Mr. Speaker, yesterday I listened with special attention to the speech of the hon. member for Mooi River, because I was aware of the fact that he was one of the active and sympathetic members of the Schlebusch Commission. Besides that I had the opportunity last year to travel with him for a period of nearly two weeks and to associate with him fairly closely. In that time I got to know him fairly well at close quarters. Now I want to say at once that what is to follow is not going to be said in consequence of any revelations which he made concerning either what had happened on the commission, or what had happened in his party. I gained the impression that the hon. member for Mooi River was a man with particularly high values, that he was a man with particular high integrity and that he was a man who felt very strongly about the existing order in South Africa. He feels that his children must grow up correctly, in the good sense of the word, and that their future in this country must be safeguarded. I do not have much time to dwell on his speech, but I want to tell him that I personally found his speech yesterday disappointing. I did not expect such a speech to come from his side. It was very clear to me, because of the manner in which the hon. member presented his speech in this House yesterday, that he was speaking against his own better judgment, that he was speaking with his tongue in his cheek and that he was speaking under the whip of a party. To me it was Bill’s voice, but Japie’s, Harry’s and Helen’s words. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member that if he continues like this, he will bum all his bridges behind him. I shall leave it at that as far as he is concerned.

Sir, I should like to put a few questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in a moment, but before doing so, I want to dwell for a moment on the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I see that he is not present in the Chamber. He was not here yesterday either. He fired a few shots here in the House the evening before last and then took off somewhere. We know the hon. member as a frontbencher of particular prestige, especially with the Press, and with a certain faction in the United Party, and as someone whose words are lapped up by the Progressive Party. We know him as an outspoken person, but I want to put it to him in his absence that on Monday in this House he made a speech dealing with, to quote the words of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, “one of the most important pieces of legislation before this House of Assembly’’, without his having acquainted himself with the contents of that Bill, and without his having read that Bill. I think that it is a horrible blunder for a member of this House to express reckless thoughts here about an aspect of legislation which he has not read.

That is not true. [Interjections.]

What does the hon. member know about him? Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sandton says it is not true that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not read the Bill. I want to tell you, Sir, on what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout based his speech. He based his speech on the editorials of The Cape Times and the Rand Daily Mail, either that or the man who wrote those editorials for them, wrote his speech for him, because he came up with the same sort of nonsense as those newspapers wrote about this Bill. He said, inter alia, that this commission, to be appointed in terms of this Bill, will have the power to punish and to impose fines. Now I want to challenge him or any other hon. member on that side of the House to show us where it says in this Bill that this commission will have any powers of the sort which a supreme court may have, viz. to try, to convict, to impose fines and to pass prison sentences. I say that that hon. member read the Bill incorrectly, either through negligence or on purpose so that he could broadcast to the world a reckless lot of propaganda against South Africa and the National Party Government. What notice can any responsible person take of a frontbencher of the United Party who makes speeches like this?

Mr. Speaker, there are a few serious questions I should like to put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and to which he may reply simply by saying “yes” or “no”.

We know those questions.

The first question I want to put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is whether the members of the United Party who served on the Schlebusch Commission, consulted him before signing the first and second reports of the commission. Did they consult him? Even though it was a confidential commission, I do not think it would have been wrong of them to consult him—their leader. Did the present Minister of Indian Affairs who was at that time the hon. the Leader’s senior man on that commission consult him? Sir, I see that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is just listening to me without answering me. I conclude that they did in fact consult him. I put it to him that they did consult him. I put it to him that they signed the first and second reports with his agreement, with his knowledge and with his approval. Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Did his commissioners consult him when they signed the fourth report of the commission, the Nusas report? I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Did they consult him? I believe, and put it to him, that they consulted him and that they submitted the minority report with his approval.

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a third question, a question which in my opinion is the most important one for the purposes of this debate.

Do you still beat your wife—yes or no?

No, I do not ask such questions; those are UP questions. I want to ask the hon. member for Umhlatuzana or his leader: If, during the coming recess, the State President were to appoint a commission of inquiry into an aspect of internal security in South Africa in terms of the Commissions Act of 1947, and if he wanted to appoint members of the United Party and of the National Party, to that commission, would the Leader of the Opposition have any objections if two, three or four members of his party were to be appointed as members of the commission by the State President? I see that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want to answer this question of mine either. From this I conclude that he will be prepared for members of his party to serve on an ad hoc commission of the State President appointed in terms of the Commissions Act of 1947. He therefore has no objections to this in principle.

This is consistent with the speech which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana made in this House yesterday, because that hon. member said very important things in connection with his party’s attitude towards this commission. He said (Hansard manuscript, p. M.4)—

The hon. member said later on in his speech—

The purport of the United Party’s standpoint, as clearly enunciated in the speech of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, together with the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agreed to the first, second and fourth reports being signed, is that the United Party has no objections in principle to the establishment of a body to keep an eye on internal security.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said more than once in his speech—in point of fact, this was the full purport of his speech—that the issue here was their objection to the machinery. I want to read once again from the speech which the hon. member made yesterday. He said to the hon. the Prime Minister (Hansard manuscript, p. O.4)—

At the end of his speech the hon. member levelled this reproach (Hansard manuscript, p. O.5)—

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for Umhlatuzana: “Is he going to break down what he says is the most desirable principle of bipartisan approach, simply over the question of machinery?”

Yes.

One of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s colleagues says “yes”. In that case I would like to say that if the United Party refuses the Prime Minister’s offer, and our approach to one another breaks down merely on the question of machinery, one is tempted to doubt the sincerity of the United Party’s stand in this matter.

*The hon. the Prime Minister accused the UP of having made a volte face from the standpoint they had adopted in respect of the first and second reports when they came to the fourth report. Why did they do this? They did it for one reason only—because the UP received a shock in 1974 and have not recovered from the trauma as yet. The Progs hurt the UP. The UP was not hurt because it had participated in the commission; it was not hurt by the first and second reports and what followed that either, but because it had allowed the Harry Schwarzes, the Japie Bassons …

And the Helen Suzmans.

No, ex-UPs like the Dallings … to create chaos in his party, and to create discord and confusion amongst the UP supporters. I want to lay it at the door of the UP that because of their being so weak-kneed, we have a lot of Progressives here today, who ought not to be in Parliament. [Interjections.] The only motivation which the UP has for their attitude in respect of this Bill, is that they have their eye on the polls. Instead of supporting this Bill now, they are afraid of completely eliminating the Japie Bassons and others from their ranks and standing up to be counted. [Interjections.] This attitude of the UP is not consistent with its attitude concerning Angola and concerning South Africa’s action on its borders at the present time. The UP agrees with the security measures taken by the Government on the borders of South Africa, but this is because it wants to drink from two cups. It wants to drink from the cup of the leftists and liberals and it also wants to drink from the cup of the mothers and fathers of those young men who are defending our country on the borders.

Because of their standpoint in respect of this matter, the UP casts a serious reflection on their credibility as far as their attitude concerning South Africa’s military action on the borders of our country is concerned. The question arises whether it is not simply political opportunism that they, through the hon. member for Durban Point, adopt such a strong standpoint concerning the defence of South Africa’s borders. The Defence Force on the borders can be as strong as possible, but if the enemy is not completely eliminated in the interior and tackled in its nest, then what has happened to the super-powers in the past few years, will happen to South Africa, and that is that external military operations will collapse. I want to accuse the United Party today of not being prepared or of not having the courage to stand up and to speak for South Africa concerning its internal security as it ostensibly speaks for South Africa concerning the defence of the country to the outside.

Order! The hon. member for Waterkloof must withdraw the word “ostensibly”.

I withdraw the word “ostensibly”, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterkloof in many respects made a very bitter speech. I do not know whether the hon. member is suffering from an inner disappointment, but I wonder whether he realizes how important the subject before this House is and, therefore, whether it befits any hon. member to attack his colleagues in this poisonous, bitter way. I want to …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “poisonous”.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. I want to suggest to the hon. member that he should not express himself in such a manner. That is not all he said either. I do not know whether the hon. member himself is aware of all the things he said.

I know exactly what I said.

Very well then, but I still want to see this. Do you know what the hon. member does? He asks me a question and he refuses to give me an opportunity to reply to it. He asked whether my Leader consulted with the hon. members of the United Party who served on the commission concerning the reports. [Interjections.] “Did the leader consult, or did they consult with him?” he wanted to know. Do you know what the hon. member said? Some of the people who were in the UP at the time, and some of whom are still there today, broke their oath. [Interjections.] But of course, this was a commission in regard to which an oath of secrecy was sworn. [Interjections.] No, wait. The hon. member does not know what he is saying. Who do you think was the leader on our side in the first place? It was the hon. member who is now the Minister of Indian Affairs, of Community Development and of Tourism. Does the hon. member want to imply that he broke his word of honour?

I put a question to your leader.

It is this kind of question which gets us nowhere in a serious debate like this. I could continue, and reply to the questions of the hon. member, but would it really be worthwhile? When he spoke, I asked myself what the hon. member was trying to do, because he had not yet said anything which made the slightest impression upon me or which could possibly have persuaded me to vote for the Bill. He broke into the same refrain which Die Burger states in such a kind manner: “Veiligheid—die VP trek nou kop uit.” With that it is being insinuated that we are running away from State security. I should like to see whether this is true. I think this is a serious statement to make and therefore I want to see whether it is true. To what extent are we running away? I should like us to pause to consider the facts relating to the commission.

The first report appeared and gave prominence to and brought certain findings. One of these findings was that there should be a security commission. These findings were accepted by the United Party. I should like to illustrate the matter in a practical way. Let us accept for practical purposes that the finding was that the hon. the Prime Minister should receive a car. However, the commission did not give him the car immediately, but said they would like to investigate the matter further. They returned at a later stage and said to the Prime Minister that they had, in the first place, wanted to give him a Mercedes. But after considering the matter carefully, they had come to the conclusion that a Mercedes was not the desirable car and that a Cadillac would be better. The Prime Minister could now say to the commission that they changed their minds. This is the first thing he could have said. Let us for argument’s sake accept that the hon. gentleman was correct when he said we had changed our minds. Is this such a great sin? If it was a sin then the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, if he is opposed to one changing one’s mind, ought to be an extremely guilty man in this House. Is it a sin to change one’s mind? Why hold it against a person?

He was consistent in regard to the Act. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister may say he does not want that car, although it is a much better car. However, the hon. the Prime Minister is saying: “If you do not give me that first car, I am going to tell the nation that you do not want to give me a car at all.”

Because we do not want to support the specific instrument embodied in the legislation, we are told: “We are going to tell the nation you are completely opposed to the maintenance of security.” This is very obviously nonsensical. [Interjections.]

Order!

These are nonsensical allegations—and I say this with respect—which are being made here, allegations which make no contribution to the matter at all.

However, there is another question I want to raise. This is also an important question, and I think it should be answered. Why did the United Party serve on the Schlebusch Commission, and why does the United Party now refuse to serve on this commission as embodied in the present Bill.

Tell us!

Why is it now being said that we performed an egg-dance, that we did an about-face? I want to submit to the House that, should I be able to prove that there is a real difference between the then commission and the one which is being envisaged, I believe I have sufficient grounds to be able to say—and to be able to say on a very firm foundation—why I refuse to serve on the present commission. What difference is there between the two? Let us compare them.

Let us hear!

For the time being we leave in abeyance the fact that we were dealing with a Select Committee which subsequently became a Commission. We began with a Select Committee which received its terms of reference from this House. The Parliament of South Africa told that Select Committee what it should do. The Parliament of South Africa told the Select Committee who its members would be. The Parliament of South Africa told that Select Committee to whom it should present its report—Parliament, no one else. It was purely an organ of the South African Parliament—a parliamentary organ. Let us compare this with what we have here. Are we dealing here with a purely parliamentary organ?

Tell us about the Schlebusch Commission.

Here Parliament gives no one terms of reference. Parliament appoints no one. Parliament may not under certain circumstances, receive any report from any person. This is a fundamental difference. The Select Committee becomes a commission. What happens there? The same people who were appointed by Parliament serve on the commission and the commission adheres strictly to the terms of reference given by Parliament.

No, that is not true.

The only difference is …

The State President gives the terms of reference.

Please wait now. The only argument which can now be advanced, is that in the case of a commission, the report is perhaps not tabled. However, it has always been parliamentary practice over the years—in fact, I know of no exception to this rule—that all Select Committees which became commissions, tabled all their reports. All their reports were tabled in Parliament by the hon. the Prime Minister or by the Minister concerned. Therefore in nature and essence the Schlebusch Commission remained a pure parliamentary organ in all respects.

However, are we here dealing here with a parliamentary organ?

The legislation says so, surely.

Yes, but what happens now? In the Schlebusch Commission we had a parliamentary organ, an organ which is subsequently called State President’s commission. Now we have the commission of the State President which is being called a parliamentary organ. This is completely wrong. The fact that members of Parliament serve on a commission, does not make this a parliamentary organ. The question is to whom that commission is responsible, from whom does it receive its terms of reference? Only if I could reply “from Parliament”, would we be able to say that this is a parliamentary organ. But this is certainly not the case in this instance. There is a world of difference between the Schlebusch Commission, which was in essence of a parliamentary nature, and the proposed commission which has absolutely nothing to do with Parliament except that Parliament makes an Act for it and gives it a statute. Sir, this is the difference. It is as plain as a pikestaff. The Schlebusch Commission was in the first place born out of the rules of this House, of Parliament. The proposed commission, Sir, where is it being born? Out of a parliamentary statute, completely different therefore. One was a product of the House of Assembly and the Senate; the one was a product of our Standing Orders and the other is a product of a public Act. This is completely different. That is where the difference lies. There is no similarity whatsoever between the two. And because this is so, I have very definite grounds for my party having had every right to serve on the Schlebusch Commission, and with good consequences, but is not prepared to use this instrument, a completely different instrument.

I should like to put forward another fact, Sir. It is not only a question of what is a parliamentary and what a State instrument. It goes much deeper than that. Let me state my case. The Parliament of South Africa is sovereign and supreme in the country. What does this mean? It simply means that Parliament does not take instructions from anyone. No person gives it instructions. It is Parliament which gives instructions, precisely because it is sovereign. [Interjections.] Yes, through legislation, of course. But what is happening now? Here Parliament is receiving instructions.

From whom?

Parliament is now being told who the members will be who will serve on the commission. [Interjections.] Parliament is now receiving the message that certain hon. members will serve. Parliament simply receives tidings that these will be the terms of reference of the commission. Parliament simply receives tidings that if the hon. the Prime Minister is not satisfied, he may even withhold a report. Parliament is totally excluded from the matter. But the Prime Minister comes here in great earnest and tells us we are dealing with a parliamentary organ. This is completely wrong. Here we are dealing purely with an organ of the executive authority of South Africa. Naturally Parliament has the right to say: “I give you some of my power.” Parliament may do this at any time. But let us be certain of one thing, namely that when we do this, we should know what we are doing. And let us not tell ourselves that we are not tampering with our sovereignty now. Of course we are.

Let me put the matter another way, Sir. Every member of the House of Assembly and every Senator—especially every member of the House of Assembly has a responsibility towards his electorate. Likewise I have a responsibility towards my own voters. But here a commission is now being appointed. I do not know what it is doing. I do not know what it has decided. I do not know what is in the report. I do not know what is stated in it because I am only an ordinary member of Parliament. Now certain steps are taken as a result of its report. Steps are taken as a result of the report of a so-called parliamentary organ. But how can I, in heavens’ name, go to the voters of Maitland and account to them for those steps? I cannot do this because I do not know what is happening. I am completely excluded from the matter. [Interjections.] We can come to that and we argue about it. Here we are dealing with a completely different matter. But then the Prime Minister came here and said he had a good case. He said there should be preventive action in South Africa. He said that between the Police and the courts on the one hand and parliament on the other there was an area in which it was necessary to take preventive action. The Police and the courts are unable to do this. I trust I understood the hon. gentleman correctly. But is it correct that Parliament should fill that vacuum? Is it correct that Parliament should fill that gap between the Police and Parliament? Why is Parliament here? Parliament’s function ends at the gate of Parliament. It extends no further. It is the duty of Parliament to control finance, to consider the problems of South Africa and, if necessary, to place legislation on the Statute Book. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?

Just give me a chance. There our activities end. Should it be necessary to take preventive action, and should Parliament have evidence indicating that this is necessary, it is the duty of this Parliament to make a law in terms of which the executive authority would be placed in a position to take preventive action. The hon. the Prime Minister has many preventive powers. He does not stand totally isolated in the matter. The executive authority is already taking preventive action. It is my standpoint that the activities of Parliament end at the door of Parliament. Parliament dare not go further than that because then it is entering the domain of the executive authority, and this may not be done. Nowhere in the world is this the way it operates. Therefore I say to the hon. the Prime Minister: If he has to adopt preventive measures for the safety of South Africa—and he certainly has grounds for doing so—it is his duty to make out a case for such action in Parliament, and if the case is a good one, Parliament would support the hon. the Prime Minister and the executive authority with legislation in order to take preventive action. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?

No, not now. We are asking the hon. the Prime Minister to give us a Select Committee. Why are we forever at loggerheads with each other while we are all in agreement about State security? Why do we not give the South African Parliament such an organ? Everyone is seeking this. Why do we not turn a Select Committee into a permanent Select Committee which is a parliamentary organ in every sense of the word? [Interjections.] We only have to change the rules of this House and it would be possible. One does not have to place legislation on the Statute Book for that. Not one hon. member has told me what is wrong with a Select Committee. That is what we are seeking.

Is a Select Committee able to sit throughout the year? What about the recess?

No, no one has made out a case yet. All we have are negative and destructive attacks. I have no doubt in my mind that it is going to be proclaimed outside that the United Party is opposed to State security. However, I want to remind my hon. friends on the opposite side that if they were to say this, they would not be consistent. Only fourteen days ago it was being noised abroad how the United Party supported the Government in respect of State security. We are definitely in favour of State security, but give us the right instruments. Give us a parliamentary organ, an organ which will not be subordinate to the executive authority of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, referred to an article in Die Burger in which it was asked why the United Party are backing out. I had, however, hoped that the hon. member would tell us what happened between the first and second interim report and the fourth interim report of the Schlebusch Commission. If the hon. member had concentrated on that, we would perhaps have had the answer. Why do that hon. member and other hon. members of the official Opposition want to evade the situation? Why do they not want to tell this House precisely what the contents of the minority report published with the fourth interim report were? Not a single member on that side has told us properly what the difference was in that case, and why the interim report was worded in that way. The position is that the commission requested in the first interim report that a permanent security commission, consisting of members of Parliament, be appointed. The commission considered this to be an urgent matter. But at the same time the subject of the second interim report was raised. In that report the question of the Nusas leaders was raised, a question which also required urgent attention. I want to submit that if the hon. the Prime Minister had reacted to the first interim report and had presented this Bill before the end of 1973, when the subject of the fourth interim report was raised, it would have been accepted, by the hon. members of the Opposition as well. Then there would have been no difference of opinion in this regard.

What is stated in the minority report which was included in the fourth interim report? Firstly the fact that the first interim report recommended a permanent security commission of Parliament is pointed out. Because members of the United Party, together with the Progressive Party of that time, began to protest about the effect of that recommendation, and because the pro-Opposition people in this country were up in arms when action was taken against Nusas leaders, they presented a minority report. This report states that, when administrative action is taken by the executive authority, a judicial tribunal should be created to review all such action. This was the first point. Secondly, it was stated that (paragraph 20.5.7.9 on page 519)—

It is these steps which should be reviewed by a judicial tribunal.

It did not end there. In paragraph 20.5.7.15 the minority report continues and sets out the functions of the permanent commission which was recommended in the first interim report. In that paragraph no mention at all is made of a judicial tribunal. This is something completely separate. That side of the House gave us the impression that what they were standing for was simply a judicial commission of inquiry into certain aspects concerning internal security. In my opinion the minority report never gave prominence to this aspect. What, then, caused this change of front. Besides the evidence already presented in this House, I want to call upon the evidence of a person who was a member of the commission at that time. I am referring in this respect to a report in the Oosterlig of 28 November last year under the headline “Breyten-saak bring steun vir Premier se plan”. In that report it was said inter alia that they had interviewed the former member for Orange Grove, Mr. Etienne Malan, and questioned him about this matter. It reads—

Further on in the report it is said—

Then they quote him verbatim—

This is what the former member for Orange Grove, who was also a member of this commission and had a share in the minority report, said. I accept that this was the considered opinion of those members at that time. But there is more to come: The hon. member for Green Point recently wrote to The Cape Times as a result of the newspaper’s observations on statements made by the honorary president of Nusas, Mr. Alan Paton. In his letter he gave the reasons why the minority report of the U.P. had been brought out. One of his reasons was—

In other words, what was at issue in the minority report was merely a judicial tribunal for the review of matters concerning the executive authority.

Recently an article appeared in the Daily Dispatch under the headline “Schlebusch influence rolls on”. In this article reference is made to what the hon. member for Newton Park, Cape leader of the U.P., said during a by-election in Caledon. The paragraph in question reads as follows—

But now that we are presenting this legislation, the prospect of which was already being held out at the time, we find the Opposition completely opposed to it. The article continues—

Therefore I must agree with the hon. member for Sandton.

Do you believe The Cape Times? Do you agree with that?

In so far as The Cape Times states the standpoint which the hon. members for Sandton and Houghton presented when they gave reasons for the United Party’s opposition of the legislation, it is correct.

The Cape Times is therefore your new ally.

The truth hurts.

What did the hon. member for Sandton say? He said—

This is correct. This is what happened. I want to repeat that if the first report had not been published together with the second report—in other words, if there had not been any action on the part of the Cabinet in respect of Nusas as recommended in the second report—the United Party would have agreed with the legislation. They would have supported it completely.

Harry, was this not why you left?

The hon. member for Yeoville will agree with this; he knows what his standpoint on this matter was at that time.

Next I want to come to the position of the hon. members on the Progressive Party side. It is very easy for those hon. members simply to adopt the attitude that they want nothing to do with this type of thing. We had a reaction last year when certain people were restricted shortly before the Breytenbach trial. I refer to a newspaper cutting in which Professor Tobias of the University of the Witwatersrand was quoted as follows as far as these people were concerned—

What did the hon. member for Houghton say in this connection? In this connection she expressed the very same sentiment. In 1972, when the hon. the Prime Minister suggested in this House that a Select Committee be appointed to investigate these organizations, the hon. member for Houghton said inter alia the following about Nusas students—

Apart from that she saw nothing wrong with them. She went on to say—

What the hon. member said is extremely serious. Certainly no one objects to the younger generation questioning things and wanting to examine things for themselves, but to suggest to them that they should call the premises of the older generation into question, is a very serious thing to say. [Interjections.] What is more, the hon. member for Rondebosch also reacted last year, when these people were detained. He took action on the occasion of a protest meeting at the University of Cape Town and said there on 21 August that he had known the Rev. Polley for seven years and considered him a personal and intimate friend. He is quoted as follows—

Subsequently the same hon. member made a speech in which he said that the time had arrived for the Terrorism Act to be repealed. How irresponsible can one get about this kind of matter! I should like to refer to the hon. member for Houghton again. According to an editorial in the Rand Daily Mail of 22 August 1975 she also expressed an opinion on these matters. I shall now quote a passage from the editorial in this newspaper—

I say again: How irresponsible can one be! This is a terribly shocking thing, it is a stupid thing to say, for it is not true. The hon. member for Parktown also demonstrated at the university for people who were detained. What did the hon. member say? I quote from The Daily News of 4 September—

Dead right!

