should be removed, because this poor unfortunate finds himself in court with handcuffs on and he is not allowed to take the handcuffs off to defend himself.

Which person is that now?

The accused.

Which accused?

The accused who has painted the picture or who is in possession of an object or a picture.

For the first or second time?

On every occasion.

Oh no.

On every occasion. On every occasion he has no defence at all. The hon. member for Bellville is supposed to be an attorney.

He is not supposed to be that; he is.

I believe that he should have another look at clause 8(4)(b). Would he like to have a look at that? I will read it to him. It is clause 8(4)(b) incidentally. We moved for its omission but we lost. It reads—

What does that mean? It means that when that man or that artist is arraigned before the court, a certificate is produced from the committee and he has no defence. Then, having taken his defence away, having taken away from the court the right to decide whether an object is undesirable—because the court has no discretion in this matter—when such a certificate is presented to the court, the court is compelled to find the accused, the artist who painted this picture in all good faith, guilty. Then the discretion of the court regarding the penalty in a second or a third offence is also removed. I ask you! What faith does this Government have in the administration of justice in our courts at the moment, that they have to introduce into a Bill of this nature two such iniquitous provisions? Firstly, that the discretion of the court to decide whether, in fact, an offence has been committed is removed and, secondly, to remove from the court the discretion as to what penalty shall be applied.

Sir, I reject this clause in toto. It is impossible for us to support a thing like this. Now, Sir, let us go further and deal with this question of the possession of an article in terms of clause 8(1)(d). I am glad to see here three of my hon. friends opposite who took part in the argument a few nights ago about Stuart Cloete’s book, Turning Wheels. Unfortunately the hon. butcher for Caledon is not here.

On a point of order ...

Order! The hon.

member must refer to the hon. member as “the hon. member” for Caledon.

I withdraw it, Sir. The hon. member for Caledon, unfortunately, is not here. We had an argument across the floor the other evening regarding this book Turning Wheels and I challenged those four members and the hon. member for Waterberg—five of them—to support me in a plea that the banning of this book should be looked at, and what happened?

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

Sir, I am trying to illustrate the reason why we believe that the stiff penalties for any contravention of the provisions of clause 8(l)(d) should be softened, because this particular book Turning Wheels has in fact been unbanned; the banning order on that book was lifted in June of this year by the present Publications Board, and the point that I want to make is this: Three months ago, if I had had that book in my possession, I could have been found guilty of an offence ...

No.

Hon. members opposite say “No” before having heard my argument. They do not know what I am going to say, but they say “No” already. Sir, if that book had been declared undesirable ...

Ah!

The hon. member suddenly sees the point that I am trying to make; suddenly he sees the light. The point is that if that book had been declared undesirable and if its possession had been declared to be an offence in terms of clause 8(1)(d), then three months ago I could have been prosecuted for having it, and three months ago they would have taken that book and burnt or torn it up or destroyed it or done something else with it, but today it is no longer an offence to be in possession of it. Sir, this is the point. Not only have we created this offence in terms of the provisions of that clause which has now been passed—and I cannot therefore deal with the merits of that—but here provision is being made for a minimum penalty of a fine of not less than R1 000 or a sentence of imprisonment for a period of not less than six months in the case of a third offence. Sir, I ask you with tears in my eyes! Have we really got so little confidence in our courts that we should first pass such terrible legislation and then take away from the courts the right to decide whether in fact a person has committed an offence, whether what he has done is in fact undesirable, and then also take away the discretion from the courts to decide what penalties shall be imposed?

Sir, I rise to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will not deal with the specific point that I raised with him, and that is the question of the deletion of the compulsory minimum penalty. Sir, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister is perhaps looking at amendments which were on the Order Paper some days ago and not the amendments which are on the Order Paper today. The effect of the amendments I have moved in so far as penalties are concerned would be to leave the sentence to the discretion of the courts in the case of a second conviction, by deleting the words “not less than R500”.

Then there is another point which should be corrected, I think, and that is in subclause (3), where again I believe that the minimum should be deleted, and I see no reason why the maximum should remain the same for both a second offence and a third offence. The effect of my amendment would in fact be to increase the maximum for the third offence, not to reduce it, as has been moved by the hon. member for Rondebosch. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will deal with this specifically. I make an earnest appeal to him to leave the full discretion in the hands of the courts as to how far they go towards the maximum sentence. Sir, it is hardly necessary for me to assure the hon. the Deputy Minister that any court of law dealing with prosecutions in terms of this clause, seeing that Parliament has laid down a maximum of R500 for the first offence, a maximum of R1 000 for the second offence, and a maximum of R2 000 for the third offence, will itself take cognizance of Parliament’s view that the penalties for second and third offences should be increased.

But it does leave the discretion, particularly where there are extenuating circumstances. The hon. the Deputy Minister will know from his experience that in the most inexplicable way perhaps one finds that when crimes have been committed and the case comes before court, from the most unexpected quarters there is evidence and justification for accepting extenuating circumstances in respect of the commission of that crime. And who is best to judge that? Otherwise the temptation would arise, certainly in my mind, as to whether I could perhaps let this accused off, because I certainly do not think his crime is so serious and I would have to impose the minimum penalty of R500. I hope the hon. the Minister will accept those amendments to eliminate the compulsory minimum.

I want to say that I only received the amendment of the hon. member this morning. I want to give him the assurance that I shall consider what he said. I can give him this assurance, unless I perhaps understood him incorrectly. But I just want to refer to another point. Hon. members are very inclined—I am not saying the hon. member for Green Point has done so—to use the borderline cases, the heartbreak cases, as examples. But we should keep in mind that those are not the people we want to get at. It is the odd case among them that may get involved-but there are the profit-seekers, the exploiters, and with them we must have no mercy. It is with these people in mind that we have these penalty provisions. But I give the hon. member the assurance I gave him a moment ago, that this matter may be looked into to see whether there are any differences between what was contained in the first amendment, as we had it on the Order Paper originally, and the one which appeared on the Order Paper this morning.

I was glad to hear what the hon. the Deputy Minister has just said. I had hoped that he would have gone a little further and said that he would accept the amendment as now moved by the hon. member for Green Point. Having looked at this clause again in the light of the debate this morning. I would say that the amendment as moved by the hon. member for Green Point certainly meets our case as well, as our major concern is to leave the discretion with the courts. Therefore I would strongly urge the hon. the Deputy Minister to think again and accept the amendment now at this stage. It can only improve this Bill if the discretion were to be left once again with the courts.

I want to make one other point. Again, if you look at clause 8 one sees the wide distinction made between the production of an undesirable publication or object, the distribution thereof and particularly the possession thereof. All these points have already been made and I simply want to underline them and hope very much that this amendment in the terms in which it has been proposed will be accepted.

First and second amendments moved by Mr. L. G. Murray negatived and sixth and seventh amendments dropped (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

First and second amendments moved by Dr. A. L. Boraine negatived.

On third amendment moved by Mr. L.

G. Murray,

Question put: That the word “not” in line 25 stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—86: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Clase, P. J.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Lloyd, J. J.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. P.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J; Otto, J. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Van Wyk, A. C. (Winburg); Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treumicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—38: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment dropped.

Third and fourth amendments moved by Dr. A. L. Boraine negatived (Progressive Party dissenting).

Fourth and fifth amendments moved by Mr. L. G. Murray negatived and fifth and sixth amendments moved by Dr. A. L. Boraine dropped (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—85: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha; L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Clase, P. J.; Conje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger. J. T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Lloyd. I. J.; Loots, J. J.; Louw E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder. C. P. Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Van Wyk, A. C. (Winburg); Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—38: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield. G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B; Pyper, P. A; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton. Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 44:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

1. (a) the Executive referred to in section 6, in the case of the advisory committee referred to in that section;
2. (b) the Executive Committee referred to in section 7, in the case of the advisory committee referred to in that section.”.

This arises out of amendments also effected in respect of clauses 6 and 7. It refers to those advisory committees appointed by the executive of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and the executive committee of the S.A. Indian Council, and also provides for the necessary consultation in regard to remuneration and allowances.

Mr. Chairman, when I went to Sunday school I was taught that I must be grateful for small mercies. Hence I think the members of the advisory committees that are going to be appointed by the S.A. Indian Council and by the Coloured Representative Council must be grateful to the hon. the Deputy Minister this morning for this amendment. At least he has now seen the necessity for remunerating these people. Until we drew his attention to this, he had no intention whatsoever of remunerating them at all. So, Sir, as I say, we must be grateful for small mercies and they must be small because I want to know what is the hon. the Deputy Minister going to pay them? What is his intention? Will they be paid the same remuneration as the members of the other committees? Will they be paid the same remuneration as the White members of these committees? It is equal work. Is there going to be equal pay for equal work? The hon. the Deputy Minister must tell us what he intends with these amendments, because there are other provisions relating to this matter as well. According to subsection (1)(f), the Minister may make regulations relating to the period and conditions of office, remuneration and allowances of a member of the appeal board, a committee or the directorate or of any other person who is not in the full-time employment of the State. When we look at subsection (3), we find that different tariffs of remuneration may be fixed in respect of the different categories of persons who are required to be remunerated under this Bill, and in respect of the amounts payable in respect of copies of certificates issued under this Bill. Now we have got it—there are going to be different tariffs of remuneration for what he terms “different categories of persons”. I wonder if he could explain to this Committee what exactly his intentions are. Is he going to apply different scales regarding people of different race groups? Would he please explain to us what exactly is meant in subsection (3) by “different categories of persons”?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has a way of saying something good and then souring it. He tried to show gratefulness but by means of his subsequent remarks he nullified his gratefulness. Consequently one does not know whether to acknowledge his gratefulness as being serious or whether he perhaps regards it as a joke.

Two questions were asked by the hon. member. He asks whether the payment will be equal. I cannot tell him that, because it is very clearly stated in the clause that there has to be consultation with the authoritative bodies of those two councils with regard to the determining of remuneration. Therefore this is only settled on after consultation. This being so, how can I possibly tell him whether it is going to be equal or give him any idea whatsoever of what it is going to be? After all, provision is being made for consultation. That is all I can tell the hon. member. It signifies nothing more than that one consults, in all fairness, the authoritative bodies which have been established for the Coloureds and Indians, in regard to the compensation to be paid to committee members. In the “categories of persons” the hon. member is once again looking for race differences. They concern part-time or full-time committee members. Those are the classes of persons. It is obvious that differing scales of remuneration are going to apply to them. A distinction will have to be drawn between those who serve in a committee on a full-time basis and who, for example, will have to view films, say here in Cape Town, and others sitting, for example, in Johannesburg and who are appointed there in order to act occasionally when a matter is referred to them. Those are the categories of persons referred to in this clause. They refer neither to the advisory committee for Coloureds nor to the advisory committee for Indians.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for that explanation. We can now assume that what he really means in subsection (3), is not different categories of persons, but that there will be different categories of remunerations fixed in respect of the different categories in which persons are employed. But why does he not then put that in the Bill itself? Why does he not say in the Bill that there will be different scales of pay for the different fields of employment? Regarding the remuneration which will be paid to those members who serve on the two advisory committees I should like to submit that in terms of clause 44(1)(f) the members of the Indian and Coloured councils could ask for equal pay. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister accept it? Come let us have it—what does the hon. the Deputy Minister feel in his heart? Is he in his heart prepared to accept it?

I have no objection, but the hon. the Minister of Finance also has a say in it.

Thank you very much. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister of Finance is not present at the moment. The hon. the Deputy Minister has given us the assurance we wanted. I wonder why we had to go through this traumatic experience to get it. All I wanted to know was whether he was with me in his heart when I said that I believed that they should be given equal pay for equal work. He has now given me that assurance and I am grateful for it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 46:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that we were opposed to this Bill being applied to South-West Africa particularly in the form in which it now appears. The interference with the discretion of the courts, the imposition of minimum penalties, the classification of different race groups—all these things are anathema to the whole concept of South-West Africa, particularly under the mandate.

I do not believe that we should waste the time of the Committee in going any further with the argument, but I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister could perhaps give us some indication of how he feels the application of this Bill to South-West Africa is going to affect our relations with the United Nations particularly in respect of those matters which I have mentioned.

Our view is that this cannot affect those relations in any way since there is no classification as the hon. member wants to suggest. In the Bill there is no question of discrimination either.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise one problem which I have in regard to South-West Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister will be aware that the 1963 Act, as amended, applies to South-West Africa except in so far as the provisions of section 10(1)(c) of the Act are concerned. The object of those provisions is to exclude from South-West Africa certain aspects related to films. Section 10 deals with prohibited films and in paragraph (a) it reads “depicts any matter that prejudicially affects the safety of the State” while paragraph (c) starts off with “depicts in an offensive manner” and then it goes on to list 15 matters including drunkenness, brawling, fighting, scenes of violence and things of that nature. The difficulty which I see in regard to the application of this Bill to South-West Africa is the practical implementation of it. Are films of German origin exported to South-West Africa now going to be dealt with, as is provided for in this Bill, through a central film laboratory and are people from South-West Africa of German origin and with German literature and so on, now going to be brought to the central offices of the new board to view films which are of German concern? I ask this question because no provision is made in this Bill for those particular circumstances. I appreciate that there is a clause, which is undesirable in any legislation, in terms of which the Minister can bring into effect certain provisions of the Bill from time to time. He does not have to bring the whole Bill into operation at the same time. However, I do not think this provision covers this particular position. It does not cover the position in so far as South-West Africa is concerned. Film censorship for the Republic and South-West Africa will now be identical whereas before there has been some latitude under the present Act. As I understand the Bill there will now have to be an identical approach whether it is for South-West Africa or for the Republic. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will elaborate on this aspect because it is of some concern that views which may not cause discontent in South-West Africa may be held to do so in the Republic.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point has referred to clause 10(c) as it stood in the old Bill. It has not been incorporated in the new Bill. Committees will also be appointed, for instance in Windhoek. My information is that there is an existing committee at the moment. So. Germans can also be appointed in Windhoek for the sake of the German-speaking people of South-West Africa. We have no problems as far as this is concerned. The whole Bill, as it stands at present, will be applicable to South-West Africa.

Mr. Chairman. I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for that explanation. I trust that the opinions and the will of the people of South-West Africa expressed in a committee will not be taken on appeal by the hon. the Minister to the appeal board. Having visited South-West Africa frequently, and having a great affection for the country and the people there, I trust this is not going to mean the end of the carnival as far as Windhoek is concerned. If the decisions of the Pretoria committee are going to be paramount, I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that you and I will have to find ...

Order! Are you suggesting that the carnival is pornographic?

No, Sir. I am suggesting that it is a highly civilized and advanced type of entertainment. It is about time that we in South Africa adopted a similar approach to something so entertaining. But we shall no doubt have to find our pleasures in some other manner in future if the committee in Pretoria is to override the committee in Windhoek.

Lionel, we shall make you the Carnival Queen.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause 47:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) In line 24, to omit “24(1)” and to substitute “25(1)”; and
2. (2) in line 40, page 57, to omit “displaying, exhibiting” and to substitute “displaying or exhibiting in public or”.

The first is a textual improvement. The second has regard to, arises out of and replaces the first amendment by the hon. member for Von Brandis. We accept the idea underlying his amendment, namely that the display of undesirable publications or objects in private homes will not be an offence.

Mr. Chairman, we welcome the amendment which the hon. the Deputy Minister has moved, particularly his accepting with the addition only of one word of the amendment placed on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Von Brandis. We would like to have things done in the form in which the hon. the Deputy Minister has moved this amendment, because it shows that in handling this, his first Bill through the Committee Stage, he is displaying a sweet reasonableness and some sign of accepting the suggestions that come from this side of the House. We thank him for it.

This clause 47 is a long one. It deals with definitions, as you are aware, Sir. Of particular importance is the remark made earlier by the hon. the Deputy Minister that the existing section 10(c) of the Act does not apply as far as this Bill is concerned. These definitions become all the more important in that context. On page 59 of the Bill we come to an attempt to define what is undesirable. That is in subsection (2). This question has exercized the minds of responsible people within Governments and of those concerned with various aspects of art throughout the whole world. One wonders whether this is the correct approach to take. First of all, in viewing or considering a book, a play or a film, does one look at it as an entity or does one look at isolated portions or parts thereof? It seems to me that we must look at a book or a film or a play in its entirety, as an entity, if we are going to decide whether or not it is objectionable or undesirable. Sir. some of my hon. colleagues shared with me the privilege overseas of seeing a play such as Pyjama Tops in London. I do not see any of them in the House at the moment, but they saw this play with me. This particular play has been running for a long time in London; it is still running in the West End at the moment and it is highly successful. This is a production in which nudity occurs. If this is taken on its own merely as an exhibition of nudity, then one would say that this is an obscene production, but if one takes the play in its entirety—and it is presented in a most artistic and unobjectionable manner—one can find nothing vulgar or objectionable in the whole performance. I might go even further and say that I personally would find it very difficult to say that nudity in itself should condemn performance at for instance, the Moulin Rouge in Paris. This is a high-class presentation with high artistic attributes; I think it is probably the best in the world, and nobody can suggest that there is any vulgarity, but if one takes this question of nudity on its own, isolated, then one could say that this part of the presentation is undesirable. Sir, what I am trying to say is this: I do not believe that you should be able to snip out sections of something which is presented as a whole and then on those sections of it decide whether it is undesirable or not. The effect of the second amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis is that a publication or object or film presented for public entertainment or intended for public entertainment shall be deemed to be undesirable not if “it or any part of it” is obscene or objectionable, etc., but if “its effect, taken as a whole.” is obscene or objectionable. I believe, Sir, that that is the correct approach because, as I have said, one can have something which is objectionable on its own but which, if moulded into something larger, loses its objectionable character. It then becomes part of a greater whole or a greater scene which in itself is not objectionable. I wonder whether perhaps some of the hon. members on the other side who saw this particular show in London would venture to suggest whether it is correct or not that we should look at a matter as a whole and not just at parts of it. I appreciate, of course, that there are differences. For example, take the case of a vaudeville show with its various turns or scenes. I would regard each turn or each section of a show of that sort as being presented as a whole. Although there are various parts which constitute the whole, they are not moulded together as in a continuous play or in a film. Sir, I agree that the approach that to condemn a whole play if only a particular scene or part of it is taken would be to condemn the play because of something taken out of context. One knows, Sir, how we in this House are misled sometimes by quotations which are taken out of context. The quotation on its own might convey an entirely different meaning from the meaning that would be conveyed if one considered it in the whole context in which it appears in a particular publication. Sir, I want to draw attention, if I may, to this matter which was dealt with in the minority report. I want to refer particularly to paragraph 217, page 52, of the commission’s report, where the minority, which had dealt with this matter in preceding paragraphs, said—

There again, the result of this very deep investigation was that the publication or the performance of a play should be taken as a whole. Now. Sir, that deals with the second amendment on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Von Brandis.

I come now to the next point which I wish to deal with, and that is sub-section 2(a). The Bill provides that any publication, etc., shall be deemed undesirable if, taken as a part or taken as a whole, it is indecent or obscene or is offensive or harmful to public morals. The existing Act is interesting if one compares the definitions, because if one reads section 6(a) of the existing Act, one will find that there is a further criterion which has been applied, and that is that matter shall be indecent, obscene, offensive, etc., if in the opinion of the court it has the tendency to deprave or to corrupt the minds of people who are likely to be exposed to the effect or influence thereof. Now it is true that that does not come into the Bill before us. [Interjections.] I say the test at this stage is whether it has the tendency to deprave or to corrupt. I want to say too that it is significant that no objector has as yet in a court of law, as far as my experience goes, who has lodged a complaint about a play or a production or a publication on the ground that it is likely to deprave or to corrupt, has admitted that he himself was depraved or corrupted when he read this article or saw the production. It is always the other person who is likely to be depraved or corrupted. [Time expired.]

The first point raised by the hon. member for Green Point is that a part of, inter alia, a public entertainment, should not be removed but that such a presentation should rather be viewed as a whole. I agree with the hon. member and I believe too that this will be standard practice and it is probably the case at the moment that such a presentation is considered in its entirety. I think we should also acknowledge, however—and I have some experience of this if I recall films which I have had to judge—that a story has its own course. Technically it is a good film, but then a piece is inserted and no one knows why, The presentation of it is such that it is really offensive. Therefore the hon. member should also concede that it may occur that in a public entertainment there may be a part which really goes against the grain. This, though, is not an insoluble problem. Such a part could then be removed. The necessary adjustment could be made, with the necessary alteration it could perhaps even be rewritten, so that the overall impression may not be disturbed and the continuity of the narrative may not be adversely affected, If there should be a specific moral in this connection or if it were meant to have a specific recreative effect, then that moral or recreative effect would not be disturbed unnecessarily. In general I agree with the hon. member, but we cannot insert this in the clause because there may be the odd occasion when it will in fact be necessary to apply it.

The second matter touched on by the hon. member is that we should perhaps take into account the whole body of contemporary standards of decency and humanity, as applied by the public at large. If those standards of decency and humanity were not to be disturbed by a particular production, it should not be labelled “undesirable”. Here, too, we are faced with a problem. The hon. member himself said that there are those people who need protection. That is true in our country, too. There are the young people and those adults who have not yet developed the mental maturity and power of discrimination nor the aesthetic ability to be discriminating. Often they will not even be aware that certain standards, imported to them with great difficulty by parents, religious and educational bodies, are being prejudiced altogether. It is necessary for us to protect these people. What is involved here is not the exclusion of what is good and what is relaxing; what is involved is the exclusion of what will be dished up by the unscrupulous person, the person for whom the jingle of money in his pocket is the only norm. We must bear that in mind. Our function is not to spoil the good and the beautiful, what is relaxing and what is elevating. But unfortunately we must constantly bear in mind that there are those who, for personal gain, will drag in those things which we hold in high esteem so as eventually to lower standards to such an extent that those people whom we should like to protect, those people who will set the norms of tomorrow, may in the end have no standards either. I have stated my problem in regard to the parts which have to be removed. In general I agree with the hon. member, but we do have to make that provision. In those few cases where a part has to be considered, we should have the opportunity of rectifying matter of that kind with the necessary adjustment and the necessary guidance and consultations.

Mr. Chairman, having listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I feel I can say to him that I would be very happy to accept his intent as to how we should look at a performance as a whole if he would accept the position of director of this particular organization. I know that this is not something I can ask him to undertake. The difficulty is that there are other people who do not hold the same views as the hon. the Deputy Minister and I apparently do, namely, that in the broad approach it must be taken as a whole and not as separate parts. The hon. the Deputy Minister raised an interesting point in regard to films. He said that something may be added to a film which is objectionable. This concerns the question of looking at the film as a whole. If a producer has produced a film in which there are out of context, lewd, objectionable scenes, then I say ban the whole film. This must of course have been done for the reason mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister, namely that the only idea in making the film was to create a box-office attraction.

I used that merely as an example.

I think it would be a very good thing if one could add another criterion, namely, that it was highway robbery to ask people to pay the entrance fee to some of these films. I feel that that should be a reason for banning some of them. I want to leave that point at the moment. I have moved the amendment and other hon. members will no doubt speak to it.

I want now to discuss the second point and that is, as I have said, the question of dealing with what is indecent and offensive. I want to make the point that so many of us are tempted—some more than others—to say that although this is not likely to corrupt me or to deprave me personally, it should not be shown because it is likely to corrupt or to deprave others. I think that is a presumptuous approach because the courts have said that this is not the right way to look at the matter to see whether it is undesirable or not. The courts have said that the test to be applied is the view of the ordinary person who is neither a prude nor a libertine. When I say “ordinary person” I do not mean the morally weak person or those who are ultra-conservative in their views as to what should be seen or what should not be seen. It has been argued that the courts will have difficulty in applying this test which is now to be included in the Bill. It is one of the reasons which the hon. the Minister has advanced why there should not be an appeal to the courts. He said that the courts would have difficulty in interpreting these decisions. I want to refer again to the minority report, and this time to paragraph 2.1.8 on page 52:

In other words, one does not use the present approach which is whether this is likely to deprave somebody, but one asks whether this gives offence to the ordinary decent-living citizen of South Africa. It is for that reason that I wish to move the third amendment which appears on the Order Paper. This amendment seeks to substitute a new subsection (2Xa) for the purpose of determining what is undesirable. I believe that the definition we want to insert is the correct definition.

I want to go on to another point and that is that I am disturbed to find that apparently not much attention is given in the definitions to the objectionable portrayal of violence, which is a matter of grave concern in this country not only as regards the printed, cheap literature but also as regards a number of films. I believe that better attention could be given to this matter in the definitions. This does not only concern violence related to warfare or terrorism, but the pure and unadulterated human violence which one sees portrayed in some publications and films which are presented to the public.

Mr. Chairman, I want to go on to another point, but perhaps this would be the convenient time to adjourn for lunch.

Order! The hon. member must first move his amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I move three of the amendments standing in the name of Mr. I. F. A. de Villiers on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) In line 51, page 59, to omit “it or any part of it” and to substitute “its effect, taken as a whole”;
2. (2) to omit paragraph (a) of subsection (2) and to substitute the following paragraph:
   1. “(a) is to outrage contemporary standards of decency or humanity accepted by the public at large;” and
3. (3) in lines 61 and 62, to omit “the general welfare or the peace and good order”.

Just before we adjourned I was dealing with the question of the portrayal not only of violence in relation to insurrection and terrorism, but of pure, unadulterated violence in so far as human relations are concerned. Those matters are fully covered in the existing Act in terms of section 10(c). In this Bill it is not directly covered unless the Minister is prepared to accept the amendment which I have moved already, that is the amendment to the effect that in looking at publications one must see whether they cause outrage to standards of decency. The amendment I moved just before we adjourned, namely the fourth amendment, deals with subsection (2)(e). I think this is rather a wide definition which, I think, loses its impact by the extent to which it tries to cover too wide a field. It states that matter is undesirable if it is prejudicial to the safety of the State, the general welfare or the peace and good order. In so far as the words “prejudicial to the safety of the State” are concerned, I believe that these are matters of vital concern for our security and we have no difficulty in accepting that portion of the definition. But when one goes on to the other aspect of the general welfare and peace and good order, I believe that the definition has such a wide field that it becomes diffused and loses its effect. For that reason I believe that those additional words should be deleted. The matter was dealt with very fully by the commission. It was dealt with in some detail particularly in the minority report and I believe that the attitude which was adopted by the minority members of this commission is the right one. I trust that the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree that to lay the emphasis in paragraph (e) on the safety of the State is far more desirable than to diffuse the definition so that it becomes less directed to safety and more to matters such as the general welfare and the peace? and good order. I hope the Deputy Minister will indicate that he is willing to go along with this amendment I have moved.

The hon. member for Green Point mentioned the question of the portrayal of violence. I refer him to clause 47(2) (a). This matter is dealt with in the Act, as the hon. member mentioned, but there it is dealt with only in the existing section 10.

Did you say clause 47(2)(a)?

Yes. I say, in the existing Act it is mentioned in section 10, but there we only deal with films. Now we cover a much wider field, since publications are also included. We feel satisfied that it is covered under clause 47(2)(a).

*I refer, too, to the last point which the hon. member made in connection with the general welfare or peace and good order. This was in the existing Act, and particularly as far as films are concerned, we feel that we need that provision. Section 10(b) of the Act provides for films which may have the effect of disturbing the peace or good order and prejudicing the general welfare. I am unable to agree entirely with the view of the hon. member, and we feel that those words “is prejudicial to the safety of the State, the general welfare or the peace and good order” should be retained. Sir, I believe that it is quite in order for us to leave it at that. In the old section it applied to films, but here the broader field of films, publications, objects and public entertainments, is being covered as well. We feel, however, that even though it had only referred to films, we should have had to have retained that paragraph (e). We have already dealt with the matters mentioned previously by the hon. member such as parts of publications, etc.

I am a little puzzled by the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply. We drew attention in the report of the commission to the fact that violence is an aspect of human behaviour which in respect of censorship deserves as close attention as, shall we say, pornography. In the old Act the position was that violence, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has correctly indicated, was dealt with only under section 10, which relates to films. There was no specific reference to violence as such in section 5. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister has just said that in the new Bill violence is in fact dealt with in the comprehensive definition in clause 47, but there is no reference there to violence whatsoever. Violence is not merely a disturbance of good order; it is not merely a question of the general welfare. Violence is a particular kind of portrayal which appears in publications of all kinds and this is recognized by the psychologists and by everyone concerned as being of at least as much concern, and maybe of greater concern, than the portrayal of sex or pornography. Violence may be more degrading and it may do more harm in the minds of children. This is a matter of very grave concern to anyone who has anything to do with matters of public morals. In clause 47 (2) the definition deals with various aspects of undesirability. It deals with indecency and obscenity, blasphemy, contempt, race relations, the safety of the State, the general welfare and good order, and with judicial proceedings of various kinds. There is no specific reference to violence as such. But this topic has been identified in the whole of this field which concerns the Government so greatly as being of major importance. How are these committees to judge? Let us assume that we have a number of committees all around the country consisting of, shall we say, 80 or 100 people who seek guidance from this Bill, when it becomes an Act, as to how they should assess violence, and what its meaning is in terms of the Act. Remember, Sir, that these people have no guidance. They have no reference to the Hansards of this debate; they must go to the Act, read the Act and determine what is meant. Sir, violence is not defined. It does not say what kind of violence is acceptable or what kind of violence is unacceptable. Violence is of different kinds. For example, we see war pictures; we see cowboy pictures; we see descriptions of prize fights. All these things depict various forms of violence. Unless violence is actually identified and a distinction is drawn between the acceptable and the objectionable, how are these unfortunate people to know what the intention of the Legislature was? But, Sir, I go further than that: The word “violence” does not even appear in this definition. I understood from what the hon. the Deputy Minister said that he sees violence to be vaguely included in clause 47(2)(e). Sir, 47(2)(e) says specifically—

Sir, that is an understandable concept—

which is a term so vague and so wide that it could mean anything to anybody—

Well, Sir, the peace and good order is looked after by the Police. “General welfare” is a term which I defy the hon. the Deputy Minister to define to the satisfaction of anybody in this House, that is to say, in regard to undesirable publications. “General welfare” could include such things as social services; it could include a wide range of things. It could include the Budget of the hon. the Minister of Finance. It might be regarded as a matter of general welfare, and if the censors should not agree with a part of the Budget, they could see it as being contrary to the general welfare. Surely, Sir, we cannot deal with censorship on such a wide-based definition that it could mean anything to anybody. Sir, I seriously ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to look at this again. This is not a clash of ideologies that it taking place across the floor of the House; we are concerned here with making a good Bill; we are concerned with improving this Bill, and I repeat to the hon. the Deputy Minister that this definition is a directive to the committees, which will be established all round the country, committees with no previous experience of administrative power other than the directive that they receive in this Bill. Sir. these people may be lecturers; they may be retired ladies; they might be anything, and they will look at this definition to see what it is that they must exclude. I do contend, and I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me, that clause 47(2)(e) does not define violence in the sense in which I have described it; it does not discriminate between one kind of violence and another; “general welfare” is an extremely vague term; it could mean anything, and the term “general welfare or the peace and good order” could well be left out of this and a subsection added to include violence, because i is a matter of concern and it should be defined what kind of violence is permissible and acceptable and what kind of violence it is to which the Legislature objects.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the hon. member for Von Brandis in the suggestions that he has just made, but I want to go a little further. I think that nothing in this Bill shows better its impracticability and undesirability than this attempt to define what is undesirable. Sir, one feels quite hopeless when one looks at this. Where does it stop? The term is so vague and so wide. I can tell you, Sir, as somebody who has had in the past to interpret these things, that it is almost impossible; you are left in a hopeless position to make any kind of sense out of definitions which are as wide as this. After all, Sir, in the final resort “undesirable” is a highly subjective term; everybody defines it in his own way—each individual, each group, each section of the community—and I would say that every subsection in this definition is open to this kind of uncertainty and to this misinterpretation. It is simply a hit-and-miss affair. Let us have a look at (b), which says that anything will be deemed to be undesirable that is blasphemous; that is fair enough, and I do not know why we do not leave it at that. But then we go on to say, “offensive to the religious convictions or feelings”. Sir, I would like to suggest to this Committee that liquor advertising is very offensive to the religious feelings of a lot of people in this country, probably including some members of this Committee, but be that as it may. Of course liquor advertising is going to be offensive to somebody’s feelings. By bringing in this part of this subsection, are we not just opening the road to the possibility of receiving objections from a lot of cranks? Why do we not just leave it at “blasphemous”? Then, Sir, take paragraph (c), where we talk about bringing any section of the inhabitants of the Republic into ridicule or contempt. What is the implication of this. Sir? Does it mean that Adam Leslie, Robert Kirby and satirists of this nature are going to be put out of business? Part of their business is to ridicule sections of the community. This is a perfectly legitimate form of entertainment; but according to this provision these people are not going to be allowed to carry on.

I refer also to paragraph (f), which deals with the disclosure, with reference to any judicial proceedings, of inter alia, any indecent or obscene medical, surgical or physiological details, “the disclosure of which is likely to be offensive or harmful to public morals”. I defy anybody to try to interpret that. It is the interpretation of these provisions that I am worried about, because people are going to have to decide at what stage they are going to implement this.

Finally, I refer to the four subparagraphs which deal with the reporting of judicial proceedings. This, incidentally, is another restriction which is being applied. I know this does not apply to members of the Newspaper Press Union and therefore to the general run of daily newspapers, but even here one is told that one can publish reports including only “... a concise statement of the allegations, defences and counter-allegations ...” and “submissions on any point of law arising in the course of the proceedings ...”. You do not know where you are, Sir. The unfortunate reporter will not know whether he is coming or going, because his report will be open to any kind of interpretation. Sir, it really seems to me that this paragraph makes this Bill totally impracticable and unworkable. If this is possible, I believe that clause 47 is even more undesirable and more offensive than the rest of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have sympathy with the hon. member’s problem. Under clause 47(2)(a) publications etc. are deemed to be undesirable if they are indecent or obscene or are offensive or harmful to public morals. We felt that violence, which is so prevalent in the world today, is so common in respect of people’s property and people’s lives that it is almost just as injurious to public morals, and could therefore be put on the same level as pornography, but the problem we came up against was that if one mentioned violence, one also had to mention a large number of other acts, as is the case in the existing Act. The existing Act refers, for example, to murder, suicide, death, horror, cruelty, fighting, brawling, ill-treatment, lawlessness gangsterism robbery, crime, the technique of crimes and criminals; and then I have not even mentioned a quarter of what is stated in the Act. If we were to single out one act and mention it specifically, would we not then be obliged to include all these other acts as well? Even though we were to do so, the list would still be incomplete. However I am prepared to give hon. members the assurance that we will in fact be able to consider including the specific term “violence” without its being necessary to repeat all these acts.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to a report in connection with certain matters. That provision already exists in the present Act, which was adopted in 1963. To the best of my knowledge there has not yet been a single case, over a period of twelve years, in which any person who wanted to write about it was caused any difficulty.