This is the vein in which hon. members carried on. The hon. member for Sandton also had a few things to say, but I do not want to go so far as to quote him too. But I do want to ask them what happened after Breytenbach was found guilty, after the hearing of evidence in an open trial by a court. Then those hon. members had nothing whatsoever to say and we have not yet heard anything from them.

What do you expect us to do?

Do they still stand by what they said with respect to these restrictions. Do they still say that the Terrorism Act should be repealed? [Interjections.]

Order!

It is when one talks about these matters that you realize the necessity for having continuity in the investigation of organizations of this type, that there should be a body with the necessary background and knowledge to enable it to investigate these matters. In paragraph 9(a)(iv) on page 4 of the first interim report the following is stated—

What I find worst of all, is that the hon. members on the PRP side, they who wax so pontifical in the protection of those people and come forward in season and out, are rejected by the same organizations. Those organizations rejected every White political party in South Africa including the PRP.

I think that this legislation is necessary and that it could go a long way towards placing the internal security situation of South Africa on a sound footing.

Mr. Speaker, I think the reason why there is a misunderstanding between the hon. member who has just sat down and us is that he believes because we do not agree with something, we should not protect it. We would support the democratic rights of anybody in this country, even members of the HNP. We believe in democracy and we believe that everybody should have his rights in this State.

As far as the hon. member for Waterkloof is concerned, he seems to have taken exception to the fact that there are so many of us on these benches. I think he should start getting ready to see a lot more of us … [Interjections.]

As far as the hon. member for Maitland is concerned, I think he has added more confusion to the attitude of the United Party. The hon. the Prime Minister has had so many propositions put to him from the members of the United Party during this debate that he must be as confused as we are.

I have listened to this debate with great interest. At this particular moment in time I am more convinced than ever before that we are dealing with a measure in this House which has absolutely nothing to do with State security at all. We are dealing with a Bill which will enable the Government to get a certain amount of democratic sanction to actions which are dictatorial and totalitarian. I believe we are dealing with a Bill which will eventuate in a commission which will be utilized by the Government for the purpose of acting against any political opinion which exists in the country which is outside the parameters which the Government has laid down.

The hon. the Minister of Community Development said on Monday that he was against people in South Africa making extravagant statements which they are unable to substantiate. The statements I am going to make today are not extravagant. I think they are very real, valid and relevant, as well as very frightening. I can substantiate them in such a way that any reasonable person who has reasonable intelligence will accept them as being fact.

Apart from the obvious infringements of natural justice, which have been dealt with by members in these benches, there are, in my opinion, three implied clauses in this Bill which, while they are not expressed clauses—and by this I mean that they are not actually printed in the Bill—are just as relevant as if they were contained in the Bill. In the short time available to me I would like to deal with them very quickly.

The first implied clause deals with whom and what the commission may investigate. The hon. the Prime Minister was at pains both in this debate and in the debate on 16 August 1974, to explain to the House that the commission will only investigate those matters which are referred to it. I would like to quote from the hon. the Prime Minister’s Hansard of 16 August 1974. He said—

When one looks at the facts, one sees that they are exactly the opposite. Before we even had the Nusas report from the Schlebusch Commission, we were dealing with a second and third interim report. The second dealt with individuals and the third with an organization at Wilgespruit which certainly was not in the original terms of reference. We must accept what the hon. member for Bloemfontein West said, I think yesterday. He said that by the time the commission had ended its business, it was investigating all sorts of other activities. [Interjections.] One can see that this investigation was getting wider and wider.

Let us also look at the logic of the situation. If the commission, while sitting and investigating certain matters, comes across activities it thinks should be reported on, and it reports these matters to the hon. the Prime Minister and in the report it asks for urgent action to be taken, obviously the Prime Minister will not say that they should not have investigated something not refers to them and that he is therefore not going to look at the report. He will look at the report and take such action as he may think necessary. I cannot understand the hon. the Prime Minister’s categorical statement that this is not so, when we all know that it is so, and it is quite clear, and the evidence clearly shows that this is so. When the Schlebusch Commission started, who thought that the first thing that would happen would be that recommendations would be made to take urgent action against individuals? This was not contemplated, but it just happened, and that was that.

What the hon. member for Houghton said, when she spoke in this debate, was absolutely true; we have no idea of the extent to which these investigations will go. There is no limit to how far they will extend. This is one reason why we on these benches find this bill absolutely and totally unacceptable. If one were to take this implied clause, and embody it in the Bill, it would probably read something like this: “The commission, in addition to those matters referred to it for investigation, may investigate any other person or organization it deems necessary.” That is how I see it, and I think the facts are there to prove that this is so.

The second implied clause deals with the matters which the commission should investigate. Here again the hon. the Prime Minister would like us to believe that the commission will be restricted to investigating matters of internal State security. Again the facts just do not support the argument. What the facts do support is exactly the opposite. What the commission is going to investigate is exactly what the Schlebusch Commission investigated and reported on, namely acts which in the opinion of the Government or the commission are politically undesirable. To my mind, the simple test of this is the fact that the Government believes that this job cannot be done by a judicial commission. Surely a judge is capable of deciding what is in the interests of the internal security of South Africa? It is ridiculous to tell the House that a judge is not capable of deciding what is or is not a threat to internal security.

That is not our argument.

Well, I shall come back to that. It is quite clear that the Government is just not interested in a judicial commission. Many times during this debate they have given reasons why they are not interested in a judicial commission. However, if one looks at all the reasons they have given; they all fall down. None of them is valid, except one, which I will deal with shortly.

One of the reasons they put forward which is not valid is that it would bring the judiciary into disrepute. What judge on our Bench is not prepared to take a bit of flak to safeguard the internal security of South Africa? It is a ridiculous argument. Secondly, we have been told that this Parliament, being the highest council in the country, should, therefore, inform itself about what is going on. However, the Bill does not provide for that. We may perhaps not even see the report which is submitted. This is also a ridiculous argument.

The point which has been put forward by many Government speakers, and which I think is the valid one, is the point that what the Government wants investigated is something judges cannot do, and only politicians can do. This was put forward by many members, and I would again like to refer to the hon. member for Bloemfontein West—he was one of the commissioners—who, in the debate on 16 August 1974 said—

In other words, they were not interested …

Read it again.

I shall read it again—

Quite correct.

There you have it; he said it was quite correct. Here we have a situation where the only sane reason given to us as to why the Government does not want a judicial commission of judges, is because it is felt that they cannot do the job. It means that this House, the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister, are telling us that the judges on the Bench of South Africa are not capable of identifying a threat to the security of South Africa.

It is a malicious twist of words.

It is absolute nonsense, and the hon. the Prime Minister knows it and the hon. member knows it as well.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to say that the hon. member is making a malicious twist of his words?

Order! Is the point of order that a member has …

It was the hon. member for Bloemfontein West.

What did the hon. member say?

Mr. Speaker, I said the hon. member is giving a malicious twist to a previous statement which was made in the House.

Was the hon. member referring to a particular hon. member?

He was referring to the speaker.

I think the hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, but may I replace the words?

No, the hon. member may not.

If we were then to take this implied clause, and reduce it to writing, so that it could be fitted in as a clause of this Bill, it would read as follows—

The third implied clause deals with executive action. The hon. the Prime Minister and his Government want this House to believe that arbitrary executive action is not involved in this Bill at all. Again, the facts do not confirm this opinion. The facts show that in the second interim report the commission itself wanted executive action. The only thing left to the executive, was to decide what executive action should be taken. Let us, for instance, take the speech which the hon. the Minister of Public Works made yesterday. He said—

Further, let us look at what the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke said. When he spoke in the debate of 16 August 1974 he said—

In other words, when the commission reports on anything, they expect executive action to take place. To suggest anything different is absolutely ludicrous. The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs confirmed this yesterday. So many people have confirmed it. For the hon. the Prime Minister to say that this Bill has got nothing to do with executive action, simply does not make sense. If one were to take this clause and reduce it to writing, so that it could be seen in the Bill for what it is, it would read something like this—

If we take these three clauses and put them together, then we see what we are dealing with. We are in fact dealing with a commission that is being established and which will consist of politicians, to investigate any person or any organization which the commission feels ought to be investigated, to investigate any act which they consider to be politically undesirable or personally offensive, and then to report such activities to the Government to enable the offenders to be subjected to executive action. That is what this Bill is all about. As I see it, that is all there is to it. This is the principle of the Bill and it has got absolutely nothing to do with State security. If one takes it that this is the principle, as I take it, then it is quite clear that we in these benches can have absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever.

I now want to deal with the proposals of the UP. I am very pleased to see that they have rejected the first interim report and it will be interesting to find out whether they have rejected the recommendations of the second interim report as well. I hope one of their speakers will tell us. I listened with interest to the proposals that were put forward by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana yesterday. They seemed to conflict with what was put forward by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and it seemed also to conflict with what was put forward by the hon. member for Maitland. Nevertheless, I would like to deal with the proposal which was put forward by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, because I find a few of the things that he said slightly confusing. The hon. member proposes the creation of a judicial commission to carry out the investigatory side—that is how I understood it—and a standing committee of the House to deal with the review of legislation. I can see that by having a judicial commission, he overcomes a few of the problems which we on this side of the House have, but not all of them. Firstly, we can accept that there will be natural justice in a judicial commission. Secondly, we can assume that the commission will investigate and report only on those institutions or people whom they have been asked to investigate and report on. Thirdly, we can accept that it will deal exclusively with matters which, in their opinion, affect State security. What it does not provide, however, is that when that report is submitted to the executive, the executive will not take executive action on it. I find that this is in conflict with the statements which members of the UP have made on their attitude to arbitrary action in the past. I wonder if the hon. member for Maitland could help me in answering a few questions. They are not trick questions; they are questions to help me understand what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana put forward. If a judicial commission was established, as asked for by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, and if its report was handed to the hon. the Prime Minister, would the UP then condone any executive action which the hon. the Prime Minister took as a result of this report? Would the UP condone executive action in this respect?

May I reply with a question?

No, I simply want that confirmed. If the hon. member’s attitude is “no”, why does he support and suggest the formation of a judicial commission which is going to give the hon. the Prime Minister an excuse to ban people? [Interjections.] Those hon. members have fallen for the same trap and argument. Before, they said: “We did not know that the hon. the Prime Minister was going to ban these people.” Now they know that the hon. the Prime Minister is going to ban people whom he thinks ought to be banned.

May I ask a question?

No, I do not have time. If a judicial commission makes recommendations, the Executive can use those recommendations to ban people. Let me ask another question: Say for instance the judicial commission has reported on certain activities and it recommends to the hon. the Prime Minister that these activities are prejudicial to State security, and the hon. the Prime Minister takes executive action, would those hon. members then condone that executive action?

Can I reply with a question?

No, I want an answer. Would you condone it? [Interjections.] Now you see they sit there in confusion. One man puts up one suggestion and the other puts up another suggestion while none of these suggestions has been thought through. Their attitude is ambiguous. At least in this House we know where the Government stands on this issue and we know where we stand on the issue, but one gets total confusion from the people on my right. I think they should think this thing through. They are not prepared to answer this very simple question: Would you condone the Prime Minister’s executive action if he sat with a report eminating from your judicial commission and the report said that something urgent had to be done in the interest of security in South Africa, yes or no? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I think I have proved my point. The hon. members are unable to answer my questions and I think they should sit back and reconsider their position.

Mr. Speaker, the point of view of the hon. member for Randburg and his party with regard to internal security is as far removed from the point of view of this side as east is from west. That hon. member has just been engaged in a glorious fight with the United Party and he put a few difficulties and questions to them which they can reply to a little later this afternoon. However, the hon. member made a few statements to which I want to react. In the first place he said that this Bill had nothing to do with internal security. Surely, Sir, that is an outrageous statement to make. Is he, then, unaware of what the Bill is, in essence, about? He went further and said that the intention was to interfere with peoples’ individual freedom. Sir, surely he fails to understand what this is about. Surely the hon. member fails to understand what undermining means. Far from it. This does not envisage the undermining or destruction or interference with the freedom of the individual, but in fact constitutes protection for it. Sir, undermining must be eliminated here. Surely it is clear that there is a balance which must be maintained between individual freedom on the one hand and the maintenance of public order on the other. To me this is the essence of the matter. Overstepping the bounds of his freedoms on the part of the individual undoubtedly demands intervention by the State. It demands intervention for one specific reason and that is, to protect the interests of the other people in the State. One cannot leave everything to the Security Police. The Security Police cannot sort out overnight what has been thought out and planned and carried out over months and years by a group that wishes to undermine the authority of the State. Extraordinary legal procedures must be brought into effect from time to time to deal with this, such as statutory restrictions. If it is justified by the circumstances of the moment—even though at first sight this interferes with the freedom of the individual—then surely there is full justification for those measures, as long as one’s point of departure and one’s approach and one’s striving has been honest and honourable from the start. That, indeed, is point at issue. The point at issue here is the elimination of sabotage or anything of that nature. If it is not one’s point of departure to nip those things in the bud, then one is throwing South Africa to the wolves.

The hon. member said that the Government had no confidence in the ability of the judges to solve this matter. After all, Sir, that is far from the truth. Surely the point at issue here is not a task which must be carried out by the judges. On the contrary. The Government, like every right-thinking person in this country, most certainly has the fullest confidence in the integrity and the ability of the judges to decide matters which come before them. The difference is that here we are not dealing with a judicial inquisition or with a judicial investigation into crime. We want to acquire information relating to political security. We want this because we need it, we need it in politics in order to ensure internal security. These are things which are not directly covered by criminal law, things which, if they were to come to a head, could lead to undermining of the prevailing internal public order. Has anyone really had reason to doubt the credibility and the content of the reports of the Schlebusch Commission? I do not believe so. The problem is that state security is a concept that is difficult to define. It is not always clear when there is interference, when there is almost interference, when there is attempted interference and when there is partial interference in this. The problem is just that there is a very narrow borderline between constitutional and unconstitutional action and it is just this narrow borderline, this narrow border area which presents the underminer with a fruitful breeding ground. It is the function of Parliament to determine what is constitutional and what is not. This is not a judicial function. That is why parliamentarians are pre-eminently the people who, in view of their political background and political insight, must act and seek those things, because they are matters the investigation of which is entrusted to them by the people of South Africa.

The fact that the leaders of the Progressive Reform Party, the party of the member who has just resumed his seat, have not taken part in the debate at all so far, is illuminating. It is illuminating that the hon. Leader, the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Rondebosch have as yet taken no part whatsoever in this debate. It is illuminating that the hon. Leader of that party, who ought to lead his party in a dignified way, was one of the first to lead demonstrations of hundreds, if not thousands of students after the detention of the Rev. Polley. The same goes for the hon. member for Rondebosch. That hon. member went much further even than that. When that reverend gentleman was detained, his words were that he had known Polley for seven years, that he was a personal and intimate friend of his and that it was shocking that he should be linked with terrorist activities. But, Sir, what happened to those opinions after the revelations in the Breytenbach trial? I do not want to dwell on that party any longer, but I do just want to say this with regard to the hon. member for Houghton: The finding of the Schlebusch Commission with regard to the Christian Institute was that it was a political body with political activities and that together with its Sprocas project, it was engaged in revolutionary socialistic techniques which could have led to a violent overthrow of State authority. That was the finding of the Schlebusch Commission, and do you know what the hon. member for Houghton had to say about the C.I. in this House in 1972, when she placed on record her protest against the appointment of a commission of inquiry? Her words were as follows—

It is this hon. member who said in 1972, during the debate on the appointment of the Schlebusch Commission, that the leaders of Nusas had done nothing illegal. She wanted to know what the Le Grange Commission was supposed to investigate.

At this stage I want to leave this aspect and come back for a moment to the official Opposition. The most illuminating part of the first report published by the Schlebusch Commission was specifically the accentuation of the urgent necessity for the appointment of a permanent commission on internal security, so urgent that the four commissioners who were senior members of the UP and who were undoubtedly handpicked by the Whips on that side to represent the opinion of that party were unanimous in deciding, with the other members of the commission, that their findings should have been tabled in an urgent report even at that early stage—they found this to be so essential that a permanent commission was to have been appointed immediately.

While we are discussing this point, I want to say that the hon. Leader and the hon. members on the other side have not yet advanced any reasons as to why they requested a postponement, as to why the permanent commission should only have been appointed at a later stage. That is a cardinal point. Was it the idea that postponement would have to be granted in order to solve the internal problems in the party, or was it that an alibi or basis of justification had to be worked out in order to be worked into a later report so as to commit breach of contract? If that was the case, then it was a far worse case of breach of contract and breach of faith than met the eye. That parliamentary commission functioned so effectively that the commissioners who were members on that side thought fit, even in the first report, to recommend the establishment of a permanent commission, not a judicial tribunal or any other body of that kind. Indeed, even at that stage they recommended a parliamentary commission. What took place then? Between the publication of that report in 1973 and the fourth report, important events took place. As the result of internal clashes in 1973, there was a disastrous election for the UP in 1974, and the best member on that party’s side crossed to this party. The only lady in that party went her way; she packed up and left. The hon. member for Yeoville and his friends packed up and left. Caucus after caucus was held until late at night. What remained was a divided remnant of the United Party. At that point, the choice for that party was whether, in the first place, they should try to unite the disunited remnant in order to project an image of unity for political purposes. Because this is so, they came here with a unity, not of quality, but of quantity. That was the one choice, and the hon. member can laugh about it if he wants to. On the other hand, they had to choose in favour of their first and their greatest duty, as unanimously recommended by the commissioners on that side, and that was the duty to maintain the security of the State. Their decision went against the duty to maintain the security of this country. Surely, then, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot emphasize and accentuate in his amendment the necessity for the maintenance of internal security, but then immediately afterwards water it down with all manner of trifling qualifications. He watered it down by saying that his only reason for being opposed to the proposed Act was his dissatisfaction concerning its composition—whether it was to be a committee or a commission or whatever—and that he wanted a curtailment of the powers of the commission.

One would surely have thought that if one was in earnest as regards the internal security of this country one would not curtail the powers of and the field to be covered by the commission. On the contrary. One would want to make it as wide as practically possible. He also sees in this the spectre of encroachment on the province of the Police and the courts. I am sorry to say that the whole attitude of that side of the House is to keep coming forward with trifles in order to achieve their principal aim, viz. to get away from the promise they made and to try to justify their breach of contract. If internal security were of any importance, then even though one had objections to other so-called less important aspects, one would always attach the highest value to the greatest principle. It is then in particular that one will want to serve on that commission, because the matter is important to one and because one wants to make a contribution and oppose those things which trouble one, and because one wants to render a service to one’s country and one’s people and do one’s duty towards them. One would want to do just what the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition said in February 1972 in The Cape Times, viz. that they had to serve on the Schlebusch Commission “to assist in the task to see that justice is properly done’’. If an hon. member should now say that this commission is going to exceed its powers and for that reason refuses to serve on that commission, and by so doing, act as a watchdog against the so-called infringement of and trespassing on the rights of the individual, then surely he is not doing his duty towards his voters.

When one is dealing with matters of internal security, this is of cardinal importance, and in such a case there is only one question which can only be answered “yes” or “no”. There is no middle road in this respect. One does not fear for what will happen in the ranks of one’s party, one does not fear that one’s party may perhaps dwindle in size as a result, one does not fear a Progressive Reform Party, one does not fear a by-election in Durban North, one looks ahead and strives to attain what is important to one. It was interesting that the official Opposition should reproach this side of the House with having supposedly ignored the fourth report. This fourth report is now the justification for their actions and for the fact that they have made such a complete somersault. This fourth report is the justification for the claim made by their side that they are still patriotic. It would be as well for us to dwell for a while on this minority report. It is of interest that it should have been repeated here that the recommendations of the first report were never withdrawn, in other words, those recommendations still stand, as plain as a pikestaff. The first deviation is that a judicial tribunal is recommended, to take the place of the recommended parliamentary commission. Let us leave it at that for the time being. Let us just take a closer look at this minority report which asks for a judicial tribunal. Let us take a look at the task entrusted to the tribunal in view of the recommendations contained in the first report of the Schlebusch Commission. Its first task must be the review of executive steps taken in terms of legislation. That is not all, because this task is qualified in an illuminating way, and this is very important. We cannot look at the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the debate which followed, outside the context of the content of the minority report in the fourth report of the Schlebusch Commission to which it is continually being linked. We must take a brief look at the content of the fourth report. The review of executive action in terms of legislation is qualified, and I shall quote in what respect—

This is clearly stated in paragraph 20.5.7.8. The inference from this is logical, viz. that if there is no war or national emergency, then the State is powerless to act against underminers of the authority of the State. It goes even further than this, because one cannot act in just any war. The kind of war and the kind of national emergency is qualified. I quote again from the same paragraph—

And now the further limiting provision follows—

When one adds all this up, what on earth does it all mean? If one adopts the standpoint that it is the task of a judicial tribunal to do this work, what, in the nature of the case, is left for it to do? It has virtually no function to perform. It goes even further than this, and section 20.5.7.11 provides that this judicial tribunal only reviews executive action as a matter of urgency in the public interest. This minority report, quite apart from the fact that in many respects it is diametrically opposed to the recommendations contained in the first report, is intended to cause confusion—not only in respect of a judicial tribunal, but also in respect of that task entrusted to it, namely to investigate. In the nature of the case, if one brings together all these points of view, it is clear that in view of the contents of the minority report, this so-called judicial tribunal has virtually no task to perform. This judicial tribunal is totally incapable of carrying out the instruction contained in the first report, viz. to collect facts for consideration by this highest House. That is why the minority report goes further and limits the commission’s terms of reference as well by stating that it can only be in respect of legislation and envisaged legislation. In other words, the proposal is rendered fruitless, as it were, by the whole process.

The gravest responsibility with regard to the maintenance of internal security and order in South Africa rests, in the first and last instance, with the highest authority, viz. Parliament. Parliament has a responsibility and a duty towards the nation, one of protection. The nation, too, has a duty towards Parliament and that is to subject itself to the authority of Parliament. Everyone may criticize the Government, because everyone has freedom of speech, but no one may undermine the State, because then the State must step in, indeed, it is then its duty to step in. That is precisely what is envisaged by this Bill. That is why it is very clear that any hon. member in this House who is opposed to this Bill is evading the most important function which can be entrusted to a member of this House.

Mr. Speaker, there is indeed justification for the establishment of the commission. This justification has become so necessary, particularly in recent years, owing to situations which have occurred to an increasing extent, that it is not possible to wait any longer, that it is no longer possible to attempt to use trifles to get away from the principal aim of this whole Bill, viz. to create the machinery which will ensure internal security in the interests of the people and in the interests of the future of the country. That is why it is a privilege for me today to take part in the passing of this Bill, a Bill the primary aim of which is to perform a task which is the first, the last and the most important task a Government has to perform for the people.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durbanville surprises me. How is it possible that he, as a lawyer, can be so confused? Throughout his speech the arguments he advanced were absolutely illogical. Allow me to give you one example of this, Sir. According to him our attitude in and after the publication of the fourth interim report was the result of the severe blow we had received in the 1974 election, one that was so severe that we had to try to save ourselves. What are the facts, however? The fourth interim report was signed on 7 December 1973. However, it was not tabled at that time, because it was a secret report. It was tabled only on 12 August 1974—after the election. The report was signed before the election and was made public only after the election, and the hon. member uses this as an argument why the United Party allegedly had reservations concerning the type of commission proposed.