That does not make it easier.

Nor does it make it more difficult, if no one has experienced any problems in that regard up to the present. I want to give the hon. members for Von Brandis, Parktown and Green Point, who have discussed the question of violence, the assurance that I shall go into this, on the condition which I have already stated, i.e. that we must not mention the entire list of other acts in this clause as well.

Mr. Chairman, it is all very well for the hon. the Deputy Minister to say that he believes that violence is sufficiently covered in the definition, but we have the position that a committee which is dealing with a film, a play or a periodical will now have to act in terms of the definitions and in terms of the powers which are given it by this Bill. But even if the Minister wishes to include violence, this Bill only gives the committee the power, in terms of subsection (2)(a), to declare something undesirable if it is offensive or harmful to public morals. The hon. the Deputy Minister is going to leave that committee open to review proceedings, even the restricted review proceedings which are permitted in terms of this Bill, if the reason for the declaring of something undesirable is merely that it depicts violence in a manner described in section 10 of the present Act. I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to invite problems in an area in which we are all in agreement. We all agree that the depiction of violence in the manner in which it is taking place is something which must be controlled, but to include such a provision in this clause as it stands at present is, I believe, just inviting more problems for the committees and for the appeal board itself, because it will invite review proceedings in the Supreme Court.

Mr. Chairman, we are grateful to the hon. the Deputy Minister for being prepared to take another look at this definition. I understand, though, that he is prepared to look at only a part of it and not at the other parts. I think in all seriousness that this definition must be looked at as a whole once more. I have already said—and I do not want to repeat my arguments at any length—that this definition must necessarily act as a guideline, as a criterion for a large number of people in various parts of the country who will constitute these committees. They will have to lean on this definition. They will have to use it as a means of interpreting the nature of the job they will have to do. Unless you give them a clear guideline, something quite specific, they are going to be in terrible trouble. The Act is going to cause trouble, too, because it will be interpreted in different ways by different people, and the whole thing will be brought into contempt. The administrative unit in the centre is going to have enormous difficulty in reconciling these various interpretations. The duty clearly falls upon the Minister himself to ensure that the definitions are so clear and so well defined—although it is not possible to have total definition—that there will be as little doubt as possible as regards the interpretation of the meaning of the legislator.

We have already dealt with paragraph (a), which refers to matter which is harmful to public morals. It is quite clear, Sir, that it is impossible to define what is or is not harmful to public morals. It is a purely subjective judgment about somebody else. I believe that “indecent or obscene” are meanings which are clearly understood, and if we were to add the words which I have suggested in my amendment, the meaning would be far clearer yet, because the offence given will be something to which people can testify personally and directly. They can describe the offence they feel, the sense of shock they feel. But to talk about the harm done to somebody else’s morals is a most indefinite and indirect way of trying to define the kind of evil which the Minister is trying to get at.

Paragraph (b) refers to a matter which is blasphemous or is offensive to the religious convictions or feelings of any section of the inhabitants of the Republic. Sir, there are religious sects, which are quite important, population-wise, in this country, who have very strong feelings about the slaughter of animals. Is a description of a butcher shop, a description of the killing of animals, which is most offensive to certain sections of the population ...

Vegetarians?

Not only vegetarians, but Hindus feel most strongly about this. It deeply offends their religious convictions that cows should be slaughtered. Yet it goes on in this country. Are we now to allow it in reality but ban it in the image, because this is what this legislation is about; it does not deal with reality, but with images, publications. It is clearly unworkable.

Paragraph (c) deals with matter which brings any section of the inhabitants of the Republic into ridicule or contempt. There are some people in this country who react very sharply and very strongly to such a word as “coolie”. There are others who react very sharply to the use of the word “Bantu”. They feel that the use of this term imputes something about superiority or inferiority, to which they take very strong exception. I am not arguing whether it is justified or unjustified. I am saying it is so; it is a fact that there are people who feel this way. Sir, how wide can this definition go? I would go on and give you many more examples. But I really do appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister. If he wants to make this legislation work, he will find that its nucleus lies in the definitions of undesirability, because this is what the whole Bill is about. If he will apply his mind to a more accurate definition of “undesirability” in the terms which we have stressed in our amendments, I believe he will make a lot more mileage on this Bill and he will make a lot more mileage in its successful application as a means of checking immorality, obscenity or the degradation of public morals in this country. I think that everything hinges on a proper definition and, with great respect, it does not exist in clause 47(2).

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister could clarify clause 47(2)(f)(ii) which reads—

What does that mean? Does that mean that any medical publication which contains pictures, for instance, of operations which may be distasteful to a certain section of the population will be considered to be obscene? I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister has not given this sufficient study and I do no know why he has included this category of publications in the definition. I do not know where the suggestion came from, but to me it seems absolutely ridiculous to include medical or surgical or physiological details. Amongst literature or pictures that could be considered obscene, I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot give me an explanation of what he means by that. There are pictures, for instance, of women in labour, Would those pictures be obscene? There are pictures of foetuses in the womb. Would such pictures be considered obscene pictures? These books and documents are printed and published for medical practitioners to study so that they can improve their knowledge, but they are also freely available to the public. They may be available on a doctor’s desk or they may be available on the shelves of a library, medical or otherwise. They may be available for sale in shops. How is the hon. the Deputy Minister going to judge whether such publications are obscene? Is a person who has one of these books or one of these photographs in his possession going to be considered as a person who can be charged with committing an offence? I think that this paragraph is absolutely ridiculous and unwanted in this type of definition.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the hon. member for Rosettenville has followed the discussions on previous clauses, for instance clause 8, which contains a special reference to study material of a technical, scientific or professional nature. Such study material is excluded. We also find similar provisions in clause 47(3). I am assured that that subsection also provides for the exclusion of the type of literature the hon. member has in mind.

*I also want to point out that provision has already been made in the existing Act for the matter raised by the hon. member for Von Brandis in terms of sections 5(2)(b), (c), (d) and (e) and 10(b)(iv), (v) and (vi).

But we object to that.

I know hon. members do not accept the existing Act, but in practice that Act worked with those provisions forming part of it.

It did not work.

It did work, because there has not been a single person who has been limited in his actions in any way as a result of the existence of those sections. Nor has study material been withheld from him. I do not know what examples the hon. member wants to give me of publications, films or public entertainments which were measured against the standards as they appear in the existing Act, which were in fact withheld from the public in terms of those requirements, and which the public should in fact have seen. I cannot give way to the hon. member. Do hon. members accept that the existing Act can work well and did work well for 12 years and proved that it brought about no restriction in the way hon. members are now suggesting to the House that it did?

Amendments moved by the Deputy Minister of the Interior agreed to.

On first amendment moved by Mr. L. G. Murray,

Question put: That the words stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—86: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha. M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Clase, P. J.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Lloyd, J. J.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Otto, J. C; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg) Van Wyk, A. C. (Winburg); Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—35: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Hickman, T.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and T. G. Hughes.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment dropped.

On second amendment moved by Mr. L. G. Murray,

Question put: That the paragraph stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—86: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C; Clase, P. J.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Lloyd, J. J.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg) Van Wyk, A. C. (Winburg); Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—35: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers. J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Hickman, T.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and T. G. Hughes.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment dropped.

Third amendment moved by Mr. L. G. Murray negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 49:

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise briefly a point with the hon. the Deputy Minister concerning lines 25 and 26 of the proposed new subsection (3)(d) on page 63 of the Bill. There is the provision here that a person who has received some article which turns out to be undesirable and which is seized by the Customs officials, shall not be found guilty of a contravention of the provisions of paragraph (f) “if he satisfied the court that he was not aware of the nature of that publication”. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to review this with the legal advisers and perhaps deal with the matter in the Other Place because, as it stands, the onus on the recipient is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was unaware of the nature of the contents of such an article. I think in such circumstances it would be sufficient if he were to prove on the balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt that he was unaware of the contents of the package he was recieving and which turned out to contain undesirable matter. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister be good enough to have this matter looked into and perhaps ameliorate the onus of proof when this measure is dealt with in the Other Place?

I shall have it looked into.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 53:

Mr. Chairman, this clause, which provides for both the short title and the date of commencement, contains a provision, subsection (2), that different dates may be fixed under subsection (1) in respect of the several provisions of this Bill. I cannot understand why that should be inserted in a Bill of this nature, because the whole system which is devised by this Bill is a system in its entirety. There cannot be a committee without an appeal board and there cannot be an appeal board without a directorate. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell us why it is thought necessary to provide that this Bill may come into operation piecemeal. It seems to me an unlikely and undesirable provision. Could the hon. the Minister perhaps explain why it is necessary?

Mr. Chairman, although this Bill corresponds with the existing Act to a large extent, new machinery is, after all, also being created.

After all, it forms one whole.

It does in fact form one whole, but when the various bodies are set in operation, it may yet become clear that there are certain difficulties. I just want to give the hon. member an example. The provision concerning the prohibition of films, for example, may be provisionally withheld and put into operation at a later date. The same may apply to the registration of film-makers, for example, depending on the volume of work which has to be done. This provision is only aimed at giving the machinery a chance to come into operation smoothly.

Clause agreed to.

Title put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—86: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Clase, P. J.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Lloyd, J. J.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Otto, J. C; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Schoe man, J. C. B.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Van Wyk, A. C. (Winburg); Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—35: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Hickman, T.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C.J. S.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and T. G. Hughes.

Title accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

From the latest long-term planning done by Iscor, for the period 1974-1984, it would appear that the corporation will have to appropriate a considerable amount of money for capital investment, in order that it may continue to adapt its production capacity to the domestic demand for its products.

For the year 1973 the corporation provided 66,8% (3 052 008 tons) and the private steel manufacturers provided 21,7% (992 588 tons) of the total national requirements of 4 569 539 tons of steel, while 11,5% (524 943 tons) was imported. For the first six months of 1974 these figures were as follows

Total national requirements: 2 255 601 tons.

Provided by the Corporation: 1 519 835 tons, 67,4%.

Provided by other producers: 465 766 tons, 20,6%.

Imported: 270 000 tons, 12,0%.

The corporation’s plans for expansions, which are based on forecasts and are aimed at meeting the long-term domestic demand for the most important steel products, are designed to achieve, after completion of this 10-year modernization and expansion programme, a total capacity level of 11,3 million ingot tons a year at its three works (Pretoria, Vanderbijlpark and Newcastle) by 1983-’84.

Although Iscor intends to raise the necessary capital for this expansion programme in terms of its present policy in regard to financing, by obtaining loan funds on the domestic and foreign capital markets, it is anticipated that the corporation may have difficulty in recruiting the necessary loan finances unless steps are taken, apart from certain other requirements, to maintain on acceptable levels the corporation’s projected debt ratio, i.e. outstanding loans as against assets and reserves.

The Government has consequently agreed to increase the total capital contribution of R160 million, in annual contributions of R20 million, which it has undertaken to make to the corporation for the period up to 1981, and I shall ask this House to agree to this in principle later this year, when the Votes of the Department of Industries for 1974-’75 come up for discussion.

† It is envisaged that these additional capital contributions to the corporation will be made available on the same basis as the State’s existing annual contributions, namely, by subscribing for ordinary B shares of the corporation which may be created and issued with the State President’s approval in terms of section 7(2) of the Iron and Steel Industry Act, 1928. However, as the existing prescribed maximum number of ordinary B shares (122 000 000 shares) that may be created and issued in terms of this section of the Act by the corporation has already been issued to a substantial extent (94 100 000 shares), it has become necessary to amend the Act as proposed in clause 1 of the Bill before the House, namely to substitute the expression “350 000 000” for the expression “122 000 000” in section 7(2) of the Iron and Steel Industry Act, 1928.

For the information of hon. members I may mention that the corporation’s estimated capital requirements with regard to its proposed expansion and modernization programme for the period 1974-’84 may be summarized as follows:

(All figures in R millions)

Sir, the Bill which we are being asked to approve today deals with the capital structure of Iscor. Iscor itself is an economic giant, a State-owned corporation, and the figures that we are dealing with envisage an additional capital structure of some 228 million shares. Against the background of our country, where we believe in freedom of economic enterprise, where we believe in the profit motive and the disciplines of the market, I want to say that we on this side of the House intend to support this Bill, but that does not preclude us from calling for a very full discussion on the necessity for the additional capital envisaged. Sir, over the vast expanse of our Southern African continent industrialists have dreamed over the years and built prodigiously, but in order to give substance to their dreams they have had to have a material equal to the task and this material has been steel, a commodity which is both versatile and relatively cheap, a commodity which involves an industry which is perhaps amongst the most capital-intensive in the world. Unfortunately, Sir, the resources required to produce steel are extremely costly, and the size and the facilities involved dwarf the imagination, yet it remains a fact that steel products serve every section of our construction and durable-goods manufacturing industries. In fact it may be said that ferrous metals—mostly steel—account for more than 95% of all metals used in our economy. In addition Sir, tens of thousands of jobs depend upon steel production. Steel in fact is important to every facet of our nation’s growth. Accordingly we are witnessing a world-wide demand for steel, and here at home there is an unprecedented demand not only from the manufacturing sector but more especially from the agricultural sector. It is not surprising, therefore, Sir, that steel shortages have cropped up in our economy, shortages which are critical and which are creating a dramatic bottle-neck. We accept that our South African nation should not have to rely on foreign producers to supply a significant portion of our long-term domestic requirements in steel, particularly when we have regard to any potential strategic circumstances which we may have to face. The object of the steel industry, therefore, should be to fulfil to the utmost the needs of our productive and domestic market, and to achieve this objective we recognize that the South African steel industry, especially Iscor, requires to be equipped with the most modern mills so that it will be in a position to produce the best steel products made anywhere. Sir, South Africa has no monopoly on steel manufacture, and the consensus amongst qualified steel engineers and financial and economic observers is that there is a steadily growing demand for steel in the world; that this demand will continue to grow through the decade which lies ahead of us to 1984 and that this growth will be in the region of 4% per annum. With inadequate capacity now and an unfavourable profitability situation, as far as Iscor is concerned, serving as a damper on expansion, we are well on the way to a fully-fledged crisis within the next decade and possibly sooner unless constructive measures are taken to bring about new and replacement capacity. There is no need, Sir, to remind hon. members of this House that the steel that we will need by 1984 can only be provided if we make the necessary decisions now. The legislation before the House this afternoon, therefore, seeks to give Iscor the initiative in capital formation, and I believe that I speak for all members on this side of the House when I say that we will support this Bill. We will support the Bill for the same reason, just as we supported the Bill in 1969 when the capital structure was allowed to be increased in the B ordinary shares to 122 million shares. I believe that Iscor today with its present development programme is in danger of being under-capitalized. Apart from the fact that we know that several major projects are envisaged, there is a real danger that Iscor is in fact undercapitalized. As we see it, the sole purpose of the Bill is to increase the share capital of Iscor by the creation of additional ordinary B shares of a par value of R2 each. The present Act provides for the issue of not more than 122 million ordinary B shares and the purpose of this Bill, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, is to increase this maximum figure to the figure of 350 million ordinary B shares at a par value of R2, an increase of 228 million shares. We realize that in terms of this Act the existing shareholders will have the option to take up any additional B shares. Of course, the only shareholder is in fact the State President, and he will remain the only shareholder. It could be said that he holds the shares on behalf of the State and therefore he holds them on behalf of every single South African citizen. The hon. the Minister has set out fairly fully the capital works programme of Iscor as projected until 1984 as far as the Pretoria works, Vanderbijlpark and Newcastle are concerned. The total globular figure that he has given as additional capital involved is R3 238 million. That is a very considerable figure, and this House is aware that members on this side have constantly expressed concern at the lack of parliamentary control over Iscor. While this is not the occasion for me to elaborate on this matter, nevertheless this concern remains very, very real and will be dealt with subsequently under the Minister’s Vote. We do, however, believe that the hon. the Minister should take the House into his confidence and give members some information as to what priorities are being given to such urgent matters as improving Iscor’s profitability with particular reference to cash flow; because I submit that at the moment the potential loan funds are being discouraged by Iscor’s low profitability and that increased profit margins offer the only realistic avenue towards Iscor’s ultimate economic salvation. I believe that Iscor will remain money-poor until it can generate an adequate cash flow and establish for itself an earnings basis which will give it the required access to world capital markets.

The Bill before the House seeks to give Iscor access to additional capital. I would submit that capital is not the only means by which this economic giant can grow. It can grow from borrowed funds and it can also grow from profit. What does concern us on this side of the House is two comments which appeared in the Press within two days of one another. The first one in The Argus on Wednesday, August 21, stated that Union Steel profits climbed fast and on a six-monthly sales turnover of R64 million, R2,5 million profits after tax were recorded. Within two days we read that a steel price rise was inevitable and that Iscor was deeply in the red. The report stated—

I think, too, that we in this House should be aware of the operations of this economic giant which the State owns. If we turn to the 1973 report, we read that sales for the year ended 30 June 1973 were in fact R372 819 000 and that the net profit reflected in that year was R3 954 000, a return which I would suggest, of net profit on sales, would be completely unacceptable in any country in the world in so far as an economic unit is concerned. What gives me more cause for concern is the following, again reported under “Financing”—

The Government is, in fact, the owner of Iscor—

Then the report goes on more significantly

We know that this was done partly with the intention of reducing inflation, but I submit that having come to this House with this Bill—which we are going to support—it is the bounden duty of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to utilize this opportunity to take the House into his confidence. He must assure us that in an industry as vast as this and as vital to our economic well-being, State funds are, in fact, not being squandered or being used in any way which could be criticized by comparison with the balance sheets of similar corporations in the private sector undertaking a similar industry. As stated, we on this side of the House will support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, since the S.A. Iron and Steel Corporation was founded in 1928 it has always been the conviction of this side of the House and of the National Government that this is one of the corner-stones of the South African economy. Consequently the Government has always ensured that the necessary capital funds are available for the development of this most important component of the South African economy. Therefore I am glad that the official Opposition—I do not know about the other Opposition—has given this Bill its wholehearted support.

Personally I have always believed that of all the various sectors of our industrial development the steel industry is the most promising. This may be so because all the raw materials required for this industry are available in very large quantities in our country, raw materials of a very high quality, as a result of which we are able to produce steel at highly competitive prices. This creates the opportunity for us in this country to develop and to expand further industries based on steel.

I have said that we appreciate the fact that the official Opposition is supporting this Bill, but I cannot resist the temptation of pointing out to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens an inconsistency in his argument. He spoke of the greater profitability required for Iscor and said that Iscor should therefore have a bigger profit margin. That is true, but at the same time he pointed out that Iscor’s only shareholder is the State President, who holds those shares on behalf of every citizen of this country. When we speak of bigger profit margins for Iscor, it only means, of course—provided that Iscor’s economic management is efficient, something which we firmly believe to be the case—that steel prices will have to be increased. Since every citizen of this country is a shareholder of Iscor—through the State President—surely it is good financial policy for the profits of Iscor to be restricted to a minimum, for this benefits the whole economy, and consequently every shareholder as well. So it is just good financial policy on the part of the shareholders to try to obtain steel as cheaply as possible, not only for other industries, but for consumer commodities as well. If Iscor’s steel has to be sold at a higher price, all our cars will be more expensive, not to mention our wives’ refrigerators, stoves, etc., in the home. For that reason it is good policy to keep that profit margin as low as possible, so that every shareholder of Iscor, i.e. the man in the street, may share, through the State President, in the advantages of the lower steel prices. It need not be repeated that our steel prices are among the lowest in the world, for we all know this to be true. As long as this is the case, it will benefit not only our processing industries based on steel, but every citizen of the country as well. Therefore it is a very great privilege to me to give my wholehearted support to this Bill on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Paarl, particularly in relation to the necessity to keep the price of steel as low as possible, certainly lower than would otherwise be economically possible in South Africa. However, that is a matter to which I want to return later.

We on this side of the House will not oppose this Bill, although we have certain very serious misgivings which we hope the hon. the Minister will give answers to in his reply. The Bill which is now before us would appear in itself to be reasonable enough. It simply calls for an increase in the authorized capital of Iscor. It raises, however, a number of questions which I would like to put to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. Firstly, the amount involved is extremely substantial. The latest annual report, which was published on 30 June 1973, disclosed that the number of shares issued at that time was 81,8 million. The hon. the Minister has now informed us that that number has been increased to 94,1 million.

This Bill proposes to increase the authorized number of shares to 350 million, which may be issued in such amount and under such conditions as the State President may approve at a value not less than par. We can only assume that the intention of this Bill is such that they will in fact be issued, presumably either on one occasion, or as has been the normal practice, on different occasions. But the amount involved is no less than R512 million. When this process is over this amount is the minimum amount which will have been subscribed for Iscor. As I said, in the past Iscor has tended to take only bites at the cherry as and when the needs became urgent, or perhaps it would be better to say as and when the needs became imperative. Hon. members will recall that the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech told us that the Government intends to subscribe the amount of not less than R130 million for additional shares in Iscor. The hon. the Minister has only given us information on a very broad basis as to the purposes which underly this request for an increase in the authorized capital, which, as I have said, amounts to no less than R512 million. The hon. the Minister has talked about increases to the various works, but that is a bare minimum of information that has been given to us.

There is good cause to raise some other questions without denying in any way that Iscor has in the past and still does carry out an important responsibility by its production of the major share of steel products within our country. But its affairs are of course a matter of concern to all South Africans. The figures for its capital expenditure over the last six years, taken with those that the Minister has now disclosed to us, make interesting reading. In 1969 Iscor spent the sum of R51 million; in 1970 R123 million; in 1971 R61 million; in 1972 R109 million; and in 1973 R307 million. This amounts to a total of no less than R645 million. In addition its chairman mentioned in the last annual report that the corporation’s capital expenditure this year would reach a new maximum of R474 million. If that proves to be the case it will mean in the aggregate that Iscor has spent the sum of no less than R1 100 million over the last six years. Now the hon. the Minister tells us that for the next 10 years Iscor proposes to expend roughtly speaking R3 200 million. That is a total figure for this period in excess of R4 000 million. It seems to me that all South Africans will want to know that the sum which is involved, especially a sum on that scale, which is taken from them, is efficiently applied. This is more particularly the case when it appears that they, the general taxpayers, as has been the habit in the past, are going to have to foot such an enormous bill in the future. When a figure of such dimensions is under consideration, it is important that the hon. the Minister should go much further in giving information to satisfy the public as to its necessity. When I asked the hon. the Minister what return was anticipated on the R130 million his reply was that it was not possible to view this in isolation from the rest of Iscor’s development programme. As a matter of public interest. I feel that that is hardly a reassuring reply, because I do not know of any other large business corporation which is accountable to shareholders where such an answer would be tolerated for very long. It would be of great interest to all and to the hon. members of this House if the hon. the Minister—if he has the information available—would now indicate to us what return is anticipated under Iscor’s development programme as a whole. I am now talking of R3 200 million. If he does not, it means simply that neither this House, nor the general public will know what the anticipated return is in relation either to R4 000 million or to R512 million, all of which comes from them. It will not give people confidence against that background when a Bill like this is proposed to the House to simply sanction a further sum of money in excess of R500 million. It is a matter of public interest that objective economic criteria should be seen to apply to Iscor both in relation to its own development programme and in relation to or in comparison with the demands made by others. As the hon. member to my right has said, the evidence of Iscor’s profitability in relation to its assets does not give the degree of reassurance to the public which one would think would be required. From 1969 to 1973 the average profits, before tax, of Iscor amounted to R13,4 million as compared with R24½ million in the preceding five years. The reasons for the profits being at such a level I will come to, but in view of the substantial sums of money which have been expended, it is hardly of comfort to the general public that the rate of profit, in absolute terms, without taking inflation into account, has shown such a decline.

We all know, as does the hon. the Minister, that the price of steel in this country has been kept artificially low and furthermore that Iscor has been forced to cover as far as possible the entire range of steel products where these are not available either from itself or from the other producers of steel in this country. We also know that Iscor’s management has had to operate within that framework which has been laid down by this Government. There is left an uneasy suspicion that objective criteria are, to put it mildly, absent and that now the general taxpayer is being asked to foot the bill as market forces catch up. No attempt has been made to reach a more equitable solution on the basis of the usage of the steel concerned. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the necessity for amounts of this size for the increase in the authorized capital—and presumably in issued capital—arises from factors of which we are not yet aware.

It can hardly be a necessity in isolation to raise loan finance because a Government guarantee would serve equally well for that purpose. Is it perhaps that this is the only way in which the interest and capital burden, which has now been assumed by Iscor, can be met, or is it necessary to put Iscor into a position where it can meet other obligations such as a guarantee given to one or more purchasers of ore on the transportation cost of that ore from the place where it is mined to the port of shipment or to its destination? Is the necessity for this money to be subscribed through additional capital connected in some way with the Saldanha-Sishen scheme? Hon. members will have read the statement of the hon. the Minister in which he said—and I quote—

He goes on—

It is interesting to note that in terms of section 2(2)(b) of the Iron and Steel Industry Act of 1928, as amended, Iscor is precluded from carrying public traffic. This was specifically confirmed by the Sishen-Saldanha Bay Railway Construction Act No. 28 of 1973 in section 2(1 )(b). I wonder if that hon. the Minister could tell us how he reconciles this. It seems to me that the decision to carry and convey goods other than Iscor ore amounts to nothing more nor less than the conveyance of public traffic.

Like the hon. member to the right of me, I am of course aware that I am not permitted on this occasion to raise the broader question as to what the respective roles of various State corporations are or where the responsibilities for their activities should lie. However, I think the hon. the Minister should go a great deal further than he has done to get the confidence of the people of this country to feel that this large sum of money will be applied in the most efficient and productive way possible. It is their money and they should be reassured in their own long-term interests. This is one of the very rare occasions when it might be said that this House sits in a role equivalent to that of a board of directors, where the shareholders are the taxpayers of South Africa. We feel that the justification which has so far been given for the expenditure of the amount mentioned leaves a very great deal to be desired.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation to the two Opposition parties for their support of this measure. I should also like to express my sincere thanks to my colleague, the hon. member for Paarl, for his contribution. In the first place. I just want to make it quite clear that when we speak of Iscor today, we are speaking of a giant organization and one of the largest economic enterprises in the whole economy of South Africa. We are speaking of an organization which has certainly made one of the greatest positive contributions of any organization established by us to the progress and development of this economy. I just want to make this quite clear, for questions are being asked here which have a rather farreaching effect.

† I can quite understand any member of this House wishing to know the reasons for important policy measures of a body of this kind. It is after all a public corporation using public money voted by Parliament. That is perfectly correct. However. Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do want to remind hon. members that Iscor is by law an autonomous organization with its own legal persona and its own capital, once the capital has been provided, however that capital may be provided in terms of its own statutes. Once the directors are appointed, those directors have complete freedom of operation. There is no question about it. I think the record of Iscor will prove it. I mention these things, because I think one is inclined to imagine at times that Iscor is simply some sort of junior associate of Parliament. This of course is not the legal position at all and not how Iscor operates.

I think it would be difficult to try to cover every question raised, but I must at least answer what I think are some of the more important ones. I think both the hon. members for Cape Town Gardens and Johannesburg North raised the question of the efficiency, productivity and profitability, which I put together, of this organization. As far as the technical efficiency is concerned, I have no reason at all—I do try to take a very close interest in its technical operations from the point of view of efficiency—to think that Iscor is not being efficiently and well managed and operated. It is perfectly correct that Iscor is not making anything like substantial profits. In fact, earlier this year, as the hon. member said, Iscor was running at a loss. But the facts of the matter are that, if you look at its record up to now and you look ahead to the ten years to come, you will see that if we succeed in achieving the aims of this development programme—I am very sure we will, because the groundwork has been extremely carefully done—the production of Iscor is going to increase by very nearly threefold by 1984. I think we will have to go a long way in the world in comparing steel production units of this sort with Iscor to see a better technical achievement if it succeeds, and I am very confident, indeed, on that point.

As far as profits are concerned. I would agree that profits are extremely important in a capitalistic economy. They are the mainspring of activity, and they show whether in fact the business is economically justified under competition. That is the measure of its success. I would say that it is the main measure of success. But. Sir, we must remember it is not as simple as that with Iscor. Iscor is an economic undertaking. There is no doubt about it and its directors and senior management are very conscious of the fact. But it is also an extremely important strategic—I am using? the word in the broad sense—undertaking. Iscor is producing one of the most strategic materials that this country, or, indeed, any modern economy today, can wish to use. Iscor has to bear that in mind. The Government, so far as broad policy is concerned, must bear that in mind as well. As you know. Sir, Iscor operates under price control. If we were to adjust prices, what would the position be? Let us say we are going to see that Iscor gets a return on capital of, for the sake of argument, of 20%—a hypothetical figure. We need not go into all the niceties as to how we calculate these figures.

Let us just put the matter broadly. If we were to try to achieve that, we would have to put up the price very substantially indeed. Now we have to decide which is the more important aspect of this economy at this moment and in, what I would like to call, the foreseeable future. Do we simply go on putting up prices to give Iscor a thoroughly good competitive return on capital, compared with similar undertakings in different places? Make no mistake about it—the price of steel would be very substantially higher than it is today. Or do we try and hold the line more or less as we have been trying to do? In other words, do we try to operate so that we cover all Iscor’s costs, including interest on capital, which has risen very substantially as a cost item? The replacement of capital too is a very tough problem today.

My hon. friend over there will know, just as all hon. members here, that in a capital-intensive industry, this is one of the biggest headaches of the present day. I can agree with several of the hon. member’s remarks. However, I must say, when you ask me that I must now for ten years ahead—because that is the development programme my hon. friend was referring to—give this House today a financial picture of how matters may develop, with the best intention in the world it is impossible. We have to import capital goods for Iscor. More and more if these goods are being made in South Africa. But we all know that we have to import a very substantial amount of capital goods nevertheless. This is not only a highly capital-intensive industry, but one which is using capital very intensively. Now, Sir, the increase in the cost of capital goods from abroad for this type of industry is phenomenal. I do not have to give you all the figures, but I can give more information on that point later in the discussion of my Vote, if it is wanted. The figures are almost frightening. These are the things we have to try to estimate. But how does one estimate so far ahead?

I will now indicate how Iscor is operating in this respect. It asks how it as an undertaking can supply as much as possible of the projected demand for steel in this country over, let us say, a ten-year period. It is a difficult exercise to establish that as such. But at any rate, they try to get some sort of meaningful figure. Iscor has worked out a programme according to which it hopes to produce by 1983-’84 approximately 11½ million tons of steel, which is a very substantial increase on today. We are importing today about 12% of our requirements at a very much higher figure than Iscor produces it. I have the prices here of various types of steel of Germany, France, U.K., U.S.A., Australia and Iscor and Iscor is substantially the lowest of all those. I believe that in our period of inflation today, with this very big development ahead for the economy, which we foresee, and with our overriding need for steel, I believe our policy to be substantially correct, i.e. to push up the production as efficiently as we can and as much as we reasonably can.

Then, as far as the capital is concerned, let us at least try to budget ahead as far as we can. We have tried to cost this out. I have indicated this by just giving the total figures. Within that overall picture let us at any rate try to keep some sort of meaningful balance of the capital structure. The tendency here would be, as we have seen in some public corporations elsewhere, that one tends to get one’s loan capital running rather wild. One’s loan capital tends to increase out of proportion to one’s equity capital. This is what we have now had to look at carefully with Iscor. Here we have at least tried to bring the position of the equity capital in relation to loan capital at least to some more meaningful ratio. Whether we have gone fay enough, I am not sure. I would remind my hon. friend that this is, of course the authorized capital. We are authorizing this increase in the share capital From time to time, of course, we will have to take it up. The R130 million would then, quite correctly, affect the issued capital. That is quite correct.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what underlying philosophy governs the choice between keeping prices down by means of cash loans to Iscor, and hence high capital assistance from the public sector, or letting higher prices fall directly on the taxpayer The ordinary citizen pays for Iscor through taxes to assist with its capital formation because its capital is low as a result of bad prices. That is the one option. The other option is to allow the prices to ride high, which means that Iscor has got a higher potential to develop its capital base. Between this alternative and the other one, would the hon. the Minister say why he prefers the one method rather than the other?

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to answer that. The answer is that we believe that that way is in fact more economical under conditions of substantial inflation. Where you have a commodity which is generally used throughout the economy—we are not dealing here with a commodity which just a few people are going to buy; you have a commodity here which, whether you like it or not, is universally in demand—I would say that in the circumstances, although to some extent it is a matter of judgment, this policy is and has been more economical than the other.

Why?

Because it is cheaper. Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could deal with some of these points further in the Committee Stage. One can, as you know, Sir, talk a long time on these matters. It is not a very simple matter; you have to take a number of criteria into account, but perhaps we can come back to this in the Committee Stage. I do not want to evade the issue.

Mr. Speaker, we have dealt with the question of profit. If you are going to have a big profit, you are certainly going to have a much higher price under our method of pricing this commodity. We believe that it is better to keep a hold on the price, even to the extent where, as my hon. friend says, we may then have to find more capital elsewhere rather than to plough back profits. That is the issue. Sir. I come back to the question of my hon. friend as to whether the funds are being efficiently applied. Yes, I believe so, because I have no reason to believe that Iscor is not being very well managed and operated. But I would like to say to my hon. friend that despite my judgment that this is a well-managed enterprise. I have recently asked the Cabinet, because of the size of this enterprise and because of its extreme importance to the South African economy, to agree with me, and the Cabinet has agreed with me, that we should arrange to undertake a very thorough efficiency and productivity study in respect of Iscor. We want to do this in the most thorough, objective and scientific way that we can, and in this regard we are as a matter of fact seeking the very best assistance that we can get.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? If in the hon. the Minister’s opinion the best experts to conduct such an investigation happen to be an outside management consultancy firm, would the Minister confirm that he would be prepared to engage their services?

Yes; I have placed absolutely no restriction whatsoever on Iscor in this regard. Sir. I think that I ought perhaps to leave the matter there. I have dealt with the question of how one tried to deal accurately with a capital Budget for the next ten years. It is an extremely difficult matter. The biggest headache we have in this connection is to make provision for the replacement of capital. I would just like to remind the House that on the privately-held shares, which were formerly B shares and are now preference shares, there is a guaranteed return or dividend of 7½ % which under present circumstances, of course, is not very high. But under the structure of this corporation, we have been able as a Government to forego our return on that capital to assist Iscor to keep the prices down. My hon. friend may not agree with me but I believe that that was sound policy. I believe that the most important consideration here was to do everything possible to keep these prices as low as we reasonably could, whilst still keeping this enterprise going as an important concern.

You use taxpayers’ money.

You use taxpayers’ money but believe me, Sir, the taxpayers get very real benefits out of Iscor.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

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

I will not take up much of the time of the House. I do want to say to the hon. the Minister, how-ever, that we would like to stress very much that while we appreciate the special position occupied by a State corporation of the nature of Iscor, it nevertheless needs to be looked at with great care by Parliament because of the very substantial financial implications involved. There is no question that a great deal of taxpayers’ money is involved and it is the duty of Parliament to ask questions before it grants money.