The problems in your party reached a climax in 1973.

No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member cannot get away from it that easily. He made a joke of himself and of his arguments. The first report was signed on 27 February 1973. Now the hon. member alleges that we shied away from the recommendations in that report because of political events.

Didn’t you then?

Mr. Speaker, we have to get this straight, because member after member on that side of the House, in the bankruptcy in which they find themselves, in the total bankruptcy of any arguments with which to answer this side of the House, keeps coming back like a gramophone stuck in a groove, with the story that there was an agreement in the first report, which we repudiated in the fourth report.

I repeat that the first report was tabled on 27 February. On 1 March the caucus of the United Party met and, having considered the first two reports, issued an unanimous statement. On Tuesday, 6 March 1973, the chairman of the caucus, the hon. Chief Whip on this side of the House, issued a Press statement in which he said the following—

This is for the benefit of the hon. member for Randburg, to whom I shall return later. Mr. Speaker, it also dealt with our commitment to papers being submitted to the Attorney-General for action through the courts and continued—

Not months afterwards, but days afterwards, at the very first caucus meeting after the tabling of the first report, the party made its attitude absolutely clear. We were not prepared to give a blank cheque.

*We wanted to see what the proposals contained before taking a decision in that regard.

*This has been our consistent attitude. My leader then, shortly afterwards, specified certain fundamental conditions within which we were prepared to support a parliamentary body which would deal with questions of security. Let me make two other things clear, in order to stop hon. members on that side, who apparently have nothing else to talk about, from going back to this fallacious argument. The first report proposed a parliamentary organ, a parliamentary organization, a parliamentary body to deal with matters of security.

My leader made it clear that as long as that parliamentary body was to deal with matters which were the concern and the responsibility of Parliament—that is legislation—we would give our co-operation, but that if it was to take the place of a court or of the Police, we would not do so. This has been our consistent attitude, and I shall return to it later in the course of my speech.

Mr. Speaker, I have to reply to three speeches. The hon. member for Randburg spoke before the hon. member for Durbanville. Unfortunately it was difficult to follow him. I assume he was making a case, but I could not really make much sense out of it. What I did gather, was that he spent the first half of his speech saying why a judicial commission was a good thing, and better than a parliamentary Select Committee. In the second half of his speech he said why we should not have a judicial commission. That was the thread of his argument, that we should have a judicial commission, because it consisted of judges who were impartial, and people would be treated fairly by them. In the second half of his speech he said: “We cannot have a judicial commission because then the hon. the Prime Minister would ban people without trial.’’ So, Mr. Speaker, I honestly do not know what he was trying to prove. When we tried to ask him a question, he would not answer. All he was doing was to ask us questions. I can understand though, why he would not answer. I think the hon. member for Durbanville put his finger on it. There is clearly a split between the Progressive and Reform parties, and I deal with them again in the plural. The shadow spokesman on justice, the hon. member for Houghton, spoke, but although the hon. the Prime Minister introduced this measure, their leader did not speak. In fact, not one of the members of the Progressive party has spoken. What they have done was to pull in their backbenchers from the Reform Party and tell them to justify their support—while they were still in the United Party—for participation in the Schlebusch Commission. They were made to speak to justify this. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we are going to get the aspirant leader of the Progressive Party now, the hon. member for Yeoville. [Interjections.] I hope he will explain a tape recording which we happen to have, in which he said, at a meeting in Durban, in the constituency of my colleague, the hon. member for Berea: “I would serve on the Schlebusch Commission …"

Read the rest of it.

Here it is: “ … but the Government would be sorry that they ever put me on it, because I would make sure that in fact justice was seen to be done. You cannot walk away from your responsibilities." What has he done now? He has not only walked away from his responsibilities; he has walked right out of any responsibility. In the same speech he said: “One of the things you have to learn in South African politics, is that there is a choice when it comes to the fight between the Progressive Party and the United Party. That choice is between those who do and those who just talk. I appeal to every Progressive Party supporter here to join the doers and not just be a talker.’’ He has not only run away from his responsibilities; he has left the doers and joined the talkers. Now he is going to talk to justify …

Doesn’t that prove how little notice one can take of a supporter of the United Party?

No, it proves how little notice one can take of certain Ministers on Government side, for example. It proves how little notice one can take of any person who is either ambitious or has problems in his political life and in the environment in which he finds himself. I do not believe this can be held against the party. It is a personal matter.

†I want to come now to the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister because I think the crux of the issue lies here. The hon. the Prime Minister classified four areas of security responsibility, three of them correctly. He said the armed forces should deal with armed aggression, the Police should deal with investigation and the courts with contraventions. The issue about which we disagree is the fourth item involving the field of responsibility of Parliament. I cannot understand what motives the hon. the Prime Minister has for confusing the issue by leaving out another area of responsibility—the grey area, the fringe subversion, the front organization subversion—which the hon. the Prime Minister has now simply dumped into the lap of Parliament, saying: “You now deal with this.” He dealt with the first three correctly, but why has he avoided identifying the fourth area of security, the grey area of fringe subversion? The reason is that the Government has failed in this area. It has failed to remove the security risk of the grey area of subversion in South Africa. After all these years in power—27 years in fact—the Government comes to Parliament admitting that it has failed to deal with this security problem, and dumps this half-baked law into the lap of Parliament, asking Parliament to solve it for them. Surely the security of South Africa is too important for him to play this sort of face-saving politics with it? Surely it is too important to try to score political points?

To me it is elementary. If one has a security threat which is not covered by present legislation, there are three things one must do. The first is to identify the danger, the second is to identify the weakness in our countermeasures, our legislation, our present set-up, which makes it impossible to deal with that danger, and the third step is to pass the legislation necessary to close the loophole through which that clanger can operate. Quite correctly, Parliament itself must have that danger identified. It must then identify the weakness in our present security legislation and powers available to counter that subversion. Then it must legislate. We have had an example this session. We faced a crisis situation in South Africa. There were shortcomings in the Defence Act. Parliament met, identified the shortcomings and, on a bipartisan basis, by agreement, it corrected the shortcomings by amending the legislation. That was the proper role of Parliament. We identified the weakness and amended the law, working as we did, on a bipartisan basis. That is the proper role of Parliament. We did not take members of Parliament and send them to fight on the borders. I wish we had. I can think of a few I would have volunteered to have sent there to have a bit of sense knocked into them. It is a great pity we did not send some members of Parliament to go and do the job of the forces. What we did do was to change the law to strengthen the hand of the Defence Force and that is the task of this Parliament.

Sir, in that context we have offered our full co-operation. We are prepared to serve on a Select Committee, a standing committee. It can have special powers that can be provided for it and we shall give it our full and unquestioning support. We would fully support such a body to carry out the responsibility of Parliament to identify the danger, to identify weaknesses in legislation and to put that legislation right. In that we are prepared to co-operate, and my hon. leader made that offer again during this debate. However, the hon. the Prime Minister is not satisfied with that. He wants a commission of parliamentarians which is not an organ of Parliament, a body which is not appointed by Parliament, not responsible to Parliament and which Parliament does not instruct. He wants to take a body of MPs out of their proper place, which is this House, and put them into another body which he and the executive control. That is not the job of a member of Parliament. The duty of a member of Parliament is to this Parliament. Now, the ball is in the hon. the Prime Minister’s court. We have offered our full, unquestioned co-operation in strengthening the security of South Africa by finding the weaknesses in our legislation which allow fringe subversion to continue.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether the commission which he envisages will have the power to investigate organizations?

Yes, organizations can be investigated if this is germane to the evil we are trying to prevent. The commission could investigate anything whatsoever which Parliament required it to find out about in order to pass amending legislation or new security legislation, in the same way that any Select Committee can investigate anything that is germane to the subject of its investigation. The difference between us is that we want the committee to have full powers of investigation but to have the sole sanction of legislation. The hon. the Prime Minister wants the commission to have the power of investigation but then he wants to apply a different sanction—an executive sanction. We believe that the task of the committee should be to investigate, to study legislation, to review legislation or to amend it and to pass it to this House in order to strengthen our security. Then, when that legislation is contravened, it is the task of the Police to investigate and the courts to punish. We are prepared to play our part in the parliamentary field, to investigate and to legislate, but we are not prepared to do the work of the Police, the courts or the executive. The Prime Minister himself made the specific point when he said—

That, too, is all we are saying. However, this Bill does not provide for that. This Bill simply takes members of Parliament out of Parliament and puts them into an investigating commission under the control of the executive.

Do I understand the hon. member correctly? Does he not want them to do that investigation?

I want them to investigate provided it is germane to the responsibility of Parliament to legislate, not if it is germane to the responsibility of the Police to lay a charge before the Attorney-General for prosecution in a court. That is the distinction we draw.

This is very important. Would you allow me to ask you another question about it: Supposing an organization springs up—let us call it the ABC organization—and there is reason to believe that that organization is not what it purports to be, but is in fact an organization that is a security risk, will the commission you envisage, apart from legislation which is not then in question, be able to investigate that organization to see whether it is a security risk or not?

If the present law does not provide a safeguard against the danger and it is clear or Parliament can be convinced that it is necessary in order to close a loophole to deal with organization ABC by legislating, then it could legislate …

You are forgetting my question.

… but not if it is to act as the investigating officer of the Police in order to seek a crime. If it is to seek a weakness in our security, the answer is “yes”, but if it is to investigate as a pseudo policeman in order to establish an offence under the law, then “no”, because it is not our task to seek to establish a crime. It is our task to seek to establish security for South Africa by effective legislation. If there is the danger …

May I ask the hon. member another question?

Let me complete my answer first; perhaps this will deal with it. If there is an organization which the Government considers a danger, the Government can approach Parliament and Parliament must determine what the position is. The report must come to Parliament. It can say to Parliament: “The organization ABC appears to be a threat to South Africa and there appears to be no law to deal with it. Will you please investigate?” Parliament can then, through this Select Committee, investigate it. It can then come to one of two findings. It can say: “Our investigation has revealed that, in fact, there are offences being committed. We are handing it over to the Attorney-General to prosecute in terms of the law.” Alternatively, it can find that there is no legislation which deals with this danger and it can then recommend legislation to fill that gap. A third possibility is that it can find that there is no danger at all. However, it cannot act as a policeman or judge.

May I ask the hon. member the further question?

Unfortunately my time is up.

May I ask the hon. member whether he thinks it correct, as he sees it, that the Schlebusch Commission investigated the four organizations mentioned in the report, i.e. Nusas, the Christian Institute, the University Christian Movement …

I know who they are. Yes, Parliament appointed a Select Committee and instructed that Select Committee to investigate them. It was, therefore, the decision of Parliament to investigate them. I believe that one of the things that that commission has discovered but has not reported to the House, is that there are basic weaknesses in our legislation which need to be put right. I believe that one of the ideas in the minds of the commission when it recommended a parliamentary body was to put right the weaknesses in our existing legislation so that it would be more effective.

But was it right that these organizations were investigated?

Yes, because it was necessary to establish for the knowledge of Parliament whether legislation was needed. It was the Prime Minister who broke the contract by not reporting to Parliament and letting Parliament decide. He must not talk to us about contracts when he broke the contract that that investigation would be reported to Parliament after which Parliament would decide what action was to be taken. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have no time left to take this matter further.

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in this House for 10 years now and on a number of occasions I have admired the adept way in which the hon. member for Durban Point extricates himself from difficult situations; but really, I have never heard him put up a poorer performance than he did today. He became so tangled up in his own arguments that no one could understand him, and he convinced no one. The basic reason for this is his failure to convince himself that he had adopted the correct standpoint. The hon. member himself is not convinced and he failed to convince this House.

As hon. members know, the hon. the Prime Minister originally came to the House and said: “I am coming to Parliament because I want Parliament to examine certain organizations and satisfy itself about them. ’’ The hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Police apparently knew what was going on in Nusas, for example. But the House did not know. This only came to the notice of Parliament after a commission had been appointed which brought those facts to light in a report.

What we have seen here since Monday has been the most pathetic exhibition of egg-dancing and other antics which any political party has ever put on in this House. It was really pathetic. It brought to mind the Greek saying: Whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. Now, I do not mean to imply thereby that the hon. Opposition has gone mad politically, but that their attitude as regards this Bill signifies a fresh acceleration of their inevitable, inexorable journey towards destruction and the abyss. Of that I have no doubt. One can still admire the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in a way. He remains a gentleman through it all and still has a smile on his face as he inexorably mounts the steps of his political scaffold these days. I do not say this in a spirit of sadism, because the hon. Opposition has become an institution in this House, an institution with antique value, like my grandfather’s rickety old kitchen chair, which I should not like to get rid of. We on this side of the House should not like to get rid of the hon. Opposition because they have antique value to us and as far as we are concerned, they are a very good Opposition. But really, we can do nothing, even according to the rules of Greek tragedy. We can only look on pityingly as they bring about their own downfall. However, let me say at once that a political party which is guilty of so much double talk, shifting of position and uncertainty regarding so important a matter as internal security in these troubled times …

Order! The hon. member may not accuse other hon. members of double talk. He must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Mr. Speaker.

What does one do now when they do it?

A political party such as the one I have described has no right to exist in these times we are living in.

Let us just examine for a moment the history of the United Party with regard to this Bill. It is a history of pathetic indecisiveness. It is a history of acute inner division and constant efforts to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Above all, it is a history of people who have tried to do their duty to the best of their abilities and have been left in the lurch by their leader and their party. When the hon. the Prime Minister proposed at the time that a Select Committee be appointed, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that it should not be a Select Committee comprised of members of Parliament, since members of Parliament were unable to judge clearly with regard to such matters. He said that they would be prejudiced and too subjective and that it should rather be a judicial commission. However the hon. member for Maitland comes along today and with tears in his eyes pleads for the establishment of a Select Committee. One can clearly see from this how that party is always landing itself in trouble. In 1972 they said that it should not be a Select Committee—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not want it—but now they are advocating the appointment of a Select Committee. At that time the hon. the Prime Minister said that he came to Parliament because Parliament should inform itself, but today the Opposition states that a commission would be unconstitutional and foreign to parliamentary tradition. However, their own members have made a plea to the effect that such a commission would in fact be legal and constitutional. I refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Green Point on 16 August 1974. In the course of that speech the hon. member referred to the judgment passed on 20 May that year by Mr. Justice Snyman. I now quote from the hon. member’s speech in which he quoted as follows from the judgment of Mr. Justice Snyman (Hansard, Vol. 50, col. 915)—

The hon. member for Green Point wanted to prove to the PRP that the commission had been established in accordance with parliamentary tradition and that it was entirely constitutional. However, hon. members opposite now say that the commission will not be the correct step to take in accordance with parliamentary tradition. The hon. member for Green Point goes on to say (col. 915)—

In col. 917 he said—

In my opinion, therefore, the hon. member should stick to the proposal he made in 1973. I do not want to deal with the hon. member for Green Point in full, because he will be referred to more specifically in other speeches. The hon. member is really trying to put up a smoke-screen around himself to enable him to defend himself in this extreme embarrassment, this extremely difficult position his party has placed him in. In Die Burger he intimated that the Prime Minister had supposedly said that the commission would always report to Parliament. Surely that is not true. The hon. the Prime Minister never said anything of the kind.

He did so say.

The hon. member can try to prove from Hansard that the hon. the Prime Minister said that, but I know that the hon. the Prime Minister never said anything of the kind. In paragraph 12(d) the commission very clearly recommended that the commission should report to the State President. Why should the hon. the Prime Minister scrupulously carry out the recommendations of the commission in every respect but deviate from them in this single respect? No, Sir, I fear the hon. member for Green Point has a great deal to explain.

I want to deal with the role played in this regard by the leader of the United Party. At the time he did not take part in the debate which followed the submission of the first report and the hon. the Prime Minister’s announcement that the Cabinet had accepted the report. His very silence in the midst of the positive noises from his front benches convinced everyone that the hon. leader and that side of the House would fall in with the recommendation which had also been made by their four members in the commission. Those four members of the UP who served on the commission were good members of the party and good members of the commission. We never came across any sign of prejudice or subjectivity on their part. They threw themselves into the work that had to be done with all their might. It was therefore assumed that their recommendation would be accepted. However, immediately after the report, the second report in particular, was tabled, all hell broke loose around the head of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The English Press flayed and threatened him, and according to reports in The Cape Times, a certain Harry Schwarz, then the leader of the United Party in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal, said that such a permanent commission would develop into a McCarthy-like, witch-hunting inquisition—the hon. member can tell us whether that is true—which posed a deadly threat to the UP in public life. Mr. Schwarz and the group which he had already gathered around him on the Witwatersrand, demanded of the United Party leaders that the four United Party members who served in the commission be repudiated and that the United Party leadership state unequivocally that they would not accept the report or support the establishment of a permanent commission. A period of the utmost confusion followed on this.

Instead of the leader doing the honourable thing and standing by his four members, he adopted an undecided attitude by remaining silent. This put the four members on the commission in an absolutely untenable position because the English Press continued to attack them with increasing impudence. They were then, so to speak, declared fair game and really became the laughing-stock of the English Press. Everyone was allowed to hurl abuse at them and this was literally done, too. However, the leader of the party, who could have secured the position of those four members, whether by adopting the one position or the other, remained silent. We then saw in the newspapers that the hon. member for Yeoville had attended various caucus meetings in the Cape, and eventually a compromise was reached to the effect that the party would not adopt a standpoint until such time as the legislation came before Parliament. In this way the evil day of reckoning was only postponed, and the leader of the UP succeeded in keeping the irreconcilable elements in his party together for a while longer. However, consider what a price the UP paid for this hesitation and ambiguity. Mr. Speaker, may I use the word ambiguity?

The hon. member may proceed.

Four members of the UP, who, as loyal South Africans, had done nothing more nor less than their duty as commissioners on the basis of the facts at their disposal became the political laughing-stock of the world. Eventually the position became untenable for them. The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, of Community Development and of Tourism, lost his leadership of the UP in the Transvaal—he was squeezed out—but he had enough sense, and in particular, enough courage to leave the sinking ship. Etienne Malan was sacrificed to the Progs and was well and truly crucified. The other two members survived the storm and are still sitting here, but they have come out of it somewhat battered, so much so that the hon. member for Green Point is still sitting dead quiet in his bench and has not opened his mouth. Now that the unanimous recommendation of the first report is before us in the form of a Bill, the leader adopts a standpoint and comes along with a truly unbelievable and pathetic amendment. It is an absolutely pathetic amendment, because it is meaningless. Actually, he is rejecting in principle the whole idea of a permanent commission and even of a tribunal, because he states that this would infringe the province of the Police and the administration of justice. For that reason he rejects it. All that he is able to agree to is a body which will try to examine existing and envisaged legislation and administrative action. The question is whether a “Schwarz” ghost is still wandering through the corridors of the UP caucus. Or is it perhaps a red ghost now, and is the red ghost perhaps more dangerous?

Who is the red ghost?

The question is: Why is the leader of the United Party now prepared to say what he has not been prepared to say for two years? Why is he prepared to adopt a standpoint now whereas he was not prepared to adopt a standpoint in 1973? Sir, the answer is very clear. This whole amendment, the whole argument that such a commission is unparliamentary and would be unconstitutional, is only a smoke-screen. The real reason was indicated by the hon. member for Durbanville. There is a political reason for it, Sir, a purely political reason. The English Press made it impossible for the UP to adopt any other standpoint. Although the English Press no longer supports them—they have no other Press—they fear the English Press. The English Press made it absolutely impossible for them, the Progressive Party too, and if the UP had wanted to serve on this commission, the English Press would have tried to smear them in every possible way and reproach them for serving again on this McCarthy-like commission. It is clear that the reasons were political ones—if the hon. members had only had the honesty to say that they were political reasons. But now they are trying to cover up with a smoke-screen.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: What did the hon. member mean by saying “if the hon. members had only had the honesty”?

What exactly did the hon. member say?

I say, Sir, it is only a smoke-screen. The argument that it is unconstitutional and unparliamentary is only a smoke-screen. The real reasons are political ones. I said this very clearly. I said nothing else, Sir.

On a point of order, Sir: The hon. member said that the leader should have had the honesty to say that.

No, I did not say that. I did not refer to the leader. I said that the hon. members opposite should have had the honesty.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. It is just that the question now occurs as to whether the judgment of the United Party leader has not been faulty again. Because if four of his senior members had come to the conclusion in 1973 that with all the facts at their disposal—and I want to say that at that time there were still people with political sense in the UP; the former hon. member for Yeoville had sense, and he was a political strategist, the political thinker of the United Party—such a body was necessary and the United Party ought to serve in it, then is it no longer necessary, now that we are living in our present circumstances? Is there anyone so naïve as to think that now that communism has established itself in Africa and is almost on our borders, the hirelings of communism will not be awakening up everywhere now and becoming active? And is there anyone so naïve as to think that this Parliament ought not to know about that?

Sir, this commission can perform a very valuable function for this Parliament. It has already been indicated that it can serve as an organ of information, and those hon. members can argue until they are blue in the face that it is not a parliamentary body. If six or eight or ten members of this Parliament can form a separate group in order to carry out certain investigations, and they come back here and tell this Parliament what they have found, then that is a parliamentary body. It is the task of Parliament to carry out this investigation and keep itself informed. It is not the task of the courts to investigate subversive activities. It is not the task of the courts to seek for subverters. The courts must punish the subverters, but it is the task of this Parliament to keep itself informed. Since the erstwhile commission, the Schlebusch/Le Grange Commission, began its task, and since it submitted its reports to this Parliament, significant debates concerning internal security have been conducted in this House. Hon. members are aware of this. The hon. member for Simonstown is aware of it, and the hon. member for Albany, too, knows that significant debates have been conducted here. They could be conducted again. Why should an opportunity to do so be taken away? It could also serve as a link between Parliament and the executive authority in the sphere of internal security. Such a commission should not just try to undermine the task and the duties of the executive authority or try to reduce its effectiveness, because by doing so it would be trifling with internal security.

A further important function of the commission could be to bring about a bipartisan approach in regard to internal security. But apparently, the hon. members now want nothing to do with that. The most important function of this commission would be to bring to light what is taking place in the dark. Sir, it is strange that the associations, organizations and bodies which undermine a State are not fond of the light. Oh, they like to present just one side, a very fine and fashionable side, and show it to the world in order to create the impression that that is what they are like, but in the meantime they move in darkness. As soon as this is brought to light, peoples’ enthusiasm for them disappears. Now that the hon. member for Houghton has seen what Nusas is really like, her enthusiasm for Nusas has disappeared, and she now no longer champions Nusas. She has now seen what her grandchildren, whom she thought so innocent, are like. I do not take it amiss of her, because they only showed her their pleasant side. This commission showed her what they were really like. I say that the most important duty of this commission will be prevention purely by means of exposure.

Which organization are you going to investigate first?

The Progs.