Now there are various kinds of public corporations. There is, for example, the public utility type of corporation, which provides a service. Such a corporation might provide water or electricity or other essential services. There are others which are conducted after the manner of a private enterprise in that they find their own capital or they start with basic capital, and generate their future activities out of cash flow. They do not come back to the public purse. They conduct their business in the manner of a private industry and expose themselves to the full mechanisms of the market. There I believe Parliament could with a degree of equanimity relax its curiosity and its criticism because, after all, a corporation of that nature is in fact exposing itself to the full disciplines of the economic world. Then. Sir, you have another type of public corporation which is really a protected enterprise in the sense that it is not conducted according to the cold economic winds of the market-place and does not expose itself fully to these winds. It carries a large degree of Government protection and if in difficulty it falls back on the Government and seeks aid. Now this aid is not Government aid in the sense that the Government has a private piggy-bank of its own money. This money comes out of the taxpayers’ pockets. This was implied in the question I put to the hon. the Minister earlier during the Second Reading. In one way or the other the taxpayer pays in such a situation and we as the watch-dogs of the taxpayer must surely be vigilant about these matters. Whatever the precise statutory position of such a corporation is, whatever the nice legalities of the situation might be if public money is involved, and especially if public money is involved in large quantities which are material and meaningful, then it is the duty of Parliament to be especially vigilant and to ensure that that public corporation is doing what it should be doing and doing it well. These are the sort of questions we put to the hon. the Minister and I am quite confident that the hon. the Minister would not, in fact, wish to hide behind statutory niceties or delicate legalities in evading these questions, because they are clearly matters of public interest. As I have already said, they are more particularly matters of great and broad public interest when such very large sums of money are involved. The hon. the Minister gave us an indication, by way of a break-down, of what Iscor expects to spend in the next ten years. One of the sums was for works, a sum of no less than R2 709 million, but this sum was not broken down into details. I believe it would be the most indolent Parliament, the most careless Parliament which, when asked to contemplate a sum of money of this kind, to vote money for capital expansion when such vast projects are in view; did not ask a few simple questions. We are now in the Third Reading debate. I believe there is other pressing business, but I do want to say to the hon. the Minister that we hope that he will give us satisfaction in that when his Vote comes up for discussion in this House, we shall be given full and satisfactory information on the whole of the situation and the whole of the planned development of Iscor.

Mr. Speaker. I shall not be long, but I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that obviously we welcome his announcement that a commission will be set up to look into the efficiency of Iscor. I should like to agree with the hon. the Minister in regard to Iscor’s reputation for technical expertise, but I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider two things. When Iscor takes on outside obligations in so far as the past is concerned and indeed in so far as the future is concerned, it surely is a matter which should rightly be reported to Parliament. The hon. the Minister will know that certain obligations or guarantees, even though they appear to be comparatively innocent when they commence, can over a period of time involve very substantial sums of money. I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s explaining the method according to which Iscor has drawn up its development programme. I appreciate the difficulties when one looks ahead ten years and particularly when imports of capital and inflation are borne in mind, but I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister—perhaps he can enlighten us—that he should explain to us how, in fact, Iscor does decide between the various requests made upon it. If one simply assumes that Iscor’s duty is to meet the demand for steel in this country and one simply starts from that point of view, it seems to me that there is bound to be an element of inefficiency if one does not take into consideration some objective criteria such as the rate of return on the various products which are about to be produced. I accept with the hon. the Minister that that is something imprecise, but it has been found everywhere else in a modern mixed economy, or indeed in the old days in a free enterprise system, to be the only completely objective criteria as to the allocation of resources.

Mr. Speaker, I must say I am at a loss to understand my hon. friend’s point. As I understand him, he is suggesting that I am withholding information; that this is a corporation which is using public funds and somehow we are hiding important information. It is nothing of the kind. I am asking here for an increase in the authorized share capital. In all fairness I do think that I have given a pretty substantial reason why we are asking for an increase in the authorized capital. We need more capital for the simple reason that this crucially important undertaking needs to expand, produce more steel and to do certain things connected with it, and to undertake huge development projects, which my hon. friend knows about, even in this part of the world. These are things which require very large capital sums. I also did say that we had to look to see that our balance of capital of equity to loan did not get completely out of all proportion. That is another reason why we want to push up the equity capital. This question of public funds and wasting taxpayers’ money ... You know, Sir, it is not as simple as that. What would the taxpayers’ position be if we had simply said that Iscor should go right ahead and see to it that they set 20% on all capital employed? I take 20% simply to have a figure in front of us. We can tell them to make a substantial return on capital which would make it look to everybody that there is a first class undertaking, because it is really making a first class return on capital. I want to say again that the effect on the prices Iscor has charged over the years would be phenomenal and the result will be that all these buyers of steel, right through the economy, would have paid and would be paying today very much more. Their cost would be out of proportion higher than they are today. There is no question about that. Where would the economy then be? The hon. member cannot simply make a dogmatic statement and say that that would be a better or worse position. Our view on this matter, after making all sorts of studies and Iscor making all kinds of studies, is to lay down policy in a most considered way over the years.

I have made no statement. I asked for information.

Iscor has a very highly qualified board and a very highly qualified management. I would resist any tendency to say simply that because Iscor is a public corporation and is using public money, it cannot be as efficient as anybody else. These are people who are really giving first-class service, service of the highest order. They are studying this whole thing in relation to the needs of the economy and in relation to the position overseas. If we had not succeeded in stepping up production, we would have had to import more and more. We are only importing 12% today but at fantastically higher prices than that at which Iscor is producing steel. I merely want to say again that the matter is not as simple as that. It was a very considered decision of policy that was taken and it was taken to keep prices as low as reasonably possible to supply all these people who demand steel and must have steel at a price substantially lower than would otherwise have been the case. I would resist any attempt to say that that is being done at the cost of the taxpayer. On the contrary, I believe that is to the advantage of the taxpayer.

I would like to mention one point which I have raised with the hon. member for Johannesburg North earlier, a point which I think he just touched on in passing. He has mentioned the question of a guarantee for transport costs. Quite recently during this session I had a question put to me whether the Government had given any guarantee on railage costs on the Sishen-Saldanha line. The Government did not give guarantees of any kind whatever. Iscor has to operate that on its own and has to look after itself, because those exports are sold abroad at prices which we have no control over. We have to control the costs to come out. So there is no guarantee by the Government in relation to those railage costs.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, Clause 1 of this Bill removes an obsolete expression in the Act by substituting “Minister of Economic Affairs” for “Minister of Economic Development”.

Clause 2 of the Bill envisages the amendment of section 2(1) of the Act to enable the State President to appoint in addition to the chairman and deputy-chairman of the board five instead of three other members to the board.

The reasons for the proposed enlargement of the membership of the board are as follows—

1. (a) The limited membership of the board prescribed by the existing provisions of section 2 of the Act, creates problems of continuity on the retirement or resignation of the chairman, deputy-chairman or one or more of the three members of the board.
2. (b) The extent and complexity of the work and investigations undertaken by the board have increased considerably in view of the existing economic conditions locally and abroad. The board is often called upon to undertake complicated investigations urgently when the protection of local commercial and industrial interests is at stake. It is therefore imperative that the board should at all times consist of persons with appropriate academic and practical qualifications.
3. (c) Problems have been experienced over many years to find suitable members for appointment to the board. At one stage two vacancies existed for a considerable period of time. Two of the present members of the board will reach retirement age in the near future and it is considered essential that suitable candidates be recruited in the meantime so that they can become acquainted with the functions and duties of the board in order to prevent disruption of the board’s wide-ranging work.

*The envisaged amendment simply authorizes the State President to appoint a maximum of five board members. Since new board members who are not acquainted with the work of the board, generally require a long initiation period before they are able to make their full contribution, new board members will now be appointed in such a way that they will be able to serve for interim periods as board members in one or both of these two posts even now in order to become skilled in the work of the board. In this way much of the disruption of the board’s business ought to be eliminated when old members resign and new members commence service.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the only significant aspect of the Bill in front of us is the proposal to increase the membership of the Board of Trade by two persons.

We on this side of the House recognize that there have been substantial developments in the economy and in the industry over recent years with the result that the Board of Trade has had more and more investigations, more and more complex investigations, to do in regard to the protection of industry. We also appreciate that the work of the board has become more onerous as the result of the increasing complexity of world trade, which is the result of developments such as the application of GATT. We also realize that the Board of Trade has had to undertake additional work as the result of the measures which have been introduced, measures such as investigations under the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act. The only reason why we might have opposed this measure is that it does empower an increase in expenditure at a time when it is obviously in the interest of the country that Government expenditure should be carefully watched and controlled. On this occasion, however, I think that increased expenditure is justified. We appreciate that the Board of Trade needs men of particular and considerable ability and experience, but these are not always readily available. The additional latitude that the increased membership will allow, will give some flexibility in filling positions when men do become available. Obviously this is a job that is not learnt overnight and it is advisable, therefore, to have some reserve available to meet the position of resignations and retirements. We on this side of the House accordingly support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I shall try to be very brief and for that reason I do not want to comment on what the hon. member for Constantia has just said. We are, nevertheless, thankful for the Opposition’s support of this measure. I should like to point out that the work of the Foard of Trade and Industries has not only expanded to a large extent as things are at present, but will expand even further in future, for we are long past the stage where we are dealing simply with “dumping”. Today trade promotion by various countries has in many cases become nothing but a subtle, sophisticated circumvention of the concept of “dumping”. At this very stage one of our country’s industries has to contend with very serious problems due to this subtle, sophisticated circumvention of the concept of “dumping”. I am refering to our textile industry which has to contend with imports from the Far East which, in my opinion, constitutes nothing but extremely well planned, sophisticated dumping. The Board of Trade and Industries will have to make a very thorough study of this problem and that is why it requires the additional powers asked for in this legislation. On the one hand, the Board should always be mindful of not allowing the price for the local consumer to rise unnecessarily high as a result of its protection measures, and on the other hand it should ensure that a delicate balance is maintained in order that our industries are not detrimentally affected. In the industry to which I have referred, a few industrial undertakings have already been compelled to discharge between 10% and 20% of their workers simply because they cannot compete with the imported products which are offered at prices far below production costs. In order to be able to preserve this delicate balance between low costs to the consumer on the one hand and the protection of our industries on the other, one requires people of a high calibre. For that reason we welcome this increase in the membership of the Board of Trade and Industries so that highly qualified people may be appointed to perform this extremely important job for us.

There is another facet of the work of the Board of Trade and Industries to which I want to refer, a facet which also demands the careful attention and study of extremely competent economists. I am referring to the task of guarding against monopolies. It is a simple fact that larger units are required in our economy. For profitable production we often require much larger units. In certain sectors of our economy we require units that will have to be so large that they will hardly be able to exist on the proceeds of the demand for their goods in this country. We need units which will produce far more than is required by the Republic alone. In that case, however, one runs the risk of having monopolistic conditions which will enable a unit of that nature to demand prices far above the world price. Therefore, there is a very delicate balance between the size of the unit, on the one hand, and the prevention of the formation of monopolies which will push prices up, on the other. In order to make a study of this and to find the delicate balance, we require people of a high calibre, specifically our best economists. Therefore we welcome this extension of the membership of the Board of Trade and Industries as embodied in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friends for their support of this measure. I am very glad that the hon. member for Paarl also mentioned the valuable work the Board is doing in connection with combating monopolistic activities. It is a very important part of their job. Therefore I am glad that it was mentioned by him.

† I can find no fault whatsoever with the contribution of my friend, the hon. member for Constantia. I thank him for his support. I would merely like to say that I doubt whether there is a more hard-working statutory body in this country than the Board of Trade and Industries. I am therefore very pleased that the House is able to support this measure.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In regard to this amendment Bill and the next one on the Order Paper, I should like, with your permission, to make a statement which I consider to be in the public interest. A sensational report has appeared in a newspaper which gave rise to misgivings concerning the security of the Duinefontein nuclear plant. I am referring here to an article, “Are we Inviting Death to Duinefontein?”, which appeared in the supplement to a local newspaper on 24 August 1974. This is totally incorrect and must be rectified in the public interest. As regards the safety of nuclear installations, which includes both land-based plants and visiting nuclear propelled ships, such as the present visit of the Otto Hahn to Cape Town ...

This matter relates to the next Bill.

I beg your pardon? I am dealing with the Uranium Enrichment Amendment Bill, and with the permission of the Chair I am, in that context, referring to Duinefontein. As regards the safety of nuclear installations, which includes both land-based plants and visiting nuclear-propelled ships, the Atomic Energy Board is responsible, in terms of the provisions of the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Security) Act, for ensuring that the location, construction and operation of such nuclear installations complies with the requirements of the health and safety of the public.

† No land-based nuclear installation may be constructed and no nuclear propelled vessel may visit South Africa except under the authority of a licence granted by the board. In issuing licences, the board may adapt and modify at any time such conditions as it may deem appropriate to ensure that the necessary standards of safety are maintained. In order to discharge this important responsibility, the Atomic Energy Board has established an entirely separate licensing branch, a self-contained unit whose staffing functions and administrative controls are divorced from all other activities of the board. This branch comprises a team of technical experts whose task it is to make independent and completely impartial assessments of the safety of all proposed nuclear installations. In addition, a Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee, whose membership includes eminent men from the academic field, the public and private sectors, reviews the safety problems encountered, the standards set and the methods of assessment employed by the licensing branch, and makes appropriate recommendations to the board. Members of this House will realize that the safety of the nuclear plant at Duinefontein therefore depends upon the standards laid down by the Atomic Energy Board. In this context it must be realized that any industrial enterprise, indeed almost any human activity, involves some risk to the health and safety of the members of our society. Crossing the street, driving a car, using electrical appliances in the home—all these activities involve a risk. The nuclear industry is no exception to this rule. The policy of the Atomic Energy Board in setting standards for the nuclear industry is aimed at ensuring that the risk both to plant operators and to members of the public are substantially smaller than the risks associated with most other enterprises and activities. For example, statistics show that air transport is one of the safest of human activities. By comparison, the standards set by the Atomic Energy Board are designed to make sure that the maximum lifetime risk to which any member of the public living in the vicinity of a nuclear installation, is exposed, is between 10 and 100 times lower than the average lifetime risk associated with air travel. I am sure the House will agree that with this standard of safety, this article which appeared in a local newspaper is really devoid of truth. In ensuring that a nuclear installation complies with these standards, both the normal operating characteristics and accident probabilities are taken into consideration. As hon. members may be aware there is an international body known as the International Commission for Radiological Protection, comprising eminent scientists in the radiological field. This body makes recommendations from time to time regarding acceptable standards for radiation exposure. It should be noted that the range of the standards adopted by the Atomic Energy Board is either consistent with, or somewhat more stringent, than the current recommendations of this international body. In preparation for the construction of the nuclear installation at Duinefontein, and its subsequent operation, Escom has in recent years commissioned various research organizations to carry out an exhaustive survey of the Duinefontein environment, including its atmospheric and oceanographic dispersion characteristics, to ensure that the proposed plant will meet the standards laid down by the Atomic Energy Board. The licensing branch of the Atomic Energy Board will carefully examine all aspects of the Duinefontein plant in the proposal stage, and will insist on such changes as may be necessary to ensure that the plant complies with the standards mentioned earlier. Similarly, they will maintain close surveillance of the manufacture, construction and operation of the plant to ensure that the necessary high standards of quality are achieved and maintained throughout its life. In connection with the visit by the nuclear-propelled ship, the Otto Hahn, which is now in Cape Town Harbour, it should be noted that she will not normally require to discharge any radio-active waste whilst in our territorial waters. In the event of the master of the Otto Hahn wishing to discharge radio-active waste, he should only do so with the prior approval of the harbour authorities and of the Atomic Energy Board. With regard to other nuclear-propelled vessels such as nuclear warships, it should be noted that these have the right of innocent passage through our territorial waters, but the phrase “innocent passage” as specified in the International Convention is generally understood to mean that no hazardous substance will be discharged without prior permission.

*Sir, with this I think I have made it very clear that the public need not have anything to fear concerning the Duinefontein nuclear installation or this visit of the Otto Hahn, not now nor at any time in the future.