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members to give the hon. member a chance to make his speech.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: If the Bill we are discussing has to deal with internal security, is it then proper for an hon. member to indicate that the first organization to be investigated would be the Progressive Party? The hon. member pointed his finger at us. There were in fact a number of hon. members. They can deny it if they so choose.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I say that this commission could perform a very valuable service to Parliament. My modest advice to such a commission would be to adopt a very low profile approach and to carry out its task quietly and without fuss, and I hope that the South African Press will give this commission an opportunity to carry out its task in a thorough and dedicated fashion and will not continually subject it to screaming headlines. It is certainly interesting, Sir, to try and determine why a section of the public press is so venomously opposed to the idea of such a commission. Today I read the following on the front page of the Rand Daily Mail—

Is that not shameful? The Commission has not even been legally established yet, and already it is being undermined. Perhaps we are aware of the reasons for this. When I was in the USA two years ago, I had the privilege of conducting an interview with Mr. Ron McCord, who at the time was chairman of the Commission of Internal Security. He is a democrat, but he is certainly no verkrampte. Nor is he super-conservative. He is a respected man, with a very balanced point of view. What did he tell me? He told me that his commission had a tremendous amount of work and he showed me how much work they had. He also said that they were almost unable to carry on with their activities as a result of the prejudice created by the néws media and by venomous newspaper reports which aroused prejudice. Even before they could make a start on a task, it was undermined in the newspapers. He told me—

Is this not the true reason for the venomous smear campaign waged against the commission by a section of the Press? Should we perhaps not also ask where the hearts of these people and these bodies belong? Do their hearts, too, not perhaps belong to the other side? Do they, too, not perhaps want to destroy the existing order in South Africa? Are they on the side of freedom and on the side of those who are prepared to take any necessary steps to protect the freedom we enjoy today? What we are doing today is taking action in an effort to protect our freedom. However, hon. members on the other side of the House do not want this. Why is this so? Why should these things remain concealed? Why are people afraid that certain things will come to light? I am sure that there is not a single member on the other side of the House who will stand up and say that he is sorry that that wretched mess at Wilgespruit was exposed. Is there any member who is sorry about that? [Interjections.] The hon. member at the back over there is also pleased that it was exposed. I am sure, too, that there is no one who is not grateful that the activities of the UCM, the group which sowed unrest, hate and discord and tried to establish Black Power, all under the name of Christianity, were exposed. I do not think anyone is sorry about that. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the speaker who has just sat down has, of course, demonstrated once again that theirs is the technique of guilt by association. This is the sort of technique that is employed. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior, who responded to the interjection, should know that if he as a Deputy Minister of the Government wants to suggest that he thinks the PRP should be investigated, he should get on his feet and be courageous enough to say so, instead of coming with this kind of thing and then throw up his hands in innocence as if he did not say it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Can I be accused of saying something when, in fact, I did not say a word?

The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that he said it. We can play the tape and then we can hear what he interjected. His colleagues who did the same thing, will not have the courage to get up and say so.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Does the hon. member for Yeoville not have to accept the word of the hon. the Deputy Minister if he says that he did not say it?

Yes, the hon. member has to accept the word of the hon. the Deputy Minister. However, the hon. member did not imply that he does not accept the word of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

I accept his word. May I then carry on and deal with the next speech that was made?

I would like to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that if he has a problem about my having helped to elect the hon. member for Berea to this Parliament, then the hon. member for Berea has a very simple opportunity: He can give us a go at his seat.

You did not honour your pledge. [Interjections.]

There are no pledges which I have not honoured … [Interjections.]

Order! I shall not allow these interjections to continue. I want hon. members to give the hon. member a chance to make his speech.

I make no excuse for the fact that, while I was in the United Party, I did my job. There are other people sitting there who should perhaps thank me very much for having helped them get elected against the Progressive Party, because they would perhaps not have been here today if they did not try to get a little reflected credibility at that stage.

I have another problem. [Interjections.] I will tell hon. members what my problem is. I think the hon. the Prime Minister will agree with me. I have a large amount of sympathy today with the hon. the Prime Minister, because I think he does not know where he stands with the United Party today. I wonder whether, when he replies, he will be able to tell us what the attitude of the United Party towards this legislation is. If we go through the history of this thing, it is a remarkable thing that we will find. I think it is important that we should go through the history. Let us look at a few facts. When the original proposal for a Select Committee was made—this is the Select Committee which eventually became the Schlebusch Commission—the United Party asked for a judicial commission. When the judicial commission was refused, the next step was that they served on the Select Committee. And, when this committee was converted into a commission, they again served on it. We then had the first interim report. The hon. the Prime Minister asked the hon. member for Durban Point what his attitude would be to investigating other organizations. The first interim report made it very clear. I refer to page 9 of the typed copy—this is all I have. It is quite clear that one of the matters which concerned the commission at that stage was the question of other organizations under another name. I quote (paragraph 8)—

*It is also stated in the report that there may be other organizations under different names which may have to be investigated. It was also said—

†That is what the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Mooi River put their signatures to. That is what they said. What is important, is that that was contrary to United Party policy at that time, because, the United Party in fact was committed, not to have this done by this type of commission, but by means of a judicial commission.

That was their commitment to the public. What happened then? There is a report which these gentlemen here signed, as a result of which that principle was rejected by these people. I do not want to go into the issue of what the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Public Works said as to what was meant by “urgent action”. The choice that I and the public have today is whether to accept the word of the hon. the Minister of Public Works, and the word of the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs as to what was contemplated when they were talking about “urgent action”, or whether to take the word of the hon. member for Green Point. That is the situation now when it comes to the issue of what those hon. members have in mind when they so piously talk of the fact that they are not in favour of administrative action. That is why in the United Party, as people know, there were people who stood up at the time and said that as far as the first interim report was concerned they could not support the concept of this commission. Let me read what was said at the time publicly—I am not referring to anything that was said anywhere else. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said—

Long-standing United Party policy in respect of what? In respect of rejecting judicial commissions to which they have committed themselves? Let us carry on and make it quite clear. We then had it made clear to the public that as far as the first interim report was concerned, it was not accepted.

That was quite clear and that was the United Party attitude and United Party policy. The statement was not only made by me at that time, but by many other people. What happened then? When we eventually got the minority report, we found ourselves in the situation that the policy of the United Party had been formulated. If anybody left a legacy which these people have today as to why they have to vote this way, they should ask themselves where that legacy comes from—from the minority report that was contained in the final report on Nusas. However, what is important, is to look at that report and to examine one simple sentence, and that is: “We are of the opinion that some function should be—

That word “receive” meant not that you could compel people, not that you could have a subpoena that would run all over South Africa, but that you would receive evidence from people who would voluntarily submit it to you. That is what that word means, and nothing else. Now we have the situation where the only difference in substance between the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. the Prime Minister—if I understood him correctly, and I think the hon. the Prime Minister understood him in the same way—is that one can examine anything in a Select Committee, as long as it is connected with legislation that is to follow. I think that was the clear statement he made. He shakes his head; he agrees with it. That is the only difference, and now they have again gone back on their policy, because they have gone back on what is stated in the minority report to the final report on Nusas. That is what they have done.

Let us take another example. This statement was made not only by the hon. member for Durban Point, but also by the hon. member for Mooi River. He is aching to get on to this thing …

You are joking!

I am not joking; it is a very sad joke with you, old chap. He also said—

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Yeoville allowed to refer to the hon. member for Mooi River as “old chap”? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the “hon. old chap”. He said—

In other words, he also wants this roving subpoena all over South Africa to bring people before them and to interrogate them without having any proper legal representation that can cross-examine in respect of allegations against them and that will be able to assist them in regard to re-examination. He also wants it.

Then we come to the hon. member for Von Brandis. What did he say? He was different. I asked him specifically—

The hon. member for Von Brandis said: “The answer is no.’’ Where do they actually stand? Do they abide by what is said in the minority report of the Schlebusch Commission, do they abide by what the hon. member for Von Brandis said, do they abide by what the hon. member for Durban Point said, do they abide by what the hon. member for Mooi River said, or do they abide by what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said? Where do they actually stand?

Where does he stand?

I wish I knew. The hon. the Prime Minister knows and I know that I know what I am talking about. [Interjections.] I want to say to the hon. Prime Minister, with due respect, that what we have witnessed between the United Party and the Nationalist Party is one of the strangest wooing processes that I have ever seen in my life. It is like two animals who want to mate but before that, they have to scratch each other’s eyes out and that is precisely what is taking place here.

You have to scratch South Arica’s eyes out first.

These beatings of the half-empty stomach to show one’s patriotism do not impress the public. There is more to patriotism than that. With due respect to the hon. the Prime Minister, is the way to solve this problem not to deal with a few of the things which have come out in this debate? One of them is that the Leader of the Opposition asked the hon. the Prime Minister to delay this piece of legislation apparently for three years. I think the hon. the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition owe South Africa an explanation as to what transpired in those three years and why he was asked to hold it over, as to what reasons he was given to hold it over and as to what bait was held out to the hon. the Prime Minister to delay it. I think that the hon. the Prime Minister, with respect, should also tell us precisely what he wanted when he agreed to the delay in these circumstances. There is a very interesting passage in Hansard where the hon. member for Houghton appeared to have had considerable foresight, because on 8 June 1973 she asked—and I invite anybody to read col. 8587—why it was being delayed and whether this had something to do with what was going on or alleged to be going on in the United Party. The then Chief Whip, who now sits before me here, said—

He might not have been aware of what was going on between the hon. the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition because he is a man whose word I accept; he does not say things which are not correct. The significance is that it was going on; and what did they have in mind? Obviously they had something in mind, but the difficulty they had was that everything that had to happen in the United Party, did not happen in accordance with their plan.

Let me analyse what I believe are the four principles that need to be considered in respect of this piece of legislation. The first is: Is there at present a threat to internal security? The second is: If there is such a threat, is this Bill of assistance in dealing with it? Thirdly: If it is not of assistance, what is the purpose of introducing this piece of legislation? A fourth point is: What is the most effective way of dealing with a threat to South Africa’s internal security? As far as the first point is concerned, I want to say that in a society in which there is a disparity between groups, apart from colour or race differences, a disparity in respect of wealth, of opportunity or in respect of political rights, there is inevitably a threat from the less against the more privileged. In a society in the Africa of the post-colonial era, where there are differences of race and colour as well as differences in the other respects, threats to the existing order must be anticipated. Under such conditions those who seek change by violence and unconstitutional means, will seek to undermine internal security. Many who attempt to do this, may well be motivated by objectives entirely unconnected with the aspirations of the people they purport to be assisting. Here is found the revolutionary per se, the agent of the new imperialistic forces and others who seek violent confrontation for a variety of reasons. While I have no direct knowledge, I have little doubt that there must be threats to the internal security of the State here in South Africa. But if anybody believes that the real threats to such security come from a small group of students or from isolated people who indulge in sacrilegious activities, and believe that if he can ban or otherwise control those people he will solve South Africa’s problems, he’s living in a dream world. The activities of the activist revolutionary and the communists, which should concern the authorities, are not the starry-eyed students or the bungling, immature philosophers but something far more serious and far more deadly. We believe that there are security risks, but also that such risks cannot be met on the long term only by seeking to neutralize or remove so-called agitators. Something with a far greater depth of purpose needs to be done.

Kindly explain your view that Parliament has no right, either by way of a commission or a committee, to investigate an organization.

My belief is that Parliament’s function is to legislate and that it is the function of the judiciary to try and punish …

I am not asking about punishment, I am talking about investigation.

Correct. It is the function of the Police to investigate. This is the submission which I am going to make, that I do not believe that it is necessary for this piece of legislation if Parliament should be informed. I believe that for anything the commission can do, there already is machinery available to our Police Force to deal with—to investigate and get information. Legislation is there; there are powers which can be used for this purpose, and if the Government wants to place information before this Parliament, they can obtain the information from the Police and can disclose such information to Parliament in motivating the legislation. It is not the function of Parliament to act as a court of investigation to determine whether organizations are subversive. The function of this Parliament is to legislate. I choose to believe that our Security Police are effective. I choose to believe that there is probably nothing in the whole of the Schlebusch Commission report that the Security Police did not know before the investigation started or could not have found out with reasonable investigation if they wanted to know. I believe that our Security Police and our Police as a whole are very effective. When it comes to the question of Select Committees formulating new laws then we do not need this Bill. I do not understand the hon. member for Mooi River. He wants new definitions; he wants it all set out. There is a law commission, there are law advisers, there is a Government which introduces legislation and now the hon. member for Mooi River, who is a self-confessed non-lawyer, says he wants to participate in formulating new definitions.

I want you to participate.

No, he wants to participate; he is the volunteer. He cannot volunteer on my behalf. I want to suggest that as far as this House is concerned, in order to fulfil its functions it does not need this commission.

Was that always your point of view when you were in the United Party?

I had no different point of view. I subscribed to what is contained in the minority report in the report on Nusas. I took the view that I have no objection to a committee to deal with anticipated legislation, and I still subscribe to that. However, such committee should not deal with it on the basis of interrogating at large but on a basis of receiving information.

What is your view about the interim report?

I rejected the first interim report, and I said so publicly. I have here the cutting if you would like to see it. I said at the time that it was not United Party policy and I was supported by these gentlemen, or they supported me—whichever way you like it. I have the cuttings here if you would like to see them. There is one point I would like to make before my time expires, and that is that the crux of the Bill lies in the right of subpoena, the right to call witnesses, the right to interrogate, the right to have people there without counsel or attorney to cross-examine on the allegations which are made against the witnesses, to examine or to intervene when it is felt that the witness is prejudiced. That is the crux of this Bill, and that is what is the important thing. That is the point on which the hon. member for Durban Point has surrendered only a couple of minutes ago.

I believe that we should have a commission in respect of internal security, but I will tell you what it should be. It should be a multi-racial commission in South Africa. It should be a commission which deals not just with subversion or unlawful activities. It should be a commission which should deal with the fact that there must be a removal of economic, social and political frustration and the creation of a satisfied community, because without this you will never in South Africa on a long-term basis be able to ensure the internal security of South Africa. I believe what you need there is a commission which is not feared, but a commission of hope. That is what South Africa needs.

Mr. Speaker, I shall reply at a later stage to other aspects of the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville. At this juncture I should like to refer to his comments in regard to a multi-racial commission. It is quite clear that the hon. member for Yeoville wants to get away from the fact that he, as is the case with every member of this House, has a duty in regard to State security, and that he now wants to side-track this entire matter into a political issue by saying that the only duty of members of this House is to eliminate political grievances. Once this is done the security risk in South Africa will diminish or disappear. I want to reject the standpoint of the hon. member for Yeoville as being naïve and impractical. The matter goes far deeper and further than that.

However, before I continue to deal with the hon. member for Yeoville, I want to say a few words about the actions of the United Party in this House. During the past two or three days we have seen how the United Party have finally sold out the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Mooi River in this House. The hon. members were sold out in three instalments. The first instalment was when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went to the Prime Minister to ask for the introduction of this legislation to be postponed. Apparently he was at that stage not yet prepared to face up to the implications of the Bill if it were then to come before Parliament. The second instalment in the sell out was when the present hon. Minister of Indian Affairs, of Community Development and of Tourism left the United Party and a vacancy for the United Party on this commission arose. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was then invited to appoint another member of the United Party to this commission, but he did not accept that invitation. That was the second instalment in the sell out. Today we have had the final reckoning, the final instalment in the sell out of these two members. Here we have a tragedy, for not only were the hon. members for Green Point and Mooi River sold out, but other members of the United Party caucus were also sold out by this decision and are dissatisfied at the decision. But the most tragic aspect of all is that a large part of conservative, English-speaking South Africa, which supports that party, has also been sold out by this decision of the United Party. It is these people with whom this Government wants to cooperate to cope with the dangers threatening South Africa. They want to co-operate with this Government and form a common front with the Government for the welfare of all South Africa’s people and of our fine country as we know it.

In this regard I should like to pause for a moment to consider this question: What is the internal security that may be endangered, and what kind of conduct may endanger it? There is only one kind of conduct in which this commission and the Government is interested when it comes to internal security, and that is the conduct of people who want to bring about changes without working through this Parliament. The cause of the interest in internal security lies with those people who want to by-pass the ballot-box. In consequence of the Schlebusch Commission report eight students were restricted. I am now going to give you a wonderful illustration. The restriction on one of those eight students was lifted last week by the hon. the Minister of Justice. This student is a certain Mr. Clive Keegan. After his restriction was lifted, he made the following statement in an interview with the Sunday Times—

At the time of his restriction he wanted to bring about changes, but he did not want to work through the Progressive Party or the United Party. Now he is able to bring about his changes and work for them, but he believes he should do so within the constitutional framework of South Africa. To my mind this is the best evidence which could possibly be submitted to this House. Here the Government has lifted the restrictions on a person, a person whose political ideas have not changed in any way, but whose political methodology and strategy have changed. Now he is acting, and is planning to act, within the framework of the law. In my opinion this is proof that this Government is not interested in its political opponents in any way when it comes to internal security. The Government has only one interest, and that is in people who want to bring about changes in South Africa outside the legislative and constitutional processes. We reject with the utmost contempt the insinuations being made by members to the effect that the standpoint and the policy of the Government is in any way different to this.

I have already said that the United Party changed its standpoint and left these people in the lurch. Why? Obviously because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout persuaded the caucus that this should be done. That hon. member himself did not read the Bill and if he did read it, he does not understand it.

Yesterday we witnessed the pathetic display of the hon. member for Mooi River in this House. We know him to be a serious person, but yesterday—and I challenge him to deny this—the words he spoke were not from his heart. I also want to draw attention to the other hon. member who served on that commission, and who was sold out by the United Party. I am referring the hon. member for Green Point.

I want to present a few arguments to this House today, and I want to quote the hon. member for Green Point as my authority. The hon. member for Green Point will be the next speaker, and I should like him to react to what I am going to say. I want to refer him to what he said in this House on 10 February 1972, when he was referring to the hon. member for Houghton (Hansard, Vol. 37, col. 756)—

Mr. Speaker, that the matter under discussion here was a Select Committee, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the matter under discussion here was the implementation of a resolution of the House of Assembly.

But that is not all. A year later, on 3 April 1973, the hon. member for Green Point had this to say (Hansard, Vol. 43, col. 3981)—

He then proceeded, and said in col. 3982—

What does that mean? It means that this House of Assembly, as a result of the constitutional process which was in progress, adopted a resolution, a resolution which placed an obligation on every member on that side of the House. After all, we are not living in a country in which everyone may do as he pleases. The hon. member was able to argue against the motion, he was able to oppose it, but the moment the motion was accepted, it created certain obligations which also affected every member on that side of the House.

The hon. member for Green Point went on to say—

The hon. member went further, and I must say that I am in full agreement with him. He said—

I should like to draw the attention of this House specifically to what the hon. member for Green Point then went on to say—

Mr. Speaker, we have often heard hon. members opposite say that they stand by “the rule of law’’; they stand by the legal processes of the country, legal processes which should be properly maintained. Their attitude was that an Act brought certain obligations. But what do we now have before the House? We have a Bill which is in all probability going to become law. I am saying this with all due respect, Mr. Speaker. If this Bill is passed by the House of Assembly and the Senate, and is signed by the State President, it will become an Act of South Africa. In terms of that Act of South Africa I say to every member of the Opposition—and this includes the members of the Progressive Party—that there are serious constitutional obligations resting on them, obligations which they have to discharge. If they fail to discharge these obligations, they are kicking the rule of law in the teeth. If a person does not discharge these obligations, he is ignoring the rule of law in South Africa and he is a champion of the law of the jungle. It is a jungle approach to refuse to discharge the obligations imposed by this Act.

I want to tell the hon. members on the opposite side of this House that, even at this late stage, the words of the hon. member for Green Point are of decisive significance to them. I am going to quote him further, and each of you sitting here can take those words of his home with you to reflect on. These are very important words, and it is also very important that one should have a proper realization of their constitutional implications. The hon. member for Green Point said (Hansard, Vol. 43. col. 3982)—

I should like to see how the hon. member is going to get past that standpoint.

Now I want to say a few words about the report itself. These hon. members submitted to this House the argument that a judicial tribunal should be able to pass judgment on the actions of the executive authority. According to the report of the commission the responsibility for the security of South Africa lies with the executive authority. Now it seems to me that one is dealing with an amalgam here while one should in fact have separation between the legislative and the judicial authorities. It is an obligation to separate the legislative and the judicial authorities as far as possible, but the hon. member says that the judicial authority should be given a sanction or a veto of the actions of the executive authority, while they themselves state in their report that the responsibility for security lies in the last resort with the executive authority.

I want to come now to the one important question which I think we should pause to consider for a moment. We should examine this Bill again, and then ask ourselves two questions. Firstly: Do we need a commission on internal security; and secondly: If we do need such a commission, who should do the work? The commission to which I am referring is a commission which should display one particular characteristic, which is that its reports should be tabled in Parliament. In other words, the information which the commission has should be made available. In clause 5(1) we have the provision requiring the hon. the Prime Minister to table the reports of the commission. The fact that the reports are presented to the State President is a question of legal procedure. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter. It is not left to anyone’s discretion. The reports, with the exception of what I am going to deal with next, has to be tabled. In other words, the particular feature of this commission is that its reports and findings are tabled in Parliament and therefore come to the attention of the public. The question now is whether we need such a commission. We should not try to force the image of this commission, which is an information-gathering commission for Parliament and the public, into a certain mould. An entirely false image of this commission is being created, as if it were going to bring out secret reports. That is not true. There will only be exceptional cases in which information will not be made public. This will only happen when the head of the executive authority, who is in the last resort responsible for internal security, has personally decided that this should be the case.

It is important to note that in terms of this legislation the Prime Minister is in no way able to delegate his authority in this regard. He must decide on this matter personally. The head of the executive authority has to decide personally, and he has only one criterion. That criterion is whether it is in the public interests or in the interests of South Africa. In other words, this commission is a commission whose information will be made known to the public—nothing else. The first exception will be when the confidentiality of the information will be in the interests of South Africa. In South Africa we have the Bureau for State Security, the Security Police, the Police and the courts, but apart from the fact that we have those bodies, the Government still has an obligation to take preventive action. However, what can the Bureau do to take preventive action; it can only inform the hon. the Prime Minister—nothing more. What can the police do to take preventive action. Again, very little. The police can only take action when a crime is in fact being or has been committed. What can the courts do to take preventive action? The courts can do nothing. But the Government can do something. The Government can restrict people. This is the most important power of the Government if it wishes to take preventive action. There is another way in which preventive action can be taken, and that is to give wide publicity to the plans of the enemy. If the enemy has all kinds of plans and creates all kinds of false images, if he is engaged in a complicated strategy, how can one best counteract his strategy? One can do this best by exposing that strategy arid making it public so that everyone can read it. When this happens, the enemy’s strategy is destroyed, for his strategy is to work in the dark and his plans cannot withstand the light of day. The uncovering of the plans of the enemy is therefore an important preventive element.

Apart from the fact that the executive authority can take preventive action by imposing restrictions, we have, in addition, the fact that the publication of information is also preventive action. Therefore, if the members of the Progressive Party are opposed to the commission which will make information on the enemies of South Africa public, they are in fact in favour of more restrictions, for the only alternative to restriction is to make the enemy’s plans public. If one does not, in the general sense, give the Government that weapon, one is obliging the Government to make use of restrictions only in order to take preventive action. Practically speaking, how is the Government now going to make information public? After all, this cannot be done by means of ministerial statements, for such statements would fill volumes. It can only be done by means of a commission. Someone has to do the work. Someone has to sift the facts; someone has to bring out a report; someone has to assess the facts; and someone has to make the facts known to the public. The best way of doing this is to table the information. In this way the public receives that information.