Sir, with reference to the Uranium Enrichment Act, 1970, I should like to say that in the present energy crisis which the world is experiencing and which is being aggravated by the policies of certain oil-producing countries, it will certainly be conceded by all that the South African Government acted with wisdom and far-sightedness several years ago when it gave the green light, despite the capital expenditure it would entail, for the construction of a pilot plant for the enrichment of uranium so that the unique uranium enrichment process developed by the Republic’s scientists could be utilized in the interests of the country. I am very grateful to be able to state here that we have, in this very important matter, always received the support of the opposite side of the House, and consequently I want to express my sincere gratitude for that on this occasion. Hon. members of the House will already have observed from newspaper reports that the so-called oil crisis has given rise to a great upsurge in the uranium market. Some of the major countries of the free world, which are to a great extent dependent upon oil for their power generation, are rapidly switching over to the generation of electricity by means of nuclear energy. Naturally this has created a great demand for uranium, and owing to the limited known supplies of uranium in the world which can be economically exploited, this demand has consequently caused the price of uranium to rise. These circumstances entail great and important benefits for South Africa as major uranium producing country and as a country which has at least a quarter of the known reserves of the Western world which can be developed for less than $10 per pound, but at the same time it also entails great responsibilities for South Africa in regard to the marketing of this extremely strategic source of energy. In this regard I want to point out to hon. members of the House that the president of the International Atomic Energy Board recently made a very important speech in which he stated that while enriched uranium at present comprised 3% of the world’s energy, enriched uranium could within approximately 20 years from today, comprise approximately 60% of the world’s energy consumption, which is a very important and powerful fact for South Africa and the world to take into account. For a number of years now the Atomic Energy Board, in collaboration with the uranium producers, has been making annual surveys of South Africa’s uranium reserves. As a result of the circumstances to which I have referred, the Atomic Energy Board is in fact engaged in such a survey at present. In the light of the results of this survey the Board will, in consultation with the uranium producers, also give serious consideration, for submission to the Government, to policy in regard to the marketing of uranium in future against the background of its own requirements. I want to make it clear that South Africa, has no reason yet to depart from the policy which it has been adopting up to now for the marketing of its uranium, viz. to market its uranium in an orderly manner against the background of its own requirements, taking into consideration the best interests of South Africa. We have no intention, Sir, of exploiting our position in respect of uranium, and I trust that the other uranium producing countries of the world will co-operate with us to ensure that the present oil crisis in the world is not followed by a uranium crisis. As Minister of Mines it is my intention to direct my efforts to this end. Excellent progress is still being made with the construction of the pilot plant at Valindaba, and I shall in due course furnish members of the House of Assembly with further information in this regard. Personally I am in constant contact with the activities of Ucor, and the members of the mining groups of the House of Assembly recently accompanied me on a visit to Valindaba. It is very clear that we are dealing here with a development which makes the greatest demands on the abilities, on the one hand, of our scientists who evolved and developed the process—and I want to pay special tribute to these scientists in this regard—and who had to plan its incorporation in a practical, operational plant, and, on the other of South African industry which had to undertake the highly sophisticated manufacture of the numerous components. I have no doubt at all that this undertaking has made an exceptional contribution to bringing the manufacturing industry in South Africa to a sophisticated level of manufacture. It was clear to the Government from the start that the South African enrichment process should be exploited to the benefit of the free world, hence the declaration by the hon. the Prime Minister in his announcement in Parliament on 20 July 1970 that—

Thus the Prime Minister. Recently the Prime Minister announced that positive and successful steps had been taken during the past few years, and that Ucor was already, with overseas collaboration, undertaking feasibility studies with a view to the construction of a large-scale uranium enrichment plant in South Africa. These studies, which are being carried out with the sophisticated and major industries of such countries, have already reached an advanced stage and are expected to have been completed by the end of this year. It will be possible to take a decision on the construction of a large-scale plant in South Africa in the light of the results of these studies. I do not at this stage want to say any more about the feasibility studies, except to assure you that our potential partners no longer have any doubts, if they did perhaps have any at one stage, that South Africa has made a great contribution to uranium enrichment, and that South Africa has the necessary sophistication and the necessary knowledge and processes.

For the construction of a large-scale plant, further development work will have to be undertaken on the components which will be required. Ucor has been doing this for some considerable time. We are dealing here with a tremendous undertaking, which is very difficult to overstate, and if we want to see this important development through to a successful conclusion, it will require sacrifices on our part, on South Africa’s part. But I have no doubt that this development will prove to be of the utmost importance to South Africa. Sir, as I have already said, what is therefore being envisaged is the large-scale enrichment of uranium in South Africa. The Uranium Enrichment Act, with which we are now dealing, did not, however, anticipate this large-scale enrichment of uranium by any other person than the Uranium Enrichment Corporation (Ucor), and up to the present moment, no one from the private sector in South Africa has yet evinced any interest in undertaking this task. With the unique enrichment process which our country has, and with the expansion of nuclear programmes throughout the entire world in order to satisfy the critical need for alternative sources of energy, the Government could, however, be reproached if it did not do everything in its power to manufacture enriched uranium on a large scale. It is in the national as well as in the international interest that enriched uranium be made available, and since South Africa has such large reserves of the necessary raw materials, the Government is convinced that the application of capital which this requires will in future pay the necessary dividends. It is not only economic progress which is at issue here, but also national development and security in the broadest sense of the word. In terms of the present statutory provisions the Uranium Enrichment Corporation is only empowered to enrich uranium itself on behalf of the State and the Atomic Energy Board. Section 3 of the principal Act is now being amended in order to enable the Corporation, by law, to undertake the large-scale enrichment of uranium in co-operation with other persons.

† The further amendments to section 3 are of a consequential nature in order to provide the Uranium Enrichment Corporation with the necessary ancillary powers. The corporation must thus be enabled to establish other undertakings, to partake in other undertakings and even to take them over when necessary and to acquire shares in undertakings which may be of commercial significance to the overall project. It is moreover imperative to provide Ucor with statutory powers to establish national companies or to aid such establishment. To this provision the power has to be added to render financial support, to acquire an interest in companies and to provide companies with capital or other forms of financial support and guidance. For practical participation in the affairs of companies the corporation is also enabled to partake in the affairs of companies on managerial, secretarial and agency bases.

At the same time we are making use of the opportunity to insert a new section 4A in terms of which provision is made for the delegation of powers to members of the board of directors of the corporation. The nature of its activities is such that Ucor operates more and more in the field of private and not public law. The members of its board of directors are persons engaged in the full-time control of large institutions and delegation to the chairman of the board for the effective day-to-day management of the organization has been recommended by them. It goes without saying that the chairman exercises his functions with the utmost care and consults his board in all matters of importance.

*Since certain steps with regard to the enrichment of uranium have already been taken, it is advisable to let this Bill come into operation with retrospective effect from 1 August 1973, so as to give legal effect to these steps.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing at the moment with the Second Reading of the Uranium Enrichment Amendment Bill. We shall not oppose this Bill; in fact, we shall give it free passage through this House. However, before doing so, there are a few comments which I wish to make. In the first place I want to refer to the statement made by the hon. the Minister on the question of radioactive hazards. I have indicated privately to the hon. the Minister that I propose to raise this matter during the Second Reading of the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Security) Amendment Bill; which is next on the Order Paper. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister mislaid his papers or whether he was anxious to anticipate me, but I shall deal with this topic when we come to that Bill. The reason is that that Bill deals with or is very closely associated with such matters as radio-active hazards. It is of general significance under that Bill and also of particular significance because of the visit of the Otto Hahn. All those things fall under that Bill. I propose now to deal with the Uranium Enrichment Amendment Bill. As I have said, we welcome this Bill and will give it our support. In fact, not in the spirit of “I told you so” but perhaps to persuade the Minister of the wholehearted conviction with which we support this Bill, I would like to read to him a short passage from the very first speech which I made in this House when dealing with the original Uranium Enrichment Bill. The passage went like this (Hansard, Vol. 29, col. 473)—

This sentiment was replied to by the Minister of Mines who said: “I think it is absolutely necessary that the Government should finance this project and that no outside organization should at this stage be brought in at all, for security and other reasons.” He then went on to quote the hon. the Prime Minister as saying that in due course collaboration might take place with other countries. The point at issue then was whether in fact the State should hold 100% of the shares or whether in fact wider collaboration, on a shareholding basis, should be instituted. This new amending Bill does just that. It does provide for the introduction of another party. The corporation may now enrich uranium either alone or in co-operation with such persons. This clearly implies that it is now contemplated that there shall in fact be collaboration of this nature and provision is made in the Bill for the sharing of this production.

As I say, we have long favoured this principle and therefore we welcome this improvement that is brought about in the Bill. I believe that the hon. the Minister is right in predicting that there will be a major expansion of nuclear power in the world. The oil prices have brought it very close to the attention of everybody, that we must find new ways of generating energy independent of a purely basic and sole reliance on oil and coal resources. It will be necessary in all developing countries and in all industrial countries to try to develop a new spectrum of energy supply. During the next 10, 20 or more years, until an entirely new form of energy economy develops, we shall have to use all our wisdom and all our economic judgment to determine in what proportion the various kinds of available energy should be used. I anticipate that there will be a mixed supply. We will continue to use a certain amount of oil. We will continue to use coal in large quantities in this country, either in the form of direct usage or in the form of gas or liquid coal. We will probably find other sources of energy and unquestionably nuclear energy will become one of the main sources of our energy pattern in this country. This is even more true of some other countries. I believe that in France, for example, it has now been decided as a matter of policy to embark on a major nuclear programme. The same thing will happen in a number of other Western industrial countries and in Japan. This implies a very large increase in the demand for uranium. Because of the nature of the modern types of nuclear power stations that are being built or are in prospect, there will be a very large need for enriched uranium. I do not believe that the capacity needed to produce enriched uranium on the scale now anticipated, particularly after the oil crisis, is available. I believe that a great deal of additional capacity will have to be built and I think that the prospect in South Africa for the enrichment of uranium has a very good chance of competitive success. Nevertheless it will be an extremely costly undertaking. It will make major demands on the industrial resources and human talents of this country. It may be that in trying to establish the mix of energy usage, to which I have referred, in trying to work out the right spectrum of usage of the various kinds of fuel, we shall have to consider very closely exactly to what extent we can afford to divert our capital resources and our human resources to a project of this nature in preference to other projects which might prove to be of even greater economic significance. For example, I have in mind the possibility that Soekor may be successful and may find a very large deposit of oil. This again, could be an enormously costly operation, particularly if oil is found in the deep sea. We shall have to divert to it very large quantities of money as well as very large quantities of man-power and industrial skill. We might be obliged to make a decision of this nature between the one and the other purely on economic merits.

It is for this reason that it may be the case that South Africa, when doing it by itself, will not then feel justified in committing the very vast amount of capital which would be required in developing the enrichment corporation. This is not something which I anticipate; I hold it out as a mere possibility. For this reason I think there is great merit in the proposal contemplated in this Bill, viz. that we should seek out the likely parties, that we should share the risk and the burden of the development of the enrichment plant and we should therefore be ready, even if we have to give priority to other things in this country, to run a viable plant with cooperation, capital and skill from elsewhere if necessary. It is necessary to have such a plant which can conduct the enrichment business in South Africa, if not for use in South Africa to the extent that we might now envisage, then as a marketing prospect for enriched uranium to other parts of the world. For all these reasons we welcome this Bill and support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we, together with the hon. the Minister, are grateful today that the official Opposition supports this legislation. The hon. member for Von Brandis did, however, raise certain additional matters to which I am certain the hon. the Minister will reply in full. Consequently I shall leave him at that for the present.

I just want to say that it is really necessary, and indeed commendable, that this Bill be piloted through at this stage. The hon. the Minister referred to the fact that he had invited a number of hon. members from both sides of the House last year to pay a visit to Valindaba. It was my special privilege to accompany this party to Valindaba. I can only express my greatest and deepest admiration for Dr. Roux and his excellent team of scientists who are doing such wonderful work for South Africa. It was striking to observe, and to share for a moment, the dedicated approach by this Board and its scientists to this uranium enrichment project. For that reason it does not surprise us that it is necessary, within four years after the promulgation of the Uranium Enrichment Act, to introduce new legislation to expand the powers of Ucor. Ucor is a vast undertaking with future possibilities and horizons which we can scarcely imagine. The hon. the Minister did in fact mention last year during the discussion of his Vote that the uranium enrichment process was going to be of equally great significance in the years which lie ahead as the discovery of diamonds, seen retrospectively, was to this country. One could imagine that it could be expected that in the year 2000 approximately 50% of our electrical power generating capacity would be derived from nuclear energy. As a result of the energy crisis which descended on the world so suddenly, I want to contend that this development will take place even more rapidly. If it is also taken into consideration that a person who intends constructing a nuclear power station will have to order the enriched uranium eight years in advance if he wants to obtain it from the United States of America, and that he has to pay approximately R2 8 million in advance for every 1 000 MW electricity generating capacity required, then it goes without saying that with our vast uranium reserves we should afford Ucor every possible measure of support, encouragement and assistance to cause its work to be crowned with success.

When Dr. Roux, the chairman of Ucor, addressed the Suid-Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut in Johannesburg in May 1973. he had the following to say about the pilot plant at Valindaba (translation)—

That Ucor should therefore be granted the rights as indicated in the Bill is the logical consequence of the new dawn which is braking for us in the sphere of industry. It is going to serve as stimulus to industry in our country, and it is going to enable Ucor to find partners in the undertaking in which they are engaged, and to expand it successfully. We are aware that it will be very difficult to do this work alone. I want to conclude with a further quotation from the address delivered by Dr. Roux. What he said, can be repeated here with acclamation (translation)—

I should like to wish the hon. the Minister every success with this Bill and to wish Ucor every success with the phenomenal work which it is doing there at Valindaba.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches also wish to support this Bill. We support it for a number of reasons, some of which have been mentioned by the hon. the Minister. Obviously, hon. members have heard about the oil shortage, but there is also the fact that uranium is a very common element of the earth’s crust. Therefore, even though we are extremely fortunate in this country that uranium is basically produced as a by-product from the goldmining industry, South Africa will have the added advantage when you combine the fact that we have a very cheap source of the orignal element together with this new process for its enrichment. South Africa should therefore be very well placed for the future if and when the potential for this type of material is realized. I should also like to sound a note of warning along the lines of that made by the hon. member on my right. In the goldmining industry and certain other industries we have been waiting a long time for the day of uranium to come, and therefore the present projection in that respect, which I have heard many times over the last ten years, cannot be taken for granted. In view of the very large sums of capital which will be involved, I think it is also sensible that the risk should be spread among partners. Against this background it would really be too much for one single country to bear. It will also have the advantages, that we shall both be able to acquire know-how overseas, and I would assume, sell it to other parties. Finally, quite apart from the advantages of spreading the risk when the sums of money are so large, it will give us an advantage in the market place which is what will count. The United States of America, as hon. members will be aware, has always insisted that their supply should be delivered solely to those who wish to take it for a considerable number of years, which appears to be in contrast with their anti-trust laws. We shall be in an advantageous position to compete. For all these reasons, we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, all that remains for me to do is to thank the hon. members for Von Brandis, Brakpan and Johannesburg North very sincerely for the contributions they made here, and the Opposition especially for the support they have given to this important Bill. I want to assure hon. members that it is very sincerely appreciated.

Then I want to explain that in regard to the dangers attached to enriched uranium installations, which became a point of conjecture as a result of a newspaper article, I saw fit to issue a statement right at the outset of the discussion of these three Bills. It could be argued that it was in fact more relevant to the next Bill on the Order Paper, but I would be able to advance equally good arguments that it was as relevant to the first Bill. That is why I considered that that statement should be made right at the outset. The hon. member may in fact discuss it under the other Bills, if he would rather do it in that way.

Thirdly I also want to discuss the matters which were debated at that time, to which the hon. member for Von Brandis also referred when he used the expression “I told you so”. Under those circumstances it was deemed to be in the interests of South Africa to deal with the matter as it was dealt with at the time. We found ourselves at the start of a new process. The development which has now taken place, was not clearly forseeable at that time. Naturally the matter had to be handled very carefully. Therefore the Government at that stage, I still believe, was correct in its opinion that the State should accept the responsibility for financing, security and all related matters. Bur gradually the development took place as I have sketched it here and to which other members have also made contributions. One is grateful that we have now reached the point where all of us in the country have achieved unanimity concerning the modus operandi which is now being embodied in this Bill. Actually I am only emphasizing once again that, if we proceed carefully, even if we do differ a little initially in respect of modus operandi, time tells all of us in this country what the correct thing is to do. In that way we reach a consensus. Perhaps one could learn a lesson from this, in other spheres as well. But I want to thank the hon. member very sincerely for his support.

Lastly I want to say that I share their view that there will certainly be an increase in future in the demand for uranium. In this regard I want to say that a considerable degree of prospecting in this sphere is at present taking place in South Africa and South-West Africa. As far as uranium ore is concerned, we are therefore doing everything in our power, very circumspectly, to contribute South Africa’s part in respect of this work as much as possible, since we know that there will be a steady increase in the demand, especially after 1980.

With these words I once again want to thank the hon. members very sincerely. It is very pleasant for one to be able to pilot such a Bill so unanimously through the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Before proceeding to an explanation of the more extensive statutory amendments envisaged in clause 2 of the Bill, I just want to refer briefly to clause 1, in which, as hon. members would have noticed, only a minor amendment to section 2(2) of the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Security) Act, 1963, is being effected. As I shall indicate, however, this proposed amendment is necessary since it is closely connected with the amendment effected to the Uranium Enrichment Act, 1970, by the Bill which has just been piloted through all its stages here and of which the House has already taken cognizance.

Section 2 of the Act contains a series of provisions in connection with the licensing of sites used for nuclear installations—a defined term—and for certain other purposes, and in this regard subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) provides that no person other than the Atomic Energy Board shall use any site, whether or not it is a licensed site, for any treatment of fissionable material to increase the concentration of the fissionable component contained therein, except under the authority of a licence granted by the board. The activities referred to here naturally include the enrichment of uranium, and paragraph (b) of the same subsection then goes on to provide that the board shall grant such a licence, i.e. inter alia for the enrichment of uranium by a person other than the board itself, only for purposes of research or development. This restriction is actually inconsistent with the Government’s plans with regard to the large-scale enrichment of uranium in the Republic and to involve private organizations in this regard. The amendment appearing in the Bill before us is merely consequential to those that have just been effected by the Uranium Enrichment Amendment Bill.

it is for this reason that subparagraph (ii), to which I referred, is being deleted. I just want to point that this deletion will not mean that sites on which uranium enrichment plants are constructed need not be licensed, but will have the effect that the ordinary licensing provisions contained in subsection (1) of the section will in fact apply to such sites.