The important question is what body should undertake this investigation. Should it be a permanent commission of Parliament? Should it be a judicial committee; or should it be a Select Committee of Parliament? A Select Committee is unacceptable, because a Select Committee has no continuity. The United Party does not differ with us only in regard to the question of whether or not it should be a Select Committee. They also differ with us on what the terms of reference of that body should be. Should the terms of reference of that body be only to investigate legislation, or should they also be to investigate other organizations. All that remains is a commission, either consisting of members of Parliament or a judicial commission. However, I think a commission with a judge as chairman is unsatisfactory, and I shall tell hon. members why. Such a commission will inevitably have to be a permanent commission, and consequently one judge will have to act as permanent chairman of the commission. Because the judge will then have to act as permanent chairman, he will no longer be able to serve on the Bench. As a result he will subsequently be labelled as a judge entrusted with internal security. After all, we know how the United Party and the Progressive Reform Party and the English Press carry on. He will subsequently become known as a political judge, and his work will in due course no longer be as acceptable as that of the chairman of a different kind of commission. Once again I want to quote what the hon. member for Green Point said (Hansard, Vol. 50, col. 919)—

As I have said, the judge will acquire the image of a political judge, and in the end the Bench will acquire the image of a political Bench. Then the entire advantage of this disappears. All that remains is the question why we as legislature cannot do this. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the work of this body is to make laws, and that the work with regard to the security of the country belongs to the executive authority. State security—internal security—is the responsibility of every member of this House. It is the responsibility of every citizen of South Africa, the more so of those citizens who each represent 10 000 or 15 000 other citizens. The attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition amounts to this: “I am the great Pilate; I wash my hands of this business. It is not my work to help if the house of South Africa is burning—it is John Vorster’s work to do that.” We on this side of the House want to serve, but the United Party does not want to serve on that commission. The National Party is prepared to do this work, and I want to tell hon. members on that side that, while their actions amount to being a “dereliction of duty”, this side of the House will do this work, because, when our children ask us about this, we will be in a position to say to them: “We did our duty.”

Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate one found oneself looking forward with a measure of expectation to the participation of the hon. member for Yeoville, particularly because one was aware of the fact that he would most certainly have something to say to the official Opposition about this matter. Was it not that very hon. member who clashed with the official Opposition on this matter of internal security. But one was not surprised either that the hon. member for Yeoville had certain contentious things to say about this legislation. When he was still in the ranks of the official, Opposition he was even then not prepared to participate in any actions which were aimed at the combating of subversive elements.

That is absolutely untrue.

Since he has found himself in the ranks of the party of which he is now a member, where he now finds himself under the protective wings of the hon. member for Houghton, one can expect him to be all the more disinclined to participate in actions to combat subversion.

That is also untrue.

In addition the hon. member for Yeoville, as was the case with other hon. members of that party, revealed an exceptional sensitivity over this proposed commission. One wonders what they are afraid of. It puts one in mind of certain elements who, in season and out, charge the forces maintaining law and order in this country with high-handedness.

That is also untrue.

I am not saying that the hon. member made such accusations. I said that there are elements which always make these accusations. I ask myself why a member of the Police has never struck me on the head with a truncheon. It is for the simple reason that I have never spat in the face of a member of the Police, insulted him, or kicked him in the shins. I have never taunted a policeman, so I have no reason to fear him. But people who engage in activities of this kind, do have reason to be afraid of the guardians of law and order. Against that background one asks oneself why the members of the Progressive Reform Party are afraid of this commission. The hon. member for Yeoville, in the same way as other hon. members of that party did, make all kinds of dire predictions about this proposed commission. All that I want to say to them in this regard is that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned: “We are prepared to listen to anybody’s convictions, but pray, keep your doubts to yourself.’’

We have almost reached the end of the third day of this debate. Hon. members on this side of the House have already made the considerations in support of this legislation very clear and have stated them emphatically. At the same time they have also dealt very adequately with the fallacious arguments raised by members on the opposite side of this House to conceal their political nakedness. They advanced all kinds of arguments and petty arguments to cast suspicion on this legislation. Since we have almost reached the end of this debate, it only remains for me to tie up as it were the few loose ends which hon. members on this side have left behind in the process.

In this regard I come in the first place to the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on the first day of this debate. The hon. Leader, as other members of his party after him did, tried to make a major issue of the separation of the powers of the legislative, executive and judicial authority. I shall quote what the hon. Leader said—

Whether this is indeed what the Bill under consideration envisages, I shall leave at that for the moment. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say—

I want to associate myself with the hon. member who spoke immediately before me and who pointed out that if this “judicial tribunal” has to review the actions of the executive authority, what remains of the so-called separation of powers of the various authoritative bodies. Then, surely, we have encroachment on the powers of the judicial authority. What remains then of the hon. Leader’s high-flown argument about the separation of powers between the various authoritative bodies?

The argument of the Opposition that a Select Committee of Parliament, which confines itself only to legislation, would be acceptable, but not a Parliamentary commission as is being proposed, is an entirely new argument, which was apparently thought out just before the beginning of this debate. One cannot help wondering who the spiritual father of this piece of wisdom was. Could it possibly have been the hon. member for Von Brandis, he with his suspicion that something is wrong, but he does not know what? Apparently he gazed into a crystal ball quite recently and was vouchsafed the revelation that there is a world of difference between a Select Committee and a parliamentary commission, a difference which is so overwhelming that it made actions which were praised in the one case, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition praised the work of the Schlebusch Commission, a mortal sin in the other.

I maintain that this argument is a new argument. It was so new that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, when he began his speech, did not seem to know himself that he would use this argument at a later stage in his speech for he said—

And now follow these important words—

In other words, the hon. the Leader also rejects an investigation which is aimed at legislation. At that stage of his speech, therefore, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition seemed to be opposed to any form of investigation, whether or not it had a bearing on legislation. But then he went further and arrived at the standpoint that if the proposed commission would only be for the purpose of dealing with legislation, hon. members of the Opposition would have no objection to serving on it, and in this he was of course followed by other hon. members of his party. Sir, as a relatively new member of this House I should like in all humility to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the members of his party that they cannot always be running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. Some time or other they will have to make a choice, in regard to this matter as well: Either they are prepared to help combat subversion, or they are not prepared to do so. They will not always be able to hide behind technical arguments and hair splitting.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, referring to this report went on to say that—

Sir, I know it is not always easy to ascertain what the true opinion of the other person is, least of all the true opinion of a member of the official Opposition, on the one hand because this party alters its opinions so frequently and on the other hand because so many conflicting opinions are accommodated within the ranks of that party. But if the hon. members of the Opposition who served on this commission were still of the opinion and are still of the opinion that they did not perform that task as properly or thoroughly as a judicial tribunal would have been able to do, then I say that they have succeeded remarkably well up to now in concealing that opinion.

While we are dealing with the opinions of the hon. members of the Opposition who served on the commission, let us pause to consider the assertion made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that they changed their minds in respect of the recommendation contained in the first interim report. Once again they have succeeded exceptionally well in not allowing this altered opinion to become apparent. Hon. members on the opposite side referred repeatedly to the minority report included in the fourth interim report. Time and again when we referred to this, they said: “Read the report”. But I want to ask them: Where is it stated even remotely in that minority report, even by implication, that the said members of the commission withdrew their recommendation in the first interim report. There is not a single word to that effect. The objections contained in the minority report related only to the undertaking of executive action by the executive authority, and to the entrusting of responsibility for the review of executive actions by the commission. That is what was at issue. For the latter purpose a judicial tribunal was proposed, because—

There was no objection in principle; it was merely an objection that it would impose excessive demands on the time of the members of the committee. However, there is no indication of an objection to the establishment of a permanent parliamentary commission of inquiry, as proposed in the present Bill and as was recommended in the first interim report.

To return to the Bill, where in the Bill is the proposed commission being entrusted with the responsibility for the review of executive actions? Where is it stated in the Bill? This is what the hon. members objected to in the minority report, but where is it stated in this present Bill? Admittedly clause 4 is stated in rather general terms, but to assert that the commission may or will in terms thereof be entrusted with the task and responsibility of reviewing executive actions is on the same level of absurdity as the argument of the hon. member for Von Brandis that the State President would be able to order—and I quote—

This is the type of absurd argument we heard from the hon. members opposite, as though we had descended to that level of irresponsibility.

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said: “A lot of water has passed under the bridge since that first interim report.” Now one wonders to what “water” the hon. member was referring? For it is true that a great deal has happened since that first interim reports was signed. There was turbulence in the ranks of the United Party. There was the 1974 election, and afterwards there was the loss of four representatives of the House of Assembly, who were elected to this House as members of the United Party, but who subsequently joined the Progressive Party and are sitting here today as members of the Progressive Reform Party. This is also water that has passed under the bridge since that time. Sir, would that be the water to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred? But there were other events as well, which one need not go into in detail on now, and which in fact make a parliamentary internal security commission all the more necessary and more important today than at the time when members of the Opposition who were members of the commission saw fit to recommend the establishment of such a commission. This is also water that has passed under the bridge. That is why one finds it all the more surprising that the Opposition is not prepared now to accept responsibility for the creation for which it was co-responsible.

This brings me to the ridiculous argument of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, namely that members who serve on the commission do not bind their parties. But then the hon. member himself went on to say that what is being proposed would be a partisan court, because members of Parliament would not adopt an impartial attitude to their party’s policy. In other words, members of the commission would, according to the hon. member, act in accordance with the policy of their respective parties. But if this were the case, surely we would have been entirely justified in accepting that the hon. members of the Opposition who served on the commission acted in accordance with the policy of their party. Whether or not they are able to bind their party formally, the fact remains that with their recommendation they committed their parties morally to that recommendation. But now their party is running away from its moral commitment. Sir, what does one call this kind of action in parliamentary language? Sir, I know what to call it, but I do not want to expose myself to a reprimand from you.

We have again had the customary reference from the hon. member for Houghton to the so-called “values of Western civilization”—these being “human rights” and the “rule of law”. This is the stereotype method of hon. members of the Progressive Reform Party to try to conceal an inherent lack of patriotism behind a smokescreen by invoking the so-called “rule of law”. If we had had the time it would probably have been very interesting to have taken a closer look at this “rule of law”. However, I am going to content myself with a few quotations from the works of present-day authorities on constitutional law on this concept. I am quoting firstly from the book Administrative Law by J. F. Gamer—

It is therefore merely a general norm or standard which is not all important. A. S. Mathews in his Law, Order and Liberty in South Africa, puts one very much in mind of hon. members of the PRP, when he says—

Then, too there is R. M. Jackson’s Machinery of Justice in England—please note—in which it is asserted—

This is the “rule of law” with which we are constantly being confronted.

I find it regrettable that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, found it necessary to imply that this Bill would have the effect of being a further reason—“an added cause” as he put it—for public suspicion and to bring members of Parliament into discredit among the public, because the Bill makes provision for the payment of remuneration to members of the commission. I find this regrettable, because I think it is an allegation which is beneath the dignity of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

In conclusion I should also like to react to the allegation, inter alia from the hon. member for Von Brandis, that the proposed commission is in fact not a parliamentary commission. Various hon. members on this side of the House have already dealt with this point, but I think I can simply sum up by putting forward a few considerations in this regard. The members of the commission would not only be members of Parliament who will serve on the commission as such because, please note, they will have to give up their representation on the commission as soon as their membership of the House is terminated. Therefore it is clear that they will serve on the commission as members of this House. However, that is not all. The entire motivation for the proposed commission is to be of service to Parliament, regardless of whether the terms of reference are formally presented to the commission by the State President and the commission formally submits its reports to the State President. What is even more important is that it is after all, Parliament which is at present considering this Bill, and which will ultimately pass it. Consequently I cannot agree with the assertion that this is not a parliamentary commission.

Under the circumstances I feel myself completely at liberty to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I trust the hon. members for Mossel Bay and Pretoria Central will understand if I direct my remarks in the main to the argument which the hon. the Prime Minister made in his introduction of this Bill. I shall, however, deal with certain aspects of matters they raised in the course of my remarks.

The hon. the Prime Minister argued that the first report constituted a contract. He said that he was prepared to fulfil his side of the bargain, and that he expected me, as a commissioner, to accept the Bill in fulfilment of what he termed my obligation. It is an argument I shall deal with, but before I do that, if the hon. the Prime Minister will allow me the indulgence, I want to make a few remarks to the friends to my left.

We have had the usual attempts of the party on my left to seek some political advantage when we debate in this House a matter of paramount importance to South Africa, like its internal security and the maintenance thereof. If I may, I would like to remind hon. members that the members of this party were quick off the mark on 18 March 1973. The Progressive Party put out a petition alleging that—

This is a blatant lie, because I did not recommend any banning. However, this is the petition that went out and I asked them to send it to me as soon as they had a couple of hundred signatures, but I still did not get it. In April 1973 the chairman of the Progressive Party in my constituency issued a circular which, he said, was a special urgent note for Green Point Progs and supporters. It stated—

This was from the chairman of the Progressive Party. The petition never materialized; the election came in 1974, and I am sitting in Parliament. I assume Mr. Tom Walters is a Dutchman, whatever that may mean.

What has become apparent in the course of this debate, is that the political party on my left has become irrelevant in South African politics, in matters of defence against foreign aggression—as they evidenced in their attitude in the Defence debate—and they have become irrelevant when it comes to matters of containment of subversion against law and order in this country. I would imagine that the maintenance of law and order and the containment of subversion are very basic elements of the rule of law which they profess to support.

Tell us what you mean by “urgent action”.

The hon. member has had his say this afternoon. I want now to turn … [Interjections.]

Order!

They have tried for four years to do their best to make political capital out of the Schlebusch report in my constituency, but I am still happily sitting in Green Point.

The hon. the Prime Minister asked me to fulfil what he termed my part of the contract. In February 1972, when the question of the setting up of the Select Committee was debated, I made it perfectly clear that I believed the investigation into the organizations concerned should be by a judicial commission. This is history. Parliament thereafter resolved that a Select Committee be appointed. The hon. member for Pretoria Central has quite correctly quoted me when he said that my party and I accepted that when Parliament had appointed a Select Committee, we had a duty to serve on it. We served on the committee to investigate certain specified organizations mentioned in its terms of reference laid down by the House.

There is another important factor. In the words of the hon. the Prime Minister that Select Committee was appointed so that Parliament could have a fact-finding body of itself to look into these organizations.

The hon. the Prime Minister, specifically referring to Nusas, added that it was then up to Parliament to do the necessary, if anything was necessary, or to do nothing if it was not necessary to do anything. It must be remembered that the first report of the commission, that is after the Select Committee was converted into a commission, was signed on 17 January 1973, and that it was a report which was to go to Parliament for Parliament to consider and for Parliament to decide what should or should not be done.

The second report was signed under the same procedures that were to be followed and was tabled together with the first report on 27 February 1973. Now, those reports were signed before executive action was taken. Those reports related to the then situation of the Schlebusch Commission. That was a Select Committee appointed by Parliament and for procedural reasons, to enable it to continue to operate, it was converted into a commission. It had a fact-finding task, to report to Parliament for Parliament to decide what should or should not be done. It was in those circumstances that in the first report it was recommended by the commission that a permanent body should be established to continue the work entrusted to the commission, to do an investigation determined by Parliament for Parliament, and to be reported to Parliament to act upon. That was the position in January 1973. We added, as can be seen in the first report, that it must be seen as a parliamentary organ and that it should be regarded on the one hand as an information organ for Parliament and as a link in sphere of internal security between Parliament and the executive on the other hand. We said specifically in this report—it is important for the attitude which this side of the House is adopting in this debate—in paragraph 8 on page 11—

Obviously, that was what we had in mind when the first report was signed. There was the obligation on the hon. the Prime Minister on receiving that report—and I say it with due respect to the hon. the Prime Minister—that he was bound to fulfil the assurance which he gave to Parliament as to what would be done with those reports. It was a breach of that undertaking when the hon. the Prime Minister—not him personally, but the hon. then Minister of Justice—took steps to ban the students who were named in the second report before Parliament had received or debated it and before it had decided what should or should not be done about the report.

Do you seriously argue that?

Yes, I do. The hon. the Prime Minister asks whether I am serious. I want to tell him that it has been my standpoint ever since this happened. It can be found in the Hansard debates of 3 March 1973. Unfortunately, that action unleashed hostility towards the commission, a criticism of the commission, because it was regarded as having been part of the bannings. The hon. the Prime Minister himself, when he announced the bannings, said in this House that it was not what had been recommended by the commission. The hon. the Prime Minister said it on 27 February 1973. The fact that it was related to this commission in timing, gave to the public—with justification—reason to come to the conclusion that this commission’s report had been utilized for that purpose.

I made it absolutely clear that it was executive action.

The hon. the Prime Minister has said so. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister blundered in permitting that action to take place on that report. Thereby he bedevilled the whole work of the commission to establish a bipartisan approach, out of party politics, in relation to internal security. If this use was to be made by the Government of the findings of a parliamentary fact-finding commission, the attitude towards the permanent committee, the organ of Parliament, which has been referred to in the first report, as far as I was concerned and as far as my colleagues were concerned, needed certain reconsideration as to the function of such a permanent commission, not as to its desirability; I repeat, not as to the desirability of a permanent parliamentary internal security commission. It was for this reason that on 6 March, within days of the reports being tabled, a statement was issued by our party caucus. The statement has been read by the hon. member for Durban Point and there is no need for me to repeat it. It was a matter then that our attitude towards the commission would be determined as and when the Bill constituting the permanent committee was presented to Parliament.

Not the permanent committee, the permanent commission.

The obvious fact then emerged that without safeguards against possible injustices of executive action and without limitation of the permanent committee to a parliamentary function, there was no chance of a bipartisan approach, or that it would have been well-nigh impossible to achieve. I sincerely believed that on the commission we would find a suitable formula. I said so when I addressed the students of Wits with the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs and when I addressed the students in Durban in March 1973. I want to place on record what I said at those meetings as to what my feelings were at that time as to why I should continue to serve on this commission. I said this—

At this stage I went on to deal with the role which students could play in politics today in South Africa. I said that in March 1973. We needed time to get to grips with these two questions and these two matters on the commission and it was for no other reason than a sincere desire to find such a solution that I spoke to my hon. leader and I spoke to the hon. the Prime Minister and suggested that this Bill should stand over until the commission could complete its work. The hon. the Prime Minister will recall that I spoke to him about it and that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke to him about it. There was nothing sinister and there was no division in our ranks. What we were concerned about on this commission was finding a modus operandi whereby the continuation of a committee or a commission would not lead to executive action over which there was no check whatsoever. I believed, and my colleagues believed, on the facts that we had found to exist, that every endeavour should be made to establish the machinery for a bipartisan approach. The fourth report makes it quite clear what then happened. The matter was raised in the commission, and I shall confine myself to what is in the report. I would ask you, Sir, to refer to paragraphs 20.4.1 to 20.4.3 on page 516 of the fourth report. What happened? After we had signed the first portion of this report, which was signed by all the commissioners, this significant addition was signed by the members on the opposite side who were members of the commission—

That was signed by the National Party members of that commission. We immediately, on our side, moved an amendment to that. We moved an amendment which appears in paragraph 20.5.4, saying—

We then recommended in our amendment that—

That is why we wished to come back to Parliament on this report. However, that was rejected by a majority of the commission, and it then became incumbent upon us to spell out, as we did, what we meant by a “judicial tribunal”, to spell out what we considered the functions should be of a parliamentary commission or committee—whatever one might wish to call it.

Those were spelled out, and the hon. the Minister of Community Development is quite wrong when he suggests that we changed our minds between the first report and the fourth only because we said there would be excessive demands on the time of the members of Parliament. The very fact—if I might digress for one moment—that this Bill provides for remuneration of members of Parliament who serve on this commission, indicates that this is a matter outside and in excess of the normal functions of a member of Parliament. Otherwise there would have been no remuneration.

I would also like to refer to paragraph 20.5.6 of the fourth interim report, where it records that executive action was not subject to any independent form of review. We felt that this matter should be reconsidered, because of those facts. If we go further, and refer to paragraph 20.5.7.14, we see that it deals with the need to have regard for separate functions of the executive, Parliament, the Police and the judiciary to ensure that the liberty of the individual is not unjustly restricted. This, Sir, was a result of our experience.

Sir, I regret it most intensely that the commission was not able to come to a decision as to the safeguard. I believe, and I accept—the hon. the Prime Minister himself made a statement during a broadcast overseas in 1974—that persons who are restricted under the Suppression of Communism Act have, as he said, access to the courts. They have access to the courts in a very limited field—not on the merits. I believe, and hon. members on the other side of the House who sat on the commission with me, believe that there should be a safeguard against administrative miscarriages of justice as far as individuals are concerned, miscarriages of justice which result from executive action. Unfortunately, that was not accepted in the report, in the fourth interim report. It was not even accepted that the principle should be referred to this House, and it is for that reason, as I say, that we spelled out what we required to be done.

In daily life this Government exercises executive discretions. I accept it that passports, visas, residence permits, work permits, a large number of matters, like race classification, etc., should be exercised only in the interest of the State and not in the interest of any party politics. It is for that reason that safeguards have to be introduced into our law. It is for that same reason that we could not support the appointment of a commission on the basis of the first interim report, without such a safeguard as regards any executive action which might arise from the reports of the investigation by the permanent committee.

It is interesting to note that in the course of our inquiry we found that there was reason for us to say and to believe that executive action was not always exercised by this Government in the interests of the State only, but is also prompted by the interests of the party.

I now want to refer to pages 90 and 91 of the fifth report. This section of the report contains the Press statement issued by the late Dr. Verwoerd on 30 April 1962, when the Department of the Interior had refused visas to persons the Institute of Race Relations wished to bring to South Africa. I quote (paragraph 6.15.1, page 90)—

Are we not justified in saying that these precautions should be introduced into our law when evidence such as this, indicating how executive discretion has been exercised by this Government, came before the commission?

I now want to say this to the hon. the Prime Minister: Pushing this Bill through Parliament, in its present form, without any regard to what has been said by my hon. leader, will do irreparable harm to the containment of subversion in South Africa. I should like to quote a former colleague of mine on this commission, the present hon. Minister of Community Development. In this House, on 27 February, he said the following—

That was a statement by the present hon. Minister of Community Development. I should also like to quote him about the advisability or otherwise of continuing with the establishment of a permanent commission which the hon. the Prime Minister knows we will not and cannot serve on for the reasons given by my hon. leader. The following was also said by the hon. the Minister of Community Development on 10 February 1972 (Hansard, Vol. 37, col. 800)—

Those were the feelings of the hon. the Prime Minister’s colleague. We have been discussing this subject for three days, and the hon. the Prime Minister knows there can be no accusation that this side of the House has no intention of fulfilling its obligations in regard to security, both internal and external. If he wants to obtain the co-operation of this side of the House, he is under an obligation to see that the functions of this committee or commission—whatever the hon. the Prime Minister wants to call it—is restricted to informing Parliament and will not be used as an excuse for uncontrolled executive action by the Government.