As was the position in the case of the Uranium Enrichment Amendment Bill, the proposed statutory amendment which I have just dealt with is being put into operation with retrospective effect as from 1 August 1973 in order to legalize certain actions that have taken place since then with regard to the enrichment of uranium. Now I come to clause 2. Visits by nuclear-powered ships to the ports and territorial waters of the Republic, are at present regulated by the provisions of section 12A of the Act. Under that section the Minister of Mines may, after consultation with the Minister of Finance, from time to time determine the conditions (including those relating to the liability for nuclear damage, security therefor and the manner of dealing with such security) under which any nuclear-powered vessel registered outside the Republic may enter the territorial waters of the Republic or call at any port within the Republic.

However, it has recently become clear that international agreements concerning such visits may be necessary, especially in order to obtain the guarantee that the government of the country in which the vessel in question is registered will give the owner or operator of the vessel the necessary support to fulfil his financial obligation in respect of nuclear damage in the event of a nuclear incident. In the present wording of section 12A no provision is made for such international agreements.

† It has also become apparent that the present wording of section 12A, although originally drafted with the intention of providing adequate coverage, does not actually permit limitations, such as are inherently present where there is an international agreement of the Minister’s freedom of action to determine or amend, at any time, conditions relating to visits by nuclear-powered ships. Nor does the present wording provide specifically for any limitation of liability on the part of the owner or operator of such a vessel in respect of compensation in the event of an accident, although such limitation was certainly intended, and is provided for elsewhere in the Act in relation to all other nuclear installations.

The said deficiencies in section 12A were revealed in the course of negotiations with the German Government in connection with the formulation of an agreement concerning the proposed visit to South African harbours of the nuclear-powered cargo liner Otto Hahn.

*In the light of the advanced stage which the negotiations had reached earlier this year, the German Government requested the South African Government to give consideration to the first visit by the Otto Hahn taking place in September this year. Consequently it was necessary to undertake that section 12A of the Act would be amended so that negotiations with the German Government might be taken further. Earlier this year the Cabinet agreed in principle to the proposed amendments to section 12A, and the agreement I have referred to was concluded with the German Government on 1 August 1974. It was my privilege to dine this afternoon with the captain and some of the members of the staff and the crew of the Otto Hahn, and they expressed their thanks to the South African Government for the way in which this matter was handled and for the fact that it was possible to reach the agreement in this regard with the German Government.

† In formulating the revised text of section 12A in order to obviate the difficulties I I have referred to, care has also been taken to set out more clearly the scope and intention of all the various provisions embodied therein. The salient aspects of the proposed amendment are the following:

Nuclear-powered ships are prohibited from anchoring or sojourning in the Republic’s territorial waters or from entering any port of the Republic, except under the authority of a licence granted by the Atomic Energy Board. In so far as entry into the territorial waters is concerned, the prohibition is limited to entry for the purpose of calling at a South African port and this limitation preserves any right of innocent passage that a vessel may have under international law.

It is provided that the licence granted shall be subject to such conditions relating to liability for nuclear damage, security therefor and the manner of dealing with such security as the Minister of Mines may determine from time to time after consultation with the Minister of Finance and to such conditions as the Atomic Energy Board may deem necessary or desirable in the interest of health and safety and, in the case of a vessel registered outside the Republic, to the terms of any agreement between the Government and the Government of the country in which the vessel in question is registered.

*The provisions of the Bill therefore enable the Government to attribute the liability to the licensee even if he is not to blame for such damage, and to limit or preclude any responsibility on the part of the licensee for such damage in relevant circumstances. This is consistent with the provisions of section 5 of the Act relating to a licence holder in respect of a nuclear site. The powers of the Minister of Mines with regard to the conditions concerning security for nuclear damage are being set out in greater detail than was the case before, and, in addition, he is being authorized to lay down, in respect of claims for compensation which may arise from such damage, periods of prescription different from those laid down in the Prescription Act.

It is also being provided that the Minister of Mines may, after consultation with the Minister of Finance, charge fees in respect of a licence.

The procedure which is to be followed in the case of a nuclear incident on a licensed site, and which is contained in section 7 of the Act, is also being applied to any nuclear incident which may take place on, or in connection with, a nuclear ship.

Furthermore, the existing provisions of section 8 of the Act, which contains special provisions with regard to possible instances where the nuclear damage caused by a nuclear incident on a licensed nuclear site exceeds the amount of the security provided by the licensee, are also being made applicable to a similar situation which may arise in connection with nuclear damage caused by a nuclear vessel. In such cases it will in fact be possible to approach Parliament for the appropriation of funds so that the State may render financial assistance to the extent to which the security falls short.

† An inspector of the Atomic Energy Board will, in respect of a nuclear vessel, have the powers conferred on him by section 10 of the Act in respect of a licensed nuclear site, although the terms of any applicable international agreement will take precedence over this particular provision.

As regards difficulties which may arise where the conditions of a licence or the terms of an international agreement are in conflict with local harbour regulations, the harbour authority is empowered to waive or vary any such regulation in favour of those conditions or the terms in question.

Finally, the Bill provides penal sanctions for contravention of certain of the proposed provisions.

*As I have already mentioned, the Otto Hahn is visiting South Africa at present and it will also call at other ports. Therefore, in order to legalize certain provisions of the agreement with the German Government, it is necessary to put the amendments to section 12(a) of the Act into operation with retrospective effect as from a date just before the one on which that agreement was concluded. It may just be added that this agreement will also hold good for possible later visits by the Otto Hahn, and we want to express the hope that this first visit by such a nuclear-powered ship will most certainly not be the last one. I do believe that this will be the case.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reassure the hon. the Minister that once again we shall not oppose this Bill and we shall co-operate with him in inaugurating this first visit by a nuclear-propelled ship with appropriate legislation. It is quite clear from what the hon. the Minister has said—we agree with him—that there is a case and a need for us to dispense with certain previous legislation for the licensing of certain sites. This arises, as the hon. the Minister has explained, from what may be termed a proliferation of the activities of the Atomic Energy Board and there obviously is no need for licensing inter se to be carried out within this proliferation. There is also clearly a need to provide for licensing nuclear vessels which may enter our ports. There is a very strong likelihood that the number of nuclear vessels built for both peaceful and naval purposes will increase steadily and it is right that we should have appropriate legislation to provide against the liabilities which will arise in the case of visits by such vessels.

I said earlier that I would find this particular debate an appropriate one to say something about the question of radio-active hazards. I believe it is appropriate because we are dealing here with the licensing of certain nuclear installations. There is a very profound fear in the public mind that the increase of such nuclear installations may lead to certain public dangers. I believe it is important that these dangers, such as they are, should be clearly understood and that those parts of them which are mythical, should also be understood for what they are. Public anxiety about these matters tends, of course, to be disproportionate to the dangers which really exist. There are certain dangers; they are scientifically identifiable and I shall deal with these in a little while.

We recently witnessed in the United States of America the growth of what can only be described as a phobia about nuclear energy. For some years nuclear power stations had been built and had operated safely and successfully. The minor industrial incidents which arose, accompanied in one or two cases by radio-active leakages, were apparently used by the environmentalists—to whom all honour otherwise—for a series of exaggerated accounts of what the potential dangers of nuclear energy might be. The effect of this was that at the time when nuclear development in the United States of America was in fact badly needed to increase the energy production of that country, every licence for a nuclear power station was for a period of some two or three or four years blocked by opposition against the granting of these licences, with the eventual effect that there was a grave shortage of electricity in the United States. It was impossible for a number of the major power companies which had planned these developments, to proceed with their plans. In one or two cases they abandoned their projects altogether and in other cases they were obliged to switch their nuclear projects back to coal or other conventional forms, which in practice cause a great deal more pollution than nuclear energy power stations.

Inquiries have been made as to why precisely people have this disproportionate fear of nuclear power. On the basis of a large number of inquiries these have been found, firstly, to be what one may almost describe as a subconscious or primitive fear, i.e. that nuclear power stations are believed to be built in deep caverns. They are supposed to exist in caves. These caves, through the mythology, are associated in the child-like mind with ogres which live in such caverns. There is believed to be a honeycombing effect underground and the gradual growth of some enormous volcanic or explosive potential which may blow up at a certain stage. It sounds extraordinary that there should be such a belief, but this has nevertheless been found to be the case.

Then there is the question of radio-activity. Radio-activity is something which does exist. In the popular mind, particularly in relation to nuclear power stations, it is believed to be something which seeps out like a slow poison from nuclear power stations. This seeping poison is believed to get into the sky, to rain down on to grass, to be eaten by cows which produce milk. This milk is drunk by babies who will then either become sterile or will turn out to be monsters. This is one aspect of the belief. There is another one which goes along much the same lines. It is believed, namely, that radioactive substances get in the clouds from where they fall into the rivers or the sea. The fish eat the radio-active substances, we eat the fish and, once again, we are rendered sterile.

Is this the truth?

This belief has of course some element of truth. If people are exposed to radio activity in massive doses these things could happen. If there were massive leaks of radio activity, these very things could happen. I think the first thing we have to get used to is that radio activity is not a new phenomenon that has developed since nuclear power was invented. Radio activity has, in fact, been with us since the world began. It is emitted by the sun; it comes to us from cosmic space; it exists in the earth around us, and in the stones under our feet. Radio activity is in our bodies; it came into our bodies and into our bones through the food we eat, long before nuclear power was ever invented. There are other artificial forms of radio activity which are induced and I would like to give the proportions so that one may see precisely what the relative dangers are. Natural radio activity is absorbed per annum per person on the following basis: About 50 millirems from outer space, about 50 from earthly bodies, terrestrial substances, about 25 is contained in the human body itself and is emitted by the human body. If we have an X-ray we are subjected to 50 millirems. If we listen to television we absorb 10 on average in a year. If we wear a luminous watch, we absorb 2. If you take all the radio activity from all the nuclear power stations in existence and all the fall-out of all the bombs that were ever exploded, the total will be approximately 2 millirems.

There are people who argue that if there is so much radio activity about, why add to it, but the fact is that these quantities are averages and that there are areas, locations and altitudes on earth where they go very much higher than that and some other places where they go very much lower. There is a wide degree of tolerance and all these quantities are relatively small when we are thinking in terms such as mutations, sterility, and so on. These are minimal doses: we all live with them and they make no difference whatsoever to our health.

The last thought which is very current in the public mind is that a nuclear power station is a kind of bomb and that if it gets slightly out of control, the thing will blow up in your face. It is not very easy to create a sustained nuclear reaction. It takes very skilful engineering to create the precise conditions in which either a bomb or a nuclear power station can be made to perform this nuclear reaction. The conditions under which they do perform are entirely different, because they are doing two entirely different things. Without boring the House with a great deal of technical detail, if you have a nuclear power station and if you were to bring to it first-class nuclear scientists and were to say to them “use all your skills with no limit on money and try to convert this nuclear power station into a bomb”, this would be quite impossible for them to do. The only way they could turn a nuclear power station into a bomb would be to break it down to the ground, extract the uranium, re-treat it and then start all over again from the beginning. This is as close as a nuclear power station is to a bomb.

I think it is necessary to say all these things, because if a fear grows up in the public mind that nuclear installations are a danger to the public, a physical danger or a danger to our health, there will develop a resistance and this will in fact do harm to the need to produce in South Africa a form of energy which is both clean and efficient and one that can add much to the standard of life in South Africa.

It is therefore necessary to get these things in proportion. I believe that the Government and the Atomic Energy Board as well as many others have a role to play. I believe that when decisions are taken to install nuclear installations in South Africa it is important that these decisions should be taken by the public itself and with the co-operation of the public. These things should be created on request, because there is a public demand for clean power stations. If a city feels that it has a smoky power station, a power station that is polluting the air, and the citizens themselves demand to have a clean power station, a power station that is not polluting the air, there will obviously be no public fear or no public indignation. If, on the other hand, the decision to create a nuclear power station is taken at high level, apparently by some wise mandarin sitting in a tall tower without any co-operation or consultation with the public, the public will feel that something dangerous is being done in this tall tower and that they had better watch out. I believe it is very largely a matter of confidence, a matter of public relations, and I believe that if we are to avoid the difficulties that have plagued some other countries in the production of nuclear power, we would do well to take heed of the warnings.

I would however add that it would be idle to deny that there are certain dangers. There is a degree of radio activity which, in the event of an industrial mishap, due to faulty engineering, could in fact lead to an increase in radio activity which might be harmful. For this reason nuclear power stations are engineered to the very highest standards of safety and they have the lowest accident rate of any industry in the world. The hon. the Minister has rightly pointed out the very high record of industrial safety that has been the consequence of this careful engineering which has necessarily been used in the building of nuclear power stations. I believe that the other dangers ...

You are really inciting me.

Order!

I believe that the other dangers are also of a kind which will have to be calculated very carefully. The major danger is really the question of spent fuel. Spent fuel is highly radio active and is taken out of nuclear power reactors in conditions of great safety and then it is treated in a particular manner. However, the difficulty is always that it has to be buried somewhere or put away somewhere where it can do no harm. This is a major problem and it is under examination by the scientists. One hopes that entirely adequate solutions will be found. One cannot say that there is yet complete satisfaction about the eventual disposal of spent fuel, but this again is a matter on which any parliament must be prepared to satisfy itself when it looks at a Bill such as this or when investigations and plans are being made for the installation of nuclear power in one’s country.

Having said all that, I want to refer to just one matter.

Oh, please!

Yes, I can see that members on that side of the House are neither aware of nor interested in the significance of nuclear power and promise them I shall not hold their short attention very much longer.

It is a fact that nuclear ships also use nuclear fuel, and there have been times in the past when ordinary vessels, not nuclear vessels, have in fact jettisoned spent fuel at sea. This is a practice which is now frowned upon internationally and which one hopes will not happen again. We have in this country an anti-pollution Act which was passed a couple of years ago. This Act makes provision for the prevention of pollution of the sea by oil. There is no provision in that Act prohibiting the jettisoning of nuclear waste.

I believe this is a very dangerous kind of pollution and there is always the possibility that ships in our waters may use the opportunity of being remote from their home bases to get rid of this material. I believe that we should perhaps look at the possibility of making some legislative provision for control over this possibility. It has nothing to do with nuclear ships as such or with this particular Nuclear Installations Amendment Bill, because the nuclear ships which come to our ports are incapable of jettisoning their own spent fuel. This is a highly complex matter. The spent fuel must be taken out at their own home ports. Therefore there is no question of the Otto Hahn pumping out its nuclear waste into a harbour. It cannot be done. However, ordinary fishing vessels or trawlers could well use the opportunity of coming around our coasts to dispose of this waste.

Having tried the patience of hon. members on that side to the utmost, I shall conclude by merely saying that we shall raise no objection to this Bill. In fact, we shall give it our support at the Second Reading and other stages.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Von Brandis and found it very interesting. It was a special contribution which he made on the effects and especially the phobias which develop as a result of nuclear-energy development, atomic explosions and similar things. It must be clear to us that those phobias have their origin in the atomic explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I myself paid visits to the sites in question, and, since it is still possible for one to see the effects of those explosions, one cannot blame people for still being sensitive about anything which is strange at the moment. Life simply is like that. I believe that when Stephenson developed steam power and the first old steam train ran, quite a fuss was made in the British Empire and an explosion nearly took place. The people thought: Here we now have a monster from another world. It is possible that, as a result, legislation was also introduced in that regard at the time.

I think that this Bill which is before the House today is a very important one, because it coincides with the visit of the Otto Hahn and also because it represents a further development. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Finance is not here, for I should like to read, in his honour, what he said in 1963 when he introduced the original Act. He said (Hansard, Vol. 6, column 4366)—

What does it embrace? One cannot say that it is safe. One cannot say that there will never be an explosion or that nothing harmful will ever happen. We must therefore thank the Government for its farsightedness in that it is already taking certain steps at this early stage, where we are only at the beginning of this development. Here one must add that financial compensation, an aspect I shall not go into, can never make up for loss suffered as a result of such incidents. Nevertheless, we appreciate the fact that the financial aspect is such that the persons involved in nuclear installations or nuclear-powered ships have to pay such a sum of money that every humanly possible safety measure may be taken. We are thinking today not only of what happened in the past, but also of future developments in this field. Driving along the freeway by bus this morning, we passed the Otto Hahn. That sets one thinking that within five or ten years the hon. member for Durban Point and I will possibly be driven here from Acacia Park in the same nuclear-powered bus or train. This is a possibility. Adjustments would then have to be made again. Nuclear-powered aircraft, too, are perhaps being considered at the moment. That is why we are very pleased that the hon. the Minister is introducing this Bill at this early stage, and we take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. I want to express my thanks to the hon. members for Brakpan and Von Brandis and to the Opposition for the support they have given this Bill. In particular I want to express my thanks for the contributions made in connection with the so-called dangers, highly exaggerated dangers, which are supposedly attached to nuclear installations. In this regard it is to the Opposition in particular that I want to express my thanks. It is necessary for this matter to be placed in perspective. It is completely unnecessary for the public to be taken on tow by sensational reports in this regard. To my mind there is as good a possibility of an hon. member breaking a leg in this House as there is of dangers being attached to nuclear power stations! I have already pointed out to hon. members, and I want to content myself with this, that the Atomic Energy Board is giving us the assurance that the dangers attaching to nuclear installations are between ten and a hundred times smaller than the average life expectancy risk attached to air transport, the safest mode of transport. For that reason I want to make an appeal not only to newspapers, but also to all organizations which have the slightest interest in this matter, to contact our experts first, i.e. before passing judgment on this matter, and to obtain the necessary facts from this source in order that they may make knowledgeable and perceptive contributions in this regard.

There is a last point I want to make. The hon. member rightly referred to the importance of the question of spent fuel.

† He was referring to spent fuel in connection with nuclear installations and all that goes with it. I can assure the hon. member that I have already asked the Atomic Energy Board through its chairman to go into the question of pollution and to inform me whether they consider it in the least necessary that special provision should be made for that eventuality in the Pollution Act so that we will be in the position to reassure the public in regard to the question of spent fuel.

I hereby wish to express my thanks once again for the unanimous support for this Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This is a very minor amendment. The minor addition which is being effected by the Bill to section 7(l)(e) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1967 is so slight that I need not take up a great deal of the time of this House in dealing with that.

I just want to say in brief that with a view to implementing the plans for the enrichment of uranium in the Republic, we are proceeding at the present time to streamlining the relevant existing legislaby means of the Uranium Enrichment Amendment Bill and clause 1 of the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Security) Amendment Bill, both of which have just been dealt with in this House. The proposed insertion of the words “or dispose of” in section 7(l)(e) of the Atomic Energy Act arises from this and links up with this.

† The special nuclear material, referred to in section 7(l)(e), is a defined term which includes enriched uranium and the addition of the words “or dispose of”, which has been requested by the Atomic Energy Board, will mean in effect that no person will lawfully be able to dispose of special nuclear material except with the written authority of the Minister of Mines, and this also applies within the borders of the Republic. That is all there is to this Bill.

*Because this minor amendment links up with the amendments envisaged in the other two Bills, the proposed amendment, for the sake of uniformity, is also being put into operation with retrospective effect as from 1 August 1973.

Mr. Speaker, in the case of this Bill we are also happy to agree to the Second Reading and the further stages. As the Bill indicates, the provision relates to special nuclear material, which is not ordinary uranium as disposed of in the world markets by private enterprise and in South Africa by the Nuclear Fuels Corporation. It is special nuclear material, which has a high degree of radio activity, is fissile and can be used only for certain specified purposes. This being so, we think it right and appropriate that the Atomic Energy Board itself should have that material at its disposal. We support the Bill and will not oppose any stage of it.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the hon. member and the official Opposition for their support of this Bill. I must say, I think it is a long time since three Bills in succession have gone through this House with the approval of the entire House. I wish I had the support which I had here this afternoon in relation to these matters, in matters relating to sport!

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In contrast with White railway servants, non-White railway workers do not have any contributory pension scheme. However, the provisions of the Railways and Harbours Pensions Amendment Act, 1941 (Act No. 26 of 1941), do make provision for the payment of gratuities and annuities to non-White servants upon retirement. The benefits payable in terms of this Act are not considerable, and are financed from revenue funds; no contributions are made by the servants in question.

Representations have from time to time been made on behalf of Bantu and Coloured servants for the improvement of the existing benefits. To supplement the benefits which may accrue to non-White servants in terms of Act No. 26 of 1941 upon retirement, a Compulsory Savings Fund was established for Coloureds in the employ of the Railways with effect from January 1965, and for Bantu and Indians with effect from April 1969. Contributions to the Savings Fund were initially composed of 1½ % of the basic remuneration of these servants, but were later increased to 2½ %. However, the Fund does not make provision for the payment of pensions—upon leaving the service the contributions are merely paid back with interest.

A contributory pension fund already exists for non-Whites in the Public Service and for those in the employ of the Provincial Administrations. Bearing in mind that the Railways Administration also had an obligation to its non-White employees in this respect, it was decided to establish a similar fund for non-White railway servants. The object of this Bill is to make provision for this. All non-White railway servants with the exception of foreign Bantu and intermittent casual or togt labourers will be admitted to membership of the Pension Fund. As hon. members probably know, foreign Bantu are for the most part employed on a contract basis for specific periods of time, after which they return to their countries of origin, and the opinion is held that payment of pensions in foreign territories will present substantial problems. Intermittent casual or togt labourers working at the harbours are from the nature of the case employed on a day-to-day basis, which will present tremendous problems with regard to the recovery of pension contributions from such servants. Under the circumstances it is regarded as undesirable to include foreign Bantu and intermittent casual or togt labourers in the scheme.

The benefits which will be payable from the Pension Fund will be considerably better than both those which are being paid at present in terms of Act No. 26 of 1941 and those which the Compulsory Savings Fund offers to members. The establishment of the Pension Fund, with its increased benefits, makes contributions to the Compulsory Savings Fund redundant, and with effect from the date of commencement of the Pension Fund contributions to the Savings Fund will no longer be recovered from participants. The Savings Fund will therefore gradually cease to operate, but the contributions by members, which are in the possession of the Railways Administration when the Pension Fund is established will, together with interest and in accordance with existing instructions, be repaid to servants when they leave the service. Upon the death of servants contributions plus interest will be paid over to their dependants.

Membership of the Pension Fund will, inter alia, be subject to a qualifying period of service of five years and the acquisition of satisfactory certificates of health in the case of non-Whites who, at the time of the establishment of the Fund had had more than five but less than 10 years’ service; after the establishment of the Fund, all servants qualifying for membership will undergo medical examinations. Servants who had, upon the commencement of the scheme, completed ten or more years’ uninterrupted service, and who are not older than 60 years, will, however, be admitted to membership without any need for them to undergo a medical examination. The qualifying period of five years’ uninterrupted service, which is being set as a requirement for admission to the Pension Fund, is based on the fact the greatest labour turnover occurs among non-White servants who have completed less than five years’ service. In the initial years of the existence of the Fund, therefore, cases of servants who leave the service will not have to be processed, resulting in a considerable reduction in administrative work, particularly with regard to the repayment of contributions to servants who abscond or resign. The object of a pension fund is in any case to meet the needs of servants who leave the service after they have rendered years of loyal service, and not for the convenience of “migrant labour” which, from the point of view of a pension fund, is a burden. The qualifying period of five years is in any case in accordance with the line of action which is being adopted in respect of admission to the Pension Fund for non-Whites in the Public Service. It is expected that as servants become aware of the benefits offered by membership of a pension fund, they will remain in the service for longer periods. The indications are that approximately 67 500 servants will from the outset qualify to join the Contributory Pension Fund for non-Whites in the Railway service.

The contributions of servants to the Pension Fund will be based on 4½ % of the basic remuneration, and the department’s contributions will be made on a rand-for-rand basis.

In accordance with the policy which is being adopted in respect of the Superannuation Fund for White railway servants, investments in the Pension Fund for non-White servants will be invested with the Public Debt Commissioners and the actual interest earned from year to year on such investments will be credited to the fund.

The pension fund will naturally have to be established without any capital, but the department will guarantee its solvency in case expenditure is for some unforeseen reason or other in excess of the income.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome this measure. It is a step that has often been discussed in the past. It is also a Bill we can support to the fullest extent. If there is any criticism from our side, it is that we have had to wait for this Bill for such a long time, for a deficiency exists here in the conditions of service of non-White Railway workers. We have felt for a long time that this deficiency exists.

For the most part this is an enabling Bill in the sense that the administering of the scheme will be done by regulation. The contributions are not laid down by law. Payments out of the fund are not laid down by law either. In other words, the entire operation of the scheme is effected by regulation. We acknowledge that, since changes have to be effected constantly from year to year, in respect of either the contributions or the payments, it is easier to control a fund of this nature by regulation.

However, we want to put a few questions in connection with the ideas put forward by the hon. the Deputy Minister in respect of the regulations which will be made. Take, for example, clauses 10 and 11. Clause 10 lays down that the pension fund as such shall be appraised every five years by an actuary appointed by the Minister. As soon as one speaks of an actuary in connection with a pension fund, one thinks of the funds which are already in existence, such as the superannuation fund, in which we have more than R600 million at present. This is a fund which is continually increasing, for the actuary has to determine how much money will be required if all the workers employed should suddenly resign from the service on the same day. That could only happen if South Africa should suddenly be struck by a catastrophe. In that case these pensions would not help in any event. It is therefore unnecessary to plan for a situation where everyone will have to be paid out at one point of time. That is probably why clause 11 provides that the economic basis should be determined with a view to a realistic growth rate. Could the hon. the Minister possibly give us more information on what he considers to be a realistic growth rate, and to what extent he believes the fund will have to grow before contributions can be limited? I do not think it will be a healthy state of affairs if we allow this fund to grow as the superannuation fund has done.

Then there is also the question of inflation which affects every pension fund. A person retiring at present receives a pension sufficient to live on at this stage, but in five or ten years’ time, with the depreciation of money, that person will no longer be able to manage on that money. This is characteristic of all pension schemes. That is why insurance companies offer policies making provision for the depreciation of money. I have often wondered whether we, too, should not think along those lines as far as our pension funds are concerned. At present the Railways add 2% per annum in respect of White pensioners, but 2% per annum does not help if there is a rate of inflation of 10% or 12%. I think we should bear that problem in mind. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to tell us what his views are on that matter.

Provision is being made for a joint committee. The membership is not defined in the Bill. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether provision will be made in that joint committee for non-White representatives who will represent their own group interests on the committee.

The last point I wish to make, is that if we look at the wage-scales of non-Whites in the Railways, we find that 13 462 Coloureds are earning less than R100 per month. This also applies in respect of more than 104 000 Bantu and 700 Asians. In other words, approximately 118 000 non-White workers are earning less than R100 per month. If one should suddenly deduct a contribution to a pension fund from the monthly salaries of those people, they would feel the difference. Persons with a higher income would not feel it to the same extent and would not object as strongly. For a person who barely manages to stay alive, even a few rand less will make a great difference. As the hon. the Minister will know, there is also a feeling prevalent among the less developed people that if their wages are decreased, they are being robbed. They do not understand deductions. I want to ask whether we cannot consider, when the first contribution is made, timing that first contribution so that it coincides with an increase in wages; in other words, ensuring that there will not be a wage reduction resulting in a reaction against this scheme, whereas we want a reaction in favour of the scheme. As I view the matter, this objective can best be achieved by making the first deduction coincide with wage increases. With those few ideas and questions I am pleased to lend the support of this side of the House to this Bill and to welcome it in the interests of the workers who stand to benefit by it.

Mr. Speaker, the name “Witwatersberg” is pronounced so beautifully and roundly that I am sure you will permit me to make a few comments on it, particularly since this is the first time I have risen here, by your leave, to represent this constituency in this House. This is a very interesting constituency. I must just add that it is in my nature to feel attracted to constituencies with small majorities.

The hon. member need not make a maiden speech.

No, Mr. Speaker, I have merely asked your leave to make a single comment in connection with the new constituency; not to make a maiden speech. This constituency is exceptional in the sense that it is the only constituency in our political history where an equality of votes was recorded on a national level during a national election. That was in the year 1921. Six months later when, in accordance with our Constitution, a re-election was held, the N.P. beat the U.P. by 64 votes. When the United Party suggested during the latest election that there was a possibility of a scant majority of 250 votes being recorded in a certain constituency, I decided that they meant my constituency. I was fortunate enough to have been able to increase that tenfold. That is why they are rather touchy when they hear the word “Witwatersberg”.

In order to react to the hon. member for Durban Point in regard to the commencement of this proposed pension scheme, I just want to tell him I presume the idea is that this fund will not be put into operation before we come to another salary adjustment, so that the contribution will not be lower than it is at present, since it might otherwise create the wrong psychological effect with our non-White employees. The other problems he mentioned, i.e. the dangers of inflation and of sudden collapses, we confidently may also leave to the Administration, for we also have the undertaking from the Administration that it will from time to time ensure that the development and growth of this Fund takes place in a healthy manner.

We on this side of the House should like to assure the hon. the Deputy Minister of our hearty support for his motion as we are convinced that we are dealing here with a very progressive idea which will have the logical and inevitable result that we shall have a smaller turnover in the labour market, promote greater security for our non-Whites in this industry and also provide security for their dependants. I think this is a guarantee and a form of insurance which must and will have the inevitable result that we shall have a much smaller turnover of labour and, as a consequence, also promote better training, increased productivity and production as far as our non-White employees in the Railways are concerned. We also appreciate the fact that in this case we have the assurance that it will commence on the basis of 4½ % of the basic salary, whereas it was only 2½% under the old savings scheme, with the added advantage that the Administration will contribute on a rand for rand basis. The benefit to the employee will therefore be far greater than it has been up to the present, apart from the other additional benefits of improved security and insurance for both the employee and his dependants.

With these few words I should like to support the hon. the Deputy Minister in the introduction of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear that the Bill before us has been put forward in a progressive spirit, as the hon. member for Witwatersberg has said, because we, in these benches, believe that this is a very progressive measure indeed. We are very pleased indeed to see it coming on to our Statute Book. It is definitely a step in the right direction. We certainly hope that this is the forerunner of many similar measures for non-White people right through the Public Service.

There are certain matters of detail on which we have minor criticisms. This is just an enabling measure in terms of which regulations are to be drawn up at a later stage. When the regulations are drawn up, there is one principle which we should like to see established in connection with contributions. A rand-for-rand basis is all very well when wages and salaries are fairly high, but we should like to suggest for consideration that in the case of non-White people the Railway Administration might do just a little better than rand-for-rand contributions.

We are very glad indeed to hear that the take-home pay will not be affected and that contributions will not be deducted from the employees’ salaries until wage increases have come about, increases which will ensure that the take-home pay does not decrease. I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point that it would give a very bad image indeed to such a scheme if on its commencement workers have less in their pay-packets to take home.

Another minor criticism is that it is completely at the discretion of the Minister, in consultation with the Railway Board, to frame the regulations in connection with the groups of personnel who may become members of the scheme. We hope that these regulations will embody, as a matter of principle, that all permanent employees will be eligible for membership and that it will not be restricted to those who have been continually in service for five years. Should continuous service for any long period be a yardstick for eligibility, we would hope that, at any rate, contract labourers would be regarded as having been continually in the employ of the Railway Administration. We would certainly urge upon the hon. the Deputy Minister that the period should be less than five years.

There is one final comment. We regard the fact that no percentage of the money in the fund can be invested in equities giving a reasonable rate of return, as being regrettable. The percentage return on the investment available to the Public Debt Commissioners does not allow very much at all; in fact, it does not in any way compensate for the decrease in the value of money as a result of inflation. As a general principle we should like to see that a more liberal investment policy be followed by pension funds.

However, all in all the subject of this Bill has our wholehearted support. We believe that every employee, whether in the private or the public sector, should have the opportunity to provide for his future and be assisted by the employer in so doing. We keep up the good record of the House this afternoon in supporting measures put forward by the Government and we give this measure our support.

Mr. Speaker, this is the type of measure which when it comes before the House normally receives the unanimous approval of the House. It is obviously the type of legislation which we on this side of the House welcome in view of the fact that it creates a position whereby another group of persons become entitled to qualify for pension benefits because they belong to a pension fund.

There are aspects of this Bill on which we should like to elicit further information from the hon. the Deputy Minister. When one looks at the history, one sees that some five years ago, in March 1969, a question was put in this House in regard to the pension situation of non-White employees of the Administration and the benefits they could receive. At that stage the Government felt that it was not yet the time to introduce such legislation. Indeed, in reply to the question it was stated that no change was considered justified at that stage. It is a step forward that the position pertaining to the Act of 1941 is now to be abandoned in favour of the contributory scheme which is embodied in this legislation. The situation as it existed under the 1941 Act, provided for amounts to be paid as gratuities up to a certain period, of more than five years, and where persons had completed more than 15 years they were entitled to qualify for an annuity. Under the existing Act no contributions were paid for the person to qualify for such benefits, but in terms of this Bill it is now necessary that contributions must be made. I draw the attention of the House to this important point because previously when amounts were paid, these benefits were paid only to persons who had retired from the railway service upon attaining a certain age or as a result of redundancy, re-organization or permanent ill-health. Therefore you had a situation whereby a person who resigned—this is obviously so if the person absconded—from the railway service did not receive any such benefits from the payment of the railway revenue. By converting this to a contributory scheme, persons who resign could also be entitled to a refund of their contributions. I hope this will not lead to a situation where some persons and employees will tend to resign in order to achieve immediate financial benefits from their refund of contributions.

For that reason I believe it is important that the regulations which will be framed in terms of this Bill will be framed in such a way that the employees themselves will be able to understand them and can become at least conversant with their pension benefit entitlement in terms of those regulations. I believe that every effort should be made by the Administration to see to it that these employees are fully aware of their rights in terms of the regulations which are to be framed as a result of this Bill when it becomes an Act. According to the explanatory memorandum it is obvious that the non-White staff has approached the Administration to have a contributory scheme such as the one we have before us today, instituted. Therefore it is assumed that they will be fully consulted when these regulations are drawn up.

Clause 2(2) provides for the appointment of a joint committee. I hope the hon. the Minister will endeavour to establish the joint committee on a similar basis to the joint and standing committee of the Superannuation Fund of the Railways, on which there is a 50 % representation of the Administration and a 50% representation of the relevant staff association. This is most important in view of the fact that clause 3 which provides for the regulations, sets out virtually the entire scheme. It is noted that these regulations may be amended by the Minister in consultation with the Railway Board. No provision is made that the regulations to be framed under this clause should also be done in consultation with the joint committee. Where all these entitlements are to be provided for in terms of the regulations, it is important that full consultation should take place with the joint committee in order to ascertain that the full benefits and the full effects come about from the amendment of these regulations.

There are other aspects of this Bill which also call for some comment. I should like to refer, for instance, to the benefits and the entitlement of the employees after they have reached a period of five years of continuous employment in the Administration. The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated the basis on which the contributions will be made. He has indicated that every effort will be made to see to it that the fund is actuarially sound in terms of clauses 10 and 11. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give his attention to the aspect of the transferability of persons who came from the employment of either a provincial administration or another recognized pension fund which is administered by the Government—as indicated in this Bill—who wish to join this pension fund.