In conclusion I want to address a few words to the hon. member for Mossel Bay. He asked me about the executive being placed under the control of the judiciary. I refer the hon. member to our minority report, where we have made it quite clear that (page 519, paragraph 20.5.7.7)—

We accept this as the responsibility of the Government. In paragraph 20.5.7.10 we suggested that this judicial tribunal should submit to the Minister its recommendation as to what action should or should not be taken and the tribunal should motivate its decisions by adequate reasons. Similar provisions apply in other countries, and the hon. the Minister need only table something to notify Parliament when he is not following the advice or the recommendations of the judicial tribunal. We do, in fact, accept the fact that the decision lies with the executive. If the hon. the Prime Minister could accept what he knows is necessary in our law in providing for this tribunal, and if he would look again at the functions to see that this permanent internal security parliamentary committee is charged only with functions relevant to Parliament and the functions of Parliament, he would have the fullest support from this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we have had three days of debate on this matter, and in the course of that debate marked differences in outlook between that side of the House and this side of the House emerged once more—not for the first time. In addition there are aspects on which hon. members on that side of the House and on this side of the House are in approximate agreement with one another, if they are not then in complete agreement with one another. This hon. House will recall that from 1961, when I became Minister of Justice, it has been my standpoint that preventive action was the task and the function of the executive. I am not prepared to relinquish that standpoint, even if hon. members tell me that it is on that standpoint that they are not prepared to co-operate with me.

However, I think this is a suitable time to interrupt the proceedings. I therefore move—

Agreed to.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h15.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I move—

From the documents which have already been Tabled, hon. members will note that provision is being made for additional expenditure amounting to R104,1 million which has to be defrayed from Revenue Funds during the 1975-’76 financial year.

The revenue for the current financial year will be dealt with when the Main Budget is submitted to the House on 3 March, and I shall therefore not comment on it now. The increase in expenditure is attributable to various factors, of which inflationary pressure is one of the most important. In spite of smaller increases in consumer prices in recent months, the rate of inflation in 1975 was nevertheless 13,5% as against 11,6% in 1974. The sustained high rates of inflation of the trading partners of the Republic, the increase in the prices of, inter alia, steel, coal and oil, and the devaluation of the rand led to increase cost pressure. In addition, provision also has to be made for expenditure flowing from the rationalization of the salary structure and conditions of service of Railway staff during the financial year for which no provision was made in the Estimates. Additional factors which led to increased expenditure are briefly indicated under the various headings.

For Railways a total additional amount of R84, 1 million is required, mainly in respect of transport services as indicated under Head No. 1, Administration and General Charges; Head No. 2, Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works; Head No. 4, Motive Power Operating Expenses; and Head No. 5, Traffic and Vehicle Running Expenses. The increased expenditure is, for the most part, attributable to the utilization of additional staff, increases in the prices of fuel and lubricants, office equipment, stationery and uniforms, increased expenditure on motor transport, increased provision for maintenance of buildings and the permanent way, an increase in overtime and Sunday time payments and increased consumption of electricity.

Included in the above-mentioned amount is an amount of R6,3 million for subsidiary services, mainly in respect of Head No. 14, Pre-cooling Services, and Head No. 15, Road Transport Service. The increase is attributable, inter alia, to the introduction of double shifts in harbours, a greater amount of maintenance work on buildings, equipment and vehicles, higher prices of spares and other material and an increase in the hire of vehicles.

Of the additional amount of R84,11 million, an amount of R1,1 million has to be voted under Head No. 19, Net Revenue Account (Miscellaneous Expenditure), mainly to cover the difference between the interest, payable to the Superannuation Funds, on money lent to the House Ownership Scheme and the interest paid by the staff on loans in terms of this scheme. Provision also has to be made for ex-gratia payments.

The additional amount of R4,9 million required under Harbours, is mainly in respect of Head No. 21, Working and Maintenance, and is for the most part attributable to the introduction of double shifts, increased expenditure in respect of fuel and material and a greater amount of maintenance work on equipment and vessels.

Under Airways provision is being made for an additional amount of R14,6 million, mainly in respect of Head No. 31, Working and Maintenance. The increase can be attributed, inter alia, to increased fuel costs, the utilization of additional staff, increased expenditure as a result of additional flights, increased expenditure in respect of chartered aircraft and hotel accommodation, and increased expenditure as a result of an increase in the price of meals and in the number of passenger meals.

An additional appropriation of R507 000 is being required under Pipelines, mainly in respect of Head No. 41, Working and Maintenance, as a result of, inter alia, increased maintenance costs, increased consumption of electricity and the increase in the price of fuel.

†I will now deal with the Brown Book items. Hon. members will observe that provision is made for additional expenditure in the amount of R131 million in respect of Capital and Betterment Works. Of this amount, R36,7 million will be acquired by means of a foreign loan, R21 million in the form of suppliers’ financing and R12 million from the Reserve Account of the Sinking Fund. The balance will, to a great extent, be made available from savings on existing appropriations.

Under Head No. 1C, Construction of Harbours, an additional amount of R32,7 million is required. The total cost of the harbour portion of the new harbour at Richards Bay and the yard layout in the harbour area is now estimated at R 182,7 million and R31,4 million, respectively. The additional expenditure is attributable mainly to the construction of two additional berths for ships with “clean” cargo, more dredging, the escalation of costs—an increase of 54% in respect of dredging and 40% in respect of normal civil engineering work—the strengthening of quay surfaces at the berths for vessels with general cargo, the provision of crane tracks and mechanical equipment for the handling of bulk cargo, larger quantities of filling for the berm wall, the provision of bunker facilities and an increase in interest on capital as a result of the increase in the total cost of the project. In order to meet anticipated expenditure during the current financial year, the existing cash provision in respect of the harbour portion requires to be increased by approximately R27,7 million and that in respect of the yard layout by R5 million.

An additional cash provision of R2,5 million is required under Head No. 1, Construction of Railways, for the new line from Broodsnyersplaas to Ermelo to provide for increased costs and faster progress made with the work.

A nominal cash provision of R100 is also required, for preliminary work, in connection with the proposed construction of a new line of railway from Thabazimbi to Ellisras. Draft legislation for the construction of the line will be introduced during the current Parliamentary session.

Under Head No. 2, New Works on Open Lines, an additional amount of R11,2 million is required. A portion of this amount is in respect of works authorized under the Unforeseen Works Allotment as a matter of urgency and for which specific provision is now being made, whilst R2,8 million is required for belated debits which has to be provided for in terms of a resolution of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours.

Owing to the rapid progress of contract works, the existing cash provision in respect of the new mechanical workshops at Uitenhage and the electrification of the Phalaborwa-Kaapmuiden railway line, will be insufficient to meet anticipated expenditure in the current financial year, and additional cash provision of R3 million and R2 million, respectively, is required for these projects.

The additional appropriation required under Head No. 3—Rolling Stock—amounts to R38,9 million. A cash provision of R30,9 million requires to be made under this head to cover the escalation of material and labour costs, the effect of devaluation of the rand and the earlier delivery of vehicles due to an improvement in the steel position. Owing to unfavourable balances in certain subsections of the Renewals Fund as a result of higher costs, additional capital funds in the amount of R6,2 million is required to meet anticipated expenditure under item No. 1173 for 100 diesel shunting locomotives, item No. 1197 for 120 third class main line saloons and item No. 1343 for 125 container wagons—items in the 1975-’76 Brown Book—whilst R1,5 million is required to meet an increase in the contract price, due to an escalation of labour and material costs of 500 timber wagons provided for under item No. 1348.

In respect of Head No. 6—Airways—an amount of R19 million is required in part payment of three Boeing 747 SP aircraft purchased.

Did you not know that you were going to buy them?

An additional amount of R26 million is required under Head No. 8—Working Capital. Of this amount, R24 million is necessary mainly to offset the effect of inflation on the value of stores stock, which has been greater than originally anticipated, and to meet expenditure in connection with additional stores stock, such as permanent way material and spare parts for new diesel locomotives and Airbus A300 aircraft. The balance of R2 million is required to meet applications for housing loans from staff who have been transferred from one centre to another.

Summarized the position is that appropriations from revenue funds require to be increased by R104,1 million and those in respect of capital and betterment works by R131 million.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister will be aware of the fact that we already have the statement concerning the Additional Appropriation in our possession and therefore have already had the opportunity to study carefully the various figures to which he referred. I was very interested to hear the reasons which the hon. gentleman would give for what I regard as a rather considerable additional amount which he wants from Parliament. What was last year’s reason for the additional money which he needed then? According to Hansard, Vol. 55, col. 700, he said—

The main reason, therefore, was an increase in traffic. I wondered what the hon. gentleman would say here tonight, because the matter is rather more serious. There has been a slightly more than twofold increase in the amount requested. The hon. gentleman now says that the chief reason is the pressure of inflation. [Interjections.] I want to be fair and add that the hon. gentleman also gave other reasons, such as the rationalization of the salary structure, the increase in the price of oil, etc. The pressure of inflation is, however, the main reason. What interests me now is the following: The hon. gentleman has an economic background and therefore he knows everything about the economy of South Africa. In spite of the portfolio in which he serves, the hon. the Minister is still very interested in economy. He serves on the Cabinet and therefore accepts mutual responsibility for everything that happens to the economy of South Africa. If there is anyone who ought to have known that we in South Africa were suffering heavily under inflation, and that this affected the Railways as well, then it is he. Does he mean to suggest that he thought that they would win the inflation war last year? He cannot say this. One does not mind if he comes to the House and says that he needs money because certain unforeseen circumstances have arisen, but to allege that inflation was unforeseen! [Interjections.] If there is one thing that stands out like a sore thumb it is the big mess which the Government has made of inflation. [Interjections.] I notice that the hon. member for Carletonville is becoming a little agitated. I nevertheless want to suggest that the hon. the Minister should rather advance reasons which are more closely connected to the Railways. If he does this, he may in my opinion perhaps be able to make out a case for needing the additional amount. However, he must not come to us and say that he needs it because of inflation, because he should have foreseen this. If he did not foresee this, I do not know what is going on in South Africa.

Last year I said that the Railways had outstanding men in their service. There are outstanding men on the management level.

It is just a pity that the UP supporters are not like this.

They are even more outstanding. But I will deal with that hon. Minister in a moment. The Railways possess all the statistics which can possibly be available concerning transportation as far as it affects the Railways. If the management do their work—I believe that they do it—then they are as close to the circumstances which concern the management and operation of the Railways as any man can possibly be. Therefore they should be able to plan ahead to a large extent and also to budget correctly for the future.

For what reason is a Budget drawn up? Firstly it is drawn up to determine the level of revenue and expenditure. However, there is another reason. A budget is drawn up to set a limit to the expenditure. There must be a limit, because if there is not a limit, especially in the case of a State department, allegations of reckless spending can very easily be made. I do not want to allege this, but I want to emphasize that there must be a limit set to expenditure. This, too, is done by means of the budget. We are dealing here with statistics which are particularly enlightening. A moment ago I wrote down that we requested the following additional amounts, expressed as a percentage of the original budget, over the past three financial years. In 1973, 3,68%—I worked it out very carefully on a little computer—in 1974, 1,46%. In 1975 the additional amount requested was 2,99%. I said last year that I believed the hon. gentleman had come to the House with a fair case and with a fair increase in the expenditure. However, what do we find this year? Are we still within the region of 3%? Where do we stand? I made another calculation and I found that an amount was being requested, not of 2,99%, but of 5,73%—an increase of almost 100%. I say that this is a considerable amount. Last year it was R46 million; this year it is R104 million. I am now only referring to the expenditure from revenue. The additional amounts which have been requested, have not been requested in respect of the entire Railways budget, but in respect of only 60% of the expenditure heads. If one reduces this and looks at the increase in expenditure under 60% of the expenditure heads, the increase is not 5,73%, but 9,5%. So the position is even worse. If I earned R5 000 a year and my budget was out by 10% on 60% of my income, I would cut a sorry figure at the end of the year. I would have a hard time …

You cut a sorry figure even now.

The hon. member has a hard time under this Government.

I want to tell the hon. Minister in all sincerity that this is an amount which troubles one. It troubles one that with all the skills, talents and statistics at its disposal, the Railways can be so far out in its calculations.

I now want to look at the separate heads, and especially at a few heads which illustrate my case particularly well. An additional amount is requested with respect to 14 heads. The lowest percentage increase which is requested for a particular head is 6,8%. The highest percentage increase which is requested is 30%, and then I am not including the net revenue account. The highest percentage increase there is approximately 1 000% or more. I am therefore speaking of ordinary expense items. I think that an increase of 30% is a formidable amount.

As far as the increases are concerned, I am pleased about one thing. I see that under head No. 19 an amount of R28 000 has been allocated ex gratia to someone who is known to you and me, namely Senator Crook.

Hear, hear!

There are people on this side of the House who claim that they are the effective Opposition. I would like to put it on record that we have splendid proof here of what an effective Opposition ought to be. The name of Senator Crook and the amount of R28 000 will be resplendent for years as a monument in the record of the Railways, a monument to a proper, effective and vigilant Opposition. I do not think that the hon. Minister will …

This is the only time that you have shown this.

I do not know the hon. gentleman’s circumstances. I do not know whether it was easy or difficult for him to obtain the money, but I hope very much that the hon. the Minister paid this sum of money with gratitude to the hon. Senator Crook. I understand that this does not even cover all his expenses in this respect. He had considerably higher expenses than this. Why did he incur such high expenses? Not from mere wilfulness, but because he believed that he was dealing with a matter in the interests of South Africa. He was slated for this, but later it appeared that he had been right. Therefore I say—and I say it with pride—that this sum will stand out as a monument to the vigilance of the Opposition as far as the Railways are concerned.

I now come to heads Nos. 1 and 2. One of the decisive and dominating reasons for the increases under those heads, as well as under other heads, is what is called the “rationalization of the salary structure”. I have an idea that the Railways have been engaged in this matter since 1974—I speak under correction. The amount concerned runs into millions of rands. How is it possible that the Railways did not foresee this expenditure? How is it possible that the Railways did not make provision for this in their previous budget? I just cannot see how the people who have been involved with this matter for months can come to the House at this stage and say that it is one of the reasons why they have to request an additional amount of R104 million. I just cannot understand it.

I have another problem which I have mentioned before. One bumps one’s head once, and if one walks carefully, one does not bump it a second or even a third time. In this budget one finds items which are present every year. Among these are fuel and coal. The same holds for other expenses. Every year, year after year, an additional amount is requested for these items. Have the Railways not realized by this time that they must present a larger budget for these items? Why do they bump their heads every year? Even I can see it! I cannot say that I am the best bookkeeper in the world, but I can see it! Does the hon. the Minister mean to tell me that he did not know that the price of coal would rise? He is the first person who should have known this. He must have known that an increase was in the air long before the public knew. All he had to say to us was that he was adding a special amount to his fuel account in the main budget seeing that he expected to pay more for coal.

There are other items which I want to mention as well. For example, there is an article which is called a battery-operated truck. This is used in the cooling chambers. Last year the amount for this increased by 55%. At that time I asked the hon. the Minister: How is it possible? I thought that my voice might serve as a warning. This year the additional amount requested amounts to 140%. Once again we are bumping our heads on the same battery-operated truck. I am trying to put my case to the hon. the Minister without becoming too serious about it. However, I think we should say this to the hon. the Minister: Surely you must see this additional amount in the light of the aim of a budget. If one considers a budget to be a limiting factor and one allows this type of development to take place and to take place again in the future, the Railways may be accused of not attaching any importance to the budget as such any more because the Railways can spend as much as they like beyond the budget and then come to the House to request an additional amount.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

As long as the question deals with butter, I will answer it.

I would just like to ask the hon. member in all fairness whether he thinks that the Minister of Transport should know what the Arabs are going to ask for oil in three months’ time, or when we are going to devaluate? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister asks me whether I think that the hon. the Minister of Transport can foresee what the Arabs will think. To foresee what the Arabs will think is indeed difficult. [Interjections.] I should not like to say that the hon. the Minister has the insight to read their thoughts. However, I can tell him precisely how the hon. the Minister of Finance thinks up all sorts of things and then lays the burden upon us.

Which things?

He can tell us precisely how much tax we are going to pay. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I think that the hon. the Minister has misled me.

The hon. member must not allow himself to be further misled.

The hon. the Minister of Agriculture tried to mislead me—I think he feels more at home dealing with butter. Mr. Railways, I just want to say … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture has misled me—no, that is incorrect—he has not only misled me, he has also confused me. He is the last man from whom I expected a question about the Railways. In any event, the point which I want to make is that a budget, the way it is drawn up, has a particular aim or goal. If the Additional Appropriation exceeds a certain limit, I believe that one finds oneself in a position where it can be said that the budget has lost its aim and its goal. I think that the hon. the Minister should pay attention to this. I do not believe that it is fitting for the budgetary system of the Railways to come to this House with such a high additional amount.

Mr. Speaker, in asking for this record amount of R235 million, the hon. the Minister has no reason to feel very satisfied with himself. A record of this nature is not a record to be proud of. Looking at the amount being asked for, I think it is the kind of record which is likely to foreshadow and be the forerunner of a record year for Railway budgeting altogether. One can foreshadow increased tariffs and a record main budget for the Railways. This sort of record is not one which should make the hon. the Minister complacent.

I looked at the Additional Appropriations for the last few years and, frankly, this year’s Additional Appropriation is no credit to Railway budgeting at all. In 1971 there was an additional appropriation of R39 million. In 1972 this came down a little to R32 million. The previous record was in 1973, obviously a very bad year for Railway budgeting, when the Additional Appropriation was R141 million. In 1974 there was an improvement. That was when the present Minister of Transport took over the portfolio, but the Budget was still that of the previous Minister of Transport. Only R19 million was required then. Last year the hon. the Minister’s additional budget was for R97 million, and this year when we have had a record appropriation in any case, we are asked to vote another R235 million. This comes at a time when we are already working at maximum, record levels in terms of expenditure on railways, harbours, pipelines and airways. In 1974 he went over the R2 000 million for the first time. This year, before the additional budget, we were very nearly at R2 500 million.

This figure, a sort of telephone number, seems to be bandied across the floor of the House without real concern. Everybody in the House is very amused at the thought of the country having to spend an additional R235 million. Frankly, I do not think it is funny, and I hope the hon. the Minister does not think it funny either. I do not think that he does. In fact, it is a very unfortunate set of circumstances altogether. This sort of budgeting is no credit to the Railways. I would like to point out that, were it not for the fact that we were able to save under various headings—to my mind some of the savings look a little strange, and I intend raising them during the Committee Stage of the Bill—the additional amount required would in fact have been over R300 million. Obviously the hon. the Minister has had to do a little juggling with the available finances. The fact that he has had to finance this from foreign loans also requires some explanation from the hon. the Minister, because the necessity for raising money overseas at high rates of interest is a drain on the country.

The fact is that, if we go on spending more and more money at a time when the Government should be cutting back in expenditure, our transport system is going to lead the inflationary spiral rather than inhibit it. It is going to be right at the forefront of the spiral, and this is just not good enough.

There are various items we intend raising during the Committee Stage of the Bill. One wonders, particularly, what has happened to the planned expenditure on the pipelines. We have an enormous saving there, and this is being used to finance other additional expenditure. One is always glad to see cut-backs and savings; one is glad that R29 million is not going to be spent on pipelines as was budgeted for. However, is this efficient budgeting? Is this the way one should budget? Should one budget in such a way that one saves R29 million on one item for which almost double this amount was allocated in the appropriation and then spends it on something else? Is this efficient budgeting? As the hon. member for Maitland has pointed out, if one has the money, it is very useful to be able to spend a mere R235 million in addition. What if one does not have the money?

Frankly, at this stage of South Africa’s history, when we are in the grip of a very serious inflationary spiral, we should not be in a position where the hon. the Minister can come to us and say that he wants another R235 million unless he can assure us that there will be a commensurate increase in revenue. I know that, so close to the main budget, it is difficult to forecast in any detail what the additional revenue is going to amount to. However, I hope the hon. the Minister will give us some indication of whether or not increased revenue is going to cover much of the additional expenditure. On the other hand, I hope he is not going to be a prophet of doom and say that an enormous amount of money will have to come out of the pockets of South Africans when the main budget is presented. This would not help to curb the inflationary spiral.

We on these benches feel, in the main, that we shall need a lot of convincing that the hon. the Minister is really looking at the Railways’ operations with an eye to economy and to cutting down Government spending. I do not think that we on these benches have ever criticized spending on necessary infrastructure. However, we have to weigh up very carefully whether or not we can afford many of the things we are doing at the moment in the face of the inflationary situation in which we find ourselves. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to convince us in the Committee Stage, when he replies to various matters we shall raise then, that this spending is really necessary. Frankly, at the moment the hon. the Minister seems to be journeying to the moon, if one looks at his budget and the way he is spending on Railways: Up goes Railways spending. In fact, our expenditure, as I pointed out, is in the region of R2 750 million this year. My question to the hon. the Minister at this stage, at the Second Reading, is whether we can afford it. Is there no way in which the hon. the Minister can improve his budgeting?

Mr. Speaker, I have explained so carefully to hon. members on that side of the House what the sound reasons are for the increased expenditure, but it seems to me that either their good faith has left them in the lurch, or they have no knowledge of what is really going on. The hon. member who preceded me, the hon. member for Orange Grove, expressed criticism on various items, and wanted to know whether the expenditure was really necessary. I think it is the practice not to ask for particulars at the Second Reading. If there is any doubt about this or that, it can be raised by means of questions during the Committee Stage. For that reason I shall rather leave those matters at that until we deal with the Committee Stage later.

I should like to respond to a number of remarks made by both hon. members who preceded me, viz. this additional sum of money which is being asked for and the reasons for it, something which particularly the hon. member for Maitland referred to. I cannot deny the fact that it is actually a considerable amount, but the hon. members for Maitland and Orange Grove will definitely agree with me that abnormally large items are covered by this amount. These items we can deal with separately during the Committee Stage. I should like to quote one item as an example. If hon. members look at the item “Rolling Stock” they will see that an increase of no less than R38 million applies. Therefore, we have a real increase in respect of rolling stock and this is, in fact, as a result of one of the reasons I mentioned in my Second Reading speech as the main reason which led to the increased expenditure in respect of various items. The particular reason I have in mind now and which I want to refer to, is devaluation. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture asked the hon. member for Maitland whether, in the course of the year when we were drawing up the Estimates, I should have foreseen that we were going to devalue.

That was a good question.

The hon. member for Maitland says it was a good question. I know it was, because this is one of the problems, one of the hard facts we are faced with.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister what percentage of our rolling stock is imported?

I cannot say what the exact percentage is, but the rolling stock which I have referred to, is in particular the locomotives which are built in South Africa, for example, the electric locomotives which are built by Union Carriage at Nigel and of which a considerable percentage and, especially the motors, are imported. There was an exceptional escalation in costs in respect of the manufacture of these locomotives, for the very reason that imported components are used, the prices of which have increased enormously as a result of devaluation.

After September.

It was after September that provision had to be made to pay for the locomotives which had been ordered. Of course, this also applies to petrol and the other items. We provide for inflation in advance, but on this occasion insufficient provision was made. In the coming year provision will also have to be made for inflation. This we really do in anticipation of something that might happen and one therefore has to do a guess-work: one cannot determine it with any amount of certainty. Therefore, this is a considerable amount as a result of certain large outstanding amounts for which provision is being made here as a result of exceptional reasons. There are also other reasons I have mentioned, for example, as a result of rationalization. The hon. member for Maitland asked me whether we did not know about it before. I should like to point out to the hon. member that the final part of the rationalization only came into effect in July last year, and that we have not made sufficient progress in drawing up the Estimates to provide for the additional amounts this would have been required.

Committee Stage

Schedules 1 to 4:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to Head No. 1C of Schedule 2—Construction of Harbours—and I want to refer particularly to Richards Bay. The procedure is that one should ask the question and then debate the answer, but in this case we have already had the answer in the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech. Therefore I take it it is in order to debate that answer, or must I ask the question and then ask the hon. the Minister to reply again?

Yes, that is in order as long as the hon. member only deals with the reasons.

The reasons given for the increase are: 54% in dredging, 40% in respect of civil engineering works, larger quantities of filling for the berm wall, the provision of bunker facilities and an increase of interest on capital as a result of the further increase of the cost of the project. I feel it is only right that with such an increase in the total cost of Richards Bay, from the original estimate of R131 million to R182 million and from R13 million to R31 million, we are entitled to ask what has gone wrong. I want to take the hon. the Minister’s memory back to the time when we debated the Richards Bay Construction Bill, when I forecast that the cost of Richards Bay would be far higher than it had been estimated. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor pooh-poohed the idea, made a joke of it and tried to make us look stupid. I have waited a number of years for this occasion to be able to say: And now. Who was right? We warned that Richards Bay would cost more than had originally been budgeted for.

The hon. the Minister’s predecessor tried to pretend that we were talking nonsense. I do not have time in a 10 minute speech to give all the quotations. But we were told that we did not know what we were talking about, that it was a fixed contract and therefore the price, irrespective of anything else, would remain the same. It has gone up to R182,7 million, and may I say here, Mr. Chairman, in passing that I say R182,7 million, because although I am prepared to write a comma, I am not prepared to make a mockery of the English language by saying, 7. The position is that last year, and the year before we stated that there would be additional costs in regard to incorrect estimating of the foundations and additional filling for the berm wall. Now we suddenly find it accounted for as an additional estimate, because there had been incorrect assessments of the original foundations, of the quality of the ground along which the bottom of the berm had to be built. It had not been foreseen and as a result, a great deal more filling was needed. I raised this two years ago, and now we find that this is one of the reasons. If we, as an Opposition, raised it in this House two years ago and again last year, why do we only get it now as an additional estimate? Why was it not taken into account in the original estimates for the year ahead? Even if the hon. the Minister did not know about it, we knew about it and we told and warned the hon. the Minister. He had adequate time to consider it as part of his basic estimates. But no! As happens whenever a mistake is made, it is tucked away in the additional estimates in the hope that it will not be noticed or that they will get away with it. I want to know from the hon. the Minister what the difference between the original estimate for the filling of the berm wall and the final cost of the berm wall was. I forecast that he will not be able to tell me, because he does not want to tell me. However, I would like to know how many thousands or millions of lorry loads of additional filling went in to the berm wall. One had only to fly over it—as I did on one occasion—to see the big brown mess of mud, which had not been foreseen, and which formed the soft bottom into which these thousands of truck loads of filling were poured.

I want to know from the hon. the Minister just how badly he miscalculated on this single item. I want to know why, with an inflation rate of 15% or 16%, the cost of dredging has gone up by 54%. It is out of all relation to the inflation rate. Why has civil engineering gone up by 40%, instead of the normal inflation rate? This indicates that the hon. the Minister has either not done his homework or he has not been properly advised. We want to know what it is. Did his department fail to advise him, or has he as Minister not done his homework and not planned for what I believe his department told him was coming? I believe he was warned, I remember reading the Hansard debates since we raised the matter of the berm wall, that he had been warned of the problem. The hon. the Minister would not admit it then, but if he was warned, why did he as Minister not do something about it? It is his job as Minister to foresee what is going to happen in his department. We have started now with the very first item of the Capital Account, the additional expenditure. I am referring only to two items. Why, for instance, has the cost of the railway yard gone up? Why does he require this additional money? Surely he knew a month or so more than a year ago when he had a part appropriation. The hon. the Minister was then talking about this harbour being ready for operation by the end of March 1976. If he knew a year ago that it was going to be ready for operation, why did he not know what it was going to cost to have it ready for operation? He must have had a programme in front of him; he must have known that he could give a date. It was months ago that it was arranged that the harbour would be opened on 1 April. It was known that it would be ready. How do you know that a harbour is going to be ready to operate if you do not know what it is going to cost?

I am afraid on this item alone, as has so often happened, the hon. the Minister has shown that he has not done his homework and that he has not looked ahead. I believe he is treating Parliament with contempt by instead of budgeting properly coming with additional estimates to cover major capital expenditure which it should have been possible for him to foresee. We take the strongest exception to this sort of budgeting, this backdoor budgeting, instead of budgeting in terms of the normal procedure of looking ahead and asking Parliament in advance for the money that is going to be spent and not asking for millions of rand afterwards as an afterthought in the form of additional estimates.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to furnish a reply to the hon. member for Durban Point, who has just resumed his seat. I shall turn down the volume knob a little, seeing that the hon. member for Durban Point turned it on so high because he had a poor case.

When you are in trouble you turn it off.

I should like to remind the hon. member that the calculation he made, is very definitely wrong, especially where he referred to the berm wall and when he said that the additional amount constitutes such a high percentage. If you look at this page, Sir, you will see that Parliament has already approved an amount of R26 791 896. This is item 2, on page 3 of [R.P. 7—1976]. An additional amount of R4 614 million is being asked for in respect of this item. This is most definitely not an increase of 40% or 50%, as has been suggested by the hon. member.

I quoted from your speech.

My speech dealt with specific works.

†In regard to the amount of R27 million, I would like to give the hon. member a few details. The reason for the additional amounts asked for there is, firstly, the two additional berths. I think the hon. member has forgotten about those additional berths.

No. It was in your budget speech last year. That is why you knew about it.

Have you not forgotten? I am pleased to hear that. Secondly, more dredging had to be done than was anticipated due to hard, calciferous sand. That the hon. member has also mentioned. Anything like that is very difficult to anticipate. Thirdly, increased cost escalation had to be covered. I would like to remind the hon. member that when we started on this project four years ago, it was hardly possible to anticipate the escalation of costs which we experienced over the past four years. Fourthly, there were the strengthening of the north-eastern berths, provision of crane rails and mechanical handling equipment for bulk traffic; fifthly, provision of bunker fuel facilities; sixthly, increased quantities of filling material than originally anticipated to construct the berm wall and, lastly, increased interest on capital as a result of the above increases.

How much was spent on the filling?

The filling of the berm wall? I do not have the figure separate, but I will gladly give it to the hon. member if it is possible to obtain it. Those are the reasons, and I think they are very valid reasons in the circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to item 6 on schedule 2—Airways. The hon. the Minister stated during the Second Reading that this amount was required as a part payment. The amount is in addition to an amount of R14 million which was voted in the original estimates. This gives a total of R33 million altogether out of a total sum of R83 million which was originally provided for the purchase of these three aircraft. I presume that the purchase of the 747 SP airliners will number only three and that despite requirements in regard to immediately delivery of some nature, it was found necessary to increase the R14 million by a further R19 million to R33 million. Would the Minister please enlighten us that this might possibly envisage the delivery of one or two of these aircraft? In any event, it might be of interest to the House to know whether the total number of aircraft to be purchased from Boeing is only three, whether the figure of R83 million originally estimated will be the final figure, and whether the further figure of R19 million contemplates any delivery. At the same time I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has included in any of his capital expenditure any money in regard to the new airport which is being built at Upington? If I remember correctly, the Boeing aircraft and its delivery this year will be associated with the new airport at Upington. This might perhaps be an opportunity for the hon. the Minister to enlighten the House on this matter. I am sure it is of very great interest for us to know what the position is.

Mr. Chairman, the airport at Upington does not fall under the South African Railways. The airport is being constructed by the Department of Transport and this is therefore not the proper time to discuss this matter, except to tell the hon. member that the runway has been completed and that a small function will be held at Upington this coming Friday to celebrate this event.

Have you been invited?

I have been, but I am not going. After all, there is an anti-inflation campaign going. The hon. member wanted to know about the Boeing aircraft for which provision is being made on page 34 under head No. 6, R.P. 7—1976. I can inform the hon. member that altogether six of these Boeing aircraft have been ordered. Three of them had been ordered at an earlier stage. I cannot tell the hon. member what the exact date is. But after the previous estimates were drawn up and in view of the pressure experienced as far as passenger traffic is concerned, particularly with a view to our 707 aircraft which are becoming obsolete, it has been decided to purchase another three 747 SP aircraft. These aircraft have been acquired on very favourable conditions. The amount of R83 million is only in respect of these three aircraft; it is not in respect of all six aircraft. It only applies to the last three which have been ordered. The amount of R19 million for which provision is being made here, is a part payment in terms of the purchase agreement of the aircraft, which lays down that payments have to be made from time to time while these aircraft are being manufactured. The purchase of the aircraft is also financed by way of delivery credit, and part of this R19 million will, therefore, be returned. However, it is being paid off gradually. The first SP Boeing, which will arrive in Cape Town on 24 March, is not one of these three aircraft. It is one of the three aircraft which has previously been ordered. The first aircraft will be delivered in March and the others from time to time after that date.

Mr. Chairman, I refer to Head No. 2, item 24, in the estimates of additional expenditure on capital and betterment works. I would like the hon. the Minister to explain the reason for the amount of R79 700. It is mentioned in connection with the remodelling of the marshalling yard at Mason’s Mill, Pietermaritzburg.

It is to meet existing and future traffic demands. Owing to the urgency of the work a State President’s special warrant was obtained. That is the whole story.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether or not the negotiations in connection with the rationalization of wage and salary structures have now been concluded. I would fault the hon. the Minister in the first instance, because these negotiations have been going on for a long time. The hon. the Minister knows this very well. He has been negotiating for a very long time. I do not really understand why he was unable to anticipate that these were drawing to a conclusion and that additional funds would have to be paid out towards this. I would also like to know whether, at this stage, they are over and done with, or whether we can expect more rationalizations, costing more money.

While I am talking about this whole question of foreshadowing what is going to happen, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a question on the Boeings. My question stems from the question the hon. member for Jeppe has raised. Why was it not possible in the main budget, which is the correct place for this sort of thing to be provided for, to anticipate that these Boeings would be necessary? The hon. the Minister has told us he is buying six of these Boeings and is putting forward R19 million at this stage. Surely, the correct time for this is in the main budget. An additional budget should not be used for this sort of thing. The same thing applies to the order for additional rolling stock. I think it was an amount of R6,2 million for 100 diesel shunting locomotives, 120 third-class main line saloons and 125 container wagons. Was it not possible to keep this sort of thing for the main appropriation, rather than using an additional appropriation for it? What specifically necessitated this additional order of rolling stock? What special circumstances existed that made it necessary to do it at this time of the year, instead of in the main budget?

I must castigate the hon. the Minister for this very bad habit of asking for things in an additional budget, when they should more appropriately be asked for in the main appropriation.

There is just one other minor thing that I would like to ask the hon. the Minister. I notice in the harbour appropriation that there are items like tugs and harbour entrances. Does this include the harbour at Saldanha Bay? I am unaware at this stage exactly who is paying for harbour work that is being done at Saldanha Bay, and what is being done as far as the necessity for tugs at Saldanha Bay is concerned. I would like a statement by the hon. the Minister as to whether or not, if he is not buying this, is it going to be … I see he is shaking his head.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the effective Opposition not bound by the rules, which are that one must deal with items, question their reason, and then deal with the reasons given? I ask your ruling, Sir, a ruling as to whether we may all launch a general debate.

The hon. member was putting questions to the hon. the Minister.

I am putting a question to the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Durban Point is trying to be terribly clever, but in fact he is being particularly obscure. If he really wants to know, this is under schedule 2, under Head No. 5 of the additional estimates. It has to do with harbours. I hope that helps the hon. member. Does he have it?

The hon. member must address the Chair.

Which item is Saldanha?

Are you the chairman? You have not crossed the floor yet! [Interjections.]

I am sorry, Sir, but I was unable to hear what your ruling was.

I said that the hon. member should address the Chair, and not other hon. members.

I shall do that, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for casting my bread upon not very fertile waters. [Interjections.]

I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this expenditure on harbours covers any expenditure for Saldanha, because I understand that there are articles and equipment, including tugs, on order for Saldanha. I would like to know who is doing this—it is obviously not his department—but I do believe that the most grave situation could arise if anybody else is doing the ordering at this stage, because we will be getting equipment, possibly tugs, which bear no relation to the sort of equipment that is being used in our harbours elsewhere. I therefore require the assistance of the hon. the Minister to get to know whether it is he, or the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, or anybody else, who is purchasing this harbour equipment. I have been given to understand that overseas suppliers were approached to supply equipment to the Government. I would like to know whether or not this is the case, who it is …

Order! The hon. member must please point out which item he is referring to.

Mr. Chairman, I said earlier that I was referring to Schedule 2, Head No. 5, of the additional estimates. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members should please confine them specifically to the items in the Schedules of the Bill.

I have particularly done so in this case, Mr. Chairman. I hope that it is now clear to everybody that I am talking on schedule 2 … [Interjections.]

On my schedule item 1 is “Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, with respect, it is very difficult …

Order! Hon. members must please afford the hon. member an opportunity to put his questions properly.

I ask the hon. the Minister to reply to the questions which I have raised.

Mr. Chairman, I remember three questions to which I would like to reply. Firstly, as far as Saldanha Bay is concerned, no work has been done there yet by the S. A. Railways. Perhaps, at a later stage, when the harbour has been transferred as a general harbour to the S. A. Railways, the S. A. Railways will take control of further development there. At this stage, however, nothing is being done there by the S. A. Railways.

Secondly, the hon. member wanted to know why we had ordered the Boeing-SP aircraft. As I said earlier, we ordered them in order to cope with the increase in traffic, and also because of the political circumstances in Africa, particularly taking into consideration the airports where our aircraft can touch down en route to Europe. The third reason why we purchased the Boeing-SP aircraft was because we were in a position to enter into a very good contract with the Boeing company for the purchase of these aircraft. Naturally they are necessary for the increased traffic; also because of their particular characteristics in view of the political situation in Africa. I have already dealt with the kind of entries mentioned under rolling stock on page 27 of the estimates of additional expenditure. Those are not new items. I do agree with the hon. member that it would be best to have everything in the main budget, if this were possible. However, because this is not possible, and since it is not possible to anticipate every eventuality, there is such a thing as an additional appropriation. In this instance we are not dealing with a new order. It is an order which has been placed before. It is being included now because of the escalation in material and labour costs, the devaluation of the rand—which I have already dealt with—and because of earlier deliveries, because steel has become more readily available.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply on item 34, I wish to say that I am pleased this additional amount has been provided. I would like to feel that it is because of representations by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and myself on behalf of the Pietermaritzburg city council. It is clear that the hon. the Minister appreciates the urgency for this undertaking. 50 000 Blacks use this particular bottleneck every day and in the past we have had disrupted bus transport as the result of the Government’s dragging its feet in getting moving with this. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this amount is enough to complete the work on the section. Will it be completed during this financial year and, if not, what will the additional expenditure be and how much longer will be required to complete the work on the bridge? Will that amount be appropriated in the budget for 1976-’77?

Order! Hon. members may only ask for the reasons for the increases.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, this is a new item for which an amount is being appropriated for the first time. My colleague, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, asked the hon. the Minister for the reason for this appropriation. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, with respect, he did. The hon. the Minister replied that this was being used to eliminate the bottleneck on the road between Pietermaritzburg and Edendale. My hon. colleague is now raising a further matter arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply.

Mr. Chairman, the estimated expenditure under item 24 is R8 860 000. During this financial year we are only providing for R662 200 (Civil Engineering Department), R53 100 (Electrical Department) and R79, 700 (Transportation Department). In the next financial year we shall provide for a further amount under this item. I cannot tell the hon. member at this stage, however, exactly when it will be completed.

Mr. Chairman, arising further out of the reply of the hon. the Minister, I wish to state that we appreciate that the amount being appropriated is for a small section of the work for which altogether R8,8 million is budgeted. However, what we wish to know from the hon. the Minister is when that particular phase of the work will be completed. We refer specifically to the work on the elimination of the dangerous crossing over the Edendale/Pietermaritzburg Road. All we are asking the hon. the Minister is whether it will be completed during this financial year. Is this enough money to complete that job and, if not, will he appropriate the money immediately for the 1976-’77 financial year to complete that job and eliminate this particular bottleneck?

Mr. Chairman, the work will not be completed during this financial year. This financial year ends within about four to four and a half weeks from now.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question in connection with schedule 3, on page 9 of the Railways and Harbours Additional Appropriation Bill? I refer to the additional foreign loan of R36 700 000. Would the hon. the Minister please tell me, firstly, from whom he has borrowed this. Secondly, in what currency he has borrowed it? Thirdly for what period he has borrowed it and, fourthly, what the rate of interest will be in respect of the loan? The item is also reflected on page 2 of the estimates of additional expenditure.

That is the index. Why do you not find it where it belongs?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has very little knowledge of what finance is about. If he looks again he will see it as the first item in schedule 3. It so happens it is not an expenditure item. It happens to be an income item and therefore it is in schedule 3. Does the hon. member perhaps know that? An income does not mean liquid income. It actually means money income.

Mr. Chairman, these are various loans about which I am not going to give the hon. member any particulars now, because I do not think they are relevant in dealing with the expenses with which we are concerned at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to Head No. 5 on page 7 of the estimates of additional expenditure to be defrayed from revenue funds, particularly to accounts 510 to 541, most of which concern salaries and wages. Earlier on the hon. the Minister said that rolling stock constituted approximately R38 million of the total amount being asked for. I would like to point out to him that these particular accounts constitute something like R21 million, which is 20% of the amount he is asking from revenue funds. All of this relates to salaries and wages, and earlier on in the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister said that this was the result of a rationalization of salaries and wages. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to expand on this for me if he could, particularly because I notice that under accounts 530 and 531 there is an increase of R3 185 900, which constitutes an increase of about 17½% in relation to salaries for train movement control, i.e. the salaries of station foremen and signalmen. I would like to know how this rationalization resulted in an increase of something like 17½%. I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister a question in connection with accounts Nos. 520 and 521, in respect of which there is an increase of R5 714 800 asked for, which is about 11% of the R45 097 000 originally budgeted for. This relates specifically to shunters, and because I am aware of the fact that many non-Whites are taking over shunting jobs previously done by Whites, I would have expected a saving in this particular account as the result of the process of rationalization. Instead we find an increase of something like 11%. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could expand on this.

Mr. Chairman, the question of rationalization was an important consideration in budgeting for several of these items. However, as I have already said, this is not the only reason. The additional reasons for this additional expenditure in respect of personnel is: More Sunday time, overtime pay as well as the double-shift system that we introduced in the harbours last year. Also, additional members of staff were appointed. However, there was no rationalization in respect of non-White personnel. This is something we are going to consider in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to come back to the first item of schedule 3. I want to ask the hon. the Minister again to answer the question I have put to him. I respectfully think it is a fit and proper thing to ask when additional expenditure is being asked for and the legislation before us contains in a schedule the method in which that expenditure is to be met. With all due respect to the hon. the Minister, if he does not know he should say so and I will be quite happy to accept the fact that he does not know. But if he does know I think he is obliged to tell the House what this involves. Otherwise he is withholding information which it is my belief he is not entitled to withhold because, although it is important to spend money, it is equally important to know where that money is going to come from. In respect of the third item in schedule 3—supplier financing—I also think I am entitled to ask, and I ask now, to what items of expenditure in the additional estimates the supply of financing relates, where it actually comes from and on what terms it is being obtained. I think the hon. the Minister is obliged to come to the House in possession of that information, and if he does not have it he must say so. I think we are entitled to know how the expenditure is going to be financed. These are two items put forward by the Government as financing methods. I think that not wanting to inform the House is quite the wrong approach.

Sir, the question of whether it is relevant or not is for you to decide. When one comes to this House and requests approval for certain expenses, one is not able to give details of where the money will come from at the same time. This loan has not yet been finalized. The Financial Manager is abroad at the moment in connection with the finalization of this loan. The result is that I am really and truly unable to give those details to the hon. member here this evening. In other words, income is anticipated, funds are anticipated, from which this expenditure has to be met. The same applies to the supplier financing of R21 million. This has not been finalized either. Suppliers’ credit is being negotiated, as I mentioned a short while ago, for the purchase of the Boeing aeroplanes.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see that the hon. the Minister has managed to recover and is not feeling any ill-effects from the “castigation” he received from the hon. member for Orange Grove. I would like to ask him in a quiet gentlemanly way about item 72 appearing on page 15 [R.P. 7—1976] which is a comparatively small item—the alteration of the sixth floor of Oswald Pirow Building to accommodate a computer. Here an amount of R27 300 is required for the alterations to one floor of that building. I assume it is to accommodate an existing computer and I would like to suggest that the accommodation being offered this computer is something in the nature of a five-star standard. Oswald Pirow Building is not, in my opinion, a very large building. I do not know what each floor’s area is, but I can hardly conceive R27 000 being spent on alterations on one floor to accommodate one computer. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could elaborate on this rather luxurious accommodation.

Mr. Chairman, obviously the hon. member does not realize what is entailed in making provision for a computer.

Yes I do.

He has one at home.

The air-conditioning alone could easily run to that amount or more. It is not only the preparation of the floor. It is the air-conditioning and everything that goes with it that costs money.

I wish to refer the hon. the Minister to head No. 31—Airways—and specifically to item 3162 on page 16 [R.P. 6—1976]. That item deals with dry stores, accommodation, etc., where there is an increase from R7 million to R8,2 million—an increase of R1 270 000, or 18%. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can give us the reason for this increase.

Mr. Chairman, these increases include the higher prices of food and thus of the meals that have been served. The hon. member must remember that the meals are not only provided here in South Africa, but also on international flights.

Sir, I did ask the hon. the Minister, but I think he has probably forgotten the question, in regard to the pipeline in schedule 3. A saving of R29 150 900 is envisaged. I would like to know, in view of the fact that this is more than 50% of the total appropriation in last year’s budget for the pipeline, exactly what work has been cancelled, why this work has been cancelled and what affect the cancellation of this work will have.

Mr. Chairman, I regret not having replied to the questions before. Building the pipeline was somewhat delayed in view of the availability of capital funds.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to item 6 on page 5 of the Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works. There appears a small amount of R43 100 for the acquisition of land at Winklespruit. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister the exact extent of this land and what it has been purchased for.

Mr. Chairman, it is land required for departmental housing. The negotiations for the expropriation of the land have only now been completed. Unfortunately I cannot supply details as to the extent of the land. If the hon. member wishes to have that information, I shall be able to obtain it for him at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House are disappointed in the reply which the hon. the Minister has just given. My hon. colleague from Amanzimtoti and I had hoped that this land was being acquired with a view to supplying additional railway facilities in that area, which is a potential growth point. I wonder if the hon. the Minister has consulted with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment, because that is a potential growth point and we had hoped that this amount would be appropriated for railway facilities to supply that particular area.

I want to come back for a moment to the reply the hon. the Minister gave me a moment ago regarding item 3162 on page 16 of the Estimates of the Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Funds. I refer to the item dealing with meals, dry stores, liquors, accommodation, etc., on the Airways. I was glad to hear him say that this additional amount is required particularly to supply meals on overseas services.

Not particularly.

But overseas services are included?

Yes.

The supplying of meals on overseas services is included and at this stage I must pay tribute to the Airways on their overseas service. I had the privilege of travelling on South African Airways twice during the past year on overseas trips. I must say that the service and the meals provided on these overseas trips were very, very good. They compared, in fact, with anything that I received or obtained on any other international airline. However, I cannot say the same regarding our internal services. Here I think South African Airways is fast getting the reputation of being the meanest airline in the world as far as the provision of meals and the catering on our internal service are concerned.

Oh no, now you are talking rubbish.

During this session I have travelled three times between Cape Town and Durban on the afternoon service.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for this increase.

With respect, Sir, I am dealing with the reasons for the increase. The hon. the Minister says it is for the supplying of meals, but I want to show him that he is not supplying the meals. On this particular flight, the late afternoon flight, a flight which lasts almost three hours from Cape Town to Durban, I did not even receive a peanut. When you request from the stewardess nuts as we used to get in the old days, you are told that they are no longer available. When we request a sandwich as we used to get, we are told that they are no longer supplied. There was a time when we received the most delightful hot snacks, especially at a time when the sun was beginning to sink a little bit lower in the western horizon, but today we do not even get those. As I say, on this particular flight, the one that I can talk about, a three-hour flight, we did not even get a peanut. Admittedly on one leg tea and coffee was served, as well as other liquid refreshments for which one has to pay, but not even a peanut was served. There has been no decrease in the price of the ticket. I believe there has been an increase in the number of services …

What time of the day was that?

That was the flight leaving here at 15h30. I had the experience over Christmas of travelling on six other airlines in Europe. Those were internal airlines, but on not one of them did I receive this mean treatment. That is why I say that with regard to our internal services we are fast becoming known as the meanest airline in the world. In the light of that I wonder why we are asked to vote an additional R1,27 million for this service.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member caught a plane from here to Durban at 15h30, yet now he tells me he wanted a meal to be served to him.

Peanuts.

Be that as it may, the question of the supply of food on our internal flights was and remains a problem. Some people say we give too much food, others say we give food too often and there are those who say that we do not give enough. The problem really is that we do not like supplying food on flights that are not in the air during mealtimes. It goes without saying that if a flight is in the air between 13h00 and 14h00, lunch has to be served. If the flight is in the air between 18h00 and 19h00, dinner has to be served. However, it is not such a simple matter as far as the other times are concerned when there are flights in the air. Surely the hon. member had the benefit of that trolley they bring around.

But I had to pay for it.

Be that as it may, lately there has been an additional problem because of the fact that our aeroplanes have six seats in a row, which results in limited space. However, I should like to assure the hon. member that when the Airbus comes into service one of these days and he pays a little bit extra to be able to travel first class, he will have a great deal of space available and we shall serve him excellent meals.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the hon. the Minister said, but there is something else that he must appreciate. If he has embarked on an economy campaign and if it is the policy of S.A. Airways not to provide these services, then he should acknowledge it. However, I believe that our airline should maintain the same standards as those overseas on domestic services. [Interjections.]

Order!

The fares that we pay on our domestic services are as high, and in fact in many cases they are higher than those paid overseas on domestic airlines. My own experience shows that we have an almost 100% occupancy rate on our aircraft. We are operating at optimum conditions and I do not believe that this parsimony can really be justified. There is also a further aspect that I must bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister when we deal with the voting of an additional R1,27 million. I refer to the quality of the food which is being served. On many flights we are not getting a hot breakfast as we used to get; we are now getting a continental breakfast. Nobody will object to getting a continental breakfast—I personally do not object to it—as long as it is of a good standard. The rolls are very often stale.

Always.

My hon. colleague says “always”. That has been his experience, but my experience has been that the rolls were often stale. These are the things which are leading to a bad name for our internal services. As far as our international services are concerned, I have no complaint at all and I have heard no complaint. The Blue Diamond service is top class and this comment I have heard all over. However, the internal services are suffering and I hope that the hon. the Minister will take this criticism in the spirit in which I mean it. I believe he can do something to jack it up.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to item 171 of head 6—Airways—on page 34 of the Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works. This item deals with the purchase of the three Boeing 747 SP aircraft. Can the hon. the Minister tell us how much of the additional R19 million provided in terms of the Bill is to cover the additional cost of these aircraft on account of devaluation?

Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure what this question is about, but I have said before that in purchasing these aeroplanes we are going to make use of suppliers’ credit. In other words, devaluation will not play a role in obtaining funds and making payments. It is only in regard to the eventual repayment of the credit facilities we receive that devaluation will play a role.

Mr. Chairman, do I understand from the hon. the Minister’s reply that the cost of these aircraft has not been affected by devaluation?

The cost is indeed affected by the devaluation, but the effect will only be felt when the repayment of the loan is made, except of course for the part payment.

How much?

I do not have that information.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to return to the question of Richards Bay. The hon. the Minister referred to the increase of 54% in dredging costs. I understood from his explanation that this was the result of unusual quantities of a particular type of sand being handled in the dredging operations. I want to ask him whether the dredging operations are nearing completion and, if not, whether he is going to come back to the House next year to ask for further amounts in respect of dredging. I should also like to know whether, in addition to the dredging, it is necessary to blast and whether, if blasting is being done, blasting was anticipated during the planning of the harbour. I should further like to ask what test holes were put down in the harbour before the dredging operation was started and, if blasting is being done, whether test holes were put down before that blasting took place.

In respect of the additional costs for the building of the wall which the hon. member for Durban Point referred to, I would like to know whether it was not possible to use some of the fill which must have been taken from the dredging operations. Was it not possible for that fill to be used for the building and the extension of that wall? I take it that it was. Then I want to ask whether the dredging operations and/or, if any, blasting operations are out on private contract or whether this is being undertaken by the Railways themselves.

In conclusion, I should like to ask what stage of the dredging operations has at present been reached. By the time we go there on an inspection at the beginning of April, is it likely that the dredging operation will have been completed altogether?

Mr. Chairman, dredging operations for the coal berth have been completed, but the hon. member probably knows, that it has already been decided to construct two “clean” wharves as well. Work has already commenced on these wharves and has in fact reached quite an advanced stage. These are wharves for general goods and not for coal. The dredging for those wharves has not been completed, and that work will continue.

The hon. member also referred to the sand and earth dug up during dredging operations and he wanted to know whether it was used for building the wall. The answer is that it was partly used for that purpose.

The hon. member also asked whether dredging operations and the work they involve are being undertaken by the Railways or by private contractors. The reply is that it is being done by private contractors. In respect of boreholes, I was informed that hundreds of boreholes were drilled beforehand to determine the type of soil.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask two questions, which probably relate to the same answer. The first is in respect of an ex gratia payment to Leyland Motors, and is to be found on page 12 of the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Funds, and the second, namely items 133, 134 and 135 on page 27 of the Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works, relates to rolling stock. An additional sum of R13 000 has to be paid to cover the cost of equipping Leyland trucks with automatic clutches. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister why these automatic clutches had to be fitted to the trucks after they were purchased. When the trucks were purchased, was it not known that they did not have automatic clutches, or was it not specified? Was it decided afterwards to install automatic clutches, perhaps in keeping with the Government’s policy of job reservation? Perhaps there were going to be White drivers, in which case they needed automatic clutches?

As regards my second question, the hon. the Minister said that the price of the electric rolling stock had increased by the considerable amount of nearly R8 million because of imported parts which had to be fitted to this rolling stock. If I heard him correctly, he ascribed the increase to these imported parts. What I want to know is this: When these parts were ordered, was it not known that they had to be imported? Were there not specifications and prices? If these items were specified, surely the price could not have been increased after the rolling stock was ordered. I shall be pleased to have an answer on those two questions.

Mr. Chairman, I should in the first instance like to give this Committee the details regarding the ex gratia payment to Messrs. Leyland Special Products Ltd. The information is as follows: A contract was entered into with J. H. Plane [Interjections.] Company Ltd.—now Leyland Special Products Ltd.—for the supply of 24 road motor graders, which were to be fitted with torque converters. The contractor, however, requested that a disconnected clutch be fitted between the engine and the torque converter. The modification was accepted by the Administration. When the graders were placed in service their performance was most unsatisfactory and clutch failures were experienced in every grader. The contractor undertook to remedy the defect at no extra cost, but afterwards he intimated that as a result of having had to remedy the defective clutches a substantial loss was incurred, and he appealed for a measure of financial relief, which was granted by the Administration. We regarded it as justified because the Administration also benefited as a result of this operation.

The hon. member’s second question relates to electric rolling stock. There were three main reasons for the additional amounts involved. Firstly, there was an escalation of labour and material costs, and secondly, there was the devaluation of the rand. I want to say to the hon. member that we did of course know that approximately 33⅓% of these locomotives had to be imported, but we did not know at that time that there was going to be a devaluation.

But you were assured there would not be a devaluation.

The third reason was the accelerated delivery of rolling stock as a result of the better availability of steel which was not anticipated when the estimates were framed.

But I thought they were all locally made?

Yes, but they have an imported content.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, for which I thank him, would he agree then that devaluation was not such a blessing as is claimed by the hon. the Minister of Finance? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to return to the Minister’s reply concerning Richards Bay. He said, inter alia, that hundreds of test holes were bored before the dredging was undertaken. I would suggest that either not enough test holes were bored, or that the actual boring was not very efficiently done, because I again draw to the Minister’s attention the fact that there has been an increase in the dredging costs alone of over 54%. I would be pleased if he would reply to that point.

Secondly, I should like to ask him when it was decided to build the “clean” wharves which he referred to at Richards Bay. What was the date of the decision to build those “clean” wharves? When was the construction started? I should like to know why provision was not made for the cost of the “clean” wharves in the last Estimates. Surely this could not just have arisen in the last few months?

Mr. Chairman, as far as dredging is concerned, the hon. member will probably know that in any contract of this nature provision is made for an escalation clause to ensure that additional work will be done at the same tariff and also to provide for an unexpected escalation of costs, etc. In this particular case, harder material was found underground than had been expected, and in addition it was also necessary to dig deeper at the “berm wall”, the wall that was made there, as a result of the fact that problems were experienced with clay found there. The clay first had to be removed before the foundations of the wall could be built.

The hon. member also referred to “clean” wharves. Those wharves are additional to the two wharves that were built for the coal export scheme. The hon. member for Durban Point probably knows what this looks like. The coal wharves are over on the seaward side, i.e. on the eastern side of the bay. The “clean” wharves are being built opposite the other wharves. The decision to build these additional two “clean” wharves was taken on 22 April 1975.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has carefully avoided the essence of the question put to him by the hon. member for Simonstown. If hundreds of test drill holes were made with the object of ascertaining the type of soil and foundations that were going to be met with, they must have taken cores. One does not make a test drill hole and then throw the innards away into the water. One retains the core, which one sends off to be examined and tested to determine the sort of soil or foundation that is going to be found not only on the surface, but at the maximum depth to which one can go before one strikes rock. One drills down and gets the full core. One also has a plan and a cross-section which shows the different types of soil at every level as determined by the test cores. That is an elementary process. I am not an engineer…

That is obvious.

I am not even a fitter and turner like the hon. the Minister. However, it is elementary and able to be grasped by the lowest intelligence that, if one is drilling to test the sort of soil one is going to come across, one drills a sufficient number of times to get a pattern. One then plots the pattern and on the basis of that pattern one determines the sort of problems one is going to come up against.

The question the hon. member for Simonstown and I raised earlier is: Why did the Minister not know that he was going to strike a particular type of soil which would be harder to dredge and would therefore cost more? What has gone wrong with his testing, his planning and his pre-costing if he did not know what soil he was going to deal with? There is something going on which we do not know about. Something has gone wrong there, something we have not been told about. I want to know what it is. Were the test holes not done properly? Did the channel out to sea meet with unexpected obstructions or rock? Was silting taking place that had not been planned for? What went wrong? What is the Railways Administration trying to cover up in the way of unforeseen snags that were met? Let me say at once that I want to give 100% full marks to the engineers and other people who helped overcome those snags. They have been working round the clock, day and night, to overcome the snags and get the harbour ready on time. The question is: Why were the snags not foreseen? What was the problem that had not been foreseen? What was the mistake that was made and which we do not know about? It is not just escalation of costs; there was a snag. We have now heard that the dredging cost more. The hon. the Minister says that it was decided to build “clean” quays in April last year. I do not have this in front of me and I have not had time to check, but I just want to mention that we will remember that date because we had an additional appropriation last year. We had additional expenditure for Richards Bay. I am pretty certain that the additional appropriation, when we dealt with the “clean” quay for Richards Bay, was not in April last year. I am quite sure about that because there was an election in April. [Interjections.] No, there was not an election last year, but the year before last. Was it in April 1974 or April 1975 that it was decided to build the “clean” quay?

April 1975.

In April last year the decision was taken. Is the hon. the Minister certain of that?

Yes.

Thank you. We will come back to that when we come to the main estimates. I will not argue or debate this point now, but I do want to come back to the inability to foresee the type of soil that was going to be dealt with. I think the hon. the Minister owes us an explanation.

While I am on my feet, I want to ask a question in regard to item 177, on page 36 of the Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works. Can the Minister tell me what brilliant foresight and planning enabled them to have an original estimate of R15 million for additional stores stock, and then to find that that was R24 million short and that they needed R39 million? This is an increase of well over 100%. What sort of planning enabled them to jump from R15 million to R39 million and to ask us for an additional R24 million for stores stock?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will be going to Richards Bay one of these days. He will be impressed by what he is going to see there.

He has been there already.

He has been there already, but the dredging which has been done there is probably one of the largest dredging programmes in the world.

I am not arguing about that.

The hon. member is not arguing about that.

I argued about your lack of planning.

The fact of the matter is that this is a large bay and that an opening had to be dug into the sea for a distance of four miles. If one were to drill holes everywhere like in a sieve, one would have to drill thousands of holes. If the hon. member suggests that we did not drill enough holes, this might be his theoretical conclusion. However, I am afraid the engineers will in all probability not agree with him. I would like to furnish to the hon. member this further information concerning the dredging and the findings there. It has been found that the foundation conditions were unfavourable in the area where the northern abutment is being built. Attempts were made to remove the poor material by means of a grab dredger, but without success. The result was that the suction dredger of the contractors had to be used for this work and to be able to get to the area, the dredger first had to dredge a strip of hard material. The hard material is hardened calciferous sand, but not rock. This work involved additional expenses. Although not mentioned under the second reason, there is another item of additional work in the harbour entrance for which additional funds are required, but owing to savings on other dredging no mention was made of this. The additional work concerns the removal of hardened calciferous sand which was not located in the two separate seismic surveys. The hardened material, once again not rock, could not be removed by suction dredgers. Cutter-suction dredgers which were working elsewhere in the harbour, had to be moved to the harbour entrance to remove the hard material, and therefore additional cutter-suction dredger had to be brought from overseas to continue the interrupted work further in the harbour. I hope this furnishes the hon. member with some more information. There is nothing strange about this. The hon. member can obtain all the information he wants from us.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has still not given me an answer as to whether or not the negotiations on the rationalization of wage and salary structures have been completed. I asked the hon. the Minister this question a little earlier on.

I would also like to refer to a column 2 item under Head No. 19: Miscellaneous Expenditure, namely item (d)—Ex gratia payment to Mr. R. Gastaldi as compensation for financial losses suffered while supplying potatoes to the Administration under contract.” Could I have an explanation from the hon. the Minister please?

Mr. Chairman, the rationalization is complete, except in the case of the non-Whites, but as I said, we will undertake this shortly.

As regards the ex gratia payment to Mr. Gastaldi, I can give the hon. member the following information. A contract for the supply of potatoes for the period 1 January 1975 to 31 August 1975 at Pretoria was entered into with Messrs. R. Gastaldi (Pty.) Ltd. on 9 October 1974. Due to heavy rains during January and February 1975 the contractor was unable to lift his crop. In order to meet his obligations towards the Administration he was compelled to buy potatoes on the open market at a price considerably higher than his tender price. This resulted in a loss to the firm which, after completion of the contract, applied for financial relief based on market price plus handling charges. This was ultimately agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, it hurts that not one of the 127 Nationalist Party members has a single question to ask about the R235 million which is being asked for. May I ask the hon. the Minister to answer my second question. Could the hon. the Minister tell us something about the amount which is being asked for in respect of stores stock?

Mr. Chairman, the reply is that additional stores stock is required for permanent way material, spare parts for Airbus A300 aircraft, new diesel locomotives and additional stock. There has also been a general increase in the price of material and equipment.

Mr. Chairman, on page 8 of the Estimates of the Additional Expenditure … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to ask his question.

I wish to refer to item 591 on page 8 of the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Funds. Under the heading “Traffic and Vehicle Running Expenses” one notices that there has been an increase of approximately 25% in the estimates for compensation in respect of goods and livestock. In the case of this item there has been an increase from R5,9 million to R7,3 million. Could the hon. the Minister please elucidate and give us more detail?

Mr. Chairman, the higher payment in respect of claims is mainly due to the increased price of commodities, for example livestock, to which the hon. member referred.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a question on schedule 1. I refer to item 256, on page 4 of the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Funds, which deals with the maintenance of “other buildings and structures”. This maintenance has been increased from R3,3 million to R4,46 million, which is an increase of 35%. Will the hon. the Minister please explain the reasons for this very substantial increase in the maintenance of other buildings?

Mr. Chairman, my explanation deals with items 255, 256 and 257. It reads as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I refer to the Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works, page 23—New Works on Open Lines, item 119, at the bottom of the page. This relates to a workshop building in the Cape Midlands system at Uitenhage. The original estimate for this year was an expenditure of R2,9 million, which is now increased by over 100% to R5,9 million. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can give us the reasons for this increase?

Mr. Chairman, the reasons are: to facilitate repair work now being done in the open; the fact that additional cash provision was required; and the fact that the contract work was faster than anticipated—and this particularly is the reason. The contract was met faster than was anticipated.

Arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, was this whole R3 million required for contract work, or was any of it required for the purchase of additional land?

For contract work.

Mr. Chairman, may I draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister a matter which I am sure will bring a thrill to the hearts of all loyal South Africans. I refer to item 83 on page 16 of the Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what exactly has happened which has made it necessary to improve the station entrance at Naboomspruit.

Mr. Chairman, improved facilities had to be provided to conform to the requirements of the municipality.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask only one question in relation to item 165 on page 32 of the Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works. This item deals with the widening of the entrance to the East London Harbour. As far as I know, this work has been completed and now I see there is an additional amount of R71 400 to be voted. Could the hon. the Minister tell me what this additional amount is required for?

Mr. Chairman, this was regarded as essential for safe navigation by night, and the additional amount was required for the escalation in labour and material costs and the fact that the progress of work was slower than anticipated.

Schedules agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker I move—

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity in this, the Third Reading of the Bill, to voice again, the objections of the official Opposition to two aspects of this Bill which was presented by the hon. the Minister. I again want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that it is a retrograde step he is taking when he asks for the deletion of two important sections from the Act. The deletion of these two sections as I have said in the Second Reading and again during the Committee Stage, affect the right of practitioners to appeal to the courts of law after a decision has been taken by the S.A. Medical and Dental Council.

I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister and other hon. members of the House and, particularly, the hon. member for Cradock, to something I was informed about this evening. The hon. member for Cradock stated that the S.A. Medical and Dental Council were a body of upright men who would not make mistakes. I maintain that even a body like this can make mistakes and, if the information that I have today shows that they have made a mistake, it is up to the Minister not to ask for the deletion of the relevant provisions in terms of clauses 4 and 8 of the Bill. It is up to the Minister to confirm what I have been told. I am not going to argue about whether my information is factual—it may not be. I have not had an opportunity of confirming it. I understand that there is a practitioner in Cape Town who, after having practised here for several years, went to university again as he had decided to specialize in orthopaedics. He took the higher degree and duly qualified. He then sought the right to register as an orthopaedic surgeon. Lo and behold, when he asked to be registered he was told that his registration was out of order, not because he had passed the various examinations and put in his application at that time, but because he had failed to put in an application earlier, when he became a general practitioner. This man had been practising all those years and just recently, when he applied to be registered as a specialist, it was discovered at this late stage, that the Medical Council had never taken the trouble to inquire as to whether this man had registered properly when he became a doctor. This is an example of how mistakes can be made. If this is a fact, it can happen again, and where would this man have been if he did not have the right to appeal to court? He has, in fact, appealed. However, I am not prepared to say whether my information is correct because, I say again, I have been unable to verify the facts. If this is factual and this type of mistake has occurred, the Minister has no right to withdraw the right of appeal from practitioners. If a mistake can be made once, it can be made again. The rest of this Bill is reasonable. We are in favour of the rest of the Bill, but these two clauses, which the Minister has inserted in the Bill, makes us on this side of the House reject the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Pinelands, expressed our objections to this Bill at the Second Reading. At this stage I want to reiterate our objections. I do realize that the fact that the hon. the Minister is now repealing section 20 of the Act, will mean that the common law right of review will be restored. It is the right of appeal to the courts which has been removed. I understand that the courts themselves have stated that they do not want to adjudicate on ethical matters. There are, however, other matters on which they do adjudicate. I think the case the hon. member has just quoted would be a case of that kind, because I do not think that that would constitute an ethical consideration. I think it would be considered a technical consideration.

Mr. Speaker, by way of explanation, I should like to tell the hon. member for Houghton that clause 4 concerns the particular point which this case exemplifies.

Sir, I am agreeing with the hon. member. I believe it has come as such a shock to him to find that I am agreeing with him that he has not realized that, if anything, I am trying to bolster his case.

The point that I want to make is that, although I realize that the right of review will be restored—in other words, the status quo ante the changes that were introduced in the 1974 legislation will be restored—I think an advance was made in giving the courts the right to adjudicate on decisions by the Medical Council. I agree with the hon. member that the Medical Council can make mistakes. I think it is particularly important that the right of appeal to a court of law be retained in view of the fact that the Medical Council changed its own composition a few years ago, and that there are now many more nominated members on the Medical Council than there used to be according to the previous constitution of the council, when there were more elected members from the medical profession. For these reasons I wish to reiterate our objection to the Bill at the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I thank both the hon. members for their comments, but I can only repeat what I have said in the Second Reading as well as in the Committee Stage. Over the years the courts have made their own ruling to the effect that a particular court could only be a court of review in cases where an authoritative body, a technical body, decided themselves on standards for the specific students or doctors, as in this case. In instances like this, it is for that body to decide, and not for the court. The court only has a power of review, a power which the court inherently has under the common law. There is really nothing more that I can say about it. I cannot comment on a hypothetical case.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?

I do not have the time. I have been informed that the case mentioned by the hon. member for Rosettenville is a case that has been reviewed by the Court, under its powers of review.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